WASHINGTON, Sept. 11 — The political and security situation in western Iraq is grim and will continue to deteriorate unless the region receives a major infusion of aid and a division is sent to reinforce the American troops operating there, according to the senior Marine intelligence officer in Iraq.
The assessment, prepared last month by Col. Peter Devlin at the Marine headquarters in Anbar Province, has been sent to senior military officials in Iraq and at the Pentagon.
While the American military is focused on trying to secure Baghdad and prevent the sectarian strife there from escalating into a civil war, the assessment points to the difficulties in Anbar, a vast Sunni-dominated area of western Iraq where the insurgency is particularly strong. The province includes such restive towns as Ramadi, Haditha and Hit.
Marine commanders have been mounting a campaign to secure the province in the face of a virulent insurgency. But they have had to cope with seriously short-handed Iraqi Army units and a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad that has tended to view the area as a low priority for government spending and programs.
One factor that has hampered the American counterinsurgency effort has been the limited number of American troops.
Without the deployment of an additional division, “there is nothing MNF-W can do to influence the motivation of the Sunni to wage an insurgency,” the report states, according to a military officer familiar with it. MNF-W stands for Multinational Force-West, the formal name of the Marine command. A division numbers about 16,000 troops. The limited number of troops, however, is just one problem in countering the insurgency there, the report says. The assessment describes Anbar as a region marked by violence and criminality. Except for a few relatively bright spots, like the towns of Falluja and Qaim, the region generally lacks functional governments and a respect for the rule of law. - New York Times (Bold mine - DG) -------- Didn't somebody say a while back that more troos would be needed? Was it a general? Maybe a US politician? Wasn't the administration's position that there were enough?
In a week, we will have been in Iraq for 42 months.
Forty-two months after the Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776), the British surrender at Yorktown was 21 months away.
Forty-two months after the War of 1812 started (The US declared war on Britain on June 18, 1812.), the Treaty of Ghent was signed, ending the war. (The Battle of New Orleans was fought in January, 1815. News traveled slowly.)
Forty-two months after the US Civil War started, Sherman was in Atlanta, and was 2 months away from capturing Savannah, his march to the sea being complete. The end of the Civil War was 6 months away.
Forty-two months after the US entered World War I, the war had been over for 21 months.
Forty-two months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the US entered World War II, the US had won back the Philippines, and the end of the war in the Pacific was just 2 months away.
Forty-two months after the US commits troops to the UN effort in Korea on June 30, 1950. the war had been over for 5 months.
Forty-two months after the first US servicemen to die in Vietnam in July, 1959, the brunt of the war was yet to come. Nixon's "The end is in sight" was eight years in the future, and the actual end of the war was stlll ten years away. It wasn't until January 23, 1973 that President Nixon announced that an agreement has been reached which will "end the war and bring peace with honor." The last American combat death was four days later.
I truly hope that Iraq is not another Vietnam, but everything seems to point that way. Fully 3½ years later, the call for more troops is not a good sign. Even Cheney has indicated that perhaps his "death throes" comment was a bit premature.
By the way, the Taliban is gaining strength in Afghanistan, and the NATO's top commander urged allied nations to send reinforcements.
Posts: 17506 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is taking ``very seriously'' a secret intelligence report concluding that the U.S. military has fought to a stalemate in Iraq's western province of Al-Anbar as political conditions also worsen in the ``epicenter'' of the country's Sunni insurgency, a senior defense official said Monday.
In congressional testimony on security in Iraq, Pentagon officials also said the rise of ``ethno-sectarian violence'' has laid the conditions for civil war, aborting plans by U.S. commanders to begin withdrawing U.S. troops. Gaps in the capabilities of Iraqi security forces leave open the prospect that U.S. forces may have to stay in the country for as long as five or more years, they said.
``It is an important report. We've taken it very seriously,'' Edelman told a panel of the House Government Reform Committee. ``This is an operational assessment by one very good intel officer,'' he said, adding that ``a lot of us are looking at it very closely'' and are seeking a further assessment on Al-Anbar from top U.S. commanders in Iraq.
The secret report, first outlined publicly Monday in the Washington Post, said a shortage of U.S. and Iraqi troops in Al-Anbar and the collapse of local governments have left a vacuum that has been exploited by the insurgent group calling itself Al-Qaida in Iraq. It painted a bleak picture of security prospects in Al-Anbar, a large province bordering Syria and Jordan that includes the troubled cities of Al-Fallujah and Ar-Ramadi.
``Anbar has been the epicenter of the insurgency,'' Edelman said, adding that ` `a purely military solution to any insurgency is not possible.' '
On overall security in Iraq, lawmakers pressed Edelman and Rear Adm. William Sullivan, vice director for strategic plans and policy on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on why the growth of Iraq's military and police forces had not yet permitted a reduction in the number of U.S. soldiers, which increased to 150,000 over the summer.
Sullivan conceded that in the longer term, because Iraq's military has been trained and outfitted primarily to fight an insurgency, rather than to defend Iraq against foreign attack, U.S. forces could be required as backup for many years. - Mercury News (Bold mine - DG) -------- Nice. Great plan, george. Heck of a job. For "as long as five or more years, they said." That would put it really close to the length of time the US fought in Vietnam. Going for the record, george?
Posts: 17506 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — The senior Marine commander in Iraq said Tuesday that he had sufficient forces to carry out his mission but that the mission did not include defeating the insurgency.
“For what we are trying to achieve out here I think our force levels are about right,” said Maj. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer, who defined his primary mission as training the Iraqi forces who ultimately would be responsible for security in the area.
“Now, if that mission statement changes — if there is seen a larger role for coalition forces out here to win that insurgency fight — then that is going to change the metrics of what we need out here,” General Zilmer added.
The Marine general commands a force of 30,000 troops who are charged with securing Anbar Province, a vast region in western Iraq that borders Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. He spoke to reporters in a telephone interview from his headquarters at Camp Falluja.
The Pentagon arranged the interview after articles in The Washington Post and The New York Times reported that General Zilmer’s senior intelligence officer had submitted a grim assessment about the political and security situation in Iraq.
In his telephone discussion with reporters, General Zilmer declined to discuss the specifics of the report but indicated that he agreed with the intelligence assessment.
At the same time, he insisted that the United States was winning the war, while acknowledging that the effort was hampered by sectarian differences and the belief among Iraqis in Anbar that the Baghdad-based government was not meeting their needs.
President Bush has suggested an expansive strategy to achieve victory by using American forces to clear contested towns of insurgents, holding them with Iraqi security forces and then spending funds to rebuild the infrastructure and win the support of the Iraqi people.
A White House fact sheet issued in March described this process as the “Strategy for Victory: Clear, Hold and Build.” At the White House, Tony Snow, the president’s spokesman, asserted that Mr. Bush was prepared to send more troops to Anbar if they were requested. “He has made it absolutely clear to generals that the job is to win,” Mr. Snow said. “And the first thing you have to do is, to the best of your ability, cut through that fog of war and tell him what the situation is and what they need to get the job done.” - New York Times -------- Well, someone has his wires crossed. Both the reort and the general in charge of the area agree that, at least, there are not enough troops in the area. The White House says that bish has made it clear that he wants to win (whatever that means) and that bush will provide more troops if requested. Is there a form that the general forgot to fill out in order to "request" more troops?
I'm still trying to remember just who it was that said occupying Iraqould take many more troops than bush planned on sending. Shinbone, Shinsplint, something like that. Whatever hapened to him? It sure sounds like bush should have listened to him (and to the others who said the same thing).
Posts: 17506 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
I knew it was Shinski, the General who lost his position, and was forced out early because he either had the courage to dissent or was one of the few who actually understood the situation well enough to know that taking Saddam down and then occupying Iraq were two very different things, and Saddam's removal was by far the easy part, something that could be done on the cheap.
Quite of few retired military (and some not yet retired) have noticed Rumsfeld's delusions of capability. The military and ex-military among us really have a choice. That Iraq has been completely bungled is beyond question. What they need to do is either say that it was the fault of the Generals, the men doing the fighting, or the suits. It really comes down to something that simple. No "all plans go out the window when the fighting starts" can explain away the fact that, other than defeating a shell army, not one thing has gone right in Iraq - not one thing. Just how well have you planned when everything you planned was wrong?
Some of you may remember a Tom Hanks movie, "The Money Pit". He played a guy who bought a much bigger house than he really could afford because he felt that, with a little work, it would be a wonderful home. He really didn't bother to inspect the house. You can guess the rest. In the end, as I recall, he just walked away from it, having spent everything he had, and having nothing to show for it. It was a mildly amusing movie. In real life, it hasn't been so funny, and it has cost us much much more than just a few hundred billion dollars.
Posts: 17506 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
It's being reported that in Anbar, filling the void of no reliable government, al Queda is taking over. So it's happened: becoming a terrorist haven. Preventing that is why we must stay, we're told. Yet, right under bush's nose, as a result of his grand policy, we've made it happen. If he's serious, he'll call up 60,000 more troops and send them in there. If he doesn't, the emptiness of his vision -- not to mention his rhetoric -- ought to be evident, even to his supporters on this site.
Posts: 1505 | Location: Puget Sound, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
