The State Of The Surge

(CBS)  In his first American television interview since the U.S. troop surge began in February, Iraq's prime minister told CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan on Tuesday that the additional forces have prevented an even greater catastrophe in Iraq.

"If the Baghdad security plan had not been implemented, we would have a true civil war in Iraq," Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said.

But Iraqis on the streets of Baghdad say security is worse. Murders went down, but they are coming up back up again. There are still bombs every day. What's al-Maliki's sense of the quality of life to Iraqi people?

"There are great shortages in Baghdad because it's the capital and it faces the greatest terrorist threat," he told Logan.

Despite this month's deadly toll on U.S. forces, Maliki said there have been many victories in breaking up al Qaeda and other militant cells. Although he cautioned it was too soon to do a complete evaluation of the surge, he has great hopes for more progress in the next two or three months — just in time for America's top commander here to report to Congress.

Meanwhile, CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports that all the troops for the surge are now in Iraq and U.S. military officers say American casualties are likely to go still higher when operations hit full throttle next month.

Compounding that grim forecast, Stephen Biddle, an adviser to the American commander in Iraq, says the odds for success are long.

"If I had to put a number to it, maybe it's a 1-in-10, maybe it's a 1-in-5 long shot if we play our cards right. There's no question that this is likelier to fail than succeed as this point," Biddle said.

---

Only On The Web: Watch more of David Martin's interview with the Council on Foreign Relations' Stephen Biddle.

---

In an effort to wipe out insurgent strongholds, U.S. troops will be moving into parts of Baghdad and the surrounding countryside, where they have never been before. But even with the surge, former Marine Bing West says there aren't enough troops to chase insurgents all over Iraq.

"These insurgents move 60 to 100 kilometers in a night, and all of Iraq is so flat, has such terrific highways, that you can scoot very quickly from place to place," said West.

According to Biddle, success depends on coercing insurgent factions into accepting a cease-fire.

"One hundred and sixty thousand troops is not enough to secure the whole country, but it's a powerful source of sticks and carrots if we start using it selectively to reward those who will cooperate and consider cease-fires and to punish those who won't," Biddle says.

There are cease-fire negotiations going on with insurgents. But for now, one military officer said: "they're out to kill us, and we're out to kill them."

[mh4cbs1]

Vote the spineless corrupt corporate Democrats OUT!

Vote GREEN PARTY - they are the only Peace Party. I am sick of Democrat lies - just as Cheney and Bush LIED us into Iraq, the Democrats LIE about their intention to end the War.

[mh4cbs1]

CBS won't let you in on the real deal!

Bush/Cheney LIED us into Iraq as part of a global strategy to dominate the middle east and control their Oil ($21 Trillion in Iraq). The plan is and always has been for a permanent occupation of IRaq. The cost in $$ and in lives was NEVER a consideration by these NeoCon murderous thugs. Read this and weep for our nation...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush would like to see a lengthy U.S. troop presence in Iraq like the one in South Korea to provide stability but not in a frontline combat role, the White House said on Wednesday. The United States has had thousands of U.S. troops in South Korea to guard against a North Korean invasion for 50 years.

[toddpw01]

Why should we listen to this puppet figure? He's only the Nth person we've installed trying to make the Iraqi parliament sign over their oil rights to Big Oil.

Half of his parliament supports a resolution to ask the US to leave Iraq, and the best he can do is say that the surge is working because it's the only think keeping Baghdad from being completely overrun?

We should just leave. They will deal with sectarian violence and Al-Qaeda in record time and start pumping oil like mad to rebuild their country. OPEC has kept Iraq from making real money off its oil for so long, I'm sure the Iraqis would love some sweet payback.

And if they export a lot of oil to Iran, then its main argument for nuclear power starts to look silly, no?

[brushfinch1]

Having presented Mr. Al Maliki's point of view, you need to present the point of view of the opposition.. to be fair..then let us reach our own conclusion..my problem with the show is that you do not question..you just present what the administration wants us to believe.

[poradicus]

Bush himself is a coward and should be impeached for not going to Iraq and fighting himself since he thinks it is necessary to send troops to Iraq and have another ridiculous surge.. What hmm another surge again like last year. How many surges does it take until Iraq is stable, none. Just because we send more troops there doesn't mean Iraq will be any secure than it is now Pres. Bush!

[retiredinmex]

Is anyone as mad as me? What the hell is Bush doing still in power?

He has illegally, immorally and unilaterally invaded a country that originally had no ties to terrorism. Now, yes, there are many terrorism threats as Iraq is an international terrorist congregation point.

I served in Iraq and spoke with hundreds of US and "Coalition" military members. I guarantee you there was no one who agreed with our/their presence in Iraq.

When was the last time you heard the media refer to "the Coalition?"

Who are the terrorists in Iraq? What the hell has Bush gotten us into? Where's the plan to get out of this quagmire?

Is there a poll of parents of the dead, injured or missing as to their support for this war?

[tuckerndfw]

You think he'd stick around ?

He'd pull a "Shah of Iran" and flee the country, probably to Latin America.

Posted by Iceman_1960 at 06:50 AM : May 30, 2007

No, I do not believe any of the current memnbers of the Iraqi "government" would stick around. They are probably busying themselves stuffing secret bank accounts with the billions they are stealing from US taxpayers and the Iraqi people.

With which they will finance their future lives of luxury while those they screwed are left holding the bag. Including their fellow citizens and US taxpayers.

George Bush is allegedly also seeking to buy land in South America. So, it appears they will all be living together. Presumably financing future crimes with their ill gotten gains.

They (Bush, PNAC, corrupt Iraqi & Afghani "governments") should all be in prison for war crimes and other crimes in general.

[drummer94]

Biddle. an advisor to the ground commander puts forth the odds that,well,suck. George listens to the ground commanders about the situation. HEAR THAT GEORGE,YOU MORON? You have wasted too many of our finest and raped our treasury to no end. You are leaving a legacy (laughable) of destruction and debt that my kids grandkids probably won't pay off. Assuming,of course, America survives at all.

[tuckerndfw]

To tuckerndfw: You are completely off base in debasing the military. I oppose the Iraq war but as a young soldier put it, "It is possible to love the warrior but hate the war". Without these guys you and I would be speaking Russian.

Posted by ramos937 at 05:40 AM : May 30, 2007

Stating facts is not "debasing the military."

I do not pretend to "love the warrior." My love is reserved for those nearest and dearest to me. Soldiers in today's "volunteer army" are no different than any other civil servant. They are working for a paycheck same as all other government employees.

I am a former US Army MP Sergeant, so it is unclear what you mean by "these guys." I am one of "these guys."

According to your hyperbole, all non-Americans should be speaking Russian. Obviously, the US military is irrelevant in regards to the language people speak.

The former Soviet Union was incapable of dominating Afghanistan, so it is highly unlikely the Soviet Union could have conquered the US, with or without the US military.

"Support the troops" is a bumper sticker slogan employed by morons who haven't a clue as to what troops actually do. Or, how they conduct themselves.

Generally speaking, US soldiers are less intelligent and more immature than the general population. As evidenced by their choice of a profession that provides a surrogate parent (aka "NCO") 24/7 to ensure they are properly fed, clothed and sheltered.

[tbweb]

d3125 wrote:

What kind of superpower was it, who cannot fight a few thousand ill trained iraqis? It is because Americans are cowards...

Posted by d3125

d3125,,,

In America we have a saying, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it! The U.S. is having limited success against the enemy in Iraq because the U.S. is going out of its way to avoid Iraqi civilian causalities. The better side of the American mindset is winning and thats the way the U.S. is fighting in Iraq. But there is another American mindset too, and you don't want that mindset to prevail because if it did this Iraq war would have been over in a few months, not 4 years, so my advice to you is shut up and count your blessings because with all the U.S. deaths and casualties this is the wrong time to be p-i-s-s-i-n-g the U.S. off with your dribble. Any war crimes against Iraqi civilians are taken care of, unlike those on the other side who don't think chopping peoples heads off on web video is a crime! The U.S. also treats prisoners well with medical attention included. Where are your prisoners? Can't afford to take care of em eh? Just better to kill them all right? And you have the audacity to criticize the U.S. with your perverted, twisted, primitive mindset!