1: It was the National Review. As reliable a source as the US DoD. Honest and accurate if it fits their agenda. And only if.

2: The link leads to a page which says the article isn't available.

3: The quotes don't say whether the "Iraqis" were Kurds or not. Kurds are Iraqis, as Chechens are Russian. As Basques are Spanish. There is NO way any lasting peace or stability in Iraq can be achieved by using Kurds to fight Sunnis and Shiites.

4: Reports such as that have been historically "unreliable". The US military seems to have been involved more than indicated on many of these occasions. However the PR people seem to want to stress the competence of the Iraqis.

5: There are as many reports of Iraqi military and police personnel kidnapping and killing members of other Islamic sects. The Ministry of Interior was found to have tortured prisoners in its' basement, for instance. Their crime was to be Sunni.

6: If the abilities of the Iraqi police and army were close to that claimed they would be able to secure Baghdad easily. The democratically elected government could travel outside the Green Zone safely, and peace would exist, if not reign.

7: Here is a link to a more current article on "training" Iraqi forces for the Baghdad "surge". A sample quote.

"Colonel Stephen Kilpatrick told him the same battalion being trained now was asked to send troops to Baghdad for last year's Operation Together Forward "and effectively they mutinied".

"Shots were fired at the commanding officer's car and they did not get there."

That bodes ill. If the Brits can't guarantee that the folks they train can't get there, let alone perform, why should Americans die to do it?

Arf