Two interesting reads on combat outposts in Iraq

First, the LATimes had a piece yesterday collecting an interesting argument from some of the "on the ground" soldiers and NCO's involved in the current "surge strategy."

Although senior U.S. commanders and mid-level officers say they believe the bases are starting to work, many soldiers stationed at the outposts are doubtful, arguing that the burden of protecting the bases means they spend less time on the streets....

Moving soldiers to smaller bases inside Baghdad, according to the counterinsurgency experts, would allow them to spend more time interacting with the population. Regular contact with U.S. troops would make people feel safer, the main mission of counterinsurgency operations.

In practice, however, the outpost strategy has a key flaw: As many as half of the soldiers there at any one time are dedicated to protecting the outpost.

"In my tactical opinion, the combat outpost hasn't worked," said one junior officer stationed in east Baghdad. "It's not a bad idea, but we are doing it wrong. We have a bigger presence but we have less boots on the ground. You only have one platoon that can maneuver tactically at a time."

Interesting argument, and very counterintuitive to the way "the surge" has been packaged and sold.

Second, in the WaPo, stepping back from the "why" Alpha Company is travelling four miles from their "neighborhood combat outpost" to the nearest base, I found the story of their journey compelling.