Redstate

If our ultimate goal is to build a free-standing nation that does not require our indefinite support, then the fact that we have gone from 1 independent battalion to 0 is not a good thing.

Yes, having more level 2 troops is great and CNN should have reported that more forcefully, but there is no way to make downgrading the only level 1 force anything but a Bad Thing.

So the issue is, on balance, does triple the number of level twos bring Iraq closer to that goal despite the setback? If you never clearly reported the significance of level twos in the first place, of course you're being misleading.

From:

Hugh Hewitt Show: Victor Davis Hanson, just back from Iraq

http://www.radioblogger.com/#001417

excerpt:

VDH: It is. It could succeed if for some reason, we panicked and abandoned this newly-formed government, or ceased our training of the Iraqi security forces. But if we're willing to have patience, and we're willing to take losses, because every time we go out, there's a possibility that an I.E.D. can kill an American, and that's what they're counting on. I'm pretty sure that by the end of the year, we'll have about 100,000 troops, 70-100,000, and there will be a half a million of security police, state police, as well as ten regular Iraqi divisions. And I think that most of the security will be handled by the Iraqis.

HH: What I found very encouraging in your assessment, and I don't think you're in a hurry to be fooled by anyone, is that the new Iraqi army will be, if not the most competent among the Arab states, close to be. Is that a correct summary?

VDH: Oh, there's no doubt about it. It's got the best of both worlds, because we all hear that we disbanded...we didn't disband it, it just melted. And what's happened is senior generals on their own have come back and asked American commanders to form divisions. So there's 70 or 80 officers in each division that have had thirty years of fighting the Iranians, fighting us, going into Kuwait. They know battle experiences, but they're embedded with American officers who are training them how to operate under a consentual government. And then they have very good equipment, they're getting armored Humvees, they have body armor, they're very professionally trained. I went out on the range and shot AK-47's with them. They have enormous fire disclipline. They're mirror imaging how the United States would train a conventional army, and they're gaining the respect of the people.

HH: Are they going to have the same ethic so deeply embedded in the American military that they stay out of politics? That is the toughest thing to train in the Middle East, Victor Davis Hanson. Do you think they have it?

VDH: I hope so, and I think that that's been the prime directive of the American military. They're very conscious that they do not want another Saddam to rise out of the ranks. But I must say, Hugh, there's an irony there, that just six months ago, the criticism of the Iraqi army was that it was either non-existent or there was only two brigades that were functional, or they were poorly armed with American hand-me-downs. And suddenly, the dynamic of that argument has shifted to a worry that they're getting too big, they're very well armed, they're becoming professional, they might threaten consentual government. So I think we've got to give them some slack. You can't go from one extreme of the argument to the other in just six months.

I agree that the ultimate proof is in how many Iraqi units can act completely independently. After all, as was said earlier, the ultimate goal is for us to stand down, and for them to stand up.

Bottom line, until we can leave and still be confident that the entire country won't to descend into civil war, then we can't leave.

The problem is this administration keeps dangling the carrot in front of the US public. But hasn't anyone noticed that we have NEVER actually gotten any of the carrots promised? From "mission accomplished", to "dead enders" to "last throes" to "level 2". The issue is, we are promised again and again and again that the answer/solution is just around the corner. We should just 'trust them'.

This is the exact same thing here. Level 1 means completely independent. There is no gray here. Level 1 means we go home. Level 2 merely means that Iraqi troops support us in a meaningful way.

It seems to me that "meaningful" can be defined in many different ways. This is just another way that this administration can promise us that the solution is just around the corner, if only we'd trust them.

One battalion of 750± gets downgraded from Level 1, yet 12,750± get upgraded to Level 2--a point where the U.S. provides logistical support only and Iraqis do the fighting--in five months.  Get serious, man.  CNN is spinning the facts to make the situation on the ground look worse than it really is.

the fact that CNN continues to report that Roe v. Wade actually legalized abortion, this is a suprise?

Sorry guys,

You need a better example of CNN being misleading than this.  (Which I am sure you could easily find some)  

The story you sighted was delivered in a factual manner.  I think the media does needs to be balanced, however does it have to always dig and find an alternative view on an event just for sake of it.  Really, isn't that the job of our politician; to "spin" the story.  

I sure if you kept watching CNN for a couple more minutes you would have found a better example of misleading than this.

Since you seem to believe CNN is misleading about the conditions in Irag; I assume you believe things are going well there. Please tell me why you believe this. I personally am having a very hard time feeling hopeful about Iraq; I have doubts the Iraqi people are ready for democracy.  Has there ever been a country with a high level of sectarian hatred, which was able to truly embrace democracy? Are there any examples in history that should give us hope? Why are you hopeful?

They aren't lying, they rarely actually come out and lie. They just always seem to find some way to the truth in the least beneficial, positive, affirmative way possible. But you are right, they aren't lying.

There were several possible ways to report this, all truthful, and like always they made the affirmative choice of the the one that paints the most negative image. This stuff is not an accident. They are proud members of the fraternity that defeated the US in Vietnam and predicted our defeat in Iraq; it is now their continuing mission to ensure that they were correct about our defeat in Iraq even if they have have to manufacture it.

A pox on them.

I agree that there are so many examples that can be found of blantent misrepresentation in the media but this isn't one of them.  if you read the story you get the whole picture of the positive/negative aspects of it.  The fact that there has been a huge leap in level 2 is great but the fact that there are now no level 1s is very disturbing.  it makes you think the iraqi military never wants us to leave.

cnn is just doing what every news channel does which is having a shocking headline to rope is the readers.  

it is now their continuing mission to ensure that they were correct about our defeat in Iraq even if they have have to manufacture it.

Come on.  You really believe this?  It is not that they are in the business to sell news as entertainment; but they want to see the US defeated?  I think that seems a tad bit over the top.  

Again, if things are so hunky-dory in Iraq and all the news coverage of the events in Iraq are "manufactured"; tell me what the "truth" is?  Honestly, what is your assesment.  Is the whole bombed holy shrine and sectarian violence just hype?  Have I fallen for the great deception of our time.  Are we truly and clearly winning this war?

How many "Level 1" battalions our allies in Europe have?

Since you seem to believe CNN is misleading about the conditions in Irag; I assume you believe things are going well there.

Bad assumption.  My point is that CNN is portraying the situation worse than it is by spinning the facts.

Alright I assumed incorrectly; I apologize.  I went back and read your post a second time.  

That means there are 40,000± Iraqi troops capable enough to competently fight and defeat terrorists and militant Sunni rejectionists, with the U.S. there to provide a little logistical support

Your choice of the words "competently" and "defeat" seems a bit rosy....I'm scratching my head...but I certainly hope you are right.

Well, since this is a free country, for now anyway, you get to see the press as you see them and I get to see them as I interpret it.

If you believe that Iraq is the complete utter disaster that the press paints it as then you have fallen for the deception. The situation in Iraq is not wonderful; it ain't Switzerland. But it also not the flaming disaster the the press paints it to be.

The press and their left wing buddies are salivating over the possibility of a civil war today. Three years ago they were salivating over the likelihood that Saddam was going to kick our a*s; Saddam wasn't going to beat us but the press as predicting tens of thousands of US casualties. And they were devastating when our troops rolled into Baghdad three weeks after starting.

The American press is not on the side of the United States; they are journalists who just happen to live and work in the country.

I mean I was going to guess 5 battalions, but it is less if you mean outside of their own country.  What makes up the EuroCorps?  Isn't that just two or three battalions?  Add to that the Brits- three or four?  

When was the last time a western army division went abroad without MAC flying them or their stuff?  1956?  That wasn't so good.  Falklands?  How many battalions can you fit on a Landing Ship Luxury LIner?

that the average battalion has 750 troops, those 3750 soldiers don;t seem to be that formiditable of a force after all.

CNN admits its bias up front:

The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.

In other words, CNN is letting the U.S. government, which I assume means the Bush Administration, tell it what is important to cover. This is a subtle form of bias, and, if the Bush Administration miscalculates, doesn't necessarily work in Bush's favor. That's what happened here.

the troops will win any confrontation because they are better trained and equipped.  It does not mean that I assume things are going well, or that it would take 40,000± to quash the terrorists and militant Sunni rejectionists.  If you asked me if things were going well with 200,000 Level 2 troops, I might say yes.

because the U.S. government has specifically expressed that Level 2 status also shows "growing independence".  U.S. brass have stated that very thing to the press and before Congress.  How well they've expressed their position is another story, and is another example of poor Bush administration communication.  Fred Barnes last October:

But what about that single "battle-ready" battalion of Iraqis? Bush didn't broach the subject, but the man in charge of training Iraqi soldiers, Gen. David Petraeus, did. Speaking at the Pentagon the day before Bush's speech, Petraeus cleared up the troop numbers, but only after weeks of confusion. He got minimal media coverage. "There are now over 197,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces," he said. And "there are over 115 police and army combat battalions in the fight."

The mixup came over the four categories that measure the level of independence of Iraqi forces. About 80 battalions "are assessed as fighting alongside our forces," Petraeus said. Bush got that right. They belong to category three. Only one battalion needs "no coalition assistance whatsoever--i.e., fully independent." That's category one. A "substantial number" of another 35 "have their own areas of operation," but fight with American soldiers embedded in their units. These "allow coalition units to focus elsewhere or eventually to go home." They comprise category two. So Iraqi battalions rated one, two, and three add up to roughly 115 "battle-ready" units--not one. Category four troops aren't ready for combat.

Level 2 speaks for itself in terms of growing independence because that is the critical where Iraqi troops are taking the lead in combat operations.

when are they going to show up for work?