Iraq Push Revives Criticism of Force Size

In terms of the fighting, the question may be academic. "There isn't much more land power available for use in Iraq and Afghanistan," retired Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, a former Army chief of staff, recently commented. "We are now 'all in' " -- that is, in poker terms, the U.S. armed forces have put all their chips on the table.

That view underscores the question of the reliability and combat effectiveness of Iraqi security forces. Essentially, any additional combat power is going to have to come largely from them, as will the capability to "hold" large areas outside the capital.

"The Iraqi security forces will be able to sustain and continue to improve their ability to maintain security," Odierno predicted. "They are staying and fighting. They are taking casualties."

But other officers report that the Iraqi forces themselves are not big enough and also have a mixed record in combat. Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, who oversaw training and advising efforts there until this month, said in recent congressional testimony that Iraqi units are improving but "do not have tactical staying power."

"For the control and retain phases, we will need reliable Iraqi security forces in sufficient numbers," said Lt. Col. Douglas A. Ollivant, a senior Army planner in Baghdad. "There are clearly not yet enough reliable forces."

Iraqi security forces are "the weak link," said counterinsurgency expert Krepinevich. The Iraqi government is so factionalized that Iraqi forces remain largely ineffective, he explained: "This is the principal weak spot in our strategy -- and I'm afraid it may be fatal."

A senior commander in Iraq, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that U.S. plans do not call for holding cleared areas. Rather he said, the "Battle of the Baghdad Belts," as some in the military call the new offensive, is a series of raids designed to reduce attacks on the capital and thus support the main effort, which is to improve the security of Baghdad's population.

"This is about interdicting the accelerants of al-Qaeda," Odierno said yesterday. "I mean the truck bombs, the car bombs, the chlorine bombs that they try to do in order to harass the population and try to affect the confidence in the government of Iraq. These are the attacks that we are trying to prevent."

In their first week, the new operations have resulted in the capture of more than 700 detainees, the killing of 160 insurgents, and the uncovering of hundreds of weapons caches and bombs, Odierno said.

Terry Daly, a retired U.S. government expert in counterinsurgency, said that if Phantom Thunder is indeed a short-term aggressive action intended to kill insurgents who have attacked the capital and to remove their rural strongholds, then he thinks it is the right move. "This is not more of the same-old, same-old futile search-and-destroy, but rather an operational raid" to help improve security in Baghdad, he said. "As such it is skilled American generalship, which we haven't seen in a long time, and which looks good."

Even so, some insiders worry that the new push will still prove to be too little, too late. "We have lost the fight for public and political support, so no matter how successful we are militarily, we are being led to failure," said one U.S. intelligence expert involved in Iraqi operations.

Staff writer Ann Scott Tyson contributed to this report.