Posted on 12/28/2006 1:57:33 PM PST by MurryMom
BAGHDAD Many of the American soldiers trying to quell sectarian killings in Baghdad don't appear to be looking for reinforcements. They say a surge in troop levels some people are calling for is a bad idea.
President Bush is considering increasing the number of troops in Iraq and embedding more U.S. advisers in Iraqi units. White House advisers have indicated Bush will announce his new plan for the war before his State of the Union address Jan. 23.
In dozens of interviews with soldiers of the Army's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment as they patrolled the streets of eastern Baghdad, many said the Iraqi capital is embroiled in civil warfare between majority Shiite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American troops can stop.
Others insisted current troop levels are sufficient and said any increase in U.S. presence should focus on training Iraqi forces, not combat.
But their more troubling worry was that dispatching a new wave of soldiers would result in more U.S. casualties, and some questioned whether an increasingly muddled American mission in Baghdad is worth putting more lives on the line.
Spc. Don Roberts, who was stationed in Baghdad in 2004, said the situation had gotten worse because of increasing violence between Shiites and Sunnis.
"I don't know what could help at this point," said Roberts, 22, of Paonia, Colo. "What would more guys do? We can't pick sides. It's almost like we have to watch them kill each other, then ask questions."
Based in Fort Lewis, Wash., the battalion is part of the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 2nd Infantry Division. Deployed in June, its men were moved to Baghdad from Mosul in late November to relieve another Stryker battalion that had reached the end of its tour.
"Nothing's going to help. It's a religious war, and we're caught in the middle of it," said Sgt. Josh Keim, a native of Canton, Ohio, who is on his second tour in Iraq. "It's hard to be somewhere where there's no mission and we just drive around."
Capt. Matt James, commander of the battalion's Company B, was careful in how he described the unit's impact since arriving in Baghdad. "The idea in calling us in was to make things better here, but it's very complicated and complex," he said.
But James said more troops in combat would likely not have the desired effect. "The more guys we have training the Iraqi army the better," he said. "I would like to see a surge there."
During a recent interview, Lt. Gen. Nasier Abadi, deputy chief of staff for the Iraqi army, said that instead of sending more U.S. soldiers, Washington should focus on furnishing his men with better equipment."We are hoping 2007 will be the year of supplies," he said.
Some in the 5th Battalion don't think training will ever get the Iraqi forces up to American standards.
"They're never going to be as effective as us," said 1st Lt. Sean McCaffrey, 24, of Shelton, Conn. "They don't have enough training or equipment or expertise."
McCaffrey does support a temporary surge in troop numbers, however, arguing that flooding Baghdad with more soldiers could "crush enemy forces all over the city instead of just pushing them from one area to another."
Pfc. Richard Grieco said it's hard to see how daily missions in Baghdad make a difference.
"If there's a plan to sweep through Baghdad and clear it, (more troops) could make a difference," said the 19-year-old from Slidell, La. "But if we just dump troops in here like we've been doing, it's just going to make for more targets."
Sgt. James Simons, 24, of Tacoma, Wash., said Baghdad is so dangerous that U.S. forces spend much of their time in combat instead of training Iraqis.
"Baghdad is still like it was at the start of the war. We still have to knock out insurgents because things are too dangerous for us to train the Iraqis," he said.
Staff Sgt. Anthony Handly disagreed, saying Baghdad has made improvements many Americans aren't aware of.
"People think everything is so bad and so violent, but it's really not," said Handly, 30, of Bellingham, Wash. "A lot of people are getting jobs they didn't have before and they're doing it on their own. We just provide a stabilizing effect."
Staff Sgt. Lee Knapp, 28, of Mobile, Ala., also supported a temporary troop surge, saying it could keep morale up by reducing the need to extend units past the Army's standard tour of one year in Iraq.
"It could help alleviate some stress on the smaller units," he said. "It could help Baghdad, but things are already getting better."
Sgt. Justin Thompson, a San Antonio native, said he signed up for delayed enlistment before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, then was forced to go to a war he didn't agree with.
A troop surge is "not going to stop the hatred between Shia and Sunni," said Thompson, who is especially bitter because his 4-year contract was involuntarily extended in June. "This is a civil war, and we're just making things worse. We're losing. I'm not afraid to say it."
And once again Murrymom shows just how desperate the Dems are to betray the troops.
The MAJORITY of troops don't say that.
Oh yeah, you guys only care about MAJORITY when it works in your favor.
Actually, AP cherry-picked the quotes that made it seem that an increase in troops was a bad idea. That's the problem you get when journalists decide that their point of view is more important than reporting the truth. Did they actually say that the majority of the troops thought it was a bad idea? No. Because it would have been an outright lie. Did they imply it? Absolutely. There are lies, damned lies, and then there are AP reports.
So what's your solution? Every war we've ever been involved in has been more difficult than expected, with the possible exception of the Spanish-American War.
Do you understand that the consequences of turning over Iraq to Al Qaida will be considerably more serious than the few million yellow people killed when we abandoned Cambodia?
Tell me: HOW MANY SOLDIERS DIED IN WWII?
Tell me: HOW MANY SOLDIERS DIED IN THE KOWREAN WAR?
Tell me: HOW MANY SOLDIERS DIED IN VIETNAM?
Tell me: HOW DOES THAT CONTRAST WITH THE NUMBERS IN THIS WAR?
Do your homework.
How many are many?
More than two?
Oh, please. The AP gets its editorials right of the secure DNC fax. As do the NYT, WAPO, and all the other America hating periodicals..
With all due respect to these guys, what they see is the situation right in front of them. They do not have the big picture, they don't know what they don't know.
Pres. Bush and his advisors get data from all over the Middle East, from all kinds of people and sensors, and can make a more informed judgement. They have thousands of people doing the analysis, and can red-team options ad nauseum.
Getting the opinion of the guy on the ground is important, but you can't make policy based on that alone.
Wait a second. If the AP interviewed dozens of soldiers, call it explicitly 48 of them, and found 2 of the 48 with comments unfavorable to the mission, there is no obligation of AP to print those two. Doing so creates an illusion that those 2 comments are held in equal prominence to the attitudes of other soldiers.
When you interview 48 and get 2 negative comments, the correct reporting procedure is to quote 3 of those that were positive and mention in a final sentence that a small minority of interviews had a different opinion.
A poll of 100,000 people reveals a variety of opinions (on any subject).
You sound like a snot teenager alright. It isn't their "damn job" to kill every individual in Iraq. It's their job to fight militarily according to the plan, whatever that is, and it ain't what you said. Now go play, and be nice to your little friends.
Please.
seriously, what have you ever done for this country?
As soon as I read "muddled", I checked the author.
Is this worth yet another thread?
The military isn't a democracy - I remember learning that from a drill instructor who seemed to think I was hard of hearing - and they don't reach decisions by polling the troops. I do have to wonder at the sudden stridency of this campaign against a policy that Bush is yet to even call for.
But I do applaud your patriotism for supporting your President and his current policies. It isn't much like what I'm used to hearing from you, MM. Good to see you've come around at last. Was it that W campaign button I sent you?
"...AP interviewed dozens of soldiers and provided views of both sides of the controversy, in contrast with earlier cherry-picked quotes provided by the Bush Administration."
Obviously you missed the key word in your statement "earlier" in your eagerness to express your partisanship and prejudice.
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.