Posted by David Lightman at 1:55 p.m. CST
Despite all the talk about just what kind of troop levels the U.S. should maintain, it's not clear anyone knows the size of the Iraqi force, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) said today in his report to the White House and Pentagon on findings from his trip to Iraq.
Shays, chairman of the House national security subcommittee, earlier this month made his 15th trip to Iraq since the war began in March 2003, and wrote a five-page letter detailing his findings.
He noted that American military commanders say there are 112 Iraqi Army battalions of 757 soldiers each, or a total of 84,784 soldiers on duty in combat units. But on any given day, he said, absences--authorized and unauthorized--can reduce this number by about 20 percent.
That would leave about 67,000 Iraqi soldiers on duty in combat situations--or about half the size of the often-quoted number of 137,500 trained and equipped Iraqis.
And, Shays warned, "U.S. Army trainers have formally assessed many of these Iraqi Army battalions to be far from capable of carrying out operations on their own without U.S. units fighting alongside them."
As a result, the congressman recommended, "It is absolutely imperative accurate statistics" be given to Congress and the public--because "accurate statistics help determine when U.S. forces can stand down and Iraqi forces can stand up."
President Bush is currently reviewing force levels in Iraq and is expected to make recommendations next month. The U.S. now has about 140,000 troops in Iraq, and some members of Congress, such as Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., are recommending more troops. Others, notably many Democrats, want a timetable for redeploying forces.
Shays other suggestions are similar to those of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that made its formal suggestions earlier this month. He wants Iraq to convene a regional conference once it has met individually with other nearby countries, and "each neighboring state must be urged to provide support and assistance in countering the insurgency and terrorist elements in Iraq."
And Shays, echoing the thoughts of Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., who has visited Syria, Iraq and other countries in the region this week, said flatly "The United States should engage in direct discussions with both Syria and Iran on Iraq."
He also reiterated his call for timelines. Shays wants one set of benchmarks for "each element of Prime Minister (Nouri) al-Maliki's national reconciliation plan," including dates for provincial elections, rollback of de-Baathification, amnesty, allocation of oil revenues and central government control or disbandment of militias.
In addition, the U.S. should "provide the Iraqis a firm timeline so they know we will not be there forever and begin to take the difficult but necessary diplomatic and political steps required to unite their country and reduce the violence."
David Lightman works for the Hartford Courant
• 
• 
• 
Comments
A Republican with a brain HooYa Senator
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 22, 2006 3:30 PM
Dale,
Of the 67k, how many are infiltrators? Sounds like the ARVN to me.
Corrupt, infiltrated, unwilling to pick up the slack.
Have a truly wonderful holiday season, buddy.
You da man.
Posted by: c.morris | December 22, 2006 7:49 PM
how does 'permalink' work?
I've clicked it, but nothing seems to work differently.
Posted by: c.morris | December 22, 2006 9:26 PM
c.morris same same
Posted by: Dale Peters | December 22, 2006 9:43 PM
Shays is a true Republican, not one of the neocon radical right. And you're right, Dale, he is very intelligent.
Merry Christmas to all on the Swamp!
Posted by: Karen Up North | December 22, 2006 10:35 PM
If in fact Shays is being quoted correctly here, anyone with a knowledge of military history is giggling at what Shays implies.
Every army that ever existed has a percentage of its active duty soldiers "not present" at any given time. Some are on furlough/leave. Others may be sick. For example, in our own American Civil War, the Union Army of the Potomac in late 1862 numbered 200,000 present and absent, but only 128,000 were present for duty.
And there is no contradiction between the statement that there are "137,500 trained and equipped Iraqis" but only about half that number present in combat battalions. An army consists of a lot more than its active-duty combat battalions. Again, as an example, an American division in WWII numbered around 15,000 men, but less than 9,000 of that 15,000 belonged to the infantry battalions of that division. The rest belonged to support groups such as divisional artillery, who were, by any definition, "trained and equipped" troops.
If a reporter writes an article about, say, education, a reporter generally talks to a teacher. Might I suggest that when writing about military matters, a reporter talk to a soldier before writing the article?
Posted by: Bruce | December 23, 2006 12:30 AM
In the '80's the Republican's had a nice phrase: "Trust, but verify." Of course, they were referring to dealings with the Soviet Union.
But the same can be said about how our "checks and balances" system of government is SUPPOSED to work.
Finally, after 3 1/2 years and 15 trips to Iraq, a Republican is getting down to the business of Congress. That's like holding a job for 12 years and starting to work in the last month.
Posted by: Mel | December 23, 2006 8:10 AM
Bruce-
Haven't you thought that maybe, just maybe, your narrow-minded, biased, spinning of facts is part of the bigger problem that's bringing down the presidency & got the USA in this Iraqi mess?
The "we report, you decide" approach doesn't work.
Posted by: RomanB | December 23, 2006 10:54 AM
Armies (and other organizations such as Congress and newspapers) always have less people present on any given day than they have on the payrolls. To give just one example, the Dec. 10, 1862 trimonthly army return of the U.S.'s Army of the Potomac showed 128,927 "present for duty" out of a total "present and absent" of 201,855. In other words, this army had a 36% absentee rate, far higher than the absentee rate statistics Shays and Lightman cite for the Iraqi army. I could cite hundreds of other examples of American army absence rates far higher than the rates Shays and Lightman think so aweful for the Iraqi army.
In other words, either Shays and Lightman know nothing about military practice, or else they do know but chose to mislead the public.
Posted by: Bruce | December 23, 2006 5:14 PM
Bruce....Once again in your haste to shoot the
messenger....you missed the truth. It doesn't matter if 100% of Iraqi troops are present, they aren't cutting the mustard. Had the leaders of this war had any smarts at all they would not have disband the army and police. These people
would have fought for anyone giving them a pay check.
Posted by: bill r. | December 24, 2006 7:12 AM
Bruce, before you lecture the rest of the world about doing their research, perhaps you should do a bit more yourself. Context matters.
December 10, 1862. The Union Army of the Potomac is in the midst of the Fredricksburg campaign. The fatal direct assaults on Mayre's Heights will be launched in 3 days time. The AOP is under the command of Gen. Ambrose Burnside, widely considered to be the worst commander the AOP had during the war, which is a pretty low bar.
So you are comparing the Iraqi army to the AOP at it's lowest ebb, in the midst of it's most disasterous campaign.
Is this really an acceptable standard? Is this the way to victory, without major changes?
Posted by: Tony | December 26, 2006 10:51 AM
Bruce,
Do you have any Post WWII statistics? Are you cherrypicking?
Posted by: jethro | December 26, 2006 11:26 AM
Jethro,
You are correct.
All,
check out Sheehan's 'A Bright Shining Lie', a great book about Vietnam and LtC. John P. Vann.
The hollowed out ARVN divisions are explained in painful and deadly detail.
Ditto Iraq.
Posted by: c.morris | December 28, 2006 5:26 PM