This is one of those stories that would almost be funny if it weren't so sad:
The U.S. commander of a new offensive north of Baghdad, reclaiming insurgent territory day by day, said yesterday his Iraqi partners may be too weak to hold onto the gains made.
The Iraqi military does not even have enough ammunition, said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek: "They're not quite up to the job yet." His counterpart south of Baghdad seemed to agree, saying U.S. troops are too few to garrison the districts in the capital newly rid of insurgents. "It can't be coalition [U.S.] forces. We have what we have. There's got to be more Iraqi security forces," said Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch.
He said U.S. forces now control about 60 percent of the city's west side, but "the challenge now is, how do you hold onto the terrain you've cleared? You have to do that shoulder-to-shoulder with Iraqi security forces. And they're not quite up to the job yet." Across Diyala province, where Baqouba is the capital, Iraqi troops are short on uniforms, weapons, ammunition, trucks and radios, he said.
Forgive me for stating the obvious here, but if the goal is to win the war in Iraq why wouldn't the Bush administration ensure Iraqi forces have enough weapons, ammunition and supplies? Is it just incompetence or have they designed it this way to keep the Iraq forces off the front lines? I'd love to hear the explanation for this one from the pro-war crowd. Come on people, let's hear it.
Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!