Casualties in Iraq: November 2007
Posted by ~Ray @ 2008-11-13 12:35:12
REP. JOHN MURTHA (D). PENNSYLVANIA: Nice to be with you. Wolf. BLITZER: I'm going to play a little excerpt of what the president said earlier today and get your reaction. Listen to him. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BUSH: I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops. I'm certainly interested in their opinion. But trying to run a war through resolution is a prescription for failure as far as I'm concerned and we can't afford to fail. (END VIDEO CLIP) BLITZER: All right. What do you say to the president? MURTHA: Well it's delusional to say the least. As I said earlier and you heard me say it it's a failed policy wrapped in illusion. Nothing's gotten better. Incidents have increased. We have had more Americans killed in the last four months than any other period during the war. ... So our troops are caught in a civil war. As I said over and over again it can't be won militarily. There can only be a diplomatic effort. I think this surge is a perfect example where we aren't making any progress and we've got to start to redeploy the troops as quickly as possible.... MURTHA: I don't acknowledge there has been any progress made. Maybe in Baghdad. But it just breaks out someplace else. We called for extra troops two years ago. We put money in for 30,000 troops. They haven't even been able to raise the 30,000 troops they have. So they have to break all their guidelines. But there's no progress being made. And the way you measure it is is the security itself. Are the incidents decreased? No. Have the civilian deaths gone down? No. Have the American deaths increased? Yes. That's the way you measure whether we're making progress.
"The surge was supposed to bring stability.... It hasn't and it won't," Ted Kennedy said on May 1. "The evidence is clear it is not happening and it will not happen," Dodd said May 15 of a potential American victory. Durbin said the day after: "This Senate knows that the administration's policy in Iraq has failed." Senator Joseph Biden agreed. "The surge has not worked and will not work," he said on June 1. And in a joint letter to the president on June 13. Reid and Pelosi said. "As many had foreseen the escalation has failed to produce the intended results."... As Harry Reid put it on July 9. "Democrats and military experts and the American people know the president's current strategy is not working and we cannot wait until September to act." As Dianne Feinstein put it. "Today a majority of the Senate sees that the surge is not working. ... Do we change course now or do we wait until September... I believe the answer is clear."
WASHINGTON — Senator Clinton squared off yesterday with her possible challenger for the White House in 2012. General David Petraeus and came closer than any of her colleagues to calling the commander of the multinational forces in Iraq a liar. Using blunter language than any other Democrat in the last two days. Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief."
Those are your liberal leaders characterizing the effectiveness of the troop surge -- the very people you think should be in charge of national security. And their point was not merely that the surge wasn't working. They wanted everyone to also know that in their expert opinion the surge would never work. Were they right? Here is my monthly tally of civilian casualties in Iraq based on the data at (with necessary corrections described ):As always the black bar shows when al Qaeda finally succeeded in provoking the Shiite militas to start killing Sunnis (in an effort to stop al Qaeda's suicide bombers). The dark purple bars show the months during which the surge began to unfold (in February) and then became operational (in June). As you can see civilian casualties plummeted in September then they dropped even further in October and now they have dropped still further in November. In fact casualties dropped even more than this chart suggests. In November there were only 3 incidents involving more than 15 civilian casualties. Two of those involved 30 casualties each and neither incident actually occurred in November. In both cases mass graves of decomposed bodies were discovered. These people had been killed by al Qaeda savages in earlier months so it would not be unreasonable to take another 60 deaths off the already low November total. Month-to-month data can be noisy so here is a similar chart with each bar now representing the average of the last 3 months:As al Qaeda has been routed in Iraq and as former Sunni enemies join our cause. U. S military deaths from hostile fire have also plummeted:Remember the words of liberal anti-war icon John Murtha:
I'm frankly amazed that al Qaeda has not been able to pull off a single spectacular mass-casualty attack for 3 straight months. They are undoubtedly highly motivated to do so in part because they know that Democrats in Washington are veritable puppets on a string. Does that sound harsh? It doesn't to me. Harry Reid's declaration of America's ignominious defeat in Iraq came in direct response to this attack by al Qaeda on innocent Shiite civilians in Baghdad:
Suspected Qaeda bombs kill nearly 200 in BaghdadWed Apr 18. 2007BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Suspected al Qaeda militants killed nearly 200 people in a wave of car bombings in Baghdad on Wednesday including one that was the single deadliest attack in the Iraqi capital since the 2003 U. S.-led invasion.
Iraq war is 'lost': US Democrat leaderApr 19The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress. Harry Reid said Thursday. "I believe.. that this war is lost and this surge is not accomplishing anything as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.
In other words al Qaeda commits an atrocity and the Democrats immediately call for surrender -- right on cue and in exact accordance with al Qaeda's nefarious plan. While behaving in that manner the Democrats also repeatedly and eerily denied that al Qaeda was a significant factor in Iraq. To them it was all just a big ol' civil war based on ancient hostilities between Shiites and Sunnis is Democratic Presidential candidate Christopher Dodd nicely summing up the creepy Democratic stance that has been in effect for the last several years:
All Democrats and most Americans actually believed this nonsense. And of course the mainstream media (especially of course) bent over backwards to explain how simplistic Bush was being for emphasizing the indisputable fact that we were at war with al Qaeda in Iraq:
July 13. 2007Bush Distorts Qaeda Links. Critics AssertBy MICHAEL R. GORDON and JIM RUTENBERGBAGHDAD. July 12 — In rebuffing calls to bring troops home from Iraq. President Bush on Thursday employed a stark and ominous defense. “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said. “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”It is an argument Mr. Bush has been making with frequency in the past few months as the challenges to the continuation of the war have grown. On Thursday alone he referred at least 30 times to Al Qaeda or its presence in Iraq. But his references to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and his assertions that it is the same group that attacked the United States in 2001 have greatly oversimplified the nature of the insurgency in Iraq and its relationship with the Qaeda leadership.
Seeing Al Qaeda Around Every CornerBy CLARK HOYTPublished: July 8. 2007AS domestic support for the war in Iraq continues to melt away. President Bush and the United States military in Baghdad are increasingly pointing to a single villain on the battlefield: Al Qaeda....“Nobody knows how many different Islamist extremist groups make up the insurgency” in Iraq said Anthony H. Cordesman of the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Even when you talk about Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia the idea of somehow it is the center of the insurgency is almost absurd.”
You see it's all much more complicated than that cowboy in the White House can appreciate with his alcohol-addled brain and that's precisely why the troop surge is destined to fail. Liberals whose brains are uniquely able to appreciate complexity and nuance fully understood that failure was the only possible outcome. And they were only too happy to tell you all about it. How quickly things can change. The entire left (i e. virtually all Democrats and their comrades in the mainstream media) are mystified by the dramatic reduction in violence that we've seen in Iraq over the last 3 months. If al Qaeda was not a factor -- that is if it really was just a big ol' civil war -- how it could it be that turning the Sunni tribes against al Qaeda coupled with a troop surge offensive directed at al Qaeda achieved such spectacular success? It's incomprehensible. And make no mistake about it: offensive operations associated with the troop surge were directed at al Qaeda according to with the man himself (i e. with General Petraeus):
What is your priority in the surge operation? "It is to disrupt al-Qaeda and its ability to conduct sensational attacks and to try to continue the cycle of violence which they have been trying to do all along. In addition they are attempting try establish a real al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq a caliphate."What about the leadership in Iraq? "It is still led by foreigners called al-Qaeda Senior Leadership (AQSL). Our assessment is that this is the central front for al-Qaeda. They have a global war of terror and Iraq is the central front. Whether you like it or not. That is something that the leaders of the intelligence community in the West and our joint special operations commander agree on and that is why he is here two thirds or three quarters of his time. It is certainly one very important consideration in looking at Iraq."
Democrats who denied all of this are now bewildered by the dramatic turnaround in Iraq. Despite being wrong about everything you can be sure that they will now knowingly explain how the incredible improvement in Iraq has nothing at all to do with (a) the troop surge. (b) George Bush or (c) our apparent victory over al Qaeda. Instead the remarkable progress was achieved because [INSERT LIBERAL FANTASY HERE]. Had the Democrats gotten their way we'd undoubtedly be witnessing more than 1000 extra civilian deaths per month. It's ironic that people who think of themselves as being especially "decent" progressives were openly advocating that we simply stand back and permit genocide of innocent Iraqis. In effect that's what they angrily demanded but I doubt they will be able to assimilate that painful reality into their self image. Instead they'll concoct a fantasy according to which the reduction in casualties would have happened in the absence of the troop surge (despite the fact that they explicitly predicted the exact opposite as documented above) or they'll express absolute certainty that this is merely a temporary break in the action (even though they have already proven their inability to predict what will happen in Iraq). But the painful and inescapable truth is that they openly supported a plan to stand back and allow genocide to unfold before the horrified eyes of the world and they knew exactly what they were doing. Being the decent people they are they felt OK about it because they knew the blame would be placed on Bush. They were right about that of course but that doesn't excuse them for what they did. The American public may never awaken to all of this (because of the media we have) but if the success continues -- and no one can say for sure that it will -- history will record where the Democrats stood when Iraq was suffering through its darkest hour.
U. S. Military's List of Civilian Deaths in Iraq for Dec. 1. 200712/01/07 WaPo: 20 Die as Gunmen Descend on VillageDozens of gunmen overran a Shiite village north of Baghdad on Saturday killing at least 20 people police said the latest in a recent spike in attacks in Diyala province where the U. S military is rotating some troops out and moving others in. 12/01/07 Reuters: 4 tribal sheikhs wounded by roadside bomb in GhalbiyaFour tribal sheikhs were wounded in a roadside bomb attack in Ghalbiya near Baquba. 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad police said. The attack targeted the convoy of the Khalis police chief but he was unhurt. 12/01/07 Reuters: Five bodies were found in Baghdad. 3 in MosulFive bodies were found in different areas of Baghdad on Saturday police said... Three bodies were found in different areas of Mosul police said. 12/01/07 Reuters: Suicide attack kills 1 civilian wounds 5 in in Salman PakA suicide attack killed one civilian and wounded five others in Salman Pak. 45 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad police said. 12/01/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb wounds taxi driver in BaghdadA bomb left in a taxi wounded the driver and another person in the New Baghdad district of the capital police said. 12/01/07 Reuters: Three bodies found in Baghdad on FridayThree bodies were fond in different districts in Baghdad on Friday police said. 12/01/07 KUNA: Blast kills injures five Iraqis in BaghdadA blast in southeast Baghdad killed an Iraqi and injured four others on Friday.. a police official said the incident occurred when a suicide terrorist attempted to blast a checkpoint in Al-Nahrawan district. He added that the car was blasted... 12/01/07 AP: Militant raid on Iraqi village kills 13Dozens of suspected al-Qaida militants stormed a Shiite village north of Baghdad on Saturday killing at least 13 people and torching homes police said. The attack on the predominantly Shiite village of Dwelah.. http://icasualties org/oif/Iraqi aspx-Anon a Mouse
AAM - well i believe the earth is roundCONSERVATIVE - oh yeah? did you walk around the earth yourself to prove it? how do you know?AAM - well the preponderance of scientific opinion is that the earth is roughly a round shape and that's what most people believe. CONSERVATIVE - ha! now it's not "round" - it's "roughly a round shape"! Changing the goalposts again - typical liberal behavior. And this reliance on 'scientific opinion' and the opinion of 'most people' well let me tell you the truth my friend! 'Most people' are mislead by the liberal MSM which has its own vested interest in making people believe the earth is not flat and i have two reports here by eminent scientists proving that the preponderance of scientific opinion is wrong about this round earth theory geez you liberals are so stubborn - you get these liberal memes into your heads and you won't listen to logic!!! You're just dumb! And stop insulting me and using ad hominem arguments too!!AAM - well nevertheless i continue to believe that the earth is not flatCONSERVATIVE - WHAT KIND OF PROOF WILL CONVINCE YOU OF THE TRUTH DAMMIT YOU CAN LOOK RIGHT OUT YOUR WINDOW AND SEE FOR YOURSELF THAT THE EARTH IS FLAT WHAT DO YOU HAVE AGAINST AMERICA YOU LIBERALS JUST WANT THE WHOLE COUNTRY TO GET ON A SHIP AND FALL OFF THE EDGE OF THE WORLD OR GET EATEN BY THE GIANT SEA SERPENTS IN THE NORTH POLE!!!!!-Anon a Mouse
CFC,No. ICCC will not remove those mass-grave body counts. From what I've seen they only remove body counts if it is later determined that the story was a hoax. If the killings likely occurred in prior months they won't subtract them out unless a specific date for the killings can be identified. This won't happen for the two mass-grave stories so the count for November is what it is. Still it makes to subtract them out to get a feel for the level of violence that month (but I left all 60 in my chart to make things seem as bad as possible -- it's always good to err on that side). Also a chart of US military casualties going further back in time can be found. Mouse,You are just being intentionally silly (and typically liberal). I'm glad you are checking that casualty web site. You are almost there. Instead of gleefully celebrating a successful attack by al Qaeda "militants" on innocent civilians make a chart showing casualties over time. Then use your higher brain centers (not the lower brain centers that are currently engaged) to think about what it all means for the effectiveness of the troop surge that your preferred leaders bitterly opposed.
Mouse you know those 8 separate reports of Iraqi civilian deaths you cited for Dec 1st? You'll be happy to learn that the two worst incidents were overlapping reports of the same attack.12/01/07 WaPo: 20 Die as Gunmen Descend on Village:Dozens of gunmen overran a Shiite village north of Baghdad on Saturday killing at least 20 people police said the latest in a recent spike in attacks in Diyala province where the U. S military is rotating some troops out and moving others in.* * *12/01/07 AP: Militant raid on Iraqi village kills 13:Dozens of suspected al-Qaida militants stormed a Shiite village north of Baghdad on Saturday killing at least 13 people and torching homes police said. The attack on the predominantly Shiite village of Dwelah... Thus the death toll reported for 12/1/07 might be only 26 across Iraq as opposed to 46. But since we ought to be more interested in pre vs post-surge comparisons and TRENDS do you have a similar list to illustrate the average daily carnage we might have walked out on months ago had the Democrats had been successful in scuttling or undermining the surge?HuckFinn
Mouse:Why do you think you're adding unique or helpful information to Engram's daily discussions by persistently posting links to news reports that simply add up to the casualty numbers that Engram/ICCC tallys for us? Don't get me wrong- you've posted other links to very helpful context and data that I appreciate and I personally feel inform a debate- but I don't understand why news reports of the most recent attacks add anything here. You must be pleased that deaths have recently decreased in Iraq. Credit the surge the Sunni-against AQ shift the AlSadr standdown- credit Democratic pressure on Bush to change the "stay the course" strategy whatever gets credit- you must be pleased. So I doubt your postings are to convey your displeasure at recent progress. I suspect (though I don't know for sure) that you continue to post those reports for any of the following reasons:1. Despite the encouraging news of reduced deaths you believe this blog's tone does not respect or appreciate the sacrifices still being made by both soliders and civilians2. Despite the encouraging news of reduced deaths you think any news source should convay facts that represent both sides of any debate in an effort to get closer to the truth.3. Despite the encouraging news of reduced deaths you know that we're far from out of the woods in Iraq and sharing those reports helps keep our caution strong. 4. You are angry about decisions/ mistakes made in this war up until now and express that anger through publishing negative stories.5. You disagree that the MSM is left-biased and share those reports as evidence of this belief. Do any of those views resonate? I wouldnt pretend to be able to truly represent your thinking those points are merely way's I'm trying to rationalize your contribution as I believe you're a thoughtful guy and I'd love to find some common ground. -cmd
3. Despite the encouraging news of reduced deaths you know that we're far from out of the woods in Iraq and sharing those reports helps keep our caution strong thank you for your thoughfullness cmd the above comes closest to my thinking more fully keep in mind that1) the level of violence now has only gone down so far to the unacceptable levels it was at from 2004-mid 2006 - if there hadn't been a horrific increase summer 2005 - sept 2007 what we are seeing now would not look like any progress at all2) "history is not over yet" as you say above we have a long way to go before we can say we have succeeded didn't the readers of this blog hear the president when he said that the strategic objective of the surge was to give the iraqi government 'breathing room' to get its act together? don't the readers of this blog remember all the years where the president was repeating that our objective was to bring the troops home with the formula "when the iraqi troops stand up we will stand down"? isn't it clear that the surge while necessary is the opposite of that?don't you all realize that the fact that the level of violence has gone back down to what it was before for the past three months is something that very well might not continue? the rate may go back up may as you all expect continue to go down may stay the same or even exibit some other pattern declarations that we are 'winning' and demands that progressives 'admit' this are extremely premature you might recall yogi berra "it ain't over till it's over" we haven't even begun to accomplish the objectives of iraqi security independance or iraqi social reconciliation yet at best the surge seems to foretell that the iraqis will be dependant on us for security for a long time to come the administration has as we say in business. 'backed in' to this outcome and has never really come clean with the american public about how much money and how much of the blood sweat and tears of our soldiers will be required of us the american people have had to figure it out for themselves some leadership this is from president bush!so since the outcome of the surge is that even more american troops are required to keep violence from getting completely out of hand and so far from us 'standing down' it looks like we'll be in iraq forever now i think that your expectations that the american people will now be happy with what they weren't happy with in the spring of 2006 are unwarranted the questions I asked above are not purely rhetorical i really am interested to find out if you have forgotten the things i mentioned it used to be that many americans agreed with the proposition that 'america cannot affor to be the policeman of the world' i know that you think things are different now and that everything is justified because of 9/11 but i don't agree.-Anon a Mouse
and here's the early report on sunday's death and horror:12/02/07 Reuters: Gunmen kill Iraqi Lieutenant-ColonelGunmen killed Lieutenant-Colonel Aqeel Abdul Hussein assistant to the head of Baghdad's security forces in a drive-by shooting in western Baghdad's Mansour district police said. 12/02/07 Reuters: Car bomb kills 1 wounds 3 in central BaghdadA bomb planted under the car of Shi'ite politician Ammar Moussawi killed Moussawi's driver police said. Moussawi was among three people wounded in the attack in the Utaifiya district of central Baghdad. 12/02/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb kills 2 policemen wounds 4 in BaghdadA roadside bomb killed two policemen and wounded four others in Baghdad's Mansour district police said. 12/02/07 Reuters: Gunmen kill 3 people kidnapped 5 others in IskandariyaGunmen killed three people wounded one and kidnapped five others in an attack on the Sunni Arab al-Sammee al-Aleem mosque in Iskandariya. 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad after Friday prayers police said. http://icasualties org/oif/Iraqi aspx-Anon a Mouse
So what are you adding to our appreciation of the surge?huckfinnthere were 26 murders reported yesterdayi am trying to add to your apreciation of the fact that iraq is still a very violent place every bit as violent as it was 2004 - july 2006 andthat these are people that are getting killed on our watchthat doesn't seem to make much of an impression on you alli do wish you guys would stop reacting to these numbers as if they were sports statisticswill the surge get the rate of violence down to levels of other countries?how do you suppose that will happen?how long do you think it might take?what will happen when the surge level needs to come down as the current plan it by next summer?whatever happened to "we will stand down as they stand up"? are we planning on staying in iraq at 160 - 130k troops and 100 billion a year forever?what do you think of what ambassador negroponte said today:Washington’s No. 2 diplomat said political progress must quickly follow the security gains from the influx of American troops in Iraq warning Sunday that the country risks “falling back to the more violent patterns of the past.” Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte has spent six days touring Iraq — including visits to former flashpoints Fallujah and Ramadi — and meeting with top officials. He said the issue of national reconciliation goes well beyond the Iraqi capital. “It’s one thing to have brought the violence under some semblance of control but it’s another to follow up” with reconciliation reconstruction and stabilization. Negroponte told a news conference in Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone is negroponte being a 'pessimistic' liberal?the idea that 'liberals' should just 'admit that we're winning' is extremely simplistic and unrealistic.-Anon a Mouse
This is just a liberal talking point that you uncritically absorbed by listening to a liberal reporter or reading a liberal bloghere are some quotes from the president's speechA successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced. To establish its authority the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy. Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders. Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life the government will reform de-Baathification laws and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution http://www npr org/templates/story/story php?storyId=6803354what part of "A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations." don't you understand?Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned deadly acts of violence will continue — and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to successcloserVictory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory upholds the rule of law respects fundamental human liberties and answers to its peoplepresident's definition of victory:a functioning democracy that: 1 polices its territory2 upholds the rule of law3 respects fundamental human liberties4 and answers to its peoplewhat the president demanded of the iraqi government when he made this speech in jan 07:the Iraqi government plans to:1 take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. 2. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy. Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. 3. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. 4. To empower local leaders. Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. 5. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life the government will reform de-Baathification laws. 6 and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution if the warnings of ambassador negroponte and the president's stated goals and measurements don't make any impression on you i'm not sure what else to do engram was unfortunate enough to have the treasury secretary come out and agree with what krugman and i were saying on the very day that he posted an essay 'disproving' the points that the treasury secretary madeso i find that the positions that you are taking consistantly fail to square with those of the administration engram i'm not sure what to make of that...-Anon a Mouse
Mouse-To answer your question and I can only speak for myself. I definitely remember all those things you mention:-strategic objective of the surge was to give the iraqi government 'breathing room' to get its act together-.. bring the troops home with the formula "when the iraqi troops stand up we will stand down"? -isn't it clear that the surge while necessary is the opposite of that?-don't you all realize that the fact that the level of violence has gone back down to what it was before for the past three months is something that very well might not continue?Yes I definitely realize all that and one's position on Iraq would entirely incomplete without concern for the challenges we face moving forward. We may still lose. Losing might wait until after troops come home and the country could regress. We can't predict what will happen. I'll admit that I thought we were going to lose this war as of a year ago and I felt miserable about that. Though I supported the surge. I was skeptical that it could turn things around. I think there was some truth to President Bush's repeated warnings (and I'm sure you rememeber the line) "the consequences of failure are catastrophic." Therefore the results were seeing from the surge and what it's enabled have been fully heartening to me personally. While we might fail from here we're a lot less likely to fail now than we were a year ago. At least we've got a temporary fighting chance. That's makes me feel tremendously good- and perhaps makes me a willing sucker for the tone of Engram's blog- that there's hope and we should feel good about that. It'll be hard work with no guaranteed outcome but things that are worthwhile are generally just like that. While I see your line of argument that the surge is the opposite of Iraqi troops standing up now that we have some positive security trends it seems obvious that the Iraqi army has a better chance now of holding its own. I don't think it's realistic to expect an army to grow up instantly. Yes it's been 4 years- but shit maybe now it will work... "the consequences of failure are catastrophic"I'm personally fine with a long term troop presence there. Not at 130,000 troops and its the military's job to decide what the right number is but I'm fine with being there if it helps build a stable ally. The government's progress? Frustrating. I think. That's what reports seem to say. I believe that more reliable infrastructure (electricity water etc) is the key to a stable government. People will be more willing to engage in civil debate about how to run their country when they're not fighting for water or can run a business with more tha 2 hrs of power each day. Of course I realize the level of violence may not sustain at this level. But let's at least feel good that we appear to be winning at least temporarily one of the battles in this war.-cmd
and here is the president using the actual phrase that you consider a 'liberal talking point':This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings assassinations or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers fewer brazen acts of terror and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens daily life will improve. Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible http://www cbsnews com/stories/2007/01/10/iraq/main2349882 shtmlnext up on Back Talk: is president bush a liberal meme?-Anon a Mouse
Mouse,The point you are missing is that "victory" on this blog refers to victory over al Qaeda in Iraq not the fulfillment of the Bush doctrine (namely a functioning democracy in Iraq). Bush did not ignore al Qaeda in Iraq when he explained the purpose of the troop surge. You did though. Many liberals do when they say the the "only" purpose of the troop surge was to give bnreathing room for political reconciliation. That is simply nonsense as you now know (having finally read Bush's actual speech in which he explained the purpose of the surge). I'd like to see the Bush doctrine fulfilled and I'm pretty sure it will be (because the U. S will allow no other outcome -- no matter what). But you should know that "victory" (as that word is used on this blog) refers to victory over al Qaeda. To me that was by far the most important victory of all. It would be nice to also fulfill the Bush doctrine but it is less important (to me anyway). And I usually say that the victory over al Qaeda is "apparent." No one can rule out the possibility that they will make a comeback even though I doubt they will. They have been routed in Iraq and their reputation has been seriously tarnished throughout the Muslim world. That looks like victory to me and I just hope it stays that way (whether or not Bush gets his functioning democracy in Iraq).
Defeating al Qaeda? If that's the case then the President should have allowed the military to smash Zarqawi's camps as they requested multiple times before March 2003 instead of choosing to invade Iraq under the dubious conditions as he did. I mean no matter how many times it gets glossed over here our troops have expended enormous resources and precious lives to fight and die against local Iraqis while a much lower percentage of our people are killed by 'al Qaeda'. Even if you skip completely over the falsehoods used to justify the invasion and the poor decision to pursue this ideological goal of regime change nothing excuses the Administration for misleading about al Qaeda this way. Heck if you look back this nation and even some Iraqis went spastic with anger when the notion of amnesty for insurgents came up because there was always the fear that some killers would get excused for their actions against our troops. What this surge has done more than the military aspect has been a stealth amnesty for the people who have killed our troops. If that's a measure of victory then so be it; I've said before that we had to negotiate with some of these folks like al Sadr; it's ugly but it's happened that way in our own Civil War fer-instance and other conflicts. Let's not forget though that the President's supporters have routinely derided such practices and have previously held onto the notion that we wouldn't negotiate with terrorists.
Liberal and Islamist thought on Iraq is chock full of irrational conspiracies. While you accuse the President of lying it is actual a lie of your own to take the true facts out of context. Very few rational people deny that Saddam Hussein used WMD and that he obstructed the UN weapons inspectors from verifying his compliance with UN resolutions in the wake of his brutal invasion of Kuwait.. which started this whole war. Saddam himself admitted that he intentionally misled the world and wanted them to believe that he had WMD. In true Orwellian fashion you call yourself. "Criticalthought" yet your scribblings are that of a partisan hack. There is no critical thought in rehashing tired Leftwing/PaleoConservative/Islamist talking points. Many of which are nothing but the bitter ramblings of a sore loser. Too bad you chose the wrong side.
I find it disturbing how much people seem to fall into the same old destructive habits of us vs them. I'm what some would call very conservative in some respects and very liberal in others. Not all things or even most can be so easily lumped/categorized as we would like for our own convenience. There are indeed democrats who said we should never have invaded Iraq and I would have to agree would them at the same time that does not also mean as many in this thread would like to think that they also would gladly pull out troops tomorrow washing our hands of the mess we (yes we) have made of that country. Constructive pull-out plans are not a willingness to allow genocide as some would like to say. I won't deny that there are those in politics and in mainstream US who would advocate pulling out of Iraq simply because its fashionable while conveniently ignoring the consquences of doing so without getting them back on their feet first. However don't fall into the same archaic tendencies of stereotyping groups and making large oft inaccurate generalisations that have lead to all manner of historical prejudice.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2007/12/casualties-in-iraq-november-2007.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
