The basic services are still not operating in Baghdad, drugs
and supplies are still not reaching the hospitals, and most ordinary folk
stay in their homes as soon as the sun goes down because criminal gangs
roam the streets looting at will and killing anybody who resists them.
All this despite four divisions of American troops in Iraq for the past
several weeks. Compare this with the Russian occupation of a much more
heavily damaged Berlin after WWII where basic services were restored
within days. In fact, the Russians were planning their restitution long
before Berlin fell.
Meanwhile Bechtel and Halliburton are doing a grand job in the oilfield
areas of Iraq. No problems there.
The American invasion of Iraq is, of course, quite different to that of
Vietnam but in one respect they are probably going to be similar. America
will be pouring troops into Iraq for a long time to come because it can't
keep the peace or bring about any form of acceptable governance. I don't
think America is really very interested so long as the oil starts to
flow.
From today's NYT:
<<<<
ALLIED TO RETAIN LARGER IRAQ FORCE AS STRIFE PERSISTS
Michael R. Gordon
BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 28
Faced with armed resistance that has killed four American soldiers this
week, allied military commanders now plan to keep a larger force in Iraq
than had been anticipated and to send war-hardened units to trouble spots
outside Baghdad, senior American officials said today.
Instead of sending home the Third Infantry Division, which led the charge
on Baghdad, American officials are developing plans that call for most of
its troops to extend their stay and be used to quell unrest and extend
American control.
Allied officials said that about 160,000 American and British troops were
in Iraq and that most were likely to stay until security improves and
other nations eased the burden by contributing troops.
Tens of thousands of logistics and transportation troops in Kuwait also
support the Iraq deployment. As a result, the total number of allied
forces involved directly and indirectly in securing Iraq is 200,000 or
more, American military officials estimate.
Earlier this month, allied military officials said they were hoping to
reduce American forces here at a faster rate, drawing the American
presence in Iraq down to less than two divisions by the fall.
etc
>>>>
Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England
- Re: [Futurework] More American troops to Iraq Keith Hudson
- Re: [Futurework] More American troops to Iraq Stephen Straker
- RE: [Futurework] More American troops to Iraq Lawrence DeBivort
- Re: [Futurework] More American troops to Iraq Harry Pollard
- RE: [Futurework] More American troops to Ir... Lawrence DeBivort
- RE: [Futurework] More American troops t... Harry Pollard
- RE: [Futurework] More American tro... Lawrence DeBivort
- RE: [Futurework] More American... Harry Pollard
- RE: [Futurework] More Amer... Lawrence DeBivort
- RE: [Futurework] More Amer... Harry Pollard
- Re: [Futurework] More American troops to Iraq William B Ward
