Posted on 07/27/2006 5:06:28 PM PDT by SandRat
BAGHDAD --
This is a decisive period in the country, Army Gen. John Abizaid told National Public Radio in a recent interview. First and foremost we have to stabilize the situation in Baghdad before we need to get overly focused on leaving, Abizaid said.
Baghdad is both the largest city and political center of Iraq. It is also the primary battleground between Shiite and Sunni groups struggling for supremacy in the nation. The sectarian violence thats taking place in the Baghdad area and up north towards Diyala province is probably the gravest threat to stability that there is in the country right now, Abizaid said.
Officials in Baghdad said there is a tit-for-tat response going on in Baghdad and its environs now, with several revenge killings taking place each day.
Abizaid said the government must demobilize militias.
If you dont do this, you end up with a situation like you have in Lebanon, where the militia becomes a state within a state, Abizaid said. It makes the state impotent to be able to deal with security challenges.
For Iraq to be successful, Abizaid said, the countrys government must be successful against such groups.
Controlling the security situation in Baghdad is key to security throughout the country. U.S. and Iraqi officials have agreed to put more troops into the capital. Abizaid and Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commander of Multi-National Force - Iraq, have discussed Iraqs security environment and the challenge Baghdad presents, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said today.
Obviously, General Casey will position military forces within Iraq where, in his best military judgment and working with the Iraqi government and Iraqi security forces, he feels they are best suited to address that security challenge, Whitman told Pentagon reporters. These are military matters that are his purview in terms of how he will use the force he has there.
About 127,000 U.S. servicemembers are in Iraq and no plans to bring more troops into the country, Defense Department officials said.
In an effort to quell the violence in Iraq’s capital city, additional U.S. military police will deploy to Baghdad to serve alongside Iraqi law enforcement officers, President Bush said July 25 following a White House meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The move is part of a new strategy to stem stepped up insurgent violence plaguing the city.
This plan will involve embedding more U.S. military police with Iraqi police units to make them more effective, Bush said in a news briefing.
The reinforcements will be sent to Baghdad in coming weeks from other parts of Iraq, Bush said.
Our military commanders tell me that this deployment will better reflect the current conditions on the ground in Iraq, he said.
Maliki is in Washington to discuss Iraq strategy with Bush and other senior U.S. officials. He concurred that more U.S. troops are needed in Baghdad.
We have agreed that building the security and military institutions in Iraq in terms of numbers, equipment, firearms -- and as quickly as possible -- represents the fundamental base in order to stabilize the country and to have security and defeat terrorism, Maliki said.
Bush echoed Malikis assessment. Iraqi security forces need better tools to do their job, Bush said. And so well work with them to equip them with greater mobility, fire power and protection.
The key to defeating the insurgency in Iraq is to remain on the offense, including in Baghdad, Bush said.
Although he acknowledged that current insurgent actions -- including bombings, murders and kidnappings -- are challenging Coalition and Iraqi security forces in Baghdad and some other areas, Bush remained upbeat. No question its tough in Baghdad, and no question its tough in other parts of Iraq, he said. But, there are also places where progress is being made, and the prime minister and I talked about that progress.
Bush and Maliki agreed to establish a joint committee to achieve Iraqi security self-reliance. The new security partnership will seek to ensure the smoothest and most effective assumption of security responsibility by the Iraqi forces, Bush said.
Maliki said he appreciated the United States assistance and the sacrifices made by its servicemembers.
In other developments in Iraq:
* Marines from the 25th Marine Regiment and soldiers from the 1st Iraqi Army Division rescued three Iraqi hostages in an intelligence-driven operation July 23.
* Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division captured five members of a death squad, one of whom was identified as a leader, during a cordon and search in Mahmudiyah July 26.
* Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division seized weapons in southeast Baghdad July 26.
* U.S. Marines medically evacuated an Iraqi child to a nearby U.S. military medical facility July 24 after the childs parents requested assistance from an Iraqi police officer, who subsequently requested assistance from Marines in the area to facilitate medical care for the injured girl.
(Compiled from Defense Department sources)
Progress continues in the WOT
We are adapting to the changing face of the war. Our troops will get the job done.
Logical thinking leads me to believe there will never be peace in Iraq, because the Sunni hate the Shia and the only thing they both agree on is killing Jews. As a matter of fact, when the hades has the Middle East ever been peaceful? It's always been the birth place of violence and bloodshed. The East is the East and the West is the West, we shall never meet in the middle.
Even the in the Bible, it describes Ishmael as "wild ass of a man, whose hand will be against everyone" [Genesis 16:12)]. If that does not represent the Islamic world, I have no idea what does.
I wish for peace in the M.E., but as my Mother told me many times, wish in one hand, use the restroom in the other and see which one fills up faster. Best wishes.
Jeff Davis
I've been hearing more and more this idea that "Securing Baghdad secures Iraq". At first it seemed somewhat... shortsighted. But the more I consider it the more I think it might be dead on.
A pacified Baghdad, flourishing, turns anything else happening in the hinterlands into just some "localized" trouble and it qualifies as a "finished" job.
Thanks for responding. I disagree with you on this, because of this point. Would it be acceptable to be attacked only in , let's say the state of Virginia in America by homocide bombers and call the situation a "finished job"? Would we as Americans accept such an alternative as this?
From the way I view it, saying there is peace in Baghdad is acceptable while the murderous islamonazis wage mayhem outside of Iraq is ok? We are indeed stuck between "Iraq and a hard place". The solution, I don't know, I don't like to see our soldiers being homocide beltbomb fodder in a religious clash, that we as Americans do not understand, NOR CAN WE STOP. Best to you and family.
Jeff Davis
No, of course that wouldn't be acceptable. I'm not saying that it should be. The phrase "securing Baghdad secures Iraq" does have a certain amount of truth to it though.
If Baghdad is secure, then the economy of Iraq has a base from which to flourish. It also means that the Iraqi forces themselves can better focus on the smaller towns and keeping the peace there. It's a key step toward leaving Iraq to the Iraqis, which is what we want to do... and the sooner the better.
I don't know how they expect to improve that situation in Iraq, if they continue to ignore the source of the problem..... which is Iran, Syria and the Saddam cronies that are still financed by Saddams money.
Iran and Syria has an unlimited number of suicide bombers to send in. How is it that sending in more US troops taht is going to change.
Pressure needs to be applied on the Iran and Syria and not inthe form of stern statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.