Author Topic: 'Surge' essential to security in Iraq, general says  (Read 1630 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Henny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
'Surge' essential to security in Iraq, general says
« on: July 06, 2007, 12:16:59 AM »
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Maintaining security in Diyala province north of Baghdad will be impossible if U.S. troops are withdrawn from Iraq, according to a U.S. senior ground commander there.

"We obviously cannot maintain that if the forces are withdrawn -- and that would be a very, very bad idea, to do a significant withdrawal immediately," Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of U.S. forces in northern Iraq, told CNN's Jamie McIntyre on CNN.com Live.

In September, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is to brief Congress on the progress of operations involving the recent increase of U.S. troops in Iraq -- a buildup the Bush administration calls a "surge." The briefing could determine how long the additional troops will stay.

Mixon's troops are working with Iraqi forces fighting entrenched al Qaeda forces in Baquba and around Diyala province in an operation dubbed "Arrowhead Ripper."

U.S. troop casualties have been high in the province, according to U.S. commanders, because insurgent forces are using the area as a base and have booby-trapped it with "deeply buried" roadside bombs that have killed entire Humvee crews.

Diyala became the home base for many al Qaeda forces when U.S. troops clamped down on Baghdad in February with increased troop levels, the military says.

Once a model of how the United States was clearing violence from parts of Iraq, Baquba, the capital of Diyala province, has become a ghost town except for the pockets of fighting between coalition and al Qaeda forces.

Mixon said the U.S. military strategy of "clear, hold and retain" was not possible when his troops arrived in Baquba last September because he did not have enough forces.

"I only had enough forces initially when I arrived here last September to clear Baquba. I did that many times, but I was unable to hold it and secure it," Mixon said.

"Now I have enough force to go in, establish permanent compound outposts throughout the city that will be manned by coalition forces, Iraqi army, and Iraqi police, and maintain a permanent presence.

"But all of this has been made possible with the additional forces that have been given to me as a result of the surge," Mixon said.

While U.S. and Iraqi forces appear to have the upper hand in Diyala, Mixon said there is still some question about the Iraqi government's commitment.

"The problem is one of support that [Iraqi forces] receive from their Ministry of Defense and their other higher headquarters -- particularly in logistics. We have got to increase their numbers, we've got to get better logistic support from their headquarters so they can sustain the fight," Mixon said.

Mixon said he understands that some Americans are losing patience with the war.

"We would like to see things move along more quickly. However, a counterinsurgency operation is a long fight," he said. "We're going to have to develop a strategy in the near term to deal with the immediate threat, which I believe the surge has done."

But he added, "Let me be clear about what I said: The U.S. still will need to have a long-term commitment to Iraqi security forces to ensure long-term success and stability in Iraq."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/05/iraq.commander/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 'Surge' essential to security in Iraq, general says
« Reply #1 on: July 06, 2007, 12:41:55 AM »
Isn't ANYBODY going to stop these idiots?

 

Henny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 'Surge' essential to security in Iraq, general says
« Reply #2 on: July 06, 2007, 12:44:44 AM »
Isn't ANYBODY going to stop these idiots?

MT, with all due respect, I hope not. I know we've been through it before, but the U.S. has to put an end to the chaos before they can withdraw. "Surging" will help.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 'Surge' essential to security in Iraq, general says
« Reply #3 on: July 06, 2007, 12:54:37 AM »
Chaos?  Chaos was what Bush BROUGHT to Iraq.  If the Americans left, one side or the other would rise to the top of the heap, the rest would make whatever deals they could, get the hell out it they couldn't and life would go on with a new Saddam in charge, same as the old one.  A lot less blood would be spilled than if the present situation is allowed to continue.  It should be obvious by now that these good folks are not about to build themselves a little replica Swiss Confederation in Mesopotamia.  What is the point of prolonging the agony?  In the long run, it's just cheaper to pay for your oil like everyone else does.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 'Surge' essential to security in Iraq, general says
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2007, 12:57:48 AM »
This is the point I was referring to before, where I'm more inclined to listen to military folks actually on scene vs retired armchair Generals and politicians in DC who likely have a tad more likely alterior agenda, than trying to finish this sooner rather than later.

Thanks for the posting Miss Henny.  Ummmm, what happened to those Red Wings again?      ;)
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Henny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 'Surge' essential to security in Iraq, general says
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2007, 01:06:26 AM »
Chaos?  Chaos was what Bush BROUGHT to Iraq. 

I agree with you. But I am one of those that believes we have to clean up the mess we made.

If the Americans left, one side or the other would rise to the top of the heap, the rest would make whatever deals they could, get the hell out it they couldn't and life would go on with a new Saddam in charge, same as the old one.  A lot less blood would be spilled than if the present situation is allowed to continue.

And here is where we disagree. If we leave prematurely, the entire region will be destabilized. There is a price for that in the long run, and the entire west will pay it.

It should be obvious by now that these good folks are not about to build themselves a little replica Swiss Confederation in Mesopotamia.  What is the point of prolonging the agony?  In the long run, it's just cheaper to pay for your oil like everyone else does.

I agree with this, and the "visionaries" need to redefine that plan. But that doesn't mean that we should just leave the country in the condition that it is currently in.

Henny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1075
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 'Surge' essential to security in Iraq, general says
« Reply #6 on: July 06, 2007, 01:07:56 AM »
Thanks for the posting Miss Henny.  Ummmm, what happened to those Red Wings again?      ;)

Hey Sirs. Although I'm back in Michigan for the time being, I'm ashamed to say I didn't pay much attention this year. But I think we both know that they got their butts whooped early on... or I would have been paying more attention!  8)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 'Surge' essential to security in Iraq, general says
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2007, 08:46:46 AM »
<<And here is where we disagree. If we leave prematurely, the entire region will be destabilized. There is a price for that in the long run, and the entire west will pay it.>>

It's a risk, but not a certainty.  It's equally possible that forces in Iraq will reach some new equilibrium particularly if a new strongman rises to the top.

Also you have to wonder about "destabilization" and "stabilization."  Stabilization is often used as a code word to describe the maintenance and support of unpopular puppet governments ruling by force and by fear over captive populations.  Destabilization, conversely, often seems to refer to the rise of popular forces and the unseating of unpopular governments.