« Back from the tropics | Home | Unstudied »

June 28, 2005

Meanwhile in Fort Bragg

Deep inside the presidential reality-distortion field:

“Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job… As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters – the sober judgment of our military leaders.”


In recent weeks, U.S. generals in Iraq have been telling congressional visitors that the disappointing performance of many Iraqi combat units has made early departures impractical. They say it will be two years or more before Iraqis can be expected to begin replacing U.S. units as the main guarantors of security.
Commanders concerned for their careers have not thought it prudent to go further, and to say publicly what many say privately: that with U.S. troop levels - 139,000 now - they have been forced to play an infernal board game, constantly shuttling combat units from one war zone to another, leaving insurgent buildups unmet in some places while they deal with more urgent problems elsewhere.


U.S. Army officers in the badland deserts of northwest Iraq, near the Syrian border, say they don’t have enough troops to hold the ground they take from insurgents in this transit point for weapons, money and foreign fighters.


“Senior army officers in Iraq have told me we need more troops to do this mission,” said the retired general, who asked not to be named because he does business with the Pentagon. “They are not bemoaning. Not griping. It’s just what they feel they need.”
He said the most-often repeated figure is six to eight more brigades, or more than 50,000 more troops.

And never mind all of tonight’s other lies.

Posted by Stephen at 8:55 PM in War | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry: