| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| U.S. to seek new approach to Iraqi violence |
| 2006-10-20 |
| The U.S-led campaign to curb violence in Baghdad neighborhood by neighborhood has failed, and American officials are looking for a new strategy, a top U.S. military official said Thursday. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said that instead of quelling violence, the campaign, code-named Operation Forward Together, had contributed to a spike in U.S. military deaths. The operation "has not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence," Caldwell said. "We are working very closely with the government of Iraq to determine how best to refocus our efforts." In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros called Caldwell's assessment "accurate and candid." Caldwell's comments, which came during his weekly briefing for reporters here, were a rare public admission that an American strategy in Iraq hasn't worked, and it came as Republicans and Democrats in Washington are pressing the Bush administration to devise a new approach. Polls have shown that Iraq is the No. 1 issue among U.S. voters less than three weeks before congressional elections. Bush administration policy has been built on two assumptions: that American troops would be able to shed some security responsibilities as the numbers of trained Iraqi police officers and soldiers grew, and that the elected government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would be able to assert control over Shiite Muslim militias aligned with its political supporters. Neither assumption has proved true. Violence has continued to surge, even as tens of thousands of U.S.-trained police officers and soldiers have been added to the Iraqi security forces, and al-Maliki's government has yet to present a program to disarm the militias. Operation Forward Together was considered a last-ditch effort to tame Baghdad, where violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims has reached unprecedented levels. The plan involved pulling 12,000 American soldiers from elsewhere in Iraq and teaming them with Iraqi troops to go door-to-door in Baghdad's most troubled neighborhoods and root out armed groups. The neighborhoods were then to be the focus of economic-development campaigns. Shortly after the operation began Aug. 7, Caldwell hailed it, saying Baghdad's murder rate had dropped 52 percent. But, as McClatchy Newspapers first reported, statistics from the Baghdad morgue suggested a much smaller decrease in violent deaths. Baghdad police reported that 27 bodies were found around the city Thursday, 11 in neighborhoods originally targeted in the security plan. The number of U.S. soldiers and Marines killed in Baghdad has skyrocketed, and October is on course to be the third deadliest month for American service members since Saddam Hussein was toppled in April 2003. U.S. officials announced the deaths of two more soldiers and a Marine on Thursday, bringing the death toll so far this month to 73. Caldwell sounded despondent as he acknowledged the death toll. He said U.S. officials were reassessing the assumptions they'd made before implementing the Baghdad security plan. "We're asking ourselves if the conditions under which it was first devised and planned still exist today or have the conditions changed and therefore a modification to that plan needs to be made," he said. Caldwell said "there is no question" that sectarian violence has increased in the neighborhoods that were swept. "We find the insurgent elements - the extremists - are in fact punching back hard. They're trying to get back into those areas," he said. Caldwell didn't say how American officials might adjust their plans. But he said U.S. troops were re-entering the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Dora, one of the capital's most violent areas. Dora was among the first neighborhoods swept, and it's now the site of daily discoveries of bodies bearing signs of torture. Caldwell said there was a 22 percent increase in violent incidents during the first two weeks of Ramadan, the Muslim holy month, compared with the previous three weeks. He didn't specify how the military compiled its numbers, and it's unclear how reliable they are. American officials have released several statistics during the past month that have later proved to be inaccurate. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #33 BTW... it recently came out of Soviet archives that the "accident" that killed Patton --- Wasn't an accident... It was a Stalin ordered hit. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-10-20 23:13 |
| #32 The only winners in this game thus far are limp dick jihadis and militas. Americans are winners, we don't like war where we wear gunny sacks. All real Americans love the sting of battle. American play to win, all the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost, and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost, and will never lose a war; because the very thought of losing is hateful, to Americans. |
| Posted by: Gen. G. S. Patton (Ret) 2006-10-20 22:15 |
| #31 One good thing about Iraq is that our troops are raising their level of efficacy and developing new strategies+tactics+logistics that will be invaluable in the coming campaigns. But the political will is missing. As is the understanding of who our enemy is. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-10-20 22:14 |
| #30 The American people are unaccepting of the PC bullshit we have been doing in Iraq for the past four years (sans Falluja). The Iraqi people (en masse) want security and an eventual end of the violence. What we have been doing the past four years has done little to give them either. The only winners in this game thus far are limp dick jihadis and militas. Americans are winners, we don't like war where we wear gunny sacks. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-10-20 18:53 |
| #29 Thank you all for your punditry, but Oldspook and I have the correct answers. I'll embellish: (1) Name Iraq the 51st state of the United States, (2) Give the crips and the bloods 72-hours to get, (3) Cordon off and cleanse, and (4) Turn the maintenance and weeding to the Iraqi generals. Next stop, Iran |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-10-20 18:48 |
| #28 I agree with a lot of what's been said here (I seem to remember saying much the same thing myself once or six times). The problem has metestasized (sp?) into a problem where we have to deal with ALL Arabs, and equally. Break the backs of every Arab nation simultaneously (or some semblence of the same), and add the Persians and Pakistanis to the list for good measure. STOMP them so hard they don't even want to THINK about going to war against us. Use every weapon we can think of, short of nukes. Totally annhialate both the Saudi and the Jordanian royal families, destroy the political mullahs in every ME country, and rain devastation on their nations in spades. CRUSH them, and screw "civilian" casualties - there is no such thing. When our MSM and leftist whiners raise their voice, give them a choice: either they learn to understand the truth about our enemies, and STFU, or they're ventilated by a 7.62 round through the frontal lobes. They have no understanding of the war that's being fought, and they aid and abet our enemies to destroy us. Their lives are forfeit. It's going to be really, REALLY nasty, but the other option is the death and destruction of Western Civilization. I will NOT surrender to the crazed mobs either on the left or in the Middle East. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-10-20 18:05 |
| #27 The problem is the home front wouldn't have tolerated that. Bingo NS. As much as we on RB would like to see the gloves come off, that is not politically tenable at this time and won't be until many more American civilians are dead. Then the attitude will change 180 degrees overnight. Until then it won't be permitted in Iraq, the Paki provinces or anywhere else. Iraq is a warm up exercise, live fire training if you will. The big fight is going to come later. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2006-10-20 15:08 |
| #26 we should have treated them as close to what we did to the Germans/Japanese after WW2. The key was not the way we treated them after WW2, but during WW2. If we had kille 7.5% of the Iraqis, or better yet, the ME, we would have gotten a much different level of ccoperation. The problem is the home front wouldn't have tolerated that. Until we hake them howl, they'll keep playing their cutsie games with us and we shouldn't kid ourselves about it. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-20 14:03 |
| #25 I think the U.S. has been planning this revision in stategy for quit some time now. My brother is in the Naval reserves doing Intel. He found out last week that he will be reporting for active duty late this month and begin training in early November. He will be deployed to Bagdad sometime in mid December. I expect to see the chahge in stategy well on its way by then. Not that I think this new stategy will be right either. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2006-10-20 13:54 |
| #24 Lots of good comments/points by all. I'd of been more heartened if our leaders really studied tribal culture especially the bedouin foundations augmented by islam to really understand our current enemies & thus break them. Our responses over the past three years would have been like many suggested on here to some degree. To the western lay person these responses prolly would have seemed barbaric but the middle easterner would have totally understood them (and grudgingly respected us) as showing strength from their stone age perspective. Hind sight being 20/20, we should have treated them as close to what we did to the Germans/Japanese after WW2. Make them swear allegiance to us until we say different. Of course, back then there was no 24/7 msm spin cycle highlighting every death and hiccup over & over again. I'd have blacked out the media much like GW1 to include Al Jizz. Those tribes that refused to play ball would be liquidated post haste, w/as much brutality that could be mustered. The Arabs understand that message. They respect the alpha male mentality. I hate to say it, but I get a sense that a lot of our leaders really do not "know" our enemy - only in a sort of pc sense of the word - and therefore some of our tactics have not been as effective as they could be. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-10-20 13:36 |
| #23 We will come to regret it. I have lost all positive expectations for Iraq. The only path left is to switch our attention to Iraq's neighbours and break them, without hoping for freedom to take hold in Islamic countries for the next several generations. I can only echo your well expressed sentiments, Kalle. We must begin breaking the spines of Islamic theocracy and dictatorship all through the MME (Muslim Middle East). After the ingratitude of Iraq, we must feel no obligation to rebuild anything. It will probably be a better lesson that any survivors twist gently in the breeze wafting from their smoking ruins. First Iran and Syria, then Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Cutting these four principals out of the terrorist loop would set back their operations by a solid decade. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-20 12:59 |
| #22 "things would settle into paradise on earth as it sort of did in post-WW II Japan and Germany." The problem is we didnt have them prostrate and begging, their culture completely discredited, like we did with Germany and Japan. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-10-20 12:43 |
| #21 #17, Kalle, Exactly. I've been saying the same here for a while. I didn't express it as well as you have. You've nailed it. We lost an opportunity. What lies ahead in terms of D&D (death & destruction) will be much, much worse. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2006-10-20 12:28 |
| #20 The most important thing we could do is what EU suggests. Make oil royalty payments directly to each individual adult Iraqi, male and female. The CPA should have done this ASAP. It should still be done regardless of the objections of the Iraqi elders and elites. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-20 12:03 |
| #19 Give 'em short skirts, Johnny Walker and Corvettes. They'll come around. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2006-10-20 11:51 |
| #18 excluded middle folks? Either democracy works there, NOW, or the only alternative is either A. Leaving or B. Going genocidal, or near genocidal? (in which case IMHO we ought to leave, as theres nothing to gain in Iraq thats worth the costs of that. If were gonna "go mongol" the place to do it is NW Pakistan, where at least we've got a rationale, not Iraq. We COULD push for a coup, to put in Allawi. His own supprt is small, but the Kurds will support him if we push, and many of the Sunni pols would, esp if we work things out with Jordan and KSA first. Some of the religious Shia will join in for self-preservation. Then you hold a new election, but this time you clamp down on any Shia that are even halfway tolerant of Sadr. Meanwhile you declare Sadr public enemy #1. You hit him, (and any Iraqi police who support him)with all the coalition force, and any loyal Iraqi army units, youve got. Local Sunni regimes will support this. You can probably get the Euros to at least not object (much easier than with a kill em all strategy). The Iranians will scream, but what exactly are they gonna do that isnt suicidal for their regime? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-10-20 11:14 |
| #17 Yes, it had to be tried, but the military should not have been leashed. Destruction and death is what is required to humiliate our enemy, the Islamofascists. Massive destruction. On a scale that would impress in their feeble minds that their false god is not granting them victory over the West. After identifying Iran and Syria as State sponsors of terrorism, it is unforgivable that these two countries are still functional States with standing armies, intelligence services, and WMD programs. We will come to regret it. I have lost all positive expectations for Iraq. The only path left is to switch our attention to Iraq's neighbours and break them, without hoping for freedom to take hold in Islamic countries for the next several generations. Enlightenment values have never taken root in Moslem societies. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-10-20 10:40 |
| #16 If it happens, I agree Kalle. But I do think we had to try. For our sake, as much as for theirs. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-20 10:27 |
| #15 It's too late. The time for effective action was in the last 3 years and has been wasted. Several cities should have been razed. Many Iraqi "leaders" should have been killed. And Iran should have been bombed back to the Stone age. What we've done is try to set up a democratic form of government in Iraq, allowed State sponsors of terrorism to continue to cause massive death and injury across that country, and hoped -- HOPED -- that somehow -- SOMEHOW -- things would settle into paradise on earth as it sort of did in post-WW II Japan and Germany. Instead, we have a failed experiment in freedom. And the sad consequence of that failure, caused by Islamofascists egged on by the Western leftists, will be an all-out WMD war with tens if not hundreds of millions of death. The failure in Vietnam led to millions of death in Indochina. The failure in Iraq will be much worse. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-10-20 10:22 |
| #14 The right answer is the one we gave in Fallujah. City by city. Cordon and clear. And dont let them back in until after its clear - and leave the cordon in place. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-10-20 09:52 |
| #13 Move the U. S. elections to next Tuesday. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-20 06:36 |
| #12 Prbably mojo. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2006-10-20 04:57 |
| #11 I go with the RB commentator who advised carpet bombing both sides with kazoos and hardcore porn. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2006-10-20 04:50 |
| #10 Then you'd need to dismantle the Iraqi Arab tribal social traditions. This is the biggest hurdle. Tribalism is something our mil has so far advanced past as being "...before us" we didn't need to worry about tribalism with our former enemies. MO and the Arabs have brought us back in a time warp. I think tribalism is our biggest problem going forward, it is foreign to our mil , no borders, hidden loyalty...it's tribalism folks |
| Posted by: Dunno 2006-10-20 04:46 |
| #9 While cost-effective metamaterials are still many years away, there are other advanced technologies that hold great promise. OLED (Organic Light Emitting Diode) displays may provide solutions for some of these "optical invisibility" techniques. This new method of fabricating imaging devices promises flexible paper-thin video screens and even the possibility of light emitting fabrics that can display color images. Imagine a small multi-axis helmet-mounted camera that instructs your body armor to display the view fore or aft of you, plus laterally as well. It would also function as a "chameleon" suit in complex backgrounds. An enemy looking at you face-on would see whatever image there was behind you and so forth. Metamaterials will be a much-needed component of advance battlefield technology, finding applications in all sorts of odd niches. Still, there are many other more convenmtional approaches that are available in the here-and-now. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-20 03:23 |
| #8 Re: staying the course On September 9th, R-burg published this article about British research in optical invisibility. The October issue of Popular Science also had an excellent article on this subject. It happens that I have some small knowledge of US efforts in this field. Much of the research in this area has been highly classified, but the recent de-classification and publication of some basic material allows public discussion within certain limits. (See the article "Secret Warplanes of Area 51" in the same issue of Pop-Sci. It is no coincidence that these articles appear next to each other.) It seems likely, on the evidence, that US efforts in this area have advanced far beyond the level achieved in the British experiments. I can't promise anything, since I don't know the details and wouldn't discuss them if I did, but I would not be surprised to see some sensational developments unfold in the very near future. This technology could play the same role in the current war that the atomic bomb did during World War 2. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2006-10-20 02:35 |
| #7 By recognizing and cooperating with the Iraqi "govenment", a Qom Shia LLC incorporated in Nevada, I believe... |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-20 02:24 |
| #6 There will be a federal Iraq with ethnically homgenous (moreorless) Kurd, Shia and Sunni areas. The main problem is that all three areas will meet at Baghdad. Long term Baghdad will cease to exist as the capital city and as a city of 5 million. Unfortunately, the route from here to there will be bloody, but I see no reason to delay it, which the American actions, despite good intentions, are doing. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-10-20 02:17 |
| #5 does that mean blanket bombing can start. I love a good daisy cutter |
| Posted by: Alex 2006-10-20 01:59 |
| #4 The only way to do this and avoid the heavy body counts involved with .com's admittedly effective solution is to deport all the Sunnis to Saudi Arabia and all of the Shiias to Iran and let the Kurds take over the entire nation. The MME (Muslim Middle East) is congenitally disposed to endless cycles of bloodshed and revenge. Short of killing all individuals above the age of eight years-old and raising the orphaned children in a foster environment devoid of hate programming, there is little if any hope of ever resolving this crap. This must be one of the most vital lessons we carry forward from occupying Iraq. Muslims absolutely love to kill each other and once their internal conflicts are ended, we in the West will be the next recipients of their withering embrace. There is no feasible prospect of peaceable coexistence, religious harmony or even isolationist stand-offs. There will be constant and escalating violence until either the West perishes or Islam is exterminated. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-20 01:46 |
| #3 So...pull out and watch the sparks fly. |
| Posted by: facta non verba 2006-10-20 01:28 |
| #2 To end Iraqi violence, you'd have to begin by removing the Iraqi "government". Then you'd need to dismantle the Iraqi Arab tribal social traditions. Then you'd need to remove Islam - no more Sunnis, no more Shia, no more sectarian hatred, no more external Iranian Shia subversion, no more Sunnis streaming in from everywhere else. You'd have to remove the flypaper. To achieve these noble ends you'd have to kill all of the Iraqi Arabs. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-20 01:21 |
| #1 Can we kill and win now? |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-10-20 00:52 |