UPDATE: Fox's Baier lowered number of Iraqi troops he said were "in the lead" -- but issued no correction
UPDATE: A week after Fox News Pentagon correspondent Bret Baier falsely claimed that a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that "more than 250,000" Iraqi troops "are leading operations" in Iraq, Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr., the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated at a May 9 press briefing: "Seventy-five Iraqi security force battalions lead in operations, with coalition forces in support." The White House has said that battalions are "typically comprised of between 350 to 800 Iraqi forces," meaning that, according to Giambastiani's statement, between 26,250 and 60,000 Iraqi troops are now "leading operations" -- far fewer than the "more than 250,000" Baier had previously reported. Following that press briefing, also on May 9, Baier noted that U.S. commanders "say 75 Iraqi battalions are now in the lead." But Baier issued no correction and made no attempt to explain, or even note, the discrepancy between his new figure and the one he had given the previous week.
From the May 9 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume:
BAIER: As of today, commanders say 75 Iraqi battalions are now in the lead fighting the insurgency, and nearly a third of them are operating independently of U.S. troops.
Fox's Baier falsely claimed report found 250,000 Iraqi troops "leading operations"
On the May 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Pentagon correspondent Bret Baier falsely claimed that a new report by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), found that the "more than 250,000" Iraqi troops "are leading operations" in Iraq. In fact, the SIGIR report did not address the number of Iraqi troops that are "leading operations." A Pentagon report, however, suggests that the number is far lower than Baier claimed.
As Baier noted, the "April 30, 2006, Quarterly and Semiannual Report to Congress" from SIGIR stated: "Approximately 250,500 Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior forces have been trained and equipped for counter-insurgency and police operations." This figure includes 115,700 Iraqi military personnel and 134,800 police and other Interior Ministry forces. The SIGIR report did not indicate the status or readiness of any of these forces.
The SIGIR report did state that "[i]n March 2006, soldiers from the 6th and 9th Iraqi Army Divisions, with support from coalition forces, led Operation Glory Light, one of the largest operations of the last six months." The report added, however, that "[s]ecurity conditions have delayed the transfer of security responsibilities to Iraqi forces."
The most recent version of the Pentagon's Iraq report, "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq" -- published in February -- suggests that far fewer Iraqi troops are "leading operations" than Baier claimed. At the time, the Pentagon estimated that there were 227,300 "trained and equipped" Iraqi troops, 106,900 of whom served in the Iraqi military. According to the Pentagon report, 61 Iraqi military units were "in the lead" or "fully independent." The White House has said that units are "typically comprised of between 350 to 800 Iraqi forces," meaning that at the time of the report, between 21,350 and 48,800 Iraqi military troops were designated by the Pentagon as "in the lead." (On February 24, Pentagon officials acknowledged that the number of Iraqi army units capable of operating independently had fallen to zero.)
According to the February Pentagon report, Iraq also had 120,400 Interior Ministry forces, mostly police and highway patrol. The report measured the readiness levels of only the ministry's 28 National Police and Emergency Response units. The report did not assess the readiness of the Iraqi Police Service and highway patrol, which comprise the bulk of the ministry's forces. According to the report, 10 of the National Police and Emergency Response units, or between 3,500 and 8,000 troops, were "in the lead" or "fully independent."
From the May 1 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BAIER: Inspector General Stuart Bowen painted the report very differently.
BOWEN: The reconstruction program, though punctuated with deficiencies and occasional shortfalls, nevertheless in this report particularly conveys a picture of overall progress.
BAIER: The biggest success story, according to the report, is that more than 250,000 Iraqis are now trained and equipped as soldiers or police and are leading operations.
he got his figures from the Paris Business Review?
This is Fox News demonstrating their uncanny ability to 'read between the lines'. In the end, it's all 'fair' and it 'balances' itself out. LOL
... at www.pulleditoutofmybutt.com...
now America can finally withdraw its troops and let the Iraqis fight their War.
that is the positive side that Cheney was talking about. Too bad it was made up, but that is what you get when you listen to politicains and lend yourself for propaganda.
that that figure seems stupid even on first glance.
How could a nation of that size *possibly* have such a military unless they have a widespread draft? Especially considering it's a nation with a fledgeling government in a state of civil war.
claimed not even a couple of weeks ago that there isn't a single Iraqi battalion capable of operating indipendently from the US troops. How can another report come out so soon stating that 250,000 Iraqi troops are now running the show? Yes people, we are also WINNING this WAR!
This item nails it: The ridiculous b.s. talking points of "leading operations" and being "in the lead".
The fact of the matter is that there is not one single operation jointly conducted by U.S. and Iraqi forces in which Iraqi forces are "leading operations" or "in the lead".
There lies the rub: Who exactly is it "in the lead" on joint operations?
Not one person at the Pentagon would ever dare publicly lie and say that U.S. troops are in any way, shape, or form, under the command or "leadership" of Iraqi forces.
These people sometimes stretch their bull a bit too far; this is one of those times.
Anything to spin support for the president's claims of "progress"; anything to make it seem that Iraqi forces are "standing up".
I don't know what's more sickening, the thought of U.S. troops on joint operations being placed in harm's way by the "leadership" of Iraqi troops, or of the Administration's rhetoric that would imply such a thing.
So they can lead, they just can't operate?
those 25.000 or 250.000 or whatever forces involved in operations were actually looking at an episode of ER.
LOL
Who is this putz???
This leaves no doubt in my mind concerning the future chances of success for the new Iraqi army.
[link to movies.crooksandliars.com]
The rhetoric of this talking-point "in the lead" and "leading operations" is sickening.
Why can't this guy, or anyone else who utters that talking-point, take the time to define just what the heck "in the lead" or "leading operations" is supposed to mean?
I'll tell you why: because what it's supposed to imply is that there are joint operations in Iraq (jointly being conducted by U.S. Troops and Iraqi "troops") in which those Iraqi "troops" are taking some kind of "leadership role"...
And you know why no one's going to define it even that much? Because that would imply that Iraqi "troops" or Iraqi "commanders" were making strategic and tactical decisions that were placing U.S. Troops (our Sons and Daughters) in harm's way...
That's what "in the lead" and "leading operations" means, it means being in a position of "leadership" on joint operations; well, it's not happening and should never happen and will never happen...
As sickening as this talking-point is, the idea of it being true (which it is not!) is far more sickening.
The only thing Iraqi "troops" or "commanders" can ever be "in the lead" of, is themselves and their own country; which they are not, and will not be, so long as U.S. Troops are occupying Iraq.
And believe me when I say, that none of our U.S. Troops, our Sons and Daughters, are under the "leadership" of any Iraqi "troops" or "commanders", on joint operations or operations of any kind.
You make a good point. If these Iraqi troops are actually LEADING now, that means US Troops are just FOLLOWING (because these are "joint" operations, with Iraq in the lead).
Where are the Conservatives who become appoplectic and livid whenever it's suggested that US Troops might be following orders from someone in the UN? Why, it's an OUTRAGE that US Troops might follow orders from anyone but a US Commander!!! they say.
But not now. Now it's GREAT NEWS that US Troops are following Iraqi military leaders' orders. Go figure.
In one of the finest pieces ever written pointing out media inaccuracies, H.L. Mencken followed the progress of Nationalist troops up and down China as depicted in several months of Time magazines.
It's been a long time since I read it so my numbers are far less accurate than either Time's or Foxes, and Mencken's language is much funnier than mine, but he started with a quote talking about several hundred or so "brave" Chinese Nationalist divisions. Then he quotes from a week or two later when Time speaks about the "valiant" 400 Nationalist divisions marching somewhere.
The next quote refers to the same valiant troops, all 250 divisions of them, and the next issue finds the 475 divisions somewhere that two issues later the 300 divisions are marching away from. But the 600 divisions turn up cross-country the next issue.
He deftly wonders about the miraculous recruiting and the tremendous attrition that Time is apparently missing, and deadpan, traces the divisions too and fro.
It's a hilarious read, but it is also a classic journalism lesson.