Up Down Up Down

First we're training them to "stand up so we can stand down" then we're not. Then we were, now were not. I'm so confused:

USA Today leads with the top U.S. official in charge of training Iraqi security forces saying that the priority has shifted away from training local troops. Brig. Gen. Dana Pittard said that this is because of an increased focus on providing security for Iraqis as well as the operations targeting al-Qaida in Iraq.

....

Pittard told USAT that although training Iraqi security forces so they can take over is "still a priority," at the moment it "is not a main priority." This could go a long way to explaining why the Pentagon had reported a "slight reduction" in combat-ready Iraqi troops. Pittard also said that the extra troops that were sent to Iraq as part of the "surge" will probably have to stay until the spring and Iraqis will still need support from the U.S. military for at least another two years.

That little "two year stay" nugget is interesting. I'd have to say this announcement by this guy, who's likely gone off the reservation in terms of announcements, is likely closer to the real intentions of the Pentagon and White House. I suspect that those on the ground know it's futile to build an Iraqi central government army that is rife with waring civil factions.