Pace: Military to blame for readiness perception

[thedrifter]

December 02, 2005
Pace: Military to blame for readiness perception
By Robert Burns
Associated Press

If the American public has a distorted picture of the combat readiness of Iraqi troops, the U.S. military is largely to blame for it, the most senior American military officer said Thursday.

“We have done ourselves a disservice in the way that we have defined how we are tracking the progress of Iraqi forces,” Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told an audience of military and civilian students at the National Defense University.

It was his first public speech focusing on Iraq since he became Joint Chiefs chairman on Oct. 1, and his remarks came one day after President Bush outlined his administration’s strategy for achieving victory in Iraq.

Also Thursday, Bush’s chief of staff told GOP congressional leaders that the White House would communicate more with lawmakers about Iraq. The leaders welcomed Andrew Card’s commitment and followed it by providing “constructive criticism,” said a Republican official who attended the GOP retreat in St. Michaels, Md. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.

Pace was among several senior officials who spoke publicly Thursday about the strategy for winning in Iraq. Eric Edelman, the under secretary of defense for policy, spoke to and fielded questions from members of the Council on Foreign Relations, along with Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, the senior assistant to Pace.

Edelman, whose predecessor, Douglas J. Feith, was considered one of the architects of the Iraq war, said senior U.S. military commanders told him on a recent visit to Iraq that they are very optimistic about stabilizing the country.

“Overall, when one considers the challenges that Iraq faces — not least that of overcoming the political and social effects of 3½ decades of monstrous tyranny — what is most impressive to me is not how much remains for them to do, but rather how far they have come in less than three years,” Edelman said.

Edelman also emphasized the benefit of eventually reducing the American troop presence in Iraq.

“We need to, over time, bring down the number of U.S. troops to lessen the feel of occupation in Iraq,” he said.

An important element of Bush’s strategy is building Iraqi security forces that can defend the country on their own.

Pace said the U.S. military’s own means of measuring progress in training Iraqi forces have created confusion in some quarters.

“In an attempt to be very precise with ourselves, to give ourselves metrics that we could all understand, we have done ourselves and everyone who is listening to us a disservice,” he added.

Pace made the remark after mentioning that people often ask him, “How can there be only one — count them — only one Iraqi battalion capable of independent operations?”

He was referring to the public stir that arose when Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told Congress in September that the number of Iraqi army battalions rated at “level one” proficiency — meaning capable of combat with no U.S. support — had dropped from three to one. Some interpreted that as evidence the Iraqis were regressing.

Pace indicated that Iraqi units do not have to reach “level one” proficiency to be capable of fighting the insurgency, and said that even some battalions in the American military would be rated below “level 1.”

He cited his own experience as a Marine battalion commander from 1983-85 and noted that his unit was reliant on either the Navy or the Air Force to transport it to the battle front and that if required to remain in combat for more than 60 days, his battalion had to rely on the Army for resupplying.

“So if you asked me then to grade my own battalion on a piece of paper as far as level one, level two, level three, level four, I would have to put level two,” he said. “Why? Because I’m very capable but I do need some outside help.”

Pace’s point was that even though only one Iraqi battalion is rated at “level one,” there are nearly 40 rated at “level two,” which is defined as capable of taking a lead role in fighting the insurgency with some degree of U.S. support. About 80 others battalions at rated at “level three,” meaning that are capable of fighting, but with U.S. troops in the lead.

Associated Press writer Liz Sidoti contributed to this report.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

Pace Responds to Critics of Iraq Strategy
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1, 2005 – Wouldn't the United States be better off if it simply left the terrorists alone and brought its troops home from Iraq? Wouldn't that stop the violence there? Don't we need more troops to do the job there? And why is just one Iraqi battalion capable of independent operations?

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responded today to these and other questions he often gets about operations in Iraq during a session at the National Defense University at Fort McNair here.

To those who question if the American people would be safer if the nation withdrew its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, Pace conceded, "That would be nice if it would work."

"But that's not the world we live in," he quickly added, noting that the United States was "leaving them alone" when terrorists struck on Sept. 11, 2001.

"That was the day we realized in the United States that we were at war," the chairman said. "Our enemies had declared war on us years before, but the attacks in New York, in the skies over Pennsylvania and here in Washington, D.C., brought home very clearly to us that we were at war."

Pace also refuted claims of those who believe the threat will go away if the United States stopped fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and stopped chasing down terrorists.

"I say, you need to get out and read what our enemies have said," he said. Before World War II, Adolf Hitler clearly outlined his intentions in his book, "Mein Kampf," Pace told the group. "He said in writing exactly what his plan was, and we collectively ignored that, to our great detriment."

Similarly, terrorists today have publicly stated their goals, both on film and the Internet, he said.

"(There's) no equivocation on their part," the chairman said. "They're not saying, 'If you stay home, we will not come after you.' They are saying their goal is to rid the Middle East of all foreigners, then to overthrow all governments that are not friendly to them, which means every single one of those governments."

But terrorists have made it clear that they don't intend to stop there, Pace continued. Their ultimate goal is to bring the whole globe under their domination within the next 100 years, he said.

Pace told the group - military, civilian and foreign military leaders being groomed for top positions in the future - that they and others within their ranks are helping stop terrorists from realizing their goal.

"(You) and all those others in uniform, and not in uniform, serving this country and all of our friends and neighbors around the world are the ones who are going to make a difference," he said. "And that's why it's important for us to realize that there is no option other than victory."

But to achieve that victory, Pace said, he's often asked if the United States has enough troops in Iraq.

"The answer is, we need more Iraqi troops," Pace said, putting added emphasis on the word "Iraqi." "And we are working on that."

Pace cited solid progress in developing Iraq's security forces, which numbered zero in May 2003, 100,000 in June 2004 and more than 200,000 today - a number he said is steadily growing toward 300,000.

But this progress can't be measured only by numbers, he said. It's also based on quality, and developing quality forces takes time.

"You all know as well as I do that it takes time to train an individual soldier, an individual policeman," the chairman said. "It takes time for small units to get cohesion. It takes time for larger units to develop the kinds of leadership they need and the kind of sustainment they need."

There's still a lot of work to do, but the 34 coalition countries in Iraq should take great pride in the progress Iraqis have already made, he said. "And yes, we do need to help them grow so that they can take over more and more of the responsibilities so that as they are ready to, we can hand them over and come home to our collective countries."

But why, Pace said many have asked him, is just one Iraqi battalion deemed capable of operating independently?

The truth is, in the interest of defining how to measure the Iraqi forces' progress, U.S. planners have done themselves a disservice, he said.

Even many of the most highly trained and capable U.S. military units aren't totally independent, a measuring stick being used to gauge the Iraqis' performance, he said. A top-drawer Marine unit still needs the Navy or Air Force to get to the war zone, Air Force air support once there and for long-term operations, Army logistics support, Pace said.

So for Iraqi battalions to require some outside support doesn't mean they're not capable, the general explained. A better measure is how many are controlling their own areas of operation - something a division headquarters, four brigade headquarters and more than 30 battalions are already doing. "That, to me, is a real measure of progress," Pace said.

In closing today, Pace acknowledged that the war on terror will be long and demand vigilance. "But failure is not an option," he told the group. "There is no way that we can lose if we maintain our patience and our will, our resolve."

Ellie