Today's Reading List: 6 Jun 2007

* recommended reading

* The Fourth Rail, The Baghdad Order of Battle and the New York Times. A look at the progress of the surge in Baghdad. Putting it in context.

The Fourth Rail, Iraq Report: Targeting the tribes; Reconciliation and Raids. A lot of bad guys were killed or captured.

The Fourth Rail, Iraqi Security Forces Order of Battle: June 2007 Update. On May 30, 2007, the Kurdish Regional Government went to Provincial Iraqi Control. That makes 7 of 18 provinces turned over. (Muthanna, Najaf, DhiQar and Maysan in south; Dohuk, Arbil and Sulmaniyah in the North.)

* The Weekly Standard, Misunderstanding the Surge.

There will be many difficult months to come, as our enemies attempt not only to make the strategy fail, but to convince Americans and Iraqis that it will fail. There is no guarantee that any military strategy will succeed, of course, which is why commanders should evaluate the progress of their strategy. But our new military commanders have understood the problems mentioned in the Times article for months, and they are actively working to solve them. The New York Times wrongly judges the current commanders by their predecessors' expectations. And it wrongly presents their efforts to solve legacy problems as evidence that the current effort has failed. It may be emotionally easier for some simply to convince themselves that the U.S. has already failed in Iraq. But success remains possible if we have the will to try to achieve it.

NY Times, Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal. Since when is a "one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad" sufficient to provide any analysis of what is going on in the terribly complex situation that is Iraq? Just asking. The next sentence: "The assessment offers the first comprehensive look at the progress of the effort to stabilize Baghdad with the heavy influx of additional troops." One-page = comprehensive?

* Opinion Journal (WSJ), Realists on Iraq: Democratic presidential candidates should listen to the "experts" they so often cite.

Consider Brent Scowcroft, dean of the Realist School, who openly opposed the war from the outset and was a lead skeptic of the president's democracy-building agenda. In a recent Financial Times interview, he succinctly summed up the implication of withdrawal: "The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution." . . .

If the Realists, neighboring Arab regimes, our intelligence community and some of the most knowledgeable reporters all say such a course could be disastrous, on what basis are the withdrawal advocates taking their position?

The American people are understandably frustrated with Iraq. But this does not mean they will be satisfied with politicians who support a path that could make matters much worse.

Financial Times, Scowcroft warns against Iraq pullout. In addition to the above . . .

In the meantime, the US should stay, but avoid becoming involved in Iraq’s internal conflict. “In creating a democracy we created a revolution; a social and religious revolution,” said General Scowcroft.

Yet, “in Iraq there is less than a quarter of the proportionate manpower (we used) to occupy Bosnia or Kosovo. (We should) gradually withdraw from inter-sectarian warfare. Shia versus Sunni is not a problem we can solve. The problem is it’s a zero sum game among the groups.”

Instead, he said, “we can train the army, back up the army. It’s a pretty cruel strategy, (but) I don’t think we can solve the civil war.”

National Review Online, Honesty About Iraq: How are we doing?

. . . Somehow “thousands have been killed” is never qualified as those mostly butchered and blown up by insurgents — since the loose use of the passive voice lends a general sense that somehow Americans are directly involved in, or responsible for, the killing.

Our soldiers are fighting brilliantly, and history will record they are defeating the enemy while suffering historically low casualties. But if the sacrifice of American youth is not tied — daily, hourly — to larger strategic and humanitarian goals by eloquent statesmen who believe in the mission, then cynicism follows and, with it, despair. . . .

NY Times, Delta Company on Patrol. "Delta Company" in Khadamiya, Baghdad. The lead-in: "In interviews with more than a dozen soldiers, most said they were disillusioned by the situation in Iraq." Slideshow with captions like these:

He and many of his fellow soldiers have come to believe that the Iraq war is a futile civil war.

They have come under increasing attack by roadside bombs placed near Iraqi army and police checkpoints.

Two nights earlier, they were ambushed with an improvised explosive device and one soldier was wounded.

He believes that many Iraqi Army soldiers are actually insurgents.

To Sergeant Kevin O’Flarity, left, a watershed moment was when he learned that in a fight between his unit and insurgents, among the dead were at least two Iraqi Army soldiers that American forces had helped train and arm.

Griffin understands the criticism of the Iraqi forces, but believes that the war effort must be given more time.

Gosh, I wonder why Americans feel so depressed about Iraq?