Here's what you said to start this off. "In Iraq, the supposed readiness factor has dropped by two thirds over the last year...that's 52 weeks!...
Since Insurgent attacks are increasing and the Iraqi Army is decreasing...."
If you've read the press conference and learned of the steady progress with Iraqi troops, laid out in no uncertain terms, and can still stand by the comments in your original post, you are are in serious denial.
Excuse me, but I didn't speak of "raising the bar," the reporter did. I spoke of "re-evaluation" all along (as I say, they aren't mutually exclusive though). When I just said that the reporters "raising the bar" comment was probably a wrong way to paraphrase, if understandable given what the General and Rumsfeld had to say, it is hard to understand why you now lecture me that a reporters say so doesn't make it so. It's what the General and Rumsfeld said that makes "re-evaluation" the good summation for the discrepancy, rather than "degradation."
Re: "What Casey said was that he didn't know the specifics...that it was training, manning, leadership and equipment...just as I saw him say on TV...and this was included in your link."
Casey said, in my link, in total support of my early speculation that the explanation for the discrepancy may have to do with "reevaluation" rather than an actual real-world degradation, the following:
"we answered their questions from the field, and we adjusted the standards and things so it was all more understandable and then they came back and it was one..."
And you call this checkmate. LOL.
I'm STILL waiting for a link which shows the General said anything which directly contradicts his plain confirmation that evaluation issues are indeed responsible. After all, my link explains that the very first evaluation said "3" and that after taking questions from the field and answering them (per the General), the second evaluation came back "1." And he says it was different units entirely (which would show, if you haven't figured it out, that one battalion which wasn't at first catagorized as level 1, became catagorized that way in the second evaluation. So there's a battalion that went uphill between the two evaluations, along with 3 which got dropped HEAVENS!).
But going back to your original statement quoted in part at top, you claimed that the Iraqi Army is decreasing, and that over the last 52 weeks the readiness factor decreased by 2/3rds. Given the strong words from the General and Rumsfeld in my link which indicate quite the opposite of your inference, I do believe you were missing a WHOLE lot of information sitting on your nose, which you now have. How else could you have made a statement so at odds with the reality spelled out in this press conference?
While you are looking up that link from which you would show the general contradicted what he plainly said the next day, which you said you had but haven't produced, try looking up how many Iraqi battalions there were 52 weeks ago. Try thinking about the doubling of battalions which the General noted have moved from class 3 to class 2 or Try comparing 2 Battalions in question against the 75+ reported battalions who are on the ground fighting, and then try to still maintain we've suffered a 2/3rds decline in Iraqi fighting power. Oh yes, you've limited your comments to those batallions ready to operate on their own (but made false statements in light of the above, right through this little dispute of ours). LOL Nice point.
In short, your arms and legs have been cut off, and you are screaming "coward" and proclaiming checkmate. All your sweet talk warning that "at this rate" there will be NO Iraqi's fighting, or however you put it, is hogwash. More Iraqis, stronger Iraqis, more experienced Iraqis day by day; this is the true report here.
Can you see the Knights of NEE still? Or have I ridden out of sight. Your call.
Dan B. |
