"There is a disconnect between the very positive public pronouncements that we are hearing and the reality on the ground," Crocker said. "It's maybe understandable because of the politics of it. But to be faced with beheadings, daily bombings and vastly increased attacks against U.S. forces, and the establishment of these 'no-go areas,' and to then say it's only dire pessimists raising questions seems to deny the reality."

Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told Congress this week that while he could use international and Iraqi forces to bolster his 135,000-person operation in Iraq, he didn't think the United States itself would need to send more troops.

But Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., one of the administration's most vocal critics, challenged that notion during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing at which Rumsfeld spoke. Reed read from a new report by a Pentagon-appointed panel, the Defense Science Board, which identified "a lack of long-term endurance" in the military. Troops are stretched so thin, the report found, that if Iran, North Korea or some other hot spot flares up, the United States would be hard-pressed to respond. Rumsfeld shrugged off the report, telling the committee that better management, such as using civilians to do tasks now performed by uniformed personnel, would free more troops for combat.

In an interview with Salon, Reed called that approach "legitimate," but pointed out that the Defense Department "has been trying to do that for a couple of years," and yet "the experts who have been looking at this have come to the conclusion that we [still] need more troops."

Asked about reports that Fiji is considering contributing troops in Iraq, Reed diplomatically praised the South Pacific island nation, saying, "We certainly appreciate the contributions of any country around the globe." But they are of little help, he added, if troops "are not capable of doing particular missions and of supporting themselves logistically. And, I mean, how many troops is Fiji really going to bring?"

Another gaping hole in the Bush line about Iraq exposed this week is the notion that 100,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained to fight alongside Americans. In fact, only about 4,700 of those new forces so far are trained for military action, as opposed to police work or other less intense security tasks, Reed told Salon.

What's more, the few forces that Americans have been able to train and equip are not always reliable. In an interview on NBC Thursday, Tom Brokaw told Allawi that the network had recently sent a correspondent and crew to Samarra, where they encountered Iraqi troops working with anti-American insurgents -- helping them smash radios the U.S. military had distributed in the hopes that the local people would tune into American-sponsored radio programming. Allawi breezily replied: "Now the situation has changed."

Rep. Tauscher understands why Iraqi troops' loyalties are divided: "It's like if Tennessee were to declare war on Arkansas. I don't think we, as Americans, could imagine the Tennessee National Guard running into Arkansas to fight the Arkansas National Guard," she said. The American-trained Iraqi troops are being asked to fight people who "all look like they do, are from their tribe, or live down the street. It's an unnatural act."

Seeking to defend his version of the Iraq war this past week, the president dismissed the CIA's dire National Intelligence Estimate of Iraq's future as a "guess," delivered a defiant speech before the United Nations, welcomed the cooperative Allawi and dispatched his political surrogates to attack Kerry as aiding and abetting terrorism. But next week, during the first debate, he and Kerry will finally clash face to face.

Recent Stories