First Published 2005-09-29, Last Updated 2005-09-30 10:45:00

US General: Only one Iraqi battalion fully capable


WASHINGTON - The top US commander in Iraq acknowledged Thursday conditions may worsen in Iraq because of Sunni opposition even if a constitution is approved in next month's referendum.


General George Casey said plans to reduce US forces over the next year will depend heavily on the outcome of the political process and insurgents were expected to pull out all stops to defeat it.


Casey predicted in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the constitution would likely be approved in the October 15 vote even if, as expected, Sunnis vote against it by a large majority.


Sunnis need a two-thirds majority in three provinces to block the constitution, which provides for national elections on December 15.


But when asked whether the situation could worsen in Iraq even if the constitution is approved but with a large Sunni "no" vote, Casey said, "I think that's entirely possible."


"As we've looked at this, we've looked for the constitution to be a national compact. The perception now is that it's not," he said.


Senator Carl Levin told US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who testified along with Casey and other top military leaders, that the Iraqis needed to be told forcefully that it is not enough to pass the constitution if a significant faction opposed it.


"Can that message be delivered to the Iraqis so that they don't think they have us there for some unlimited period, and it doesn't make any difference that they work out their political differences?" the committee's ranking Democrat said.


Turning to Casey, Rumsfeld asked the general whether that message has been communicated in his and US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad's meetings with Iraqi leaders.


"I would not say necessarily as forceful as Senator Levin just put it," Casey said.


Other senators sharply questioned the progress being made by in Iraq, zeroing in on a disclosure by Casey that only one Iraqi battalion was operating fully independently.


The last time Casey reported to Congress several months ago, he said three battalions were fully capable.


"We fully recognize that Iraqi armed forces will not have an independent capability for some time, because they don't have an institutional base to support them," he said. "And so Level One is one battalion."


"It was three. Now it’s gone from three to one?" interjected Senator John McCain, a Republican from Arizona.


"Things change in a battalion. We're making assessments on leadership, on training. There are a lot of variables that are involved here, senator," Casey said.


Casey said the US military is putting Iraqi security forces increasingly in the lead of counter-insurgency operations as a part of a strategy aimed at reduce the US military presence.


"I do believe that the possibility for condition-based reductions of coalition forces still exists for 2004," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a civilian,even I can understand how variables in Iraq can deplete training for Iraqs' new army.
However,only one battalion is combat capable?
To my untrained eye that seems too slow.
Anybody care to offer an explanation why things are not going well?

The Iraq police should have been trained by the Europeans because they have experience with national police organizations and we should not have wasted time at attempting their training.

We were also offered help for training the army but also refused any of that and lets face it – there are sufficient cultural differences to make it difficult for Americans to motivate these people. We also failed to retain any of their pre-war units or leaders (and they were not all bad) because of poor planning. Now that there is a full insurrection/terrorist war going on it makes it more difficult to recruit good people because of retaliation.

The best estimate that I heard from someone without anything political to gain from his comment said ten years because eight is about average in these situations.

HarryP rubbed:

quote:

We also failed to retain any of their pre-war units or leaders (and they were not all bad) because of poor planning.

So you're saying we 'Threw out the Baby with the 'Baath' water?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/AFBF5651-45AF-45...10E-ECA0AFEA24C1.htm

Interesting link,WM.
Good history of the Baathists.

Good one Weatherman! I think that membership in the Baathist party should not have been an automatic disqualifier but maybe a point of concern. This is, of course, difficult but so is a continuing war.