BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S.-led soldiers control only about a third of Baghdad, the military said on Monday, almost four months into a security crackdown during which troops are dying at rates not seen for more than two years.
More than 18,000 extra U.S. troops have been deployed around Baghdad as part of the campaign, which began in mid-February and is seen as a last-ditch attempt to drag Iraq back from the brink of all-out sectarian civil war.
The New York Times reported earlier on Monday that, according to an internal military assessment and local commanders, U.S. and Iraqi troops controlled 146 of Baghdad's 457 neighborhoods.
The New York Times said that, according to the one-page military assessment of the crackdown, troops had either not begun operations or still faced resistance in the capital's remaining 311 neighborhoods.
Bush won a bruising battle with a Congress for war funding but is under growing pressure, including from within his own Republican Party, to show progress in the unpopular war or start bringing troops home.
June is showing similar casualty rates to May, with 17 U.S. soldiers killed in the first three days, 14 of them reported on Sunday.
May was the third-worst month for U.S. soldiers since the invasion to topple Saddam in March 2003. The worst months were November 2004, when 137 were killed, and April the same year when another 135 died.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed in the same period. While there was a significant reduction in the number of targeted sectarian killings early on in the security crackdown, those numbers have risen again, with dozens of bodies being found in Baghdad almost every day.
2007-06-04 10:39:34 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Meanwhile 3 more providences were handed back to the Iraq government for a total of 7 out of 18 Iraqi providences. The violence has dropped 50% from the same time last year. The number of Iraqi police and soldiers on their own have doubled since May of last year working in 17 of 18 providences. When the forces double again, they will be the size where the U.S. thinks they should be. Many of those forces are in training or just need to be equipt.
Obviously the reporter doesn't want to tell the whole story.
2007-06-04 12:02:32 · answer #1 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Of course it's a failure. I mean it's been 4 months since Bush launched the 'surge', and this is the BEST they can come up with?
Again, the numbers are striking, and are telling a completely DIFFERENT story than the ones being told by the administration: We simply lack the troops, the hardware, and the drive to completely secure Baghdad--let alone the ENTIRE country. (Or its borders.)
The insurgency is more funded, better armed, and well-equipped to dealing with us--than the other way around.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry over that implication: Seeing a first-rate military get its *** kicked by a bunch of home-grown insurgents.
2007-06-04 10:58:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Were the last 6?
2007-06-04 10:45:10 · answer #3 · answered by jeb black 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Kinda hard to say since it's yet to be fully implemented (read: all of the "surge troops" haven't arrived in Iraq yet).
Check back in September; then this question will be timely. Until then - Don't Worry, Be Happy!
2007-06-04 10:52:22 · answer #4 · answered by Fast Eddie B 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Reuters?
ROFLMAO
The American version of Al-Jazeera and the most lying liberal media of all and your cut and paste from that?
You must be getting despite.
2007-06-04 12:28:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It needs more time before one can make a judgement call.
2007-06-04 10:48:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋