Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Soldiers in Iraq view 'troop surge' as useless

  1. #1
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Question Soldiers in Iraq view 'troop surge' as useless

    BAGHDAD, Iraq - Army 1st Lt. Antonio Hardy took a slow look around the east Baghdad neighborhood that he and his men were patrolling. He grimaced at the sound of gunshots in the distance. A machine gunner on top of a Humvee scanned the rooftops for snipers. Some of Hardy's men wondered aloud if they'd get hit by a roadside bomb on the way back to their base.


    "To be honest, it's going to be like this for a long time to come, no matter what we do," said Hardy, 25, of Atlanta. "I think some people in America don't want to know about all this violence, about all the killings. The people back home are shielded from it; they get it sugar-coated."


    While senior military officials and the Bush administration say the president's decision to send more American troops to pacify Baghdad will succeed, many of the soldiers who're already there say it's a lost cause.


    "What is victory supposed to look like? Every time we turn around and go in a new area there's somebody new waiting to kill us," said Sgt. 1st Class Herbert Gill, 29, of Pulaski, Tenn., as his Humvee rumbled down a dark Baghdad highway one evening last week. "Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting for thousands of years, and we're not going to change that overnight."


    "Once more raids start happening, they'll (insurgents) melt away," said Gill, who serves with the 1st Infantry Division in east Baghdad. "And then two or three months later, when we leave and say it was a success, they'll come back."


    Soldiers interviewed across east Baghdad, home to more than half the city's 8 million people, said the violence is so out of control that while a surge of 21,500 more American troops may momentarily suppress it, the notion that U.S. forces can bring lasting security to Iraq is misguided.



    Lt. Hardy and his men of the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 2nd Infantry Division, from Fort Carson, Colo., patrol an area southeast of Sadr City, the stronghold of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.


    A map in Hardy's company headquarters charts at least 50 roadside bombs since late October, and the lieutenant recently watched in horror as the blast from one killed his Humvee's driver and wounded two other soldiers in a spray of blood and shrapnel.




    Soldiers such as Hardy must contend not only with an escalating civil war between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite Muslims, but also with insurgents on both sides who target U.S. forces.


    "We can go get into a firefight and empty out ammo, but it doesn't accomplish much," said Pvt. 1st Class Zach Clouser, 19, of York, Pa. "This isn't our war - we're just in the middle."


    Almost every foot soldier interviewed during a week of patrols on the streets and alleys of east Baghdad said that Bush's plan would halt the bloodshed only temporarily. The soldiers cited a variety of reasons, including incompetence or corruption among Iraqi troops, the complexities of Iraq's sectarian violence and the lack of Iraqi public support, a cornerstone of counterinsurgency warfare.


    "They can keep sending more and more troops over here, but until the people here start working with us, it's not going to change," said Sgt. Chance Oswalt, 22, of Tulsa, Okla.


    Bush's initiative calls for American soldiers in Baghdad to take positions in outposts throughout the capital, paired up with Iraqi police and soldiers. Few of the U.S. soldiers interviewed, however, said they think Iraqi forces can operate effectively without American help.


    Their officers were more optimistic.


    If there's enough progress during the next four to six months, "we can look at doing provincial Iraqi control, and we can move U.S. forces to the edge of the city," said Lt. Col. Dean Dunham, the deputy commander of the 2nd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, which oversees most of east Baghdad.


    Maj. Christopher Wendland, a senior staff officer for Dunham's brigade, said he thinks there's a good chance that by late 2007 American troops will have handed over most of Baghdad to Iraqi troops.


    "I'm actually really positive," said Wendland, 35, of Chicago. "We have an Iraqi army that's actually capable of maintaining once we leave."


    If the Iraqi army can control the violence, his thinking goes, economic and political progress will follow in the safest areas, accompanied by infrastructure improvement, then spread outward.


    In counterinsurgency circles, that notion is commonly called the "inkblot" approach. It's been relatively successful in some isolated parts of Iraq, such as Tal Afar on the Syrian border, but in most areas it's failed to halt the bloodshed for any length of time.

    McClatchy Washington Bureau | 02/03/2007 | Soldiers in Iraq view troop surge as a lost cause
    Its interesting to note the difference in opinions between the boots on the ground and the officers who (probably) have to toe the line for Die Chimpenführer.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  2. #2
    Gold Member princesspink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    878

    Default

    It's an Iraqi problem. The surest way of solving it is when every Iraqi will get involved in sorting out this conflict for his/her country. I don't know what the troops can do to stop it.

  3. #3
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Its interesting to note the difference in opinions between the boots on the ground and the officers who (probably) have to toe the line for Die Chimpenführer.
    totally..is a night and day difference...

  4. #4
    Elite Member celeb_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    13,468

    Default

    I read a heartbreaking story on the New York Times not too long ago. It was about a Sergeant and his troops who were training a group of Iraqi soldiers in a dangerous section of Baghdad called Haifa Street. The troops were actually supposed to fall back and sort of follow the Iraqis and observe, to make sure they were doing things right. It was a mess, the soldiers were late, then they were totally uncoordinated in their actions. That Sergeant profiled ended up getting shot in the head and died soon after. The trajectory and circumstances of the fatal shot made it appear as if one of the Iraqi Army soldiers fired that shot from a room below. To me that story seemed like a microcosm of what is going wrong there. I am sure there are success stories too but to me it seems like this is an Iraqi problem let them sort it out already. You can surge troops all you want but all it does is drive the bad guys somewhere else or they blend in and wait it out. Americans cannot be there forever and as soon as we leave they will come right back in.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Lack of equipment for troop surge forces in Iraq
    By twitchy in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 30th, 2007, 12:48 PM
  2. Record number of US soldiers dead in one day (Iraq)
    By HWBL in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 23rd, 2006, 02:58 AM
  3. Iraq: tales of horror, desertion by US soldiers (hard read)
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 29th, 2006, 01:11 PM
  4. Judge: Katrina storm surge not covered
    By AliceInWonderland in forum News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: August 17th, 2006, 12:53 AM
  5. Internet-suicide pacts surge in Japan
    By Grimmlok in forum News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 10th, 2006, 06:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •