More work needed in Baghdad

NY Times:

Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.

The American assessment, completed in 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.

In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face “resistance,” according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad.

The assessment offers the first comprehensive look at the progress of the effort to stabilize Baghdad with the heavy influx of additional troops. The last remaining American units in the troop increase are just now arriving.

Violence has diminished in many areas, but it is especially chronic in mixed Shiite-Sunni neighborhoods in western Baghdad, several senior officers said. Over all, improvements have not yet been as widespread or lasting across Baghdad, they acknowledged.

The operation “is at a difficult point right now, to be sure,” said Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, the deputy commander of the First Cavalry Division, which has responsibility for Baghdad.

In an interview, he said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly.

That is forcing American commanders to conduct operations to remove insurgents from some areas multiple times. The heavily Shiite security forces have also repeatedly failed to intervene in some areas when fighters, who fled or laid low when the American troops arrived, resumed sectarian killings.

...

The bottom line is that they need more force to occupy the space and the Iraqis are going to have to provide it. What is missing from this story is a better understanding of how the strategy is working where we do have adequate force. There has been a wealth of anecdotal evidence that in those areas the strategy is working. When ever you have to buy the same real estate more than once, it is a pretty good sign you have inadequate force in the area. The review at this point is not a fair presentation since some of the troops just got there. It also appears that the two brigades that were going to be used in Anbar can probably be reassigned.

I would put them in Diyala, because I think it has become what remains of al Qaeda's base area. Putting them there will hurt al Qaeda's ability to attack in Baghdad. We are already seeing signs of Sunnis turning against al Qaeda in some neighborhoods of Baghdad, in areas that have not been reached by the surge previously. This is a positive momentum that we must take advantage of.

W. Thomas Smith comments on the misleading nature of the NY Times story at NRO's Tank. Unfortunately the direct link was not working so you may have to scroll down. Scrappleface discusses the NY Times "nightmare scenario."