Is neglect of training 'cut and run'?

ARTICLE: In a reversal, U.S. reliance on Iraqi army is fading: Training troops is no longer a priority, changing the role of American forces, By NANCY A. YOUSSEF, McClatchy Newspapers, Apr. 20, 2007

This, to me, seems more nakedly about leaving Iraq ASAP, and that worries me. A bit too close to the "cut and run" mentality long decried by the administration.

Between this and the walls going up, you get the feeling that partitioned Iraq is well under-way, which to me is realistic, but somebody better be getting the Saudis ready, cause the doorstep's gonna feel a whole lot closer once the Americans draw down.

The only good news in this (to the extent it's true, as so many reports from Iraq conflict) is that the timeline seems way to slow on the possible redirect on Iran, the precursor for which must be the Bush administration arguing a culmination of threats against Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Israel and ... let's not forget Poland and the Czech Republic.

Comments

[Keith, Indy]

Except that what she's reporting really doesn't support that we are abandoning training. Just because we've increased the priority in other operational areas, doesn't mean we are using less resources for training.

No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. "We are just adding another leg to our mission," Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.

...

Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq.

....

Pittard oversees the embedded military transition teams that work with the Iraqi security forces until the units become self-reliant. About 500 11-person teams are embedded in the Iraqi forces at the battalion level and up.

...

Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who's in charge of training Iraqi troops, said in February that he hoped that Iraqi troops would be able to lead by December. "At the tactical level, I do believe by the end of the year, the conditions should be set that they are increasingly taking responsibility for the combat operations," Dempsey told NBC News.

For an alternative view of this article, you might read this analysis...

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=5844

[James Miller]

Completely agree Indy. The 'surge' by implication is about getting more men in the field providing, not in training camps. And if you see what Gen. Patraeus is doing in Baghdad, he has mixed Iraqi-American squads. Like first time cops in the field, the General is assigning Traning Officers. None of this speaks of abandoning of training the Iraqis.