From: "Rich Gauszka" 

"Mark"  wrote in message news:4400f9f1{at}w3....
> Why did you think that relatively minor afterthought was the important
> news
> in the story?  were presenting the gist of the story, not an outlier that very, very
> shakily supported your POV>
>
> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:4400f66f{at}w3....
>>
>> >>
>> Why? - I gave you the full link.  Why do you think the 'lone' battalion
>> was downgraded? The key word is downgraded ( from a status it previously
>> had )
>>
>
>
>

I don't think 'downgraded' is a relatively minor item as it was supposedly
at level one.  Or was that assessment purely for  PR?
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/24/iraq.security/

The battalion, according to the Pentagon, was downgraded from "level
one" to "level two" after a recent quarterly assessment of
its capabilities.

"Level one" means the battalion is able to fight on its own;
"level two" means it requires support from U.S. troops; and
"level three" means it must fight alongside U.S. troops.

Though officials would not cite a specific reason for downgrading the unit,
its readiness level has dropped in the wake of a new commander and numerous
changes in the combat and support units, officials said.

.....

According to the congressionally mandated Iraq security report released
Friday, there are 53 Iraqi battalions at level two status, up from 36 in
October. There are 45 battalions at level three, according to the report.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5