The Real Story of Iraq and how the war is Going.

The New York Times


October 25, 2006
Military Analysis
Iraqi Realities Undermine the Pentagon’s Predictions
By MICHAEL R. GORDON

BAGHDAD, Oct. 24 — In trying to build support for the American strategy in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. said Tuesday that the Iraqi military could be expected to take over the primary responsibility for securing the country within 12 to 18 months.

But that laudable goal seems far removed from the violence-plagued streets of Iraq’s capital, where American forces have taken the lead in trying to protect the city and American soldiers substantially outnumber Iraqi ones.

Given the rise in sectarian killings, a Sunni-based insurgency that appears to be as potent as ever and an Iraqi security establishment that continues to have difficulties deploying sufficient numbers of motivated and proficient forces in Baghdad, General Casey’s target seems to be an increasingly heroic assumption.

On paper, Iraq has substantial security forces. The Pentagon noted in an August report to Congress that Iraq had more than 277,000 troops and police officers, including some 115,000 army combat soldiers.

But those figures, which have often been cited at Pentagon news conferences as an indicator of progress and a potential exit strategy for American troops, paint a distorted picture. When the deep-seated reluctance of many soldiers to serve outside their home regions, leaves of absence and AWOL rates are taken into account, only a portion of the Iraqi Army is readily available for duty in Baghdad and other hot spots.

The fact that the Ministry of Defense has sent only two of the six additional battalions that American commanders have requested for Baghdad speaks volumes about the difficulty the Iraqi government has encountered in fielding a professional military. The four battalions that American commanders are still waiting for is equivalent to 2,800 soldiers, hardly a large commitment in the abstract but one that the Iraqis are still struggling to meet.

From the start, General Casey’s broader strategy for Iraq has been premised on the optimistic assumption that Iraqi forces could soon substitute for American ones. In February 2005, General Casey noted that in the year ahead the United States would begin to “transfer the counterinsurgency mission to the increasingly capable Iraqi security forces across Iraq.”

In June 2006, General Casey submitted a confidential plan to the White House projecting American troop withdrawals that would begin in September 2006 and which, conditions permitting, would lead to a more than 50 percent reduction in American combat brigades by December 2007. Iraq’s security forces were to fill the gap. In keeping with that strategy, American forces cut back their patrols in Baghdad during the first half of 2006.

It did not take long before the plan had to be shelved and American forces increased to try to tamp down the sectarian killings there. Still, General Casey continued to portray the current surge in fighting as a difficult interlude before the Iraqi security forces could begin to assume the main combat role and some variant of his withdrawal plan for American forces could be put back on track.

As he said Tuesday, “It’s going to take another 12 to 18 months or so till, I believe, the Iraqi security forces are completely capable of taking over responsibility for their own security, still probably with some level of support from us, but that will be directly asked for by the Iraqis.”

Certainly, the Iraqi security forces have made some gains. The Iraqi military is larger and better trained, and has taken control of more territory in the past year. Some Iraqi soldiers have fought well. But in Baghdad, which American commanders have defined as the central front in the war, it is still a junior partner.

To improve the Iraqi forces, the American military is inserting teams of military advisers with Iraqi units. American officials also say their Iraqi counterparts are trying to use the lure of extra pay to persuade reluctant troops to come to the aid of their capital.

But longstanding problems remain. A quarter or so of a typical Iraqi unit is on leave at any one time. Since Iraq lacks an effective banking system for paying its troops, soldiers are generally given a week’s leave each month to bring their pay home.

Desertions and absenteeism are another concern. According to the August Pentagon report, 15 percent of new recruits drop out during initial training. Beyond that, deployment to combat zones, the report adds, sometimes results in additional “absentee spikes of 5 to 8 percent.”

As a result, the actual number of Iraqi boots on the ground on a given day is routinely less than the official number. In areas where the risks and hardship are particularly great, the shortfall is sometimes significant. In fiercely contested Anbar Province in western Iraq, the day-to-day strength of the Seventh Iraqi Army Division in August was only about 35 percent of the soldiers on its rolls, while the day-to-day strength of the First Division was 50 percent of its authorized strength.

Another complication is that the even-numbered divisions in the 10-division army have largely been recruited locally and thus generally reflect the ethnic makeup of the regions where they are based. So, much of the Iraqi Army consists of soldiers who are reluctant to serve outside the areas in which they reside. Several battalions have gone AWOL rather then deploy to Baghdad, an American military officer said.

The Iraqi government is well aware of such problems. Its plan is to increase the overall size of the military by 50,000, calculating that if it assigns extra troops to each unit they can be maintained near full strength when soldiers go on leave or are otherwise absent.

The difficulties with the Iraqi police, who are supposed to play a major role in protecting cleared areas under the Baghdad security plan, are considerable and include corruption and divided loyalties to militias. According to the Pentagon report, the Interior Ministry also lacks an effective management system. The Americans know how many Iraqis have been trained to work as police officers but not how many are still on the job.

The National Police have been a particular worry. One National Police unit has been withdrawn from duty in Baghdad because it was linked to sectarian killings. National Police brigades are now being removed from duty one by one for retraining with an eye to changing, as General Casey put it, the “ethos of these forces.”

In the final analysis, the problem is more one of institution building than numbers. Until Iraq has a genuine unity government that its own forces respect and are willing to fight for, it seems likely that the American military will continue to shoulder most of the burden.
7,744 views 26 replies
Reply #1 Top

Nothing you vomit from your festering fingers is the "real" anything.

Whether it's diarrhea of your mouth or butt, it smells the same.

Your very existance is pollution to the world around you.  Fleas have more purpose in life than your sad existance.

 

Reply #2 Top
ParaTed2K

You are a NUT CASE. I posted a story that tells it like it is. NONE of these words are from me. Is there nothing that you people that blindly support the failed policies of GWB will acknowledge? Your just like him and you are a SAD group of people!!!!!
Reply #4 Top
ParaTed2K

You are a NUT CASE. I posted a story that tells it like it is. NONE of these words are from me. Is there nothing that you people that blindly support the failed policies of GWB will acknowledge? Your just like him and you are a SAD group of people!!!!!


And you're an IDIOT! You post a story by a "known" leftist paper and try to call it fact. How sad! Would you like me to post the articles that "refute" what the NYT is saying?
Reply #5 Top
Drmiler

Can you ever say anything but leftist. The story is TRUE. That same information was published by other news outlets. Are ALL the Bush supporters as big of an ASS as you? I guess they are!
Reply #6 Top
What did an old Chinese sage say? "Take a dump and flies come in two seconds." That's ParaTed2K and his ilk: the flies who swarm around the slightest criticism
on the way the war is going in Iraq. What you guys should do is comment without the filth--or hold your tongues!
Reply #7 Top
Drmiler

Can you ever say anything but leftist. The story is TRUE. That same information was published by other news outlets. Are ALL the Bush supporters as big of an ASS as you? I guess they are!


You don't like the word "leftist"? How about "liberal" instead? The NYT has a proven track record of being "exactly" like you! Anything at all just so long as it looks bad for Bush! Is everyone on the left/liberal side as idiotic as you seem to be? God I hope not.
Reply #8 Top
drmiler

PROVE the NYT Story is not true!
Reply #9 Top
Some More Stories:

Pentagon covers up failure to train and recruit local security forces
by Andrew Buncombe
and Kim Sengupta and Raymond Whitaker
February 13, 2005

The Independent Printer Friendly Version
EMail Article to a Friend
Training of Iraq's security forces, crucial to any exit strategy for Britain and the US, is going so badly that the Pentagon has stopped giving figures for the number of combat-ready indigenous troops, The Independent on Sunday has learned.

Instead, only figures for troops "on hand" are issued. The small number of soldiers, national guardsmen and police capable of operating against the country's bloody insurgency is concealed in an overall total of Iraqis in uniform, which includes raw recruits and police who have gone on duty after as little as three weeks' training. In some cases they have no weapons, body armour or even documents to show they are in the police.

The resulting confusion over numbers has allowed the US administration to claim that it is half-way to meeting the target of training almost 270,000 Iraqi forces, including around 52,000 troops and 135,000 Iraqi policemen. The reality, according to experts, is that there may be as few as 5,000 troops who could be considered combat ready.

The gap between troops "on hand" and the overall target for fully trained and equipped security forces has actually widened in recent months, according to John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington-based think-tank. Between October and November last year, just before the Pentagon quietly stopped giving figures for fully trained troops, the shortfall more than doubled, from 69,400 to 159,000. At current levels, the targets would not be met until next year.

The sleight of hand over troop numbers provoked a sharp clash during Condoleezza Rice's Senate confirmation hearings to become Secretary of State. After she quoted Pentagon figures claiming 122,000 Iraqis had been trained, she was told by Democratic Senator Joseph Biden: "Time and again this administration has tried to leave the American people with the impression that Iraq has well over 100,000 fully trained, fully competent military police and personnel. And that is simply not true. We're months, probably years, away from reaching our target goal."

David Isenberg, an analyst at the British and American Security Council, said "disaster is too polite a word" for efforts to train Iraqi forces. "We are not being honest about the numbers," he added. "We have no consensus about who has been trained, about who we are talking about."

The insurgency, which has claimed the lives of 60 police, soldiers and would-be recruits since the election, has disrupted both sides of the equation. Not only has it forced the occupation authorities to drastically increase their estimate of the required number of Iraqi security forces , but training and recruitment have been disrupted by constant attacks, desertions, political suspicion and a catalogue of errors by the invaders, starting with disbanding the Iraqi army immediately after the war.

The Iraqi police force is considered the biggest failure, being poorly equipped and trained. US officials also say that tens of thousands of Iraqis are claiming police salaries but are not working, and nearly half of the force has been sent for further training.

A police colonel told the IoS: "I keep on hearing that we have been trained and we have been given the arms necessary by the Americans. But I seem to have missed all that. We have had people sent here who I would not trust at all. I have discovered that the Americans have made no checks on these men. Do you wonder why police stations and army barracks get blown up?"

Meanwhile, recommendations to attach more US advisers to the fledgling Iraqi units stoke fears that this Vietnam-era policy will further delay any exit from Iraq.

Heralded Iraq Police Academy a 'Disaster'

By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 28, 2006; Page A01

BAGHDAD, Sept. 27 -- A $75 million project to build the largest police academy in Iraq has been so grossly mismanaged that the campus now poses health risks to recruits and might need to be partially demolished, U.S. investigators have found.

The Baghdad Police College, hailed as crucial to U.S. efforts to prepare Iraqis to take control of the country's security, was so poorly constructed that feces and urine rained from the ceilings in student barracks. Floors heaved inches off the ground and cracked apart. Water dripped so profusely in one room that it was dubbed "the rain forest."



The Baghdad Police College was built so poorly that feces and urine trickle from the ceilings, and floors rise inches off the ground and crack apart. (Photos By The Office Of The Special Inspector General For Iraq Reconstruction)

Special Report

Washington Post stories and multimedia reports about Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Terror and more.

• Faces of the Fallen
• Veterans: In Their Own Words
• Afghan Reconstruction

» FULL COVERAGE


Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
SamGail
CorrenteWire | Ecrasez l'infame!
Editorials from Hell's leading daily newspaper, The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork


Full List of Blogs (196 links) »


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share
Tag This Article


Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Byline

2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Blurb

3. Tag This Article

"This is the most essential civil security project in the country -- and it's a failure," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an independent office created by Congress. "The Baghdad police academy is a disaster."

Bowen's office plans to release a 21-page report Thursday detailing the most alarming problems with the facility.

Even in a $21 billion reconstruction effort that has been marred by cases of corruption and fraud, failures in training and housing Iraq's security forces are particularly significant because of their effect on what the U.S. military has called its primary mission here: to prepare Iraqi police and soldiers so that Americans can depart.

Federal investigators said the inspector general's findings raise serious questions about whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has failed to exercise effective oversight over the Baghdad Police College or reconstruction programs across Iraq, despite charging taxpayers management fees of at least 4.5 percent of total project costs. The Corps of Engineers said Wednesday that it has initiated a wide-ranging investigation of the police academy project.

The report serves as the latest indictment of Parsons Corp., the U.S. construction giant that was awarded about $1 billion for a variety of reconstruction projects across Iraq. After chronicling previous Parsons failures to properly build health clinics, prisons and hospitals, Bowen said he now plans to conduct an audit of every Parsons project.

"The truth needs to be told about what we didn't get for our dollar from Parsons," Bowen said.

A spokeswoman for Parsons said the company had not seen the inspector general's report.

The Coalition Provisional Authority hired Parsons in 2004 to transform the Baghdad Police College, a ramshackle collection of 1930s buildings, into a modern facility whose training capacity would expand from 1,500 recruits to at least 4,000. The contract called for the firm to remake the campus by building, among other things, eight three-story student barracks, classroom buildings and a central laundry facility.

As top U.S. military commanders declared 2006 "the year of the police," in an acknowledgment of their critical role in allowing for any withdrawal of American troops, officials highlighted the Baghdad Police College as one of their success stories.

"This facility has definitely been a top priority," Lt. Col. Joel Holtrop of the Corps of Engineers' Gulf Region Division Project and Contracting Office said in a July news release. "It's a very exciting time as the cadets move into the new structures."

Reply #10 Top
drmiler

PROVE the NYT Story is not true!


Nope, sorry. You're the one that posted it, not me. "YOU" prove it's true.
Reply #11 Top
No paper the size of the NYT would publish a story they did not have back up for or knew was correct. The facts on the ground prove the store. Bush today said he is not satisfied with the way the war is progressing. The latest CNN poll shows only 20% of Americans believe we are winning this war. You can not show ANY proof that the NYT story or any other story about how badly this war is going is not true. Who would believe you over the NYT? Only an idiot! I guess the 93 dead American so far this month is also a lie!
Reply #12 Top
No paper the size of the NYT would publish a story they did not have back up for or knew was correct. The facts on the ground prove the store. Bush today said he is not satisfied with the way the war is progressing. The latest CNN poll shows only 20% of Americans believe we are winning this war. You can not show ANY proof that the NYT story or any other story about how badly this war is going is not true. Who would believe you over the NYT? Only an idiot! I guess the 93 dead American so far this month is also a lie!


Right....just like any major tv news source would not air something they had no real proof to back it up with? Tell that to Dan Rather and CBS.

We've been over the polls bit before. It didn't fly then and it ain't flying now. And just for the record......I NEVER said believe me over the NYT! Grow up, will ya?
Reply #13 Top
"Since Iraq lacks an effective banking system for paying its troops, soldiers are generally given a week’s leave each month to bring their pay home."

If this is true, this is B.S. in 3 years we couldn't figure out a way to have Haliburton distribute Visa Check cards, and setup an ATM system in their country?
Reply #14 Top
drmiler

The CBS story did use a document that was not valid. However the story is true [/B]and has been proven by the Bush military records. Thus the story was TRUE even though the letter that was used by CBS was not the actual letter. [B]However, the women that typed the ACTUAL letter said that what was in the CBS letter was true.
Reply #15 Top
drmiler

The CBS story did use a document that was not valid. However the story is true and has been proven by the Bush military records. Thus the story was TRUE even though the letter that was used by CBS was not the actual letter. However, the women that typed the ACTUAL letter said that what was in the CBS letter was true.


BS!!!! That has been "proven" false so many times I've lost count.

From DOD! Please note the "last" performance eval "signed by" Killian!

Link

So once again you are shown to be "wrong"!
This is from wikipedia by CBS:

Several months later, a CBS-appointed independent panel detailed criticism of both the initial CBS news segment and CBS' "strident defense" during the aftermath.[3] The findings in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report led to the firing of producer Mary Mapes; several senior news executives were asked to resign, and CBS apologized to viewers. The panel did not specifically consider the question of whether the documents were forgeries but concluded that the producers had failed to authenticate the documents and cited "substantial questions regarding the authenticity of the Killian documents."


Or this:


Findings
On January 5, 2005 the Report of the Independent Review Panel on the September 8, 2004 60 Minutes Wednesday Segment "For the Record" Concerning President Bush's Air National Guard Service was released. (The complete report is available here.)

The purpose of the panel was to examine the process by which the September 8 Segment was prepared and broadcast, to examine the circumstances surrounding the subsequent public statements and news reports by CBS News defending the segment, and to make any recommendations it deemed appropriate. Among the Panel's conclusions were the following:

The most serious defects in the reporting and production of the September 8 Segment were:
The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any document examiner;
The false statement in the September 8 Segment that an expert had authenticated the Killian documents when all he had done was authenticate one signature from one document used in the Segment;
The failure of 60 Minutes Wednesday management to scrutinize the publicly available, and at times controversial, background of the source of the documents, retired Texas Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett;
The failure to find and interview the individual who was understood at the outset to be Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’ s source of the Killian documents, and thus to establish the chain of custody;
The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the Segment that the documents "were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files";
The failure to develop adequate corroboration to support the statements in the Killian documents and to carefully compare the Killian documents to official TexANG records, which would have identified, at a minimum, notable inconsistencies in content and format;
The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;
The misleading impression conveyed in the Segment that Lieutenant Strong had authenticated the content of the documents when he did not have the personal knowledge to do so;
The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the production speed, significance and sensitivity of the Segment; and
The telephone call prior to the Segment’s airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry—a clear conflict of interest—that created the appearance of a political bias.


And lets try this:


Authentication issues
Main article: Killian documents authenticity issues
Since CBS used only faxed and photocopied duplicates, authentication to professional standards is likely to be impossible regardless of the provenance of the originals. Accordingly, no generally recognized document experts have positively authenticated the memos.

Document experts have challenged the authenticity of the documents as photocopies of valid originals on a variety of grounds ranging from anachronisms of their typography, their quick reproducibility using modern technology, and to errors in their content and style.[67] The CBS independent panel report did not specifically take up the question of whether the documents were forgeries, but retained a document expert, Peter Tytell, who concluded the documents used by CBS were most likely produced using modern technology.[68] Thomas Phinney, an Adobe computer font expert[69] and Joseph Newcomer, a computer typography pioneer and Windows typography expert[70] agree in their opinion that the documents are modern forgeries.

Dr. David Hailey, who holds a doctorate in technical communication and is an associate professor and director of a media lab at Utah State University, has issued a report in which he argues that the Killian documents were produced on a typewriter, without making a judgement on their authenticity.[71]

For a detailed analysis of these issues, see Killian documents authenticity issues.


Or this link. You really ought to try understanding what you're reading.
Link
Reply #16 Top
drmiler

YOU are incorrect. I have copies of the Bush National Guard record that shows he was grounded for not taking the required physical and copies of his OER which stated he did not attend drills and could not be evaluated. I saw the secretary on numerous news shows and she said "SHE DID TYPE a letter to GWB directing him to take his physical although the actual copy CBS used was not a copy of the actual letter she typed.

The truth of the failure of Bush to take his physical, his subsequent grounding and his failure to attend drills has been established by the records he and DOD released.
Reply #17 Top
drmiler

YOU are incorrect. I have copies of the Bush National Guard record that shows he was grounded for not taking the required physical and copies of his OER which stated he did not attend drills and could not be evaluated. I saw the secretary on numerous news shows and she said "SHE DID TYPE a letter to GWB directing him to take his physical although the actual copy CBS used was not a copy of the actual letter she typed.

The truth of the failure of Bush to take his physical, his subsequent grounding and his failure to attend drills has been established by the records he and DOD released.


ONCE again for those with out the brains to read. Go BACK and READ my first link! It IS from the DOD! That link IS the records the DOD released and it does NOT prove your point. Rather it does the exact opposite! It "proves" my point. So wrong yet again.
Reply #18 Top
Drmiler

I have a copy of Bush's OER that says he could NOT be evaluated because he did not attend drills. I have a copy of the order that grounded Bush and the reason stated on that order is because Bush failed to take a REQUIRED Physical. You are WRONG!!!
Reply #19 Top
Drmiler

I have copies of Bush's OER that says he could NOT be evaluated because he did not attend drills. I have a copy of the order that grounded Bush and the reason stated on that order is because Bush failed to take a REQUIRED Physical. You are WRONG!!!




http://www.glcq.com/docs/oer_5-2-73.htm (This shows copy of his OER)

The OER says:

"Lt Bush has not been observed at this unit (the unit he was assigned to) during the period of report (1 may 72-30 April 73)"

Signed LTC William Harris.

"I concur with the comments of the reporting official"

Signed LTC Jerry Killiah



Bush's Military Record Reveals Grounding and Absence for Two Full Years

"I think that people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life. I think that's part of the need for a cultural change. We need to say that each of us needs to be responsible for what we do." – George W. Bush in the first Presidential debate, October 3, 2000.

''I did the duty necessary ... That's why I was honorably discharged" – George W. Bush, May 23, 2000

by Robert A. Rogers (USAF - Ret)

01/24/04: (Progressive Trail) From the beginning of his Presidential campaign, George W. Bush has forcefully and repeatedly insisted that he faithfully fulfilled all his military obligations by serving his time as a member of the Texas Air National Guard.

But the first independent investigation of Bush's military record by a former Air National Guard pilot has revealed the following:

1. Pilot George W. Bush did not simply "give up flying" with two years left to fly, as has been reported. Instead, Bush was suspended and grounded, very possibly as a direct or indirect result of substance abuse.
2. The crucial evidence – a Flight Inquiry Board – that would reveal the true reasons for Bush's suspension, as well as the punishment that was recommended, is missing from the records released so far. If no such Board was convened, this raises further questions of extraordinary favoritism.
3. Contrary to Bush's emphatic statements and several published reports, Bush never actually reported in person for the last two years of his service – in direct violation of two separate written orders. Moreover, the lack of punishment for this misconduct represents the crowning achievement of a military career distinguished only by favoritism.

This in-depth investigation and analysis of Bush's apparent misconduct over the last two years of his six year obligation suggests that Bush did not fulfill all of his military obligations to the Texas Air National Guard and to his country, contrary to his repeated assertions.

Moreover, Bush's misconduct could have resulted in significant disciplinary action by his Commanding Officer, ranging in severity from temporary or permanent grounding, a career-damaging letter of reprimand, to forced reenlistment in the US Army (including active duty in Vietnam), to a less-than honorable discharge.

These issues are not trivial, nor are they ancient history. This cloud of questions goes to the heart of George W. Bush's promises to restore honor and integrity to the White House, to strengthen the military, and to speak the plain truth on the campaign trail.

If Bush had received a less-than honorable discharge, it is safe to say that he would not be the Republican candidate for President today. But the absence of any sign of severe disciplinary action in the records we obtained raises serious questions that can only be answered if Bush himself requests the release of his full military service record.

Avoiding Vietnam through Preferential Treatment

George W. Bush graduated from Yale in May of 1968, at the height of the Vietnam War when half a million young American men were fighting for their country and dying at the rate of 350 per week. Bush, who mostly distinguished himself at Yale through his social activities, vocally supported the war. But he was not prepared to put his own life on the line. He had no desire "to be an infantry guy as a private in Vietnam," he said.

Instead, Bush wanted to become a fighter pilot like his father, who flew heroic combat missions in the Pacific during World War II. "I wanted to fly, and that was the adventure I was seeking," he told the New York Times in July. Bush denies that he was trying to avoid combat. "One could argue that was trying to avoid being the infantryman but my attitude was I'm taking the first opportunity to become a pilot and jumped on that and did my time," he said.

But Bush did not join the full time active duty military. Instead, he chose to enlist for "weekend warrior" duty in the Air National Guard, where he could fulfill his military obligation far away from the risk of combat and pursue his civilian career, including working in several Republican Senate campaigns. "Had my unit been called I would have gone ... to Vietnam," he said. But like everyone else at the time, he knew the chances of that happening were slim. And when his application form asked about an overseas assignment, he checked "do not volunteer."

Competition for the few openings in the National Guard was intense, and there was a waiting list of 100,000 nationally at the time. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on January 17, 1968. He scored 25%, the lowest possible passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion. On his application form, he listed his "background qualifications" as "none." But despite the waiting list, his low score and his lack of qualifications, Bush was given a highly-coveted spot and was sworn in on May 27 for a six-year commitment, taking a solemn oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution and the United States of America.

Bush and his father have adamantly denied that he received preferential treatment, despite the fact that his father was then a U.S. Representative from Texas and his grandfather Prescott had been a prominent U.S. Senator from Connecticut. But the Speaker of the House in Texas at the time, Ben Barnes, admitted under oath last year that he had received a request from a longtime Bush family friend, Sidney Adger of Houston, to help Bush get into the Air National Guard. Barnes further testified that he contacted the head of the Texas Air National Guard, Brig. Gen. James Rose, to pass along Adger's request.

When asked about this sworn testimony, Bush was evasive: "I have no idea and I don't believe so," he said. But according to the Boston Globe, Bush "vaulted to the top of a waiting list of 500."

This preferential treatment in gaining entry to the Air National Guard set the pattern for Bush's treatment throughout his six-year obligation, including his rapid promotion to pilot and 1st Lieutenant, his sudden disappearance from the skies with two years left to fly, and his failure to report for a single day of duty in his final two years contrary to two specific orders.

After he completed only six weeks of basic airman training, Bush received a commission as a second lieutenant in the Texas Air National Guard. This was by means of a 'special appointment' by the commanding officer of his squadron, with the approval of a panel of three senior officers. This 2nd Lt. commission was extraordinary, since it normally required eight full semesters of college ROTC courses or eighteen months of military service or completion of Air Force officer training school. It was so unusual that Tom Hail, the Texas National Guard historian, told the Los Angeles Times that he "never heard of that" except for flight surgeons.

Despite a score of only 25% on his pilot entrance aptitude test, Bush was then assigned to flight school, a posting that was normally reserved to pilots graduating from ROTC training or Air Force officer training. That was immediately followed by further favoritism in being 'fast tracked' over those on the existing pilot applicant waiting list into the 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, a standby runway alert component of the 143rd Group, one of several tactical Guard units responsible for defending the Southern coast of the Continental U.S. against attack.

Along with the rest of his squadron, Bush was trained to fly the missile-equipped supersonic F-102 Delta Dart jet interceptor fighter. By July of 1970, Bush had earned his wings and racked up approximately 300 hours of training flight time in the F-102. This qualified him to fly the F-102 without an instructor, but was far short of the 500 hours of experience required for volunteer active duty combat operations in Vietnam.

At this point in the Vietnam War, the US Air Force desperately needed additional F-102 pilots to fly the dangerous reconnaissance missions so important to the fate of American troops on the ground. With only a small amount of solo flying experience, Bush applied for a voluntary three month Vietnam tour, perhaps counting on preferential treatment once again to overcome his lack of readiness, or perhaps safe in the knowledge that his request would certainly be rejected.

When Bush was summarily turned down for this volunteer active duty option, he was left to fly as a "weekend warrior" in the Texas Air National Guard out of Ellington AFB near Houston Texas. On November 3, 1970, while Bush's father was being re-elected to Congress from Houston, Bush was promoted to 1st Lieutenant by Brig. General Rose, the same man who got Bush into the Texas National Guard at the request of the Bush family friend.

The Clouds Set In

The newly-released records reveal that 1st Lt. Bush was credited with 46 days of flight duty from June 1970 to May 1971, expected Guard weekend duty and 'extra' runway standby alert time for that year. However, that would be the last time that Bush fully met his qualified jet fighter pilot obligation to serve four complete years as a fully trained and qualified fighter pilot.

Beginning sometime after May of 1971, Bush stopped living up to his sworn obligation to the Texas Air National Guard and thereby his country. By May of 1972, he was credited with only 22 flight duty days, 14 days short of the minimum 36 days he owed the Guard for that year. And then things went from bad to worse.

Astonishingly, Bush suddenly disappeared from the skies altogether near the start of his fourth year. Bush flew for the last time in the cockpit of an F-102 in April of 1972. From that point on, Bush never flew again, in spite of the fact that he still had two full years remaining of his six-year pilot service commitment. And on May 15, 1972, Bush simply "cleared this base" according to a written report by one of his two Squadron supervising officers, Lt. Col. William D. Harris Jr.

On May 24, Bush requested in writing a six-month transfer to an inactive postal Reserve unit in Alabama, for the stated purpose of working on the campaign of a Republican Senate candidate. If Bush had been temporarily transferred there, he would not have continued flying until he returned to Texas, because the Alabama unit had no airplanes.

In fact, Bush's transfer request was denied by National Guard Bureau headquarters on May 31 1972, and Bush should have returned to his base in Houston and continued with his flying duties. Instead, he remained in Alabama until late in the fall. And something critical happened on August 1, 1972 – George W. Bush was summarily suspended from flying duties.

1. Was pilot George W. Bush suspended and grounded with two years left to fly as a direct or indirect result of substance abuse?

"George Walker Bush is one member of the younger generation who doesn't get his kicks from pot or hashish or speed ... As far as kicks are concerned, Lt. Bush gets his from the roaring afterburner of the F-102." Texas Air National Guard press release, March 1970.

There is no dispute that George W. Bush stopped flying with two years left in his commitment to the Texas Air National Guard and to his country at the height of the Vietnam War. The big question that has never been satisfactorily answered is: Why?

According to the Boston Globe – the only major publication that has examined the last two years of Bush's military service in depth – Bush simply "gave up flying" to spend six months on a Republican Senate campaign in Alabama.

But this explanation is highly suspect, because fully trained and currently qualified pilots with two remaining years of flying obligation are rarely permitted to simply "give up" without some form of disciplinary action beyond just suspension.

A pilot's completion of his six-year obligation is especially important because of the heavy investment the Government makes to provide jet fighter pilots with two full years of active duty training. In today's money, the US Government paid close to a million dollars to train 1st Lt. Bush in a highly complex supersonic aircraft.

One of Bush's newly-released service documents provides a significant clue to his sudden disappearance from the skies. In a confirmation memo to the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force dated September 29, 1972, Major General Francis Greenleaf, then Chief of the National Guard Bureau in Washington DC, confirmed the suspension of 1st Lt. George W. Bush from flying status. This written confirmation cites an earlier August 1, 1972 verbal order of the TX 147th Group's Commanding Officer that suspended and grounded Bush from flying duty for "his failure to accomplish annual medical examination."

There are two ways to interpret this crucial memo: either 1st Lt. Bush took his mandatory annual flight physical for pilots and failed it for some as-yet undisclosed reason, or he refused to present himself in the first place to an Air Force Flight Surgeon, who were readily available in almost every state.

Campaign officials originally brushed off this crucial event by suggesting that Bush was simply unable to travel to Houston to visit his family physician. But the Boston Globe reported that Air Force Flight Surgeons were assigned to Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery Alabama, where he was then living.

More recently, campaign officials claimed that Bush did not technically need to take his flight physical. "As he was not flying, there was no reason for him to take the flight physical exam," campaign spokesman Don Bartlett told the London Times in June. But this assertion is false, because Bush was technically still qualified to fly until after his "failure to accomplish annual medical examination," which led to his suspension and grounding. Moreover, Bush should have been flying from his home base in Texas at the time of his scheduled annual physical in August, because his request for a transfer to Alabama had been rejected on May 31.

Bush's spokesman admitted that Bush "knew the suspension would take place" if he failed to complete his mandatory annual flight physical. But he writes it off to mere red tape, saying "it was just a question of following the bureaucratic procedure of the time."

But this suspension meant, at least momentarily, the end of his dream to be a pilot. This was something he worked hard to achieve, something he was proud of and bragged about, something important to his family, and something that senior Texas Air National Guard officials had gone to great lengths to make possible. Therefore, Bush's "failure to accomplish annual medical examination," could not have been either casual or accidental.

Moreover, Bush had to have known that this suspension could subject him to a punishment beyond just temporary suspension. In fact, Bush could have been permanently suspended or even reprimanded for his actions.

Why would a physical exam present a problem for 1st Lt. Bush? A little-know fact reported in the London Times and the New York Post on June 18, 2000 gives a powerful clue. In April 1972 – the same month that Bush "gave up" flying – all the overseas and stateside military services began subjecting a small random sample in their ranks to substance abuse testing for alcohol and drugs. The Pentagon had announced its intention to do so initially back on December 31, 1969. If Bush reported for his scheduled physical in August 1972, he could have been subject to selection for a random substance abuse test.

Bush's spokesman told the London Times that Bush "was not aware of any changes that required a drug test." But this does not hold up under scrutiny. In 1969 – the year following Bush's enlistment – the Pentagon notified every unit in the military that it would implement random drug testing at some point in the near future. When that moment arrived – April 1972 – every enlisted person and officer throughout the military, both overseas and stateside, would have been aware of this dramatic change. After all, the whole purpose of the random drug testing was to make it absolutely clear to everyone in the Armed Forces that the Pentagon would not tolerate substance abuse of any kind by anyone.

There is circumstantial evidence pointing to substance abuse by Bush during this period. On the campaign trail, Bush has stated that he has not used drugs or alcohol in excess since 1974. But this chronology makes it possible that he was in fact abusing one or more of these substances in the summer of 1972.

Moreover, interviews with friends during this period reveal that Bush partied and drank regularly, and Bush admits he was a hard drinker at the time. And over the Christmas holidays, Bush got into a widely-reported emotional showdown with his father after taking his 16-year-old brother Marvin drinking, hitting garbage cans while driving home.

Thus, the September 29 memo is a "smoking jet" which points to a potentially devastating interpretation: that Bush stopped flying two years short of his obligation because of substance abuse – either directly, because he failed his physical exam, or indirectly, because he refused to take it out of fear that he would fail it.

Is it unreasonable to raise the possibility that 1st Lt. Bush was suspended from flying as a direct or indirect consequence of substance abuse? It might be if there was no way for Bush to prove his innocence. But George W. Bush can readily defend himself, if he so chooses, simply by voluntarily releasing his complete military record.

A voluntary disclosure of this kind is not without precedent. During the South Carolina Republican primary this campaign year, rumors were spread by fellow Senators about Senator John McCain's mental health as a result of his imprisonment as a POW. McCain immediately quashed those rumors by voluntarily releasing his entire military record, which confirmed no indications of adverse physical or mental conditions.

Thus, Bush could easily put to rest the questions surrounding "his failure to accomplish annual medical examination" – and his subsequent suspension – if he would simply release his complete military service record, which cannot be released by the Air Force without Bush's explicit consent.

2. Was a Flight Inquiry Board of senior Air Force officers convened to determine the appropriate punishment for Bush's misconduct?

Regardless of the explanation for Bush's suspension, there is another crucial question: Was this suspension sufficient disciplinary action for such a flagrant dereliction of duty at a time when the Air Force was reeling from a serious pilot shortage at the peak of the Vietnam War?

In the Air National Guard, expensively trained pilots are not casually suspended. There is normally a Flight Inquiry Board, which exercises the military chain of command's obligation to insure due process. If one had been convened, its three senior officer members would have documented why such a severe action was justified in relation to the country's military objectives at the time, as opposed to the simple desire of a trained pilot to just "give up flying".

In the event of serious misconduct, such as substance abuse, a Flight Inquiry Board would have determined the appropriate punishment. The punishments could have included temporary or permanent 'grounding,' a career-damaging letter of reprimand, forced reenlistment in the US Army with active duty in Vietnam, or a less-than honorable discharge.

In fact, there is no evidence now in the public domain that a Flight Inquiry Board was convened to deal with Bush's official reclassification to a non-flying, grounded status. However, the records of such a Board would not be subject to an ordinary FOIA request because of privacy protections under FOIA.

This absence of a Flight Inquiry Board is of particular interest to veteran pilots who are intimately familiar with normal disciplinary procedures. In the absence of Bush's releasing his complete service record, the implication is that Bush's misconduct in regards to "his failure to accomplish annual medical examination" was handled like everything else in his military service: aided and abetted by powerful family connections with total disregard for the needs of the military as well as Bush's solemn oath.

Once again, the only way to get to the truth would be for George W. Bush to personally request the release of his full military records.

3. Did Bush altogether dodge his subsequent scheduled Guard duty obligations for two years after his grounding, and should he have received additional punishment for this misconduct?

"I spent my time and I went to the Guard. It's just not true. I did the duty necessary...any allegations other than that are simply not true." (George W. Bush, May 23, 2000, CNN)

The questions about Bush's unfulfilled service record do not end with his suspension and effective grounding on August 1, 1972. The central question for the remaining two years is whether he fully and legitimately completed his original six-year attendance obligation to the Texas Air Guard and his country, as sworn under oath upon his enlistment, or if he simply dodged his remaining non-flying duties.

Bush has said repeatedly that he completed his service obligations. But a careful review of his record tells a very different story.

On September 5, 1972, more than three months after his transfer request to an inactive Alabama unit was refused, Bush was finally ordered to start serving three months in an active but non-flying administrative Guard unit, the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Alabama, for four certain duty days in October and November.

Despite this direct written order, there is no official notation in his service record that Bush ever showed up for any of this duty. General William Turnipseed and Lt. Col. Kenneth Lott, who commanded the base at the time, told the Boston Globe that Bush never appeared. "To my knowledge, he never showed up," Turnipseed said in May.

Bush insists he did, according to the Dallas Morning News. "I was there on temporary assignment and fulfilled my weekends at one period of time. I made up some missed weekends. I can't remember what I did, but I wasn't flying because they didn't have the same airplanes. I fulfilled my obligations," he said while campaigning in Alabama on June 23.

But the Bush campaign conducted its own search of Bush's military records, and could not find evidence that Bush performed any duty in Alabama, the Dallas Morning News reported. The only published reports were from personal friends who say they remember Bush telling him that he planned to report for duty, but no reports of anyone in the Guard who actually saw him. Moreover, Interceptor Magazine, a monthly official National Guard publication distributed nationwide, ran advertisements asking for anyone to step forward who remembered seeing Bush on duty. This inquiry came up empty-handed.

This raises the next question of whether 1st Lt. Bush was intentionally absent from assigned duty contrary to a specific written order, which is the civilian/Guard Airman equivalent of AWOL. This absence could normally result in disciplinary action beyond a slap on the wrist by his parent Squadron's Commanding Officer.

When the three-month term of his apparently unfulfilled temporary order in Alabama ended in November 1972, Bush returned home to Houston Texas until the fall of 1973. However, he again did not report in person for non-flying duty to his parent Texas 111th Squadron during this whole time.

Bush offers a different excuse for this period: that the 111th Squadron was switching to a newer jet, so he could not fly. But the unit's commander told the Boston Globe that Bush could have continued to fly the F-102, which remained in service in his unit past the end of Bush's six-year commitment. "If [Bush] had come back to Houston, I would have kept him flying the 102 until he got out," he said. "But I don't recall him coming back at all." Given that this Commanding Officer used Bush extensively for publicity and recruiting purposes during his flying days, it is unlikely that he would have simply forgotten Bush from the day he wrote that Bush "cleared the base" in May 1972.

Still, Bush reappeared on the Texas Air Guard's radar screen in May 1973. Bush was ordered to attend nine certain duty days in person during Summer Camp at Ellington AFB between May 22 and June 7. But 1st Lt. Bush did not do so – making him apparently absent contrary to a specific written order for a second time in less than a year.

According to the Boston Globe, Bush "spent 36 days on duty" from May until July of 1973, but this is a clear misunderstanding of the record. Our more recent FOIA request produced an unsigned and undated one page listing of 35 inactive Reserve temporary duty credit days starting May 25 through July 30, 1973. This document is a paper confirmation that Bush did not actually report for duty in person at the Texas Air National Guard on any of these days. In addition, no one in the Texas Air Guard at the time, from the top command down, has stepped forward to say they saw Bush in person on a single day between May 22 and July 30, 1973 – just as no one saw Bush during his three month assignment in Alabama.

Instead, Bush in fact was credited with 35 "gratuitous" inactive Air Force Reserve points – in other words, non-attendance inactive Reserve credit time. The proof that this time was "gratuitous" is the absence of any Bush duty time of any kind on his official Texas Air National Guard record all the way from the May 26 1972 entry of 22 pilot duty days for the prior year. This is because "gratuitous" time does not count as scheduled Texas Air Guard duty. This leaves Bush without a single legitimate Texas Air National Guard service day for his fifth and sixth years of service to his Texas Air National Guard discharge on October 1, 1973 – a critical fact that has been misunderstood in several previous reports of this period of Bush's service.

On October 1, 1973 – fully eight months short of his full six-year service obligation and scheduled discharge on May 26, 1974 – Bush was prematurely discharged with honors from the Texas Air Guard, in spite of his failure to report in person for any for duty over the prior 18 months. This is the very last entry on his official half-page Texas Air Guard service record. Another Reserve archive record released under our FOIA request goes on to indicate eventual final inactive Reserve discharge with honors in November 1974, but civilian Bush was attending Harvard Business School as a full-time student by that time.

There was no record received under our FOIA request that indicate any more Reserve credit beyond July 30, 1973. This is also puzzling, but does not add any further insight into the fractured Texas Air National Guard attendance pattern after April 1972.

Conclusion

Anyone seeking to be President of the United States and its Commander in Chief, and who has campaigned specifically on a promise to restore honor and integrity to the office, strengthen the military, and tell the plain truth, should be prepared to discuss his past record of service to his country. Candidate Bush has a duty to the American people, as well as his fellow military comrades-in-arms, to fully and accurately answer all of these grave questions about his exceedingly convenient and prematurely short military service.

Bush's available service records raise very serious questions that reflect heavily on his qualifications for President. By disclosing the full contents of his official service record, Bush could clear up the cloud of questions that still linger 32 years after his first oath to the United States.
Reply #20 Top
iler

I have a copy of Bush's OER that says he could NOT be evaluated because he did not attend drills. I have a copy of the order that grounded Bush and the reason stated on that order is because Bush failed to take a REQUIRED Physical. You are WRONG!!!


I "really" don't know "why" you keep after this. It's a NON-STORY! Bush goes out of office in 2008 and not before. And there ain't spit "you" can do about it. So get over it, will ya? If there was "any" real factual evidence to what you're saying the left would have had him removed from office before this! That they were not able to do it tells me there's nothing there! So just keep on yammering about it if makes you feel better. But "nothing" will come of this. I lump you in the "same" category as Hanoi John Kerry! Same tired lines, same stupid rhetoric.
Reply #21 Top
drmiler

You are the one that brought this issue up.

Reply By: drmiler Posted: Wednesday, October 25, 2006
No paper the size of the NYT would publish a story they did not have back up for or knew was correct. The facts on the ground prove the store. Bush today said he is not satisfied with the way the war is progressing. The latest CNN poll shows only 20% of Americans believe we are winning this war. You can not show ANY proof that the NYT story or any other story about how badly this war is going is not true. Who would believe you over the NYT? Only an idiot! I guess the 93 dead American so far this month is also a lie!


Right....just like any major tv news source would not air something they had no real proof to back it up with? Tell that to Dan Rather and CBS.

Reply #22 Top
The OER says:

"Lt Bush has not been observed at this unit (the unit he was assigned to) during the period of report (1 may 72-30 April 73)"

Signed LTC William Harris.

"I concur with the comments of the reporting official"

Signed LTC Jerry Killiah


Your "still" wrong BTW. I don't know where you get your info from but it's obviously incorrect. That is unless you're accusing the DOD of posting false reports. According to what DOD posted it says, and I quote "Not rated form the period of 1 May 72 through 30 April 73. Report not available for "ADMINISTRATIVE REASONS"!

The OAE actually states, and again I quote from DOD:

Lt Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report. A civilian occupation made it necessary for him to move to Montgomery, Alabama. He cleared this base on 15 May 1972 and has performed equivalent training in a non-flying status with the 187 Tac Recon Gp, Dartnelly ANG base, Alabama.

Signed "William D. Harris, Jr Lt.Col dated 2 May 1973
and countersigned by Jerry B Lillian Lt. Col also dated 2 May 1973
who stated that: "I concur with the comments of the reporting official".

Also for the record....the link that "you" provided leads to a page that states:


ERROR PAGE:



THE AWOL PROJECT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. Most of the articles are still in “first draft” form, and require considerable revision.





IF YOU GOT HERE FROM A LINK TO A BUSH FILE MILITARY DOCUMENT, STATUTE, REGULATION, OR AIR FORCE POLICY, please report the broken link to [email protected]



IF YOU GOT HERE FROM A LINK TO A ARTICLE, it means that this particular piece isn’t ready for “prime time”. However, serious researchers who wish to examine these pieces can write to [email protected] , and I’ll provide them for you.


Where as "my" link directs you "directly" to a DOD page. So in essence you have "diddlely" to prove your point.And so you're "proven" wrong once more!
Reply #23 Top
Bush had NO permission to transfer to a unit in Al. In fact his request was turned down. In addition his pay records showed that for 5 months Bush did not attend drills at ANY location. In addition, Bush was a pilot and had a responsibility to fulfill that assignment. He had no authority to miss his drills and not to maintain his flight status. When he REFUSED to take a REQUIRED physical he was GROUNDED! I spent 30 years in the military and I can assure you members of the military do not REFUSE to report for duty when and where they are ordered and they do not refuse to take their annual physicals.
Reply #24 Top
Bush had NO permission to transfer to a unit in Al. In fact his request was turned down. In addition his pay records showed that for 5 months Bush did not attend drills at ANY location. In addition, Bush was a pilot and had a responsibility to fulfill that assignment. He had no authority to miss his drills and not to maintain his flight status. When he REFUSED to take a REQUIRED physical he was GROUNDED! I spent 30 years in the military and I can assure you members of the military do not REFUSE to report for duty when and where they are ordered and they do not refuse to take their annual physicals.



Once again for the "visually" impaired...go to the link "I" posted which leads you DIRECT TO THE DOD site and "read" what's there! Link According to the DOD "everything" you're saying is WRONG "including" the part where you say he had no permission to transfer to the AL unit. That is a flat out lie! And "my" link PROVES it! Do I really need to post the "entire" pdf file before you'll admit that you're wrong?

Try again foolish one.
Reply #25 Top
drmiler

You do not address the fact that for 5 months in late 1972 Lt Bush DID NOT ATTEND ANY DRILLS ANYWARE! You do not address the fact that Lt. Bush DID NOT TAKE A REQUIRED PHYSICAL and was grounded. The only reason Bush was in the National Guard was to be a pilot. The taxpayers spent a lot of money training Bush to fly and he just stopped flying with more then two years under his obligation to the military. Please explain this. Members of the military do not choose not to report for duty (5 months when he absent) and do not refuse to take a REQUIRED annual physical! That is not the way military discipline operates. Bush did not obey military regulations and used his fathers influence to avoid punishment for not obeying his orders and regulations!