| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Max Boot: Can Petraeus Pull It Off? |
| 2007-04-23 |
| Long -- but an in-depth report on what is happening in Iraq A report on the progress of our arms in Baghdad, Baqubah, Ramadi, and Falluja. -- by Max Boot 04/30/2007 The news from Iraq is, as usual, grim. Bombings, more bombings, and yet more bombings--that's all the world notices. It's easy to conclude that all is chaos. That's not true. Some parts of Iraq are in bad shape, but others are improving. I spent the first two weeks of April in Baghdad, with side trips to Baqubah, Ramadi, and Falluja. Along the way I talked to everyone from privates to generals, both American and Iraqi. I found that, while we may not yet be winning the war, our prospects are at least not deteriorating precipitously, as they were last year. When General David Petraeus took command in February, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today there are some glimmers of hope in the unlikeliest of places. Until recently Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, was the most dangerous city in Iraq if not the world. It was run by al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which had declared it the capital of its Islamic State of Iraq. The Iraqi police presence was limited to one police station, which the police were afraid to leave. Soldiers and Marines engaged in heavy combat every day, losing hundreds of men since 2003, simply to avoid having insurgents overrun the government center and close down Route Michigan, the main street. That began to change last year when the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Armored Division expanded the U.S. troop presence on the west side of town, losing almost 90 soldiers in the process. The 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division, which took over the city earlier this year, expanded the offensive toward the al Qaeda strongholds on the west side of town. From mid-February to the end of March, some 2,000 soldiers and Marines, along with their Iraqi allies, fought to gain control of the city. The principal operations were codenamed Murfreesboro (February 10-March 10), Okinawa (March 9-20), and Call to Freedom (March 17-30). Collectively, they deserve to take their place in the annals of this long war alongside such notable clashes as the taking of Tal Afar in 2005, the two battles of Falluja in 2004, and the thunder runs through Baghdad in 2003. |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #11 DB, I've been there (I believe in both a literal and figurative sense). It's the only battlefield I've ever visited (and I've been to quite a few) where I became so profoundly frightened (scared white is how I'd put it) that I had to leave before I had toured the whole field. I know it sounds trite and like something from George Norrie's Coast-To-Coast or Art Bell's show, but I'm convinced I was physically at that battle and it was not a fun experience. Probably counts as the most terrifying experience of my life. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-04-23 23:20 |
| #10 Iff one accepts or believes that Dubya = USA's strategy in IRAQ-AFGHANISTAN is to destroy the most violent lemenst of Radical Islam on battleground of Amer's choosing, while simul empowering and entrenching the flags of Western-style DemoCapitalism, National/Constitutional Republicanism, Secular Moderate Democracy wid Islamic-Muslim characteristics, etc. all over the MUslim World, THEN ONE MUST ACCEPT OR BELIEVE THAT AMER's ANTI-INSURGENCY EFFORTS IN THE ME ARE ALSO GLOBAL ANTI-TERROR EFFORTS, THAT THE IRAQ-AFGHAN, ETC LOCAL BATTLEFIELDS ARE ALSO REGIONAL-GLOBAL ANTI-TERROR BATTLEFIELDS. The odds are good to highly likely that these efforts will OUTLAST PETRAEUS' CAREER, OR THAT OF ANY OTHER US GENERAL OR COMMAND OFFICER [WOT > "LONG WAR"]. The Democrats are hurting themselves politically by trying to [portray a successful US + GOP strategy as synon wid [Dem-led]Vietnam = defeat of US-Western democracy in SE Asia. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-04-23 22:09 |
| #9 I have relativs who fought there. Same last name only one CS the other US. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-04-23 20:07 |
| #8 Murfreesboro is also the home of Barrett Rifles. I'm guessing these guys use some of Ronnie's tools to great effect. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2007-04-23 18:04 |
| #7 Damn Bragg. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2007-04-23 17:31 |
| #6 You know, its the math and logic in all of this that is revealing. The thing politicians, the media and the public are truly missing. Of all the troops, of all the infrastructure, the plans and supplies - it really is coming down to less than 2,000 even maybe 200 highly trained, supremely motivated and unselfishly patriotic Operators. Everyone else of the 135,000 are supporting either in policing, training, force security, logistics, administration, PA, CA, etc. Everyone has a role to play in the politics, the (spit) diplomacy, the community organizations etc. But the really tough "kill or be killed" is coming down to these Operators working on the G2 the 'gators are digging up. Amazing. So much so that idiots like Murtha, Pelosi and Reid including the Repubs own Hagel can't see or don't want to see. When you are blind sometimes its best not to see what is going on unless you appreciate simplistic beauty like what Petraeus is attempting. |
| Posted by: Jack is Back! 2007-04-23 16:27 |
| #5 hmmm - that's not the only Fort Rosecrans. My Dad is interred at this one |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-23 16:17 |
| #4 Murfreesboro is a small town near the site of the American Civil War battlefield of Stone's River on December 31,1862-January 2, 1863. From Wikipedia: The Battle of Stones River or Second Battle of Murfreesboro (in the South, simply the Battle of Murfreesboro), was fought from December 31, 1862, to January 2, 1863, in Middle Tennessee, as the culmination of the Stones River Campaign in the Western Theater of the American Civil War. Of the major battles of the Civil War, Stones River had the highest percentage of casualties on both sides. Although the battle itself was tactically indecisive, the Union Army's repulse of two Confederate attacks was a much-needed boost to Union morale after the defeat at the Battle of Fredericksburg, and it dashed Confederate aspirations for control of Middle Tennessee. Total casualties in the battle were 23,515: 13,249 on the Union side and 10,266 for the Confederates. This was the highest percentage of casualties of any major battle in the Civil War, higher in absolute numbers than the famous bloodbaths at Shiloh and Antietam earlier that year. The battle was tactically inconclusive, although Bragg was traditionally considered to be defeated since he withdrew first from the battlefield. He received almost universal scorn from his Confederate military colleagues; only his personal friendship with President Jefferson Davis saved his command. But a case can also be made that it was at least a strategic Union victory. The battle was very important to Union morale, as evidenced by Abraham Lincoln's letter to General Rosecrans: "You gave us a hard-earned victory, which had there been a defeat instead, the nation could scarcely have lived over." The Confederate threat to Middle Tennessee had been nullified. Rosecrans spent five and a half months reinforcing Murfreesboro. The massive earthenworks "Fort Rosecrans" was built there and served as a supply depot for the remainder of the war. The next major clash, the Battle of Hoover's Gap, also known as the Tullahoma Campaign, did not come until June, when Rosecrans finally moved his army against Bragg. Part of the site of the Battle of Stones River and Fort Rosecrans is now Stones River National Battlefield. It contains the nation's oldest intact Civil War monument, erected by William Hazen's brigade at Hell's Half Acre. The 600 acre (2.4 km²) National Battlefield includes Stones River National Cemetery, established in 1865, with more than 6,000 Union graves. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-04-23 16:02 |
| #3 American generals say they have been "shocked" to discover the level of Iranian influence in Iraq They should get out or read RB more often. Murfreesboro Where did this name come from? In any case, it gives me the idea that we ought to name our next bases "Murtha", "Pelosi", and "Reid". |
| Posted by: gorb 2007-04-23 15:12 |
| #2 American generals say they have been "shocked" to discover the level of Iranian influence in Iraq. Why is my cynicism meter pegged? Shocked? You have to be kidding me. Iranian meddling had to be expected from day one. And by meddling, I don't mean just the occasional visit and send over a few bucks. If they really are shocked they are friggin geopolitical dimwits, and I don't think that is the case. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2007-04-23 13:54 |
| #1 Excellent article. Thanks |
| Posted by: Abu do you love 2007-04-23 12:29 |