Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT: Surge is not working

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
uberllama42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-04-07 06:37 AM
Original message
NYT: Surge is not working
BAGHDAD, June 3 — Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

<snip>

In an interview, he said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly.

That is forcing American commanders to conduct operations to remove insurgents from some areas multiple times. The heavily Shiite security forces have also repeatedly failed to intervene in some areas when fighters, who fled or laid low when the American troops arrived, resumed sectarian killings.

Full Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/world/middleeast/04surge.html?hp
__________________________________________________________________________________

Okay, so the Shiite-dominated police are refusing to crack down on violence by Shiite militia groups, and the Iraqi Army is not taking responsibility for security in the majority of neighborhoods. The result is that the same areas need to be cleared repeatedly by the U.S. Army's First Cavalry.

These are precisely the problems which the surge was intended to remedy, or so we were told. Supposedly the 17,500 additional Army soldiers sent to Baghdad would work with the Iraqi Security Forces to ensure that they wouldn't have to clear neighborhoods repeatedly any more. The entire thing was predicated on the willingness of the Shiite government to crack down on Sunni militias.

Is anyone surprised at this? Baghdad has little chance of being pacified by anything short of permanent U.S. military presence in every neighborhood. Supposedly the rest of the country is going to fall in line after the initial challenge of Baghdad is overcome. It should be clear to everyone that the only answer is withdrawal as soon as possible. Why has no one in the government stopped the president and his war by now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC