Bill Hobbs Takes down the Clowns at the LAT:
Regarding the training of a new Iraqi army, the LAT wrote:
During especially difficult combat operations last year in and around the insurgent stronghold of Fallouja, west of Baghdad, many Iraqi units simply melted away once the fighting began.
But the LAT fails to mention that, since Fallouja, there has been very good progress - as Bush outlined in his speech:
The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year's assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army -- with six Iraqi battalions supporting them. The Iraqis fought and sustained casualties. Yet in most situations, the Iraqi role was limited to protecting the flanks of coalition forces, and securing ground that had already been cleared by our troops. This year in TAL Afar, it was a very different story.
The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces -- 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support. Many Iraqi units conducted their own anti-terrorist operations and controlled their own battle space -- hunting for enemy fighters and securing neighborhoods block-by-block. To consolidate their military success, Iraqi units stayed behind to help maintain law and order -- and reconstruction projects have been started to improve infrastructure and create jobs and provide hope.
Why did the LAT leave that out? Perhaps because the contrast makes it clear that Bush's strategy is showing progress.
Regarding the same subject of training Iraqi security forces - the centerpiece of Bush's Iraq victory strategy - the LAT wrote:
Two months ago, Army Gen. George W. Casey, commander of the multinational force in Iraq, told a Senate hearing that only one of the 100 Iraqi military battalions formed over the previous two years was fully trained and equipped and capable of operating independently.
Bush also addressed that - but the LAT left out what he said:
Some critics dismiss this progress and point to the fact that only one Iraqi battalion has achieved complete independence from the coalition. To achieve complete independence, an Iraqi battalion must do more than fight the enemy on its own -- it must also have the ability to provide its own support elements, including logistics, airlift, intelligence, and command and control through their ministries. Not every Iraqi unit has to meet this level of capability in order for the Iraqi security forces to take the lead in the fight against the enemy. As a matter of fact, there are some battalions from NATO militaries that would not be able to meet this standard.
Why did the LAT again avoid presenting the other side? Perhaps because they don't want to present the other side - it undermines their contention that the war is going badly. Does anyone still wonder why so many people distrust the mainstream media?
President Bush's speech was a complete and factually detailed refutation of the claims of some on the Left that we are losing in Iraq and a strong rejection of the call from the defeat-mongers of the Left for a rapid withdrawal of American forces. I recommend you read the whole thing
