Brooks, in an interview with The Times, pinned some of the blame on Iraq police and army units, who had been expected to assume some of the basic security tasks. He said the Iraqis had not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed badly.
One senior military officer called the U.S. assumption that basic security could be established in Baghdad by this summer “way too optimistic.”
Citing an internal U.S. military assessment completed in late May, the N Y Times said American and Iraqi forces are able to “protect the population” and “maintain physical influence” over less than one-third of the capital’s 457 neighborhoods.
In the remaining parts of Baghdad, efforts to root out insurgents had either not begun or still faced “resistance.”
Americans began to move into Combat Outposts (COPs) or Joint Security Stations (JSS) starting in February 2007 (BIII, Page 8). The number of JSSs alone has steadily increased from 10 JSSs in February 2007 to 65 as of 23 May, and more will be established in the coming months. In short, our troops have moved and continue to move permanently into the neighborhoods in which they are work. They have increased their visibility, activity, and interaction with the population, while concurrently increasing their contact with the bad guys.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/06/why_the_surge_is_working_yet_m.html
For every 10 we kill, Iran will send in 20 more. But President Bush still is afraid of Iran, WHY!!
This Surge strategy is still choked with Vietnamesque rules of engagement or worse. Handcuffed with worse than Nam political ignorance that refuses to attack the enemy in its sanctuaries of Syria and Iran.
The only surge will be and currently is ... a surge in the number of our dead troops, a commodity that we should not be so ready to part with.
Tagline:
While I appreciate your point of view, I don’t subscribe to the theory about it being another ‘Vietnam’. Too me, its not a valid comparision at all.