Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers ?

[JMS]

Good News..

Pentagon is reporting that American Casualties in Baghdad have been drastically reduced due to President Bush's new "surge" policy.

Bad News..

Iraq is larger than Baghdad, and while the surge allows us to have an increased presence in Baghdad, that presence has come at the cost of reducing our presence in other areas of Iraq. Taken as a whole, the surge has not made any difference in Iraq as far as casualties. Attacks are still up. casualties have remained relatively stable over all, up since last year.

I think this tells us if we went in with significantly more troops we could still turn this thing around. More troops on a magnitude of a few 100k for the entire country. Figure we need that many for Afghanistan also, in order to give us a chance of winning there too.

Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS

Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers

BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.

Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before.

Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.

The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura.

Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead.

The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.

The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin.

As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.(end) ahh.

msa

KUNA 141130 Mar 07NNNNhttp://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/print.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=961365

For Iraqi American Casualty figures by months

http://icasualties.org/oif/

[Mad Mike]

In other words if America could muster the political will to send more troops and not give the enemy hope by talking about cutting and running... We could actually win this war? Do tell...

(all sarcasm directed at the cut and run crowd, not the original poster )

[Mad Mike]

BTW. There was an excelent show on A&E last night. The true story of black hawk down. One of the interesting thins was that the soldiers who fought that day were interviewed and they were not upset with being sent in even though it was hell. They were pissed that Clinton backed down and in essence surrendered to Adid. They felt that their sacrifice was thrown away. THAT is what pissed them off.

Do we really want to do that again?

BIN LADEN'S FATWA

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear.

[alexey]

Yeah, about 500,000 troops would probably do it... I think even the cut and run crowd is aware of that. I think their decision to disengage does not come from believing we cannot win, but from believing that we should not attempt something unless we are going to do it the right way.

I'm sure a lot of those people are just laying low and waiting for us to leave. Let's hope the reduction in violence will help Iraqi security establish some kind of a presence and grow some roots. Let's hope our activities will make resumption of voilence much harder than insurgents anticipated.

I don't think leaving Iraq is necessarily the best way to go, but i can certainly understand why people would want to take away dangerous toys from this Commander in Chief.

[Henry]

In other words if America could muster the political will to send more troops and not give the enemy hope by talking about cutting and running... We could actually win this war? Do tell...

(all sarcasm directed at the cut and run crowd, not the original poster )

With all due respect, the President should have sent an overwhelming force 4 years ago when support for his plan was high. He chose to try and fight this war on the cheap, and years of watching our undermanned force lose ground has eroded voter confidence much more than the 'cut and run crowd' ever could. If it's too late to salvage the political will of the nation, Bush has noone to blame but himself.

[Mad Mike]

With all due respect, the President should have sent an overwhelming force 4 years ago when support for his plan was high. He chose to try and fight this war on the cheap, and years of watching our undermanned force lose ground has eroded voter confidence much more than the 'cut and run crowd' ever could. If it's too late to salvage the political will of the nation, Bush has noone to blame bu himself.

Hey, I'm not above criticizing the way the war has been run.

[Chump Bailey]

A few 100k JMS? Is that even possible given the current force size and deployment?

[alexey]

BTW. There was an excelent show on A&E last night. The true story of black hawk down. One of the interesting thins was that the soldiers who fought that day were interviewed and they were not upset with being sent in even though it was hell. They were pissed that Clinton backed down and in essence surrendered to Adid. They felt that their sacrifice was thrown away. THAT is what pissed them off.

Human mind has a need to rationalize and justify these kinds of things.

[Mad Mike]

Human mind has a need to rationalize and justify these kinds of things.

No. Brave men are not afraid to make sacrifices. They just need to know that their sacrifices are not made in vain.

[wshngtn1]

With all due respect, the President should have sent an overwhelming force 4 years ago when support for his plan was high. He chose to try and fight this war on the cheap, and years of watching our undermanned force lose ground has eroded voter confidence much more than the 'cut and run crowd' ever could. If it's too late to salvage the political will of the nation, Bush has noone to blame but himself.

Doesn't a military commander tell the President how many troops are needed? And perhaps if 'his' plan included an 'overwhelming force', maybe the support wouldn't have been as high.

[Chump Bailey]

Doesn't a military commander tell the President how many troops are needed? And perhaps if 'his' plan included an 'overwhelming force', maybe the support wouldn't have been as high.

The Army's former Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki wanted upwards of 500,000 boots at the time and that is what he recommended to Bush in 2003 but was rebuffed and ultimately resigned, retired, was forced out - however you want to look at it...

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz among others never envisioned or planned for an insurrection of this magnitude...

[Henry]

Doesn't a military commander tell the President how many troops are needed?

Even if we are to erronously believe no military commanders have been critical of his policies these past few years, the President the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The buck stops with him. If he is ignorant as to what level of force is required to accomplish an objective, that's noone's fault but his.

And perhaps if 'his' plan included an 'overwhelming force', maybe the support wouldn't have been as high.

And in 2002 Bush had control of Congress. He could have sent in whatever he wanted. Public opinion only matters now because since then the GOP has lost both the House and the Senate, and Bush actually has to deal with his opposition in order to get something done. Back then that wasn't the case.

[wshngtn1]

Even if we are to erronously believe no military commanders have been critical of his policies these past few years, the President the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. The buck stops with him. If he is ignorant as to what level of force is required to accomplish an objective, that's noone's fault but his.

I'm not trying to argue and to keep the conversation moving, let's say it is indeed his own fault. And to fix the problem, he is now trying to do what he didn't do then...send more troops. Why is there so much opposition to him sending more troops now to right his wrong? Public opinion aside, I would think the people in our Government that are opposing sending more troops now are just as guilty as him not sending more troops in 2003. Am I wrong?

[Popeman38]

While it would be nice to have 500,000 troops in Iraq to occupy the country and put down the insurgents, where are we getting these 500,000? We can't afford to place all our eggs in one basket. The military has to be able to fight two wars on two different fronts. There are currently about 1,426,700 active duty members of the Armed Forces with about 1,259,000 in the reserves. If we were to commit 500,000 to Iraq, that would leave roughly 500,000 in the US (we have troops in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia; also overseas stationed troops). You have to keep X troops here to man the bases. That would leave only a small reactionary force to react to any other locale.

[Riggo-toni]

The Army's former Chief of Staff Gen. Eric K. Shinseki wanted upwards of 500,000 boots at the time and that is what he recommended to Bush in 2003 but was rebuffed and ultimately resigned, retired, was forced out - however you want to look at it...

Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz among others never envisioned or planned for an insurrection of this magnitude...

Exactly. Bush et al have been able to excuse their failures by claiming they were listening to the experts, but the fact is they pushed aside or out all the experts who disagreed with them until they were left with commanders who supported the Rumsfeld doctrine. The egregious flaw in all the preparation for this war was the bafflingly ignorant notion that Saddam was the root of all evil and trouble in Iraq, ergo, get rid of Saddam and all will be well. We did send the right number of troops to overthrow the Baathists, but we were pathetically unprepared for the aftermath, something which underscores the ignorance and naivete of W's advisors vis a vis the Middle East.

[JMS]

In other words if America could muster the political will to send more troops and not give the enemy hope by talking about cutting and running... We could actually win this war? Do tell...

(all sarcasm directed at the cut and run crowd, not the original poster )

No you miss the point. What a win would take in Iraq isn't 130, 140 or 160,000 troops which the Bush Administration has requested and recieved. What it would take to win is more on the lines of 360,000 troops. That means putting on hold the Pentagons new weapons purchases, the "modernization" programs and restructuring the forces to allow for a larger number of deployable soldiers.

Bush's strategy of maintaining the status quote + or - 30-40,000 troops is a policy for continued failure.

As for the Democrat's cut and run policy. If you aren't going to do the job right you might as well leave.

Still over all there is good news. These statistics suggest that the war outcome is still with in our ability to change. If we have the political will to do what it takes.

Again, Republicans who have always been trying to do this thing on the cheap are definitely part of the problem.

[JMS]

BTW. There was an excelent show on A&E last night. The true story of black hawk down. One of the interesting thins was that the soldiers who fought that day were interviewed and they were not upset with being sent in even though it was hell. They were pissed that Clinton backed down and in essence surrendered to Adid. They felt that their sacrifice was thrown away. THAT is what pissed them off.

Do we really want to do that again?

BIN LADEN'S FATWA

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html

Jesus, Since when did nation's building become our responsibility? Adid is dead and gone. Somalia is no longer a hostile place for Americans. We have no national interest there.

Clinton didn't put our troops there, he had the good sense to get them out rather than escalate. I think getting out of Somalia was a smart move. It's not like we suffered a strategic loss. There was no strategic significance in Somalia. Better to save our troops and treasure for when there is a strategic goal.

Better also not to commit US troops into harms way when no American interest is involved...

The only thing I fault Clinton for in Somalia was Aspen's failure to deploy tanks when the commanders on the ground requested them. I also credit Clinton for dropping Aspen as his mistake became known. I credit Clinton further for leaving Somalia rather than escalating a peace mission into a war with no vital American interest at stake.

[alexey]

I'm not trying to argue and to keep the conversation moving, let's say it is indeed his own fault. And to fix the problem, he is now trying to do what he didn't do then...send more troops. Why is there so much opposition to him sending more troops now to right his wrong? Public opinion aside, I would think the people in our Government that are opposing sending more troops now are just as guilty as him not sending more troops in 2003. Am I wrong?

It's not about "more troops" but about "enough troops to get the job done." When we are sending more troops that does not mean we are sending enough troops to get the job done. Doing one wihtout the other puts more troops in harm's way and costs more resources without accomplishing much.

[JMS]

With all due respect, the President should have sent an overwhelming force 4 years ago when support for his plan was high. He chose to try and fight this war on the cheap, and years of watching our undermanned force lose ground has eroded voter confidence much more than the 'cut and run crowd' ever could. If it's too late to salvage the political will of the nation, Bush has noone to blame but himself.

Amen...

[Henry]

I'm not trying to argue and to keep the conversation moving, let's say it is indeed his own fault. And to fix the problem, he is now trying to do what he didn't do then...send more troops. Why is there so much opposition to him sending more troops now to right his wrong? Public opinion aside, I would think the people in our Government that are opposing sending more troops now are just as guilty as him not sending more troops in 2003. Am I wrong?

No sweat. Keep talking.

I'm just talking to talk too, and for the record I was very much in support of sending troops to Iraq at the time. Part of the reason is that when Bush said 'trust me' I did. He's the President, after all, and I'll support him unless he gives me a reason not too. However, years later it appears my trust was misplaced. Now when he says 'trust me' I raise an eyebrow. His current track record as Commander-in-Cheif, frankly, sucks. I am not thrilled with the idea of placing more troops at his disposal, especially considering the amount he's asking for is so minimal that it smacks of the same half-assedness that got us where we are today.

Would I be in favor of sending 200k or so more troops there now if he asked? Maybe, but that political ship has sailed. It's a moot point. The people are weary of war. They are not confident in the leadership of those running it. Hundreds of thousands of troops on top of the ones that have already served multiple tours in Iraq is a HUGE request, one that only a very popular President can consider making. Bush had unprecedented political capital five years ago. He has spent it all, and this is what we've got, for better or for worse.

While it would be nice to have 500,000 troops in Iraq to occupy the country and put down the insurgents, where are we getting these 500,000? We can't afford to place all our eggs in one basket. The military has to be able to fight two wars on two different fronts. There are currently about 1,426,700 active duty members of the Armed Forces with about 1,259,000 in the reserves. If we were to commit 500,000 to Iraq, that would leave roughly 500,000 in the US (we have troops in Afghanistan, Kosovo and Bosnia; also overseas stationed troops). You have to keep X troops here to man the bases. That would leave only a small reactionary force to react to any other locale.

You either fight to win or you don't fight. Either raise more troops or pick your battles more carefully.

[JMS]

A few 100k JMS? Is that even possible given the current force size and deployment?

Yes and No.

No it's not possible at current troop levels.

Yes it is possible. It would mean planning, restructuring, and altering how the Pentagon spends their money. Which the military and the political leadership objects too. It would mean sacrificing long term goals for the short term goal of a larger pool of deployable troops.

I still think if the war in Iraq is worth winning. And I think it is, then we need to do what it takes to win it. I think we are paying the financial price for a win. We need more boots on the ground and less high tech toys. It's news to me that it's still might be with in our physical ability to accomplish the goal.

Alexy and Henry are right though after several years of incompetent war management it might not be within the political realm of possibility to accomplish.

[Mad Mike]

Jesus, Since when did nation's building become our responsibility? Adid is dead and gone. Somalia is no longer a hostile place for Americans. We have no national interest there.

Clinton didn't put our troops there, he had the good sense to get them out rather than escalate. I think getting out of Somalia was a smart move. It's not like we suffered a strategic loss. There was no strategic significance in Somalia. Better to save our troops and treasure for when there is a strategic goal.

Better also not to commit US troops into harms way when no American interest is involved...

The only thing I fault Clinton for in Somalia was Aspen's failure to deploy tanks when the commanders on the ground requested them. I also credit Clinton for dropping Aspen as his mistake became known. I credit Clinton further for leaving Somalia rather than escalating a peace mission into a war with no vital American interest at stake.

Really? You do know that he denied the generals on the gound the armor they asked for don't you? You do know that he approved the black hawk down mission right? You do know that more American lives were lost because we lacked the armor to save them right?

Now go back and read the quote from bin Laden and tell me how we didnt lose anything by cutting a deal and running the next day. WE LOST RESPECT. :doh:

[JMS]

Doesn't a military commander tell the President how many troops are needed? And perhaps if 'his' plan included an 'overwhelming force', maybe the support wouldn't have been as high.

Bush announced the retirement of the Chairman of the joint chief of staff after he told congress the Iraqi war would likely take troop levels of 300-400,000 troops based upon WWII occupation data. His second in command who was offered the CJCS job declined the job because he objected to Rumsfeld political determination of troop levels.

Since then Bush and Rumsfeld took all promotion of line officers out of the military control and they personally interview and promote General officers.

Not sure if the new Sec Defense has continued this policy or not yet.

Not likely you will hear any objection to troop levels when you know you won't be advanced or given command for giving your truthful opinion.

[JMS]

Exactly. Bush et al have been able to excuse their failures by claiming they were listening to the experts, but the fact is they pushed aside or out all the experts who disagreed with them until they were left with commanders who supported the Rumsfeld doctrine. The egregious flaw in all the preparation for this war was the bafflingly ignorant notion that Saddam was the root of all evil and trouble in Iraq, ergo, get rid of Saddam and all will be well. We did send the right number of troops to overthrow the Baathists, but we were pathetically unprepared for the aftermath, something which underscores the ignorance and naivete of W's advisors vis a vis the Middle East.

Wolfowitz testified before congress about the CJCS's recomendation for 300, 400,000 troops. He said.

"I can't believe it would take more troops to occupy Iraq than it would to defeat them in battle"......

Wolfowitz also suggested the entire war would cost on the magnatude of 3-5 Billion dollars. Truth be told we spent that in the first weeks of the deployment and the actual cost of the war is likeling to run in the Trillions range when we're all done. Several orders of magnatude off from Wolfowitz's prediction. I think we should throw that bumb out the World bank office at our earliest convience......

[Chump Bailey]

Really? You do know that he denied the generals on the gound the armor they asked for don't you? You do know that he approved the black hawk down mission right? You do know that more American lives were lost because we lacked the armor to save them right?

Now go back and read the quote from bin Laden and tell me how we didnt lose anything by cutting a deal and running the next day. WE LOST RESPECT. :doh:

That was Sec Def Aspin who rejected the idea Mike - according to http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/secdef_histories/bios/aspin.htm

I think the troops wanted Spectre gunships too which really could have made a difference in the battle I think - obviously. I'm not sure escalation was prudent either to side with JMS. But, you're correct that Black Hawk Down was used as THE manual on how to 'defeat' U.S. Forces / U.S. will & resolve and as propaganda in general for Al Qaeda.

"In September General Powell asked Aspin to approve the request of the U.S. commander in Somalia for tanks and armored vehicles for his forces. Aspin turned down the request. Shortly thereafter Aideed's forces in Mogadishu killed 18 U.S. soldiers and wounded more than 75 in attacks that also resulted in the shooting down of three U.S. helicopters and the capture of one pilot. In the face of severe congressional criticism, Aspin admitted that in view of what had happened he had made a mistake, but stated that the request for armored equipment had been made within the context of delivering humanitarian aid to Somalia rather than protecting troops. In an appearance before a congressional committee to answer questions about the Somalia disaster, Aspin made an unfavorable impression and appeared weak in response to the detailed probing and criticism of his performance. The president publicly defended Aspin but made clear that the White House was not involved in the decision not to send armor reinforcements to Somalia. Several members of Congress called on Clinton to ask for Aspin's resignation."