Iraq
Posted on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 11:30:57 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Gen. John P. Abizaid made it clear that he did not endorse the phased troop withdrawals being proposed by Democratic lawmakers. Instead, he said the number of troops in Iraq might be increased by a small amount as part of new plans by American commanders to improve the training of the Iraqi Army. . . . Under the immediate initiative that General Abizaid described, the number of American military advisers working with Iraqi forces will be increased, with advisers to be assigned even to small Iraqi units with fewer than 200 soldiers."We need to put more American capacity into Iraqi units to make them more capable in their ability to confront the sectarian problem," General Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "It is possible that we might have to go up in troop levels in order to increase the number of forces that go into the Iraqi security forces, but I believe that's only temporary."
Is that all we have left? More.
General Abizaid did not rule out a larger troop increase, but he said the American military was stretched too thin to make such a step possible over the long term. And he said such an expansion might dissuade the Iraqis from making more of an effort to provide for their own security."We can put in 20,000 more Americans tomorrow and achieve a temporary effect," he said. "But when you look at the overall American force pool that's available out there, the ability to sustain that commitment is simply not something that we have right now with the size of the Army and the Marine Corps."
General Abizaid also publicly said for the first time that the American position in Iraq had been undermined by the Bush administration's decision not to deploy a larger force to stabilize the country in 2003. That decision was made after Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff at the time, told Congress that several hundred thousand troops would be needed. His testimony was derided by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and the general was ostracized at the Pentagon before his retirement a few months later.
"General Shinseki was right that a greater international force contribution, U.S. force contribution and Iraqi force contribution should have been available immediately after major combat operations," General Abizaid said. "I think you can look back and say that more American troops would have been advisable in the early stages of May, June, July."
What is Abizaid saying really? I think he is saying any chance we had was blow by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz when they didn't listen to Shinseki. His new initiaitve is just window dressing.
And if you listen to the intelligence agencies, they think that too:
. . . General Maples said that the violence continued to increase in "scope, complexity and lethality" and that it was "creating an atmosphere of fear and hardening sectarianism, which is empowering militias and vigilante groups.". . . Reinforcing this view, General Hayden said the C.I.A. station in Baghdad assessed that Iraq was deteriorating to a chaotic state, with the political center disintegrating and rival factions increasingly warring with each other. "Their view of the battlefield is that it is descending into smaller and smaller groups fighting over smaller and smaller issues over smaller and smaller pieces of territory," he said.
Embeds in the Iraqi Army won't change that. Abizaid was asked how long we have:
Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island, asked General Abizaid how much time the United States had to bring down the violence in Baghdad before events there were beyond the control of the Iraqi government. General Abizaid said the answer was four to six months.
Another Friedman. Ok, enough pretend. Let's face it, what is left now is the political cover. LBP (Last Big Push) as Josh Marshall calls it. But the last big push is based on absurdity:
Securing Baghdad, the general said, was the main effort. But there are other difficult missions ahead, he said. One is supporting an Iraqi-led effort to disarm the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia nominally loyal to the cleric Moktada al-Sadr.Another is securing Anbar Province, the seat of the Sunni Arab insurgency. General Abizaid said that to try to hold the line there, he had decided to dispatch a 2,200-strong Marine Expeditionary Unit. "Al Anbar Province is not under control," General Abizaid said.
Iraq-led effort to disarm the Mahdi Army? Who are we kidding here? 2,200 soldiers for the whole of Anbar? Come on.
And now who won the war?
Many experts have advocated talking directly to Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq, an approach the Iraq Study Group is expected to endorse. General Hayden said that Iran's ambitions inside Iraq seemed to be expanding and that Iran had been conducting a foreign policy of "dangerous triumphalism."David M. Satterfield, the State Department's coordinator for Iraq, told the Senate committee that the United States was prepared "in principle" to discuss the situation in Iraq with Iran, but the timing was uncertain.
"We are prepared in principle to discuss Iranian activities in Iraq," Mr. Satterfield said. "The timing of such a direct dialogue is one that we still have under review."
Yep. Just as we predicted. Who will be the last person to die for this Debacle?
| < Stupid Prosecution of the Week | Abramoff's Final E-Mail > |
