LAT: Troop 'surge' has yet to materialize in Iraq

Troop 'surge' has yet to materialize in Iraq
By Louise Roug, Times Staff Writer
February 9, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A month after the Bush administration announced a "surge" in troops for Baghdad, Iraqis are still waiting for anything to change.

Fewer than 20 percent of the additional Iraqi and American troops have arrived so far. And the roughly 5,000 troops that have arrived have yet to make a visible influence in this sprawling city of 6 million people, where thousands of gunmen already patrol the streets.

U.S. officials are trying to manage expectations domestically and in Iraq, continually reasserting that troops slowly will take up their positions in the city over the coming months.

But after one of the bloodiest weeks since the U.S.-led invasion of 2003, Iraqis are increasingly impatient. A series of high-profile attacks on civilians and security forces killed more than 1,000 Iraqis and at least 33 U.S. troops in the last eight days.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has said he is investigating whether he can speed the pace of the troop buildup. But a senior Pentagon official said this week that it was unlikely that U.S. troops could be sent to Baghdad any faster than planned. The five brigades going to Baghdad are due to arrive one per month, with the final brigade arriving in May.

So far, 3,000 American troops and about 2,000 Iraqi counterparts have arrived here, according to U.S. officials. "I will be surprised if we can generate forces faster," said the senior official. Speeding the arrival of U.S. forces would require a cut in training time, he said -- a move resisted by Army officials....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-surge10feb10,0,5491534.story?coll=la-home-headlines

I posit that the "waiting" may be part of the problem over there.

:eyes:

So why should we be surprised. The White House DOES NOT KNOW WHAT TO DO.

So they announce a surge.

Funny/horrible question: WHAT will they come up with to say on April 1st, when zip has changed?

I remind my fellow DUers of what was called the "Powell Doctrine," named after then Chair of Joint Chiefs Colin Powell, in which the military would use a massive force to totally dominate the battlefield. It was one of the lessons learned from the Vietnam War, a lesson that Bush and his gang of neocons chose to ignore in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Applying the Powell Doctrine to Bush's surge would have required a massive and quick influx of at least an additional quarter of a million combat troops, to take control over Baghdad and Anbar province. Bush chose to send a meager contingent consisting of a handful of brigades and, to ensure failure, he chose to send them gradually.

Bush's surge has already failed, and it is only mid-February! Meanwhile our illustrious Secretary of Defense Gates is now telling the media that is working on a sequel, a Surge II, to follow this one if it fails.

This Congress should vote to end the war, just as a previous Congress brought about the end of the Vietnam nightmare!

One failure after another... one leak after another.... one death after another....

are going to do..." in the middle of the huddle. bushco is far too busy making noise about what brilliant strageries they have up their sleeve. All this bravado and bluster has done nothing but get them deeper and deeper into a sh*tload of trouble.