Thursday, January 11, 2007

Five + Two

John Amato at points to this Financial Times article as proof that Lt. General Petraeus, who will be promoted to four-star general to replace General Casey, believes a troop surge of 2o,ooo is insufficient to get the job done. First off, it's not clear to me that General Petraeus states this. It appears to me to be the analysis of Kenneth Pollack and those at the Brookings Institution. Not Petraeus. According to Dean Barnett,
The surge strength number comes from Dave Petraeus’ estimate of what will be necessary to win Baghdad. Petraeus is breaking Baghdad into nine neighborhoods. Each neighborhood will get a contingent of 2500 Iraqi soldiers (probably ones trained by Petraeus) supported by 600 American troops. This number, the plan figures, will be sufficient to clear the neighborhoods and then hold them. In previous encounters, we would clear and retreat. This is a very significant difference. The total surge into Baghdad, counting Iraqi troops, will be well over 40,000.
Amato cites this as his moneyquote:
The report says the ideal ratio of troops to population in a counter-insurgency operation is 20 per 1,000. This would imply the US would need to add at least 250,000 to its existing force of 140,000 - a logistical and political impossibility. Iraq's population is 26m.
The problem here, is that the entire country of Iraq doesn't need pacification. The violence is concentrated in Baghdad and the Anbar Province. The President made clear last night in his speech, that the majority of the 21,500 troop surge will be sent to Baghdad:
The vast majority of them -- five brigades -- will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.
Dean Barnett says 13,000 are in Baghdad, making it a 150% increase in troop level.

About 4,000 Marines will be sent into Anbar Province to pacify Sunni insurgents.

Surge on!

*UPDATE* 01/12/07- Steve from ThreatWatch provides this in regards to my question of current troop numbers in Baghdad:
From page 20 of the Kagan report ("Choosing Victory"), page 20:
The current deployment of U.S. forces in and around Baghdad, therefore, provides approximately four BCTs (twelve battalions or about 20,000 troops in all) for conducting combat operations in the city. The equivalent of one BCT is required for base security. Such a force level is evidently inadequate for clearing and holding any sizable portion of Baghdad.



Anonymous Flag Gazer said...

General Thomas McInerey stated last night, that the ratio was 1:50 and that with the additional US and Iraqi forces in BAGHDAD, that goal would be met. His interview was outstanding.

Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:04:00 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

I like the plan myself, I especially like Iran and Syria being put on notice.

I also like the fact that President Bush made it quite clear that this is no open ended committment, Iraq will be paying for most of this, and among other things President Bush layed out alot of goals that I do believe will be met with this amount of troops heading where they are heading.

I also saw that the Marine's were busy today building Berms in Haditha. I think with this amount of troops and 300,000 Iraqi troops to join them, I think this time It is going to work.

My favorite part of all this is our Troops wont have thier hands tied and they will be able to go after the insurgents without worry of political correctness. I think Bush told Maliki THIS IS THE WAY IT'S GOING DOWN and that's the way it is. It's really about time.

Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:43:00 PM  
Blogger Mike's America said...

Did anyone else notice that the President accurately described the two problem areas as Baghdad and Anbar Province?

You haven't heard about bombings or attacks in Mosul or Basra have you?

This means that the conditions for VICTORY, as defined by President Bush, have been achieved in most of Iraq.

I wonder why the lamestream media hasn't reported that fact?

Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:53:00 PM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

I noticed Mike. It's like the Media wont give one damn inch on anything President Bush does. I have no clue how we are suppose to win wars or elections with Public Opinion and children in our schools being manipulated like they are. Not to mention all the Newspapers are Liberal.

And what do we have? Talk Radio and Fox News?

This is getting to be pretty unbalanced!

Friday, January 12, 2007 8:26:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

© Copyright, Sparks from the Anvil, All Rights Reserved