reality-based educator

From the Washington Post:

BAGHDAD, Aug. 28 -- The death toll mounted in Iraq Monday as clashes between Shiite militiamen and U.S.-backed Iraqi forces in a southern city killed at least 23 and injured 70 while a suicide bombing in the capital killed 15, including 8 policemen.

In Diwaniyah, about 80 miles south of Baghdad, clashes broke out between the Mahdi Army militia of radical, anti-U.S. cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and U.S.-backed Iraqi army soldiers following a raid by Iraqi soldiers in three neighborhoods to root out extremists, news wires reported.

...

U.S. forces, meanwhile, have lost nine soldiers since Saturday, the military said in press releases, making it a lethal weekends for them as well. Eight of the soldiers were killed by roadside bomb attacks and one by gunfire, according to the brief military statements.

In all, it was one of the deadliest 24 hours in Iraq in recent weeks and comes amid assertions by the Iraqi government and U.S. military that they are prevailing over extremists fueling the sectarian violence that's gripping the capital . On Sunday, gunmen and bombers claimed at least 69 lives.

"The violence is in decrease and our security ability is increasing," Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said on CNN's "Late Edition" program Sunday. Multinational forces have created an atmosphere of "reconciliation" in the country, Maliki said, and "Iraq will never be in a civil war."

The LA Times says the United States military has been able to get a handle on some of the violence in Baghdad by pulling troops out of other hotspots in Iraq and sending them into some Baghdad neighborhoods in force. The problem is, while "similar sweeps in Baghdad and elsewhere since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 have reduced violence...the bloodshed would increase when U.S. forces moved on," and currently the United States does not have enough troops in Iraq to be able to continue the Baghdad security plan for any extended period of time. And the Times says that Iraqi security forces, rife with corruption and infiltrated by militiamen, make security matters worse in the country, not better.

The Bush administration has not provided enough troops for the military to complete this mission in Iraq. History shows that when they send extra troops into areas with high levels of violence, the violence decreases while the Americans are there. If the Bush administration truly wanted to get a handle on the worsening security, they would send in enough troops to do the job. The Bushies are very good at pointing fingers and calling war opponents "cut-and-runners" and "defeatists." They are very good at creating photo-ops for the preznit like the "Mission Accomplished" speech and the Thanksgiving Dinner the preznit enjoyed w/ troops in the Green Zone. But they aren't very good at providing the tools necessary for the military to get a handle on insurgent and sectarian violence in Iraq.

UPDATE: Take a look at this email that a marine in Baghdad sent David Weigel (sitting in for a vacation Andrew Sullivan) that underscores my point: more troop numbers in Baghdad helped the U.S. military get control of some neighborhoods. The marine writes:

I don't want to paint any overly rosy picture of things here as I never have indulged in that practice before, but we have control everywhere now (up to a point). They are still capable of launching small attacks against our forces, still able to blow up Iraqi Police in large numbers sometimes, and yes, they can still murder each other in Baghdad in sectarian violence. But, we are waging our war right now almost completely on our terms.

Obviously the wheels came off over the weekend as violence again surged and the U.S. military lost 9 soldiers to the insurgency. But this marine's email says to me once again that more troops have been needed in Iraq since the beginning. They should have been there right after the fall of Baghdad when Iraqis were looting the weapons dumps and infrastructure, they should have been there when the insurgency was first getting off the ground in the spring and summer of 2003 and they should have been there to deal with hotspots like Fallujua, Tikrit, Tal Afar and of course, Baghdad, as it each flared up and the U.S. military was forced to pull soldiers from somewhere else to deal with the violence.

But the administration ignored the realistic troop assessments they got from knowledgeable people like General Shinseki and decided to occupy the country with a light, Rumsfeldian force. Even when it became clear that more troops could and would make a difference in the sectarian and insurgent violence, the administration has not seriously thought about adding the numbers of troops truly needed to make a difference.

They should either fight the war right or get the fuck out. Half-assing the war isn't working and people are dying, both Americans and Iraqis, as a result. I was never for this war and I have always thought it was a mistake. But I have also said over and over, if you are going to fight it, fight it right. Or don't fight it at all. One or the other.

But instead the administration half-asses it and calls critics of their efforts "defeatists."

Gee, who's really leading us toward defeat?