Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal »
Posted by: TechnologyExpert 1 year, 3 months ago231 Comments Report this Story
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.
Read Full Story at nytimes.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 231
-
100%
TechnologyExpert1 year, 3 months ago
The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to "to protect the population" and "maintain physical influence over" only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.
Reply-
-
0%
gamahuche1 year, 3 months ago
"American troops in March discovered a group of Iraqis in police uniforms setting up an E.F.P. near a bridge. They were using police vehicles to provide cover.
The American soldiers killed two of the bomb planters. They later discovered that one had a badge granting him wide access to the Green Zone, the fortified area in central Baghdad where the American Embassy and most Iraqi government buildings are situated."
Clearly no one knows who is who amongst the Iraqis. It seems very unlikely that this is a one-off. I'm still trying to discern any strategy to win hearts and minds. Without that there is no hope for this Iraq misadventure - nothing new about that I guess! Which leaves the unanswered question - what will be the tipping point or when will the US get the message that its a lost cause and find a formula which allows them to extricate themselves without a total loss of face..
Reply
-
-
0%
SantaM1 year, 3 months ago
This is obviously a dissappointment, but not a surprise.
The United States military is not a police force. Basic Training does not consists of crime prevention, it consists of how to kill people. and they do that well!
But this isn't their game anymore. it's not their fault, they were issued rifles and tanks and told to "go make peace!"
The US messed this up... Bush, yes, but everyone else for allowing it to happen, too. We need to own up to it. admit that while we were successful in overthrowing saddam, and offering these people freedom, we are incapable of securing peace by ourselves.
a large gesture needs to be made to the rest of the world for help. or else we will leave and it will become darfur and a coalition of the western world will need to go back in to clean the fall out up.
Reply-
0%
libsRfunny1 year, 3 months ago
"In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face 'resistance,' according to the one-page assessment"
The only thing I find not surprising is how liberals choose to ignore the salient points quoted above - just as they choose to ignore the indictment of Dem. Congressman William Jefferson earlier today. Had it been a republican, you can bet it already would be a "top story" on Netscape.
Reply
-
0%
shyanbelle1 year, 3 months ago
You people are so quick to leave out stuff. Why leave out the part that says THEY HAVEN'T ENTERED ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS YET!
Or the fact that nearly all of Iraq is way safer now then before and the real problems are in Shiite areas of BAGHDAD ONLY! The Sunni areas have been turning in people left and right.
Iraq isn't just Baghdad, but its nice to know the NYTimes is still relaying half stories as truths. Guess thats why the Bush haters continue to have fuel to add to their fire, because people are to stupid to look at the big picture.
Truth is, over 70% of Iraqi's want the us there. FACT!
Truth is, the troops want to stay and finish the job, FACT!
Truth is, the only governments in the region supporting the USA to leave is Syria and Iran. The rest, including the Iraqi government have called for help until 2010.
So those who can see through the halve truths. Know whats really going on. And will continue to support the Iraqis who want the same freedoms as US.
Reply-
100%
GenButler1 year, 3 months ago
The present Iraqi government is a sham operation. The "elections" there were frought with violence and intimidation anmd saw very low participation. Nevertheless there are many "elected" Iraqi ministers who are critical of the U.S. occupation and I have listened to interviews with many Iraqis who say things are worse now than they were under Hussain. Think about it; under Saddam there was torture and corruption and political repression ( all supported by the United States and Brittain for decades) and now under the occupation there is torture and corruption and political repression AND no clean water, very little electricity, curfews, road blocks, check points, bombed-out roads and buildings and depleted uranium causing spikes in birth defects and cancer rates.
With Hussain Iraq had a dictator to rebel against in hopes of re-establishing the democracy they once had.
Local tyrant or foreign army occupying your country; which would YOU choose?
Reply -
0%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
"You people are so quick to leave out stuff. Why leave out the part that says THEY HAVEN'T ENTERED ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS YET!"
This may come as a shock to you but the fact that thousands of additional troops have been there for three months and in the vast majority of neighborhoods "they have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face resistance" isn't exactly a testament to the success of the surge.
P.S. Shouting "FACT" (while providing no supporting data or links) after you state an opinion doesn't make your arguments compelling.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
el4sail1 year, 3 months ago
SAN ANTONIO, United States (AFP) - The man who commanded US-led coalition forces during the first year of the Iraq war says the United States can forget about winning the war.
ADVERTISEMENT
"I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will -- not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat," retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview.
Sanchez, in his first interview since he retired last year, is the highest-ranking former military leader yet to suggest the Bush administration has fallen short in Iraq.
"I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time," Sanchez told AFP after a recent speech in San Antonio, Texas.
Reply-
-
59%
endtyranny1 year, 3 months ago
Because he chose to break from the Bush admin's political machine? Probably.
Reply -
0%
Sabretooth1 year, 3 months ago
Exactly process, there seems to be no room for truth or realism in the current government but they can make room if you are a yes person.
Reply
-
-
40%
shyanbelle1 year, 3 months ago
LMAO He gets dropped, starts having get togethers with liberals and suddenly its only winnable in a stalemate. Well guess what. HE was in charge and f'd it up. So he's more to blame then bush is. Hes there!
So congrats on pointing out whats a dumb ass Sanchez is.
Reply
-
-
75%
aniokly1 year, 3 months ago
The Democrats with held the funds for the additional troops until last week. So they have not been on the ground for four months. Democrats will lie about anything, and they need to be called on their lies. As for the former Generals, maybe they were the incompetent people. They tried to fight a P C war where the enemies are not P C.
Reply-
20%
MntnWllm1 year, 3 months ago
Political rhetoric is one thing, but that is an idiotic contribution. You can actually blame the demos for this horrific quagmire that is Iraq? And, blame the generals means you blame the troops. But you say you Support the Troops? Gen Sanchez seems to be an especially good man and General - things would have been WORSE without him.
Reply-
80%
vor1 year, 3 months ago
They gotta blame somebody!
Bush says he has complete confidence in his commanders on the ground has said this since the war began. Then they come out of the field, tell the truth, and the Right-wing smear machine attacks. All of the sudden they are not honorable, have not devoted their careers to defending this nation, and have assailed the President's leadership in hopes of assisting our enemies. They are now Goldstein's. If you don't get that reference it is from "1984". And this always comes from those who swear they love America and support the troops.
Reply -
33%
shyanbelle1 year, 3 months ago
horrific quagmire?
Talk about dumb comments. Explain what makes it a quagmire, the fact terrorist are responsible for 80% of the deaths and your dumb enough to think its the Bush administrations fault because Iran is next door sending troops to cause chaos, al qaeda, hezbollah, ect.
Yeah such a horrific quagmire. CAUSED BY TERRORIST IRAN AND SYRIA!!
You people are seriously so one sighted you have nothing worth listening to. Its like a room for of idiots who refuse to admit the skies blue and grass is green because their enemy says it is.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
copperfloor1 year, 3 months ago
Right, just like republicants always do when they spin and lie but no one ever says they lack credibility until recently when us liberals and democrats finally had enough.
Reply
-
-
67%
quackpot1 year, 3 months ago
That, aniokly, is a FALSE statement.
The Department of Defence repeatedly stated that they had sufficient funds to operate without any problem through June. After June, they would have had to shuffle papers to juggle the accounts. At NO TIME was the lack of funds a problem.
If you have information to the contrary, please cite a legitamate reference.
Reply -
46%
Shirtless1 year, 3 months ago
The funds were withheld because President Bush vetoed the funding bill, so any responsibility in that regard is exclusively his. Why did he veto the bill? Because it recognized that he is squandering our national blood and treasure in a useless conflict, and being the arrogant moron that he is, he could not admit that.
The spineless Democrats, ignoring the mandate that got them elected, then caved in.
Policing the neighborhoods of Baghdad is not our job. That is what the Baghdad Police Department is supposed to do. If they cannot or will not do that, I am not willing to die for that, and I do not support the sending of other Americans to do so either.
For all those persons who support President Bush's war in Iraq, I have two questions:
(1) How do you define victory in Iraq?
(2) How will we know when it has been achieved?
Reply-
47%
HateKoolAid1 year, 3 months ago
People who keep saying the demos ignored the mandate given them in the '06 election and caved in don't know about the two thirds rule. It takes about 66 votes to override a veto. At least 16 republicans would have had to break ranks and join the democrats to get funding with a time line provision. Had the demos stood their ground and refused to pass any bill this country would have screamed for their scalps,including you Shirtless, for abandoning the troops. As to your two questions it is simple; when the Iraqis sign the "oil deal".
Reply -
0%
Tangent0011 year, 3 months ago
I get annoyed over the 'spineless Democrats' rhetoric being flung about. Did you really think the Dems had any chance of ending this war? Bush & Co. have been hell-bent on staying in Iraq since day one.
Their best shot is continuing with the investigations into the muck of this administration, then perhaps anough Republicans will jump ship to do some real good. If the Dems would have 'stood their ground', Lieberman would likely have followed through with his threat to defect to the GOP, and suddenly everything stops. Subpoena power is lost, investigations evaporate AND Bush still gets his funding.
Pelosi & Co. pushed through a great deal of legislation in those first 100 days. We now have a light shining into some formerly dark places, and Repubs shying away from their once imperturbable support of everything Dubya.
Reply -
100%
dunkirk1 year, 3 months ago
Altho one of the main reasons Dumya gave was the timetable and how it aided the enemy. Oh and I have yet to hear any REPUBLICAN explain how the TIMETABLE Bush proposed less then two days after signing the funding bill LESS timetable from teh Dems wasn't hypocrisy.
Reply
-
-
100%
torrent291 year, 3 months ago
This is a particularly ignorant statement. The war did not run out of funding during the time that bill was debated, nor were they drastically short of money.
Further, what exactly would you have us do? Randomly kill people? Kill anything that looks at us threateningly?
We are fighting a PC war because Bush illegally invaded a country that was at the time little threat to us, to make it look like we are there to fight the 'good fight' is to fight a PC war. To do otherwise would be proving all of those terrorists correct.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
MntnWllm1 year, 3 months ago
so, obviously you feel we can cut taxes and spend a BILLION $ every day or so in the foolish Iraq debacle? More smoke and mirrors from BushCheneyInc that some one else will have to clean up in the future. Also, I believe Ike first lowered (at least reduced) taxes on the richest Americans in the late 50s.
Reply-
100%
Sabretooth1 year, 3 months ago
I would love to see the credit cards of people like star53 that think you can take in less money and then go all out on a spending spree. Try that yourself and let me know how you like your new cardboard box house.
Reply
-
-
100%
foksipayne1 year, 3 months ago
I agree with the capitalized portion of your statement but the stereotyping is getting old. plenty of "pugs" are spending and criticising, and probably all the other crap you said, too.
Reply -
-
33%
copperfloor1 year, 3 months ago
star53, do us all a favor, if you truly believe what you have just said, put down your southern cross, shave your hitler moustache, take a swig of whiskey and jump into a nice deep pool of quicksand.
Reply
-
-
0%
dandt16121 year, 3 months ago
As of 8 am this morning 17 of OUR soldiers lost their lives in Iraq since Friday. If things are getting better and the surge is working so well. Why is the death toll for OUR soldiers going up. May was the third highest month for dead soldiers.
I can't believe the number of people still living in denial that things are going so well. It makes me sick when I hear someone defending this atrocious war and acting like it's nothing but good for the US.
Peace
Reply-
34%
lum-chate1 year, 3 months ago
Some of these comments are exasperating. Spending $1 more on Iraq is
nonsense. Down the road, if the general who runs Pakistan loses control thats when the real (not imagined scary stuff begins) and it might happen because he decided to ally himself with Bush. Most of the real right wing Muslims lurk in Pakistan (aren't they now harboring Bin Laden) and they mean business.
Reply -
-
100%
MntnWllm1 year, 3 months ago
Darn right they'll follow us home; now more than ever. And if BushCheneyInc has anything further to add to that situation, they'll be following us home for decades (hmm, 8-10 yr olds there will hate us most when they are 18-40, so, yeah, we have 30 years of hate we have inspired by this horrific lying mistake we've allowed)
Reply -
100%
Sabretooth1 year, 3 months ago
Not only are they following you home but the ones here are now mad enough to likely start plotting on their own.
Reply -
50%
dunkirk1 year, 3 months ago
Wow good thing we;re staying there huh? I mean those insurgents would NEVER find their way here until we left would they?
Oh but wait we have 150K troops plus thousands of contractors to fight maybe 25K insurgents. WHo cant react to events because of THAT situation? Who has trouble meeting commitments because of that situation? Who cant maintain enlistment levls because of that situation?
Reply
-
-
-
100%
4cprocess1 year, 3 months ago
"according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times"
"The assessment offers the first comprehensive look at the progress of the effort to stabilize Baghdad with the heavy influx of additional troops."
Someone needs to give these two dumb a s s reporters (David S. Cloud & Damien Cave) a dictionary so they can look up the meaning of "comprehensive". From a "one-page" assessment? LMAO
"The American assessment, completed in late May"
By whom? Don't they think the "source" of the assessment would be of significance?
"When planners devised the Baghdad security plan late last year, they had assumed most Baghdad neighborhoods would be under control around July, according to a senior American military officer."
So why don't they wait and see how things are in JULY!
Typical totally dufuss reporting again by none other that our beloved NY Times.
In God We Trust
Reply-
71%
RedSoxGirl1 year, 3 months ago
NY Times?
They have been paying for their extreme liberal views on account of their declining number of subscriptions.
Why bother?
Reply -
HanymanComment removed: User banned.
-
60%
mesodude1 year, 3 months ago
Nice little hatchet job you did on the quote there, 4c. Was that the quote that FUX News told you and your war cheerleader buddies to regurgitate? Try this one instead:
"In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face "resistance," according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad."
Reply-
86%
4cprocess1 year, 3 months ago
I feel priviledged that you would compare me to the leader in cables news but if you read and understand the article you would know that it's the fault of the Iraqi police and not our soldiers that may have them behind schedule.
That was my point.
If you call supporting our troops "cheerleading" then I guess that's what I am.
No need to be so crass just because you disagree. Anyway, the timetable needs to be put on the Iraqi people and not our troops. And trust me, there is no one page report that can summarize everything going on over there. It's a little more complicated than that.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
lum-chate1 year, 3 months ago
They the Muslim right wing religious reactionaries are already here. The major worry to most rational people is the 5th column already present in our country & guess what our government is going to allow 7,000 Iraqis to relocate here, how many of the 7,000 do you think love America after the damage we did to their land without provocation. Most intend to reside in the Dearborn area which is already infested with Muslim radicals. Our soldiers are fighting a thankless fight in Arabia they should be here protecting the homeland!
Reply -
