I would just like to point out that in this post you seem to be calling for more US forces while in the previous post you note that there are more Iraqi troops taking control.

Wouldn't you agree that it's better to increase their troops instead of ours? That appears to be the stragety being followed, and I think it is the permanent solution, while us increasing our troops only kicks the can down the road. They have to control their own country, that's the deal.

And I'll note, that stragety allows our troops to come home by heading directly to the Med and hopping on some boats once they get there.

Wouldn't you agree that it's better to increase their troops instead of ours? That appears to be the stragety being followed, and I think it is the permanent solution, while us increasing our troops only kicks the can down the road.

How are those antithetical? It will take time and a certain level of skill for the Iraqi forces to assert themselves. Just because they "take over control" doesn't equal an assessment that they are 100% effective. American assistance and firepower is still a component, the more the better.

In the meantime, according to the linked opinion, the insurgency and violent militias suffer, but aren't squelched. I don't pretend to have the answers, and my opinion is actually up in the air, though leaning toward us making the commitments necessary to establish authority, Iraqi and American.

Bill,

I'm not sure that Hegeth directly contradicts me. The overall point of his post is that we need more troops. Pick a number. 100,000? Then evaluate the likelihood of any such significant number being deployed. Factor in the need for intangibles like modifying our approach to include counterinsurgency methods, Arabic language expertise, etc. And then do the math. It's hard to come up with anything other than hopeless.

"angry?" I thought more "resigned." But anger is in the eyes of the beholder. If I ever write my Fallujah post, I'll be sure to send you the link. Just to document my definition or "angry." :)

Well, ask a platoon leader or company commander, and you'll usually get the answer that more troops would be better -- and from their perspective it's true. Ask a general, and you'll get a different answer -- and from his perspective, he's right.

I'm not sure a million troops would make a difference. Ultimately, two things seem to matter: knowing who is financing attacks and arresting/killing them, and not pissing off the rest of the Iraqis who aren't sure how to feel about us. The former is an intel operation; more troops won't help accomplish it. The latter is best served by having as few troops as possible.

The latter is best served by having as few troops as possible.

You directly contradict a guy who helped organize the government of Samarra, not to mention a score of other accounts I've read which claim that Iraqis have no problem with the Americans when they are effective at establishing order.

I've never read a first-hand account (merely strategic) that backs your claim, yet you state it with utter confidence. Find an account that backs your assertion.

With >138,000 troops in Iraq, the decision to limit Samarra's internal contingent to 150 troops seems about something else. I wonder about the procedure in situations like this. Surely they could have brought in another 150 troops or so. Are there internal cya problems on the ground regarding allocating the troops we have in theatre? Has the beltway dynamic and partisan vitreol poisoned judgments being made on the ground regarding the use of troops already there? Politics gets played on many levels. It would be a shame if there are elements within the military provoking false and unnecessary shortages of deployed troops in order to play politics and create false impressions. What good are 100,000 more troops if the political subterfuge is such that increasing the Samarra contingent from 150 to 300 was verboten? Deploying an extra 150 troops out of 140,000 does not require an additional 100,000 on the ground. It does feed the beltway meme that Iraq needs more US troops. I think we have plenty there, but I wonder why competent field commanders are having the trouble Hegseth describes. They could have easily doubled Samarra to 300 troops, still leaving the 500 immediately surrounding Sammara to continue as they were.

Iraqis have no problem with the Americans when they are effective at establishing order.

I'm sure that's true, as far as it goes. But almost by definition if order has been restored in an area that means most of the militantly anti-American fighters have left town.

Find an account that backs your assertion.

Try the dozens or hundreds of blog entries by Iraqis about dealing with American convoys (which for security reasons not only demand right of way, but have to shoot vehicle that come too close) and having their homes searched. There is a lot of resentment there, as one would expect. Being subject to military occupation by foreigners is never easy.

60% of Iraqis believe attacks on Americans are justified, and even more want them all to leave. It's hard to argue more troops would make our presence more welcome.

I think one thing that generally goes unmentioned is the fact that many Iraqis believe the presence of American forces actually creates violence, as it provokes the militants to attack them, causing civilian casualties.

From a tactical perspective, more troops for Samarra, Ramadi, etc. seems to be the logical answer: coalition troops come in, kill/drive out the bad guys, and consensual government takes over. Everybody's happy. All we need is the troops to carry it out.

From a cultural perspective, it may not work out that way. Consider the Kurds: they're described are more pro-America than Americans. They're delighted to have us around. Any colonialist resentment is far surpassed by gratitude for removing those that oppressed them and sevring as a bulwark from future repression. Move south to the Arab regions, though, and you have a relatively xenophobic culture that is generally very distrustful of the West for historical reasons, and for Sunnis on top of that existing resentment we've just toppled the previous power structure which was generally beneficial to them. Then you have incidents like Abu Ghraib, Haditha, etc., which are relentlessly propagandized.

In many examples, this sentiment has turned around when Americans:

A. provide effective security.

B. Pump money into local reconstruction projects.

Look at Fallujah. To get to B you need to establish A. In many areas, this may require more troops.

Dave,

The best example is Fallujah. Relative to population (a group NOT pre-disposed to us), we have a LOT of troops in Fallujah. It's fairly quiet there. As are the neighborhoods of Baghdad that we establish a heavy presence in --- until we leave.

Heavy-handed actions like road-hogging convoys and door-breaking searches are actions. Of course, "more troops" alienating people is not the answer. You need MORE troops, doing the right things. ... umm ... And don't respond with some un-American, unpatriotic statement that we are culturally incapable of conducting effective counter-insurgency ops. :) I'll report you to the RNC ... AND Don Rumsfeld.

You're trying to deny a truism (a fact, if you will) that has been noted in almost all insurgencies (Iraq, Vietnam, Malaya, etc.) MOST PEOPLE are indifferent; if there is security, they will go along. It is recognized that there is an "unfairness" of insurgencies that the insurgents create the violence and the established gov't gets blamed for failure to provide security.

True, perhaps more U.S. troops would help accomplish A sooner (of course, as we've seen in Fallujah, draconian measures are often required to keep the peace once it is established). The generals seem to have judged that the footprint problem doesn't justify it. Maybe they're wrong.

Hopefully, though, the growth in numbers and competence of the ISF will render the issue moot at some point in the next couple years.

As are the neighborhoods of Baghdad that we establish a heavy presence in --- until we leave.

Well, as has been described by Roggio and others, that seems to mean committed insurgents just move to the areas not occupied, meaning that unless you occupy the whle country they'll always be able to move somewhere.

Really, these are much the same arguments as we hear about Afghanistan.

"meaning that unless you occupy the whole country they'll always be able to move somewhere."

Yes. yes. Yes.

That's the challenge. That's what would be required. And to do that would take "MORE TROOPS!!!!!"

a lot more.

There is a good poll on uvota.com that shows 47% want to keep the same level of troops and 34% want a reduction. It's interesting that the ones that want to pull out completely are less than 10%.

http://www.uvota.com/poll/105501

That's the challenge. That's what would be required. And to do that would take "MORE TROOPS!!!!!"

Sigh. That's the same thinking the Soviets used in Afghanistan. It doesn't work if the enemy never gives up and keeps running.

Notice we don't have hundreds of thousands of troops in Afghanistan. For pretty much the same reason, we don't have hundreds of thousands more troops in Iraq.

If anyone would be interested in making their voice heard. Please sign my petition? Please help people to vote and become aware that they have a say. Lets stop this vote flipping and get our men and women back home.

http://www.petitiononline.com/zoraja/petition.html and make your comments heard. Let us not put the wrong person in the White House again.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Kristen Franks

Sigh. That's the same thinking the Soviets used in Afghanistan. It doesn't work if the enemy never gives up and keeps running.

Increasing troop levels is not the same thing as advocating using the same tactics as the Soviets. We need enough troops to provide effective counterinsurgency operations. I've heard too many stories about shifting troops around the country and too many accounts from experienced officers calling for more troops to think we actually have enough troops to perform that mission. (I could go to the reductio ad absurdum: Fewer troops are better, so just send one. I am confident in the abilities of our Joes in the field. And by "Joes in the field", I mean Joe. Joe Spankowski. Support Our Troop!")

The idea is you give fewer places for the enemy to run to. The "spreading inkblot" strategy that defeated the insurgency in Vietnam. Our Iraqi inkblot is jumping and hopping around, it sure ain't spreading.

If that's so obviously true to "experienced officers," why aren't Abizaid, etc., asking for more troops? They're "experienced officers" too. That argument by authority falls on its face when you consider that those in the best position to know (i.e. the actual officers in charge of the mission) seem to think the force levels are correct.

It's not like they want the mission to fail. They probably believe that in addition to the added expense and casualties (which could diminish U.S. support for the war, arugably the most critical factor in determining the ultimate outcome), a much larger U.S. contingent will serve to inflame Iraqi resentment while doing relatively little to advance the mission. Thus they're focusing on increasing force levels by training Iraqis.

The idea is you give fewer places for the enemy to run to.

Sure, which is why ISF are being tasked with holding areas the U.S. clears. They generally cause less resentment (note in the polling that attacks on ISF have much lower support than attacks on U.S. soldiers).

Fewer troops are better, so just send one.

If one soldier could have toppled Saddam, ovcerseen elections, and trained 300,000 ISF, that would be ideal. Look how few troops we had in the initial Afghan invasion.

The Soviet experience tends to show no matter how many troops you send to suppress an insurgency, as long as they don't give up and there's any place for them to run it will be next to impossible for foreign troops to totally suppress it.

ionolsen16 So interesting site, thanks!www_4_2
www_4_3
www_4_4
www_4_5
www_4_6
www_4_7
www_4_8
www_4_9
www_4_10
www_4_11

ionolsen16 Hello Jane, great site!www_4_2
www_4_3
www_4_4
www_4_5
www_4_6
www_4_7
www_4_8
www_4_9
www_4_10
www_4_11

ionolsen21 I like your site

ionolsen23 Very good site. Thanks for author!

ionolsen40 I just don not have anything to say right now.