Surge already failing
The US military surge in Iraq, designed to turn around the course of the war, appears to be failing as senior US officers admit they need yet more troops and new figures show a sharp increase in the victims of death squads in Baghdad.
In the first 11 days of this month, there have already been 234 bodies - men murdered by death squads - dumped around the capital, a dramatic rise from the 137 found in the same period of April. Improving security in Baghdad and reducing death-squad activity was described as one of the key aims of the US surge of 25,000 additional troops, the final units of whom are due to arrive next month.
A few small areas where the US troops are constantly patrolling are seeing less violence. But it is going up in the rest of the city, and there are not enough troops to patrol the entire city.
In a further setback, the US military announced yesterday the loss of an entire patrol south of Baghdad, with five soldiers dead and three others missing, after they were ambushed by insurgents in the town of Mahmoudiya.
The new figures emerged as the commander of US forces in northern Iraq, Major General Benjamin Mixon, admitted he did not have enough soldiers to contain the escalating violence in Diyala province, which neighbours Baghdad and has become the focus of the heaviest fighting between largely Sunni insurgent groups and the US army, which has seen casualties increase by 300 per cent. Sixty-one US soldiers have been killed in Diyala this year, compared with 20 in all of last year.
Worse yet, overall and US casualty rates are still going up.
The surge plans call for more, small patrols and bases. Doing this is probably necessary for any chance of success. The old plan with few but large bases and patrols kept the US troops well protected but did little to protect Iraqis. To actually secure the neighborhoods requires lots of patrols and local bases.
Sadly, it is too late for this to work. To much of the population has already gone over to the insurgents or given up. And history shows that little can change this once it happens. It is nigh impossible to recover control once it is lost.
[link|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051300552.html|Washington Post]
A string of heavy losses from powerful roadside bombs has raised new questions about the vulnerability of the Stryker, the Army's troop-carrying vehicle hailed by supporters as the key to a leaner, more mobile force.
Since the Strykers went into action in violent Diyala province north of Baghdad two months ago, losses of the vehicles have been rising steadily, U.S. officials said.
\t
A single infantry company in Diyala lost five Strykers this month in less than a week, according to soldiers familiar with the losses, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release the information. The overall number of Strykers lost recently is classified.
And in related news, it appears the insurgents have worked out the effective means of hitting Strykers with the weapons they have available.
Not a big surprise, as the Stryker was designed for an entirely different kind of combat. It is fast and well armed but only lightly armored. The Stryker was designed for open field anti-armor combat. It's big cannon is wasted against the insurgents and the extra speed is only slightly useful maneuvering in a city. Something like a Bradly, which is designed to keep it's troops alive at the expense of weapons would be much more effective.
Jay