The Center for Defense Information (CDI) has posted a new analysis to its web site that deals with President Bush's surge of additional American military forces in Iraq. "The Urge to Surge" by Herman Mineshaftgap
was written earlier this month and was posted to the CDI web site today.
According to CDI, Mr. Mineshaftgap's article makes the following six important points: 1) Compared to previous troop levels for analogous periods of time, the "surge" brings no significant increase in deployments in Iraq; 2) New tactics and deployments in Iraq do not improve the prospects for success over previous periods; 3) Conditions in Iraq for civilians there have not improved, as measured by civilian casualties and oil and electricity production (As an aside, the article mentions that civilian casualties have actually increased measurably since the last of the American surge troops arrived in June of this year and that oil and electricity production have declined); 4) The expansion of Iraqi security forces has not resulted in better protection for Iraqi civilians; 5) While circumstances have apparently improved significantly in Anbar Province, they have deteriorated elsewhere; and finally, 6) Those best able to measure the success of the surge, Iraqi civilians, assert in polls that conditions in Iraq are worse than before, that the U.S. and allied forces are unwelcome and should leave the country, and by a margin of 57 percent that it is OK to attack coalition forces.
The analysis points out that troop levels since the surge began have reached a high of just over 160,000, which is not much higher than the number of American forces that were positioned in Iraq in late 2005 as a precautionary measure against expected violence associated with Iraqi elections. Additionally, the article notes, U.S. Marine Corps and Army leaders can only sustain current surge force levels for a maximum of about one more year. And, as the article notes, current troop levels are only between eight and nine percent higher that previous maximum troop levels in Iraq.
According to CDI, Mr. Mineshaftgap's article makes the following six important points: 1) Compared to previous troop levels for analogous periods of time, the "surge" brings no significant increase in deployments in Iraq; 2) New tactics and deployments in Iraq do not improve the prospects for success over previous periods; 3) Conditions in Iraq for civilians there have not improved, as measured by civilian casualties and oil and electricity production (As an aside, the article mentions that civilian casualties have actually increased measurably since the last of the American surge troops arrived in June of this year and that oil and electricity production have declined); 4) The expansion of Iraqi security forces has not resulted in better protection for Iraqi civilians; 5) While circumstances have apparently improved significantly in Anbar Province, they have deteriorated elsewhere; and finally, 6) Those best able to measure the success of the surge, Iraqi civilians, assert in polls that conditions in Iraq are worse than before, that the U.S. and allied forces are unwelcome and should leave the country, and by a margin of 57 percent that it is OK to attack coalition forces.
The analysis points out that troop levels since the surge began have reached a high of just over 160,000, which is not much higher than the number of American forces that were positioned in Iraq in late 2005 as a precautionary measure against expected violence associated with Iraqi elections. Additionally, the article notes, U.S. Marine Corps and Army leaders can only sustain current surge force levels for a maximum of about one more year. And, as the article notes, current troop levels are only between eight and nine percent higher that previous maximum troop levels in Iraq.
|
|
Type in Your Comments Below



