You have commented 274 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq
U.S. transfers control of much of Baghdad
2006-03-08
The U.S. Army has handed over the security of a major part of Baghdad to Iraq's military.

In what was termed one of the largest transfers of operations, the U.S.-led coalition handed over security responsibility for several parts of Baghdad to the Iraq Army. The areas where Iraqi authorities would assume responsibility were identified as western Baghdad and eastern Abu Ghraib.

The handover was conducted by the U.S. Army's 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division. In a ceremony on March 2, the Iraq Army's Sixth Division, 3rd Brigade, assumed security responsibility, Middle East Newsline reported.

"We are comrades," Iraqi Brig. Gen. Aziz Noor, commander of the 3rd Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division, said. "The Iraqi army and the American forces are brothers. We bleed together. We shed tears over the same fallen comrades."

Officials said the transfer of security responsibility was one of the largest since 2004. They said western Baghdad and Abu Ghraib contained key facilities and marked a major test of the Iraqi security forces.

"The American forces are giving freedom back to the people of Iraq, just as they did in Japan, Germany and Korea," Aziz said. "We are receiving this area of responsibility and the job to protect it. God willing, we will be able to do so."

The Iraqi and U.S. brigades have been patroling Baghdad since mid-2005. The U.S. 1st Brigade helped train and mentor the Iraqi 3rd Brigade.

"Never have I seen a group of soldiers learn so quickly and advance so efficiently," U.S. Army Col. Jeffrey Snow, 1st BCT commander, said.
Remember to mention it just loudly enough so that the MSM won't.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#12  And some of us have thanked you, Bobby, for fathering such a son, and for sharing him with us all. And we're awfully glad you know where to get real news, so you know when you don't have to worry about him as much.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-03-08 23:26  

#11  #9 Yes, JC, I have drawn my own conclusions. Your son in the war, JC? Ready to go again, is he? Delighted to have been there helping with last January's elections? Happy to have made a "difference", JC?

I am delighted to have furthered my sense of 'spin' at Rantburg, and even - from time to time - have pointed out spin. Somebody (.com?) once said, "Good catch, Bobby".

Meant a lot to me, JC, but I've been coming here for 18 months. Mebbe you'll still be here a year from now? With the same name?
Posted by: Bobby   2006-03-08 21:54  

#10  A shrine blows up, and it's Civil War. After a few hours of battle, it's a quagmire (both in Afghanstan and Iraq). All I want the press to do is, say the Shrine blew up. And the particulars on the explosion. Or that the troops have halted. Not thier opinion of it's future ramifications. That's not thier job. If they do, than that's opinion, not news. It's not so much the news, just the obvious direction they are atempting to lead us in. It's also why they are having a hard time money wise.
Posted by: plainslow   2006-03-08 16:46  

#9  I have seen much good news reported from Iraq. I dont understand why it's said its not reported
by Bush supporters. I have also seen the bad news coming out of Iraq. I think the american public is intelligent enough to come to their own conclusions as to support the war or not.
Posted by: Just Curious   2006-03-08 16:16  

#8  The problem with the press is

Good news= No news= No job
Posted by: SwissTex   2006-03-08 16:08  

#7  Don't know JC. Let's have three years of good news from the press and find out.
Posted by: plainslow   2006-03-08 15:41  

#6  JC, given the continued US casualties, and continued obstacle to progress, support for the war would probably have declined under any circumstances. However it might have declined more slowly. Given the importance of timing - the fact that what Iraq needs most is time for the train and equip process, especially - this might well be significant to the ultimate outcome.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-03-08 11:57  

#5  So this would be a example of the "good news" coming out of Iraq, that so many Bush supporters
in the GWOT, claim that the so called MSM DOESNT
report or ignores.

The question then arises, that if more "good news" of progress was being reported by the
MSM in balance with the "bad news" of daily violence, casualties and deaths of U.S. military/coalition forces and Iraqi civilians, by a stubborn growing insurgency and potential civil war, would U.S. public support for the Iraq War and President Bush stop its negative nosedive in the polls and return to former positive majority status?
Posted by: Just Curious   2006-03-08 11:17  

#4  With today's kidnapping, they've got their work cut out for them.
Posted by: Whineger Phaviting8058   2006-03-08 11:16  

#3  Its a shame the 6th div's general wont be thier from what I have read he was definatley one of the good guys.

I hope we are drawing up contingency plans to take out Sadr when Iran tells him to jump agian.
Posted by: C-Low   2006-03-08 10:48  

#2  seems to me in recent weeks Anbar has continued to get quieter, but Baghdad, which had been becoming quieter in the fall and early winter, has become worse. Good to see the transfer moving ahead on schedule, despite the murder of the Iraqi commander in Baghdad. But it would be a mistake to ignore what a difficult task these Iraqi army units have on their platter. It will be interesting to see how well they do.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-03-08 10:29  

#1  no, it's a quagmire. sectarian violennce has overrun the city. civil war has broken out. the military is no more competent to fight than girl scout troop.

see. I read the NYT!
Posted by: anymouse   2006-03-08 10:02  

00:00