This news story now puts the Bush administration — and President George W. Bush in particular — in the middle of yet another controversy…another one that will raise questions about the accuracy of the President’s info and/or his credibility:
The training of Iraqi security forces has suffered a big “setback” in the last six months, with the army and other forces being increasingly used to settle scores and make other political gains, Iraqi Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer said Monday.
Al-Yawer disputed contentions by U.S. officials, including President Bush, that the training of security forces was gathering speed, resulting in more professional troops.
Bush has said the United States will not pull out of Iraq until Iraq’s own forces can maintain security. In a speech last week, he said Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of securing the country.
But Al-Yawer apparently doesn’t see it that way, the AP story goes on to report:
Al-Yawer, a Sunni moderate, said he agreed the United States cannot pull out now because “there will be a huge vacuum,” leaving Iraq in danger of falling into civil war. In particular, armed Shiite militias in the south might try to incite war if U.S.-led coalition forces leave, he said in an interview with The Associated Press and a U.S. newspaper at a conference here.
“I wish it were that simple,” he said of calls to set a timetable for withdrawal or a drawdown.
So he’s underlining something that Bush and some Democrats have argued: that setting a timetable for withdrawal or a drawdown is not an easy matter. Fair enough.
But — once more — this administration suffers from either poor information or a tendency to be creative with the information they have once the President opens his mouth in an official speech, if Al-Yawer is to be believed. Because he paints a far more COMPLEX portrait than the reassuring sound-bites played over from Bush’s speech:
But al-Yawer said recent allegations that Interior Ministry security forces — dominated by Shiites — have tortured Sunni detainees were evidence that many forces are increasingly politicized and sectarian. Some of the recently trained Iraqi forces focus on settling scores and other political goals rather than maintaining security, he said.
In addition, some Iraqi military commanders have been dismissed for political reasons, rather than judged on merit, he said.
He said the army — also dominated by Shiites — is conducting raids against villages and towns in Sunni and mixed areas of Iraq, rather than targeting specific insurgents — a tactic he said reminded many Sunnis of Saddam Hussein-era raids.
“Saddam used to raid villages,” using security forces, he said. “This is not the way to do it.”
Al-Yawer also expressed grave concern that Iraqi army units might use intimidation to try to keep Sunni voters from the polls during the country’s crucial Dec. 15 general election.
What next? This will set off a new wave of debate over whether Bush’s speech was accurate or not and whether the Iraq security forces are ready for a U.S. departure even over the next year (news reports suggest some withdrawals are likely to occur in 2006 which happens to be a year of mid-term elections, in case you forgot).
But, even worse, whether Al-Yawer’s comments are in fact Solid Gold factually, it adds one more “drip” to the drip-drip-drip that is drowning this administration’s credibility because far too often official pronouncements are later undermined by new facts or allegations “at variance” with what was originally said.