Retention is well over 70%, which is not bad for a force made up of
former peasants.

Cite! And what is the retention period? 70% over a year? That sucks
and is not sustainable in the least.

70% of original recruits over their entire term. Yes, that would suck
if it were in a long-standing army, but these are former peasants in a
just-formed force of brand new units. Retention will improve as they
finish training officers and develop unit cohesion.

The report is *old*, based on *older* data.

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:9kbm3391nhjnk39aa44ssva4rk4t4cps3d@4ax.com:

On 04 May 2007 10:56:41 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns99264FA493D92freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:3fSdnRgB7dd0ZKfbnZ2dnUVZ_o6gnZ2d@giganews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

The fact that the market was open at all was an accomplishment,
Geoff. McCain couldn't have gone there with a whole division a few
months before. You really can't tell when you're being spun by the
Democrats, can you?

You think all the spin is coming from Republicans, and the
Democrats are all just speaking truth to power? I got news for you,
sunshine.

Idiot...the spin was that the place was safe.

*Safer*, Geoff.

I can understand that you like that spin, but what he said was that
there a“are neighborhoods in Baghdad where you and I could walk
through those neighborhoods, today.” He did not say "walk with far
fewer troops and less air support and only wearing one flack jacket".

He's a US presidential candidate, Matt. They don't walk around without
bodyguards in American cities.

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:jtpk33tce5va57lr76lmmacg0ha8bqojdc@4ax.com:

On 03 May 2007 21:46:21 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns9925BDC9A3E10freddybear@66.150.105.47>
wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:lalk339du5iqjojdkdu4gnv6342fbkqui7@4ax.com:

On 03 May 2007 20:21:57 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns9925AF7AA983Ffreddybear@66.150.105.47> wrote:

"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:5bednRKv_N1Ga6TbnZ2dnUVZ_vmqnZ2d@giganews.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

1) Saddam had WMD, but Bush is hiding them because he is
"embarrassed" about it

No, Yang, that's not my position. That's just another story I
posted to stick a finger in your eye.

Just as I thought, you regurgitate anything that fits your
partisan view.

Bwaaahahaha! You can't tell a blowoff answer to a stupid question
from a 'partisan view'. You really are a dumbass librul.

You trolled. And now you are caught with other people who act
dishonestly.

"Where's the WMD, *****?" is a troll.

You trolled with the original article. I asked you straight out
several times if you stood behind the claims and you were deliberately
evasive.

No *****, Sherlock. That should have been your first clue.

I answered that troll with a billy goat, Matt. Too bad for you that
you can't tell the difference.

Try again.

I'm not responsible for your faulty memory, Matt.

2) The MSM is biased for not reporting good news in Iraq.

Yes, Yang, anybody can see that any time they turn on the TV.

I know. We only had about a gazillion hours of coverage of
McCain's walk down Victory Lane at the bazaar in Baghdad all the
while escorted by a company of American soldiers.

The fact that the market was open at all was an accomplishment,
Geoff.

Really? Are there more markets open now than before?

Yes.

McCain couldn't have gone there with a whole division a few months
before.

Yeah, it is just like a Sunday in Indiana.

You really are an *****, Matt.

I'm an *****? Mike Pense is the one who said that the market was
like a normal outdoor market in Indiana. Take it up with him.

That was your reply, Matt. I didn't alter the attributions.

You really can't tell when you're being spun by the Democrats,
can you?

Face it, McCain lost the election in that moment.

McCain lost the election when he teamed up with Feingold.

You mean trying to sell his soul to Robertson isn't going to work?

You must be kidding.

And
in reality he lost the election when he went against the fundies in
2000 and then let Shrub screw him over in South Carolina.

McCain-Feingold campaign finance "crushing of the opposition" will do
him in.

[snip]

We won the war. The occupation is either lost or going to go on
forever because the Iraqi Security Forces will never be ready for
prime time.

Never is a long time.

That is what some of us are afraid of. You and Shrub seem to have
the view that we are willing to wait and bleed that "long time".

You actually seem to think that you're doing the bleeding.

I suppose I could point out that Shrub knows that people with a
personal stake in the war probably have a different view than he does.

You're not in Iraq any more than Yang or I. And there are plenty of
people with a "personal stake in the war" who support the mission 100%.

You seem to share that view: the best people to decide are those that
aren't going to get hurt by the fighting.

We don't let our emotions interfere with our judgement.

In 2006 there were supposedly 200,000 Iraqi combat soldiers and
police for a nation of 20 million. Pretty impressive. Given that
pace, there should be over 300,000 now. The administration claims
340,000.

Take a look at this report:
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/070426_iraqiforces_rev.pdf

In November 2006, the author estimated that just 10 battalions
(about 10k soldiers at current strength levels) are capable of
operating independently of US forces.

An old "estimate" based on even older data.

What is the number now? What is their state of readiness?

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/84031.pdf

[beginning on page 18]

By the end of 2006, the United States and its Coalition partners met
their force generation targets, while continuing their efforts to
expand the size and capability of the ISF to meet emergent
requirements. As of March 19, 2007, approximately 340,000 forces,
including replenishments, have been trained. The actual number of
present-for-duty soldiers is less than the total number of personnel
trained due to scheduled leave, absence without leave, and attrition.

[exact AWOL figures not given]

I love government documents. They met their target by the end of 2006.
I wonder if the target had changed over the year. It is easy to meet a
target if you change the target to meet the result. So the maximum
possible number is 340,000 that being the total number trained. The
current trained combat ready troops can be any number smaller than
that. Not exactly helpful.

I'm surprised I found that much.

...

Iraqis have fully staffed the Objective Counter-Insurgency and Civil
Security Forces. The GOI, with Coalition support, is now executing
several staffing initiatives to replenish the force to allow units to
be temporarily relieved to refit and retrain and to increase
present-for- duty levels in combat units. These initiatives will add
more than 60,000 personnel to the ISF during 2007. MNF-I estimates
that the MOI will require 32,000 new police annually to replenish the
ranks. Training bases are established to achieve these replenishment
goals.

As part of the process of transferring security responsibility, an
Iraqi unit assumes the lead once it has been determined to have
sufficient capability to plan and execute combat operations. As of
March 19, 2007, 8 Iraqi Division Headquarters, 31 Iraqi Brigade
Headquarters, and 94 Iraqi Army (IA) battalions had assumed the lead
for counter-insurgency operations within their assigned areas of
operations, and Iraqi Ground Forces Command (IGFC) had assumed command
and control of 8 of 10 IA divisions. Two of the Iraqi divisions, the
6th and the 9th, are under the control of the Baghdad Operations
Command. The 5th and 7th IA divisions remain under MNF-I operational
control and remain on track for transition to Iraqi control by the
summer of 2007. Although these units lead security in their respective
areas of operations, most still require substantial logistics and
sustainment support from Coalition forces.

And it does not say whether or not it worked when they took the lead,
just that they did at some point.

It is working.

["logistics and sustainment support" includes heavy air cover and
long- range artillery support that has not been turned over to the
Iraqi military]

No mention of the Shiites in the government getting rid of Sunni
officers.

Shi'ite happens. :)