U.S. Unit Patrolling Baghdad Sees Flaws in Bush Strategy

Apache Company's mission: to search a few houses for weapons caches based on intelligence reports. Caldwell and his soldiers worried about the intelligence they had been given... from an Iraqi army... They wondered whether they were being set up for an ambush.

"It's a joke," said Pfc. Drew Merrell, 22...

"They feed us what they want," said Spec. Josh Lake, 26, of Ventura, Calif., referring to the intelligence. "I guarantee that everyone ... Full Story »

Posted by Bonnie Britt
Tags Help
Subjects: World
Topics: Iraq
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Bonnie Britt - Jan 12, 2007 - 5:38 AM PST
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

To:


Separate email addresses with commas.
25 recipients max.

Note:

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Member_photo_thumb
3.1
by Marty Heyman - Jan. 12, 2007

This "day in the life" story seems factual and accurate enough. It draws a very negative and depressing picture without any information from anyone with hope. This embed operation didn't happen in a vacuum. These reporters have opportunities to get more perspective on the situation than comes from the feet in the street. The story surfaces an important viewpoint but we have no way of assessing whether it's pervasive or isolated.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Silhouette_sml
4.0
by Bonnie Britt - Jan. 12, 2007

Though this story begins anecdotally with the real concerns of a homesick soldier, its central point underscores the major weakness in the administration's strategy in conducting its war in Iraq--soldiers ordered to carry out Bush's flawed strategy are not provided with reliable intelligence. This reporter traveled with Apache Company to a volatile area to observe the real problems of applying Bush strategy, and in direct, non-sentimental language, tells the story of how truly difficult that is.

See Full Review » (2 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.2

not enough reviews
from 2 reviews (confidence not calculated)
Quality
3.3
Facts
4.0
Fairness
3.0
Information
3.0
Sourcing
4.0
Style
4.0
Balance
2.0
Context
3.0
Popularity
2.9
Recommendation
3.5
Credibility
2.0
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
1.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »

Topics

(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!