The New York Times said an American assessment of the security plan through late May found that American and Iraqi forces were able to "protect the population" and "maintain physical influence over" only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.
Troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face "resistance" in the remaining 311 neighborhoods, according to the report, which cited a one-page assessment along with summaries from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad.
U.S. and Iraqi military officials played down the report.
Really, of course officials would play it down, right? that part just seems to put in as a rote denial that proves the point of the story.
We are not faltering in Iraq (though I remain extremely worried about the metric of victory we seem to have settled on to judge the surge, as I have from the beginning). Even under the terms of the surge, we've only just begun to fight with the last units deploying right now.
This story tells us only that the surge is still just beginning and that we are enduring more casualties. The conclusion that we have failed is utterly false.
This is a new campaign and increased casualties are the wholly predictable and expected result against a resisting enemy.
Wars tend to expand as they drag on. Each side will commit more resources to gain the edge and finally win. This war is no exception. Remember that the enemy, too, are taking more losses as our troops recommit to the fight against them. Heck, isn't it pretty good that already a third of Baghdad has been impacted by our new strategy?
Patience, oh chattering ones. Don't be so darned eager to lose.
UPDATE: This is part of the NYT's campaign to lose the surge and is typical of the Times--both eager to lose and ignorant of military affairs:
There will be many difficult months to come, as our enemies attempt not only to make the trategy fail, but to convince Americans and Iraqis that it will fail. There is no guarantee that any military strategy will succeed, of course, which is why commanders should evaluate the progress of their strategy. But our new military commanders have understood the problems mentioned in the Times article for months, and they are actively working to solve them. The New York Times wrongly judges the current commanders by their predecessors' expectations. And it wrongly presents their efforts to solve legacy problems as evidence that the current effort has failed. It may be emotionally easier for some simply to convince themselves that the U.S. has already failed in Iraq. But success remains possible if we have the will to try to achieve it.
I don't ready the NYT anymore under my Times DeSelect Policy so I missed this. I kind of assumed it, I suppose.
