A few weeks back the New York Times published an article by Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack about our potential chances of "stability" in Iraq. Many folks touted this article as "proof" that we were "winning" in Iraq. It even was discussed on this board.
So last week the New York Times published an article written by infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon to be heading back home.
In it they voiced their skepticism of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest they see every day.
The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the ?battle space? remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers? expense
To suggest these views are null to the insights of Iraq is laughable. These guys would know the situation better than any reporter out there.