Yeah, let's wait to pass judgement on the troop surge

JoMo said:

Apparently it was working because they had to move to some shithole area to kill people.

Click to expand...

Stilgar said:

That we "cleared out" in 2005.
The insurgency is not as stupid as you'd like to imagine.

Click to expand...

Mindful of the political fallout from the rising American death toll in Iraq, the U.S. military has pulled back from widespread use of aggressive tactics with ground troops this summer.

The number of U.S. military fatalities declined to 80 in July after three months of a death toll in the triple digits (104 in April, 126 in May, and 101 in June). The lower death toll has been cited by some U.S. commanders in Iraq and Bush administration supporters in Washington as a sign that President George W. Bush's "surge" of U.S. troops is working.

But the sources told me that the lower death toll reflects not some impending victory but just a slowdown in the U.S. ground offensive after the early phases of the surge, which poured more than 20,000 additional troops into Iraq. The sources cited a variety of factors contributing to the decline in U.S. casualties.

One U.S. military source said the American troops have not pushed as far from their forward operating bases as the U.S. news media has been led to believe. When Bush unveiled the surge, a key goal was to get American forces out of their secure bases and into small police outposts in Iraqi neighborhoods.

The exposure of U.S. troops to the additional hazard of such front-line assignments was a factor in the upswing of American deaths in the early months of the surge. This forward positioning also presented risks for U.S. logistical personnel who had to brave roadside bombs and ambushes to supply these isolated units.

Further complicating those assignments was the brutal summer heat -- reaching temperatures of 130 degrees -- at a time when electricity in many Iraqi neighborhoods is spotty at best. By slowing or postponing these deployments, the dangers to the troops -- not to mention their discomfort -- were reduced.

Still, this source said the decline in violent incidents involving U.S. troops could be viewed as a combination of two factors -- a drop-off in activity by the Iraqi insurgency as well as a pull-back by the Americans.

July heat

It's also possible that the brutal heat has a lot to do with the slower pace of the fighting, by discouraging operations by both guerrillas and U.S. troops. Since the war began, July has been one of the least deadly months for U.S. troops.

Indeed, compared to earlier July casualty reports, the July 2007 death toll of 80 was the worst of the war for U.S. troops. In July 2003, 48 American soldiers died; in July 2004, the death toll was 54; in July 2005, it was 54; in July 2006, it was 43.

U.S. military officials and Bush administration war supporters, however, have cited the decline in American deaths this July -- compared with the previous three months -- as one of several positive indicators that Bush's surge strategy is making progress.

Click to expand...

Stilgar said:

That we "cleared out" in 2005.
The insurgency is not as stupid as you'd like to imagine.

Click to expand...

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

Click to expand...

ICFire said:

You'd think with ~500,000 troops (US and Iraqi) in Baghdad alone...

What a sham this whole surge, and the war for that matter, is.

The Real Reason Why Fewer U.S. Soldiers Are Dying in Iraq

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted August 13, 2007.

Click to expand...