37% more US troops in Baghdad, ZERO effect.

OK, maybe it's time to admit what we're doing isn't having any effect, maybe even admit that what we're doing is having the opposite effect as what we would want.

In today's Times...

...Mr. Rumsfeld said the number of Iraqi and American troops in Baghdad had increased to about 55,000 from 40,000 to deal with the surge in attacks in the city. But the increase has not noticeably restrained the sectarian bloodletting, mostly between Sunnis and Shiites...

sheesh...

Adding 15,000 heavily armed troops to the mix has no effect. A 37% increase has NO EFFECT.

Can you say quagmire?

More than 130 people have been killed in or around Baghdad during the past four days, underscoring the persistence of violence that has convinced many Iraqis that the country is already in the throes of a low-level civil war.

"Low level"?

Tell that to the kids we send over there, and their families.

•  Very important information

  Great catch by you.  I hope this gets recommended.

  The U.S. troops cannot quell this insane violence ... I couldn't sleep so watched Don Imus at 3am PT, and -- oh, i forget the reporter's name (he just got named NBC's Beirut bureau chief) -- the reporter said that the violence is on a scale now that he predicts, probably, a civil war that will last for god knows how many years.  It was a frightening report, just like all the others we've heard recently about the horrific uptick in sectarian violence.

  by SusanHu on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 11:43:35 AM PDT

•  so much for operation forward together

  things have actually gotten worse since this operation was initiated.  it's more like they went backward together.

  by dumbya on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 11:46:56 AM PDT

  •  more like 'down the drain together'

    nt

    by racerx on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 12:51:28 PM PDT

•  Baghdad has a population of about 5 million.

  How much effect could 15,000 men have.

  by irate on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 11:53:10 AM PDT

  •  good question

    Especially given that huge numbers of them are armed with AK-47s and even RPGs.

    I wonder how many US troops it would take?

    100,000?

    more?

    Those poor guys are up shit creek without a paddle. If the chickenhawks want to have a prayer of saving this situation, they need to go to their home districts and have a rally, wherein they ask all their supporters who can to join the Army.

    Seems like it would only take a small percentage of them to fill out the ranks in a hurry, so gee, I wonder why this isn't happening?

    by racerx on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 12:49:26 PM PDT

•  Iraq

  has been a no "win" situation from the beginning. It is their damn country!

  by anotherCt Dem on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 12:03:45 PM PDT

•  The refusal of the Bu'ushists

  to admit that a civil war is underway in Iraq is reminiscent of their refusal in 2003 to admit that a guerilla war was underway. They either don't know what this does to their credibility, or they don't care (I suspect the latter).

  And what, I wonder, ever happened to "last throes"?

  by Enjoy Every Sandwich on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 12:42:42 PM PDT