The Battle of Baghdad

Americans fighting al Qaeda and sectarian militias

The Iraq war could be heading to its decisive moment: a battle for the capital of Baghdad that already has turned dramatically bloodier for American soldiers and carries enormous stakes for the country’s future.

At least 13 American soldiers have been killed around Baghdad since Monday - the highest four-day U.S. toll in the capital since the 2003 invasion.

That count is likely to rise higher as the U.S.-led forces step up their campaign to root out the extremist militias, death squads and terrorist cells that have turned the city into a collection of armed, ethnically divided camps.

No longer a limited security problem while the main war was being fought out west in Anbar province, the battle of Baghdad is turning out to be ”a critical point in the Iraq war,” says former Pentagon analyst Anthony Cordesman.

”Securing Baghdad … won’t win. But losing Baghdad will lose,” Cordesman says. ”If they lose, Iraq is likely to slip into a major civil war.”

Much of Baghdad is yet to be targeted in the joint U.S.-Iraqi pacification operation. Top commanders - signaling the toughest fight is yet to come - say they need six more Iraqi battalions, or 3,000 soldiers, to join the 30,000 Iraqi security forces and 15,000 Americans already in the city.

Comments

  1. Redhand wrote:

    My first post here. I found you from AoSHQ where Michael (as I recall) commented on your conservative rejection of the Iraq War, and revolt against the Bush Administration’s ongoing, blind incompetence in fighting it.

    You’re not alone in starting point or opinion, though I don’t think I could ever vote Democrat again. It’s a real Hobson’s choice — gross Repub incompetence vs. rank Demo defeatism (a replay of the Dems in 1864).

    Anyway, there’s a great article on the Bagdad fighting in today’s Wash. Times. It makes me sick.

    Yeah, we’re being greeted as liberators all right. We’re the target of opportunity in a round robin fight countrywide involving Kurds, the two Muslim sects, and those famous “foreign fighters.” I sure would like somebody to make clear what this has to do with the GWOT. Looks to me like we got lost in a civil war that we helped initiate by getting rid of Saddam.

    Posted 05 Oct 2006 at 9:49 pm

  2. canuckistani wrote:

    Was anyone surprised to see Condi Rice wearing a flak vest as she disembarked at the Baghdad airport? You would think if a war was going well, the airport would be secured after 3 years.

    Posted 06 Oct 2006 at 11:42 am

  3. commissar wrote:

    canuckistani,

    thanks for the tip. posted.

    Posted 06 Oct 2006 at 11:50 am

  4. DavidC wrote:

    The military tries to encourage the militias’ political patrons to reach a political deal, and offers benefits. SNIP Many of the estimated 23 Shiite and Sunni militias operating in the capital have ties to the very politicians whom the U.S. encouraged to join the new government of national unity. Al-Sadr, for example, is a pillar of support for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

    This is a prime example of the haphazard mismanagement of the war that has resulted in such a mess. Apparently we are unable to determine whether or not the assorted militias are actually enemies to be destroyed, or potential supporters to be co-opted into the power structure of the new government.

    Instead of making a decision and determining policies based on that decision, we are instead trying to have it both ways, something that almost always makes things worse. Sometimes we fight the militias, other times we talk to them or even encourage their leaders to join the government. There will never be any stability until this policy changes.

    Posted 06 Oct 2006 at 2:44 pm

« China’s execution buses and business
Hastert says he’ll stay as Punching Bag of the House »