Citing General David Petraeus, George W. Bush, in his so-called "way forward in Iraq" speech, declared on Thursday night,

The Iraqi army is becoming more capable.

For days, I've been carrying around with me page 13 of the 14-page slideshow Petraeus showed during his multiple appearances on Capitol Hill. (That's how nerdy I am!) And to anyone unfortunate to get stuck in an elevator with me, I've flashed this chart to show that according to Petraeus' own numbers, there has been no progress in the past year in fielding Iraqi security forces that can function on their own. Yes, I said no progress.

The chart--titled "Iraqi Security Forces Capabilities"--divides Iraqi troops into four groups: units that are fully independent (Level I); that can stage operations with support of U.S. forces (Level II); that can fight side by side with U.S. forces (Level III); that are still forming (Level IV). If you look at September 2006, you will see that there were 11,000 Level I troops and 86,000 Level II troops. Fast forward to September 2007, and the numbers are, Level I, 12,000 and Level II, 84,000. That's a slight drop in capabilities, if you combine Levels I and II.

So how can Bush--or anyone else--say that Iraqi troops are becoming more capable? For all the money and effort spent during the last year--when the Bush administration was claiming that the training of Iraqi troops was a top priority (remember, they stand up, we leave?)--there's been little, if any, return on the investment. By the way, the chart includes the national police--a force so rife with corruption and sectarianism that the Jones Commission recently recommended it be disbanded. Petraeus's chart is further evidence that the administration gameplan isn't working.

CAN'T ASK THESE 20-SOMETHINGS.Political posturing--it's inescapable, particularly during a presidential election. And Fred Thompson engaged in an especially odious instance of this last week. Attempting to feed the dogs of war--days after Petraeus appeared on Capitol Hill--Thompson issued a statement backing the war and blasting Democrats. In it, he said,

Every day, our troops in Iraq demonstrate a heroic resolve to win. I wish Democrats in Washington would dedicate as much time and energy to winning as they do on how to surrender the fight. The average 20 year-old serving in Iraq apparently knows more about national security than many of the 20 year-political veterans serving in Congress.

This is a cheap shot. I commend to the lawmaker-turned-actor the August 19 New York Times op-ed written by seven active-duty GIs in Iraq that noted,

To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched.

The article, as I pointed out in a posting a few days ago, argued for withdrawal and described the war as the "pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends." Last week two of the authors were killed in Iraq: Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance Gray. Thompson should know that both men were in their 20s.

Posted by David Corn at September 17, 2007 11:29 AM