Posted on 09/12/2006 4:50:16 PM PDT by jmc1969
A top American commander in Iraq says U-S-led military efforts are "stifling" the insurgency in a volatile Iraqi province. But a force of 30-thousand troops isn't strong enough to defeat it.
Marine Major General Richard Zilmer says he has enough troops under his command in Fallujah to accomplish what his main mission of training Iraqi security forces.
But in a phone interview with reporters, Zilmer says his mission statement doesn't include a "win." And he says he'd need more troops to do that.
Zilmer says even increasing the number of American troops wouldn't guarantee "long-term security and stability" in Anbar province. He says economic and political progress is what's needed to undercut support for the insurgency.
Nice way to change the context, ASS press.
The AP, editing away yet again.
But Major General Richard Zilmer, commander of the 2nd Marine Division, said the press reports "fail to accurately capture the entirety and complexity" of the situation in Anbar.
"The classified assessment, which has been referred to in these reports, was intended to focus on the causes of the insurgency. It was not intended to address the positive effects Coalition and Iraqi forces have achieved on the security environment over the past years," he said in a statement.
"In areas where the presence of Iraqi Security Forces is combined with an effective local civil government, we have seen progress made. Not just in the area of security, but in economic development and the establishment of social order and public services," he said.
You are dead set on thinking this is a failure w/o more troops, contrary to Gen's Abazaid and Pace and Casey have stated. Why?
They will just grasp at anything, anything at all, if they can get America to turn against this part of the war and bring about a loss.
A reasonable statement by the general, given the situation on the ground, and the overall mission. I wonder how long before someone calls for his resignation?
This may be true but it is a PR mistake. When the military speaks it should always be oriented to "victory."
It would have been better to say, "...we are only part of the team designed to secure eventual victory... our primary job is to hold the line until our Iraqi allies are able to do the job themselves..."
No more talk of alternatives to victory. Only ways to achieving victory.
You should more accurately wonder how long before someone calls this piece a idiotic edit of the man's comments.
I agree that if you're going to say something like this, be upbeat. Your version esentially stating the same thing, but in a much more positively oriented manner.
That said, we shouldn't be shy about stating the truth. Our goal is to set up a stabilized Iraqi government that can take care of itself. The fact that we don't have enough bodies to stamp out the entire insurgency won't stop us from winning in the end, so long as we keep our eye on the ball.
I agree it is a resonable statement even if the AP headline and edits were bull. There are two ways to beat the insurgency in Anbar the long way of building up Iraqi forces or the short way bringing in US forces. Time in on our side if the political support for the war in the US doesn't fall apart.
Oh, thank you!! That article was on our local news website, when I read what he actually said, I was fuming mad.
No spin here, no sir not a bit.
Yellow dog journalism -- no actually I think they have become martha folking traitors!!!
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.