Life just gets worse in Iraq

[Irvine511]

and let's remember, that only 50%+ of attacks are happening in Baghadad/Al-Anbar, not 90%, and let's also remember that there are 5m people in Baghdad out of a country of 20m, and we have 1.6 million Iraqi refugees to deal with as well.

devastating.

 

[STING2]

and then we have this ...



[q]White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops
By Robin Wright and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 19, 2006; A01

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

The idea of a much larger military deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far, mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate. Any deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who were scheduled to go home.[/q]

General John Abazaid never said he wanted to add troops. He is against the short term surge of troops as are many others, because its not really an increase in troops at all. All that would happen is that forces in Iraq getting ready to leave would stay several months longer, while those getting ready to go to Iraq, would go several months sooner than planned, producing a several month increase in the number of forces on the ground in Iraq. Such a plan is unlikely to have any significant effect.

For any troop increase to have a serious impact, it has to be a troop increase that can be sustained for YEARS, not months, and must be achieved by deploying new brigades to Iraq, not through manipulating the rotation of troops in and out of Iraq. Right now, the active duty Army and Marines do not have any more forces to send to Iraq. For every one active brigade deployed on a mission overseas, there is only one active brigade resting to take its place when it leaves to come home.

The only way to achieve a sustained increase in force levels in Iraq is to fully mobilize the National Guard so its brigades can be used as often as any active Army or Marine combat brigade.

 

[STING2]

and let's remember, that only 50%+ of attacks are happening in Baghadad/Al-Anbar, not 90%, and let's also remember that there are 5m people in Baghdad out of a country of 20m, and we have 1.6 million Iraqi refugees to deal with as well.

devastating.

As far as sectarian attacks are concerned, that is incorrect. 90% of sectarian violence in Iraq takes place within 30 miles of Baghdad. There are 5 million people in Baghdad out of a total population of TWENTY SEVEN MILLION in IRAQ. Most war racked countries experiences decreases in population, but in Iraq the population has continued to grow year after year.

I also find it interesting how no one mentioned the fact that US casualties declined by 40% in November from what they were in October.

 

[Irvine511]

The only way to achieve a sustained increase in force levels in Iraq is to fully mobilize the National Guard so its brigades can be used as often as any active Army or Marine combat brigade.

so just come out and say you want a draft.

 

[Irvine511]

As far as sectarian attacks are concerned, that is incorrect. 90% of sectarian violence in Iraq takes place within 30 miles of Baghdad. There are 5 million people in Baghdad out of a total population of TWENTY SEVEN MILLION in IRAQ. Most war racked countries experiences decreases in population, but in Iraq the population has continued to grow year after year.

it's interesting how you conflate, and then separate, sectarian violence and violence against US troops when it serves your interests.

[q]The Pentagon report, released on the same day Robert M. Gates was sworn-in to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, paints a bleak picture of a nation on the edge of chaos with 959 attacks a week attributed to militias, death squads and insurgents. According to the report, attacks increased 22 percent between August and November with more than half taking place in the major population centers of Baghdad and Anbar provinces. The high attack rate resulted in an average of 93 civilian deaths a day.[/q]

moreover, only about half of Iraq's provinces aren't consumed by violence, far more than the hugely distorted 90% picture you often present, and you're presenting the fact that widespread sectarian bloodshed hasn't broken out in Basra, Kirkuk, or Mosul as some kind of accomplishment.

I also find it interesting how no one mentioned the fact that US casualties declined by 40% in November from what they were in October.

November (77) was an improvement over October (110), but about equal to September (76) and August (70) of this year. so instead of fabricating some distorting innuendo that we're seeing some sort of downward trend in casualties, why don't you say that casualties spiked dramatically in October before returning to normal levels? why do you use the very same techniques of distortion you accuse the WP and NYT of using?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_nov06.htm

again, US casualties are a poor indication of what is going on in the Iraqi Civil War.

 

[Varitek]

Yup I think I read that October was the 2nd deadliest month since the invasion. You can try to lie with statistics, but we'll catch you.

 

[Irvine511]

here are 5 million people in Baghdad out of a total population of TWENTY SEVEN MILLION in IRAQ.

actually, we're both wrong.

there are 26 million in Iraq.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

Baghdad has approximately 20% of the entire population of Baghdad. there is no US city that can even approximate such a massive percentage of the whole population. baghdad is to Iraq as nearly 2 Californias (33 million) are to the US.

 

[STING2]

so just come out and say you want a draft.

Mobilizing the National Guard which is trained and equipped for these missions is nothing compared to what a draft would entail. Whether you increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corp through a draft or expansion of the current volunteer military force, it would take several years to expand the force and properly equip and train new brigades. By contrast, the National Guard already has 34 ground combat brigades, nearly 40% of the total number of ground combat brigades that the US military has in the total force.

 

[STING2]

it's interesting how you conflate, and then separate, sectarian violence and violence against US troops when it serves your interests.

[q]The Pentagon report, released on the same day Robert M. Gates was sworn-in to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, paints a bleak picture of a nation on the edge of chaos with 959 attacks a week attributed to militias, death squads and insurgents. According to the report, attacks increased 22 percent between August and November with more than half taking place in the major population centers of Baghdad and Anbar provinces. The high attack rate resulted in an average of 93 civilian deaths a day.[/q]

moreover, only about half of Iraq's provinces aren't consumed by violence, far more than the hugely distorted 90% picture you often present, and you're presenting the fact that widespread sectarian bloodshed hasn't broken out in Basra, Kirkuk, or Mosul as some kind of accomplishment.





November (77) was an improvement over October (110), but about equal to September (76) and August (70) of this year. so instead of fabricating some distorting innuendo that we're seeing some sort of downward trend in casualties, why don't you say that casualties spiked dramatically in October before returning to normal levels? why do you use the very same techniques of distortion you accuse the WP and NYT of using?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_nov06.htm

again, US casualties are a poor indication of what is going on in the Iraqi Civil War.

Deaths are sometimes reported multiple times on globalsecurity.org. Its only weeks later that the figures are corrected. icasualties.org has the more precise count and avoids these discrepencies because they only report persons who have been identified by name. Sometimes, the same person is reported twice prior to the names being released.

In any event, the correct figure for November is 69, October 106, September 72, and August 65. The number of wounded, the figure you like to site the most dropped by 30% from the figure in October. It was at its lowest since July. Yet, NO one has mentioned this, but if the figures were reversed, it would be reported every hour on the hour.

I've not distorted anything, just reported the facts, something that the Washington Post and New York Times often fail to do when reporting about the military and the war.

The only 100% accurate figure in regards to casualties in Iraq are the coalition casualties. This makes it far and away the best metric for gauging the level of violence in the country. The reports on civilian casualties do not have anywhere near the same level of accuracy, although its probably better now than it was in the first couple of years of the war. Still, its not nearly what it should be in order to make accurate comparisons on levels of violence. Lets not forget what happened in Jenin in the summer of 2002 when it was reported that the IDF had murdered 7,000 civilians and then it was found by UN forensic teams that only 49 civilians had died, all from accidents during the fighting.

As military commanders on the ground have repeatedly said time and again, there are 5 out of 18 provinces in Iraq where violence is a serious issue. Polls have also shown that Kurdish and Shia majority provinces do not consider security to be the most important issue.

Once again, as General John Abazaid testified in August, 90% of the sectarian violence in Iraq takes place within 30 miles of Baghdad. Given the long history of Mosul, Kirkuk, and Basra, as well as what has happened in Baghdad, it is indeed an accomplishment that there is no major sectarian violence in these area's. Its about time some people start to recognize that Iraq is a bigger country than just Baghdad and that there have been accomplishments and achievements over the past 4 years in Iraq.

 

[STING2]

Yup I think I read that October was the 2nd deadliest month since the invasion. You can try to lie with statistics, but we'll catch you.

Actually it was the fourth deadliest month, and still not at the level of April 2004. The only mis-information going on about statistics are those that don't aknowledge the statistics from other time periods, like 2004, when the US death rate was higher and the number of wounded significantly higher.

 

[STING2]

actually, we're both wrong.

there are 26 million in Iraq.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

Baghdad has approximately 20% of the entire population of Baghdad. there is no US city that can even approximate such a massive percentage of the whole population. baghdad is to Iraq as nearly 2 Californias (33 million) are to the US.

Yep, which shows that the vast majority of people in Iraq don't experience what goes on in Baghdad. Most people in Iraq do not live in the 5 majority Sunni provinces. Oh, and if you want to get technical about the population figure, your source shows that I was correct "26,783,383 (July 2006 est.)" Iraq has a population growth rate of 2.66%! By next July, Iraq will have added another 700,000 people.

 

[Varitek]

Mobilizing the National Guard which is trained and equipped for these missions is nothing compared to what a draft would entail. Whether you increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corp through a draft or expansion of the current volunteer military force, it would take several years to expand the force and properly equip and train new brigades. By contrast, the National Guard already has 34 ground combat brigades, nearly 40% of the total number of ground combat brigades that the US military has in the total force.

Yes, marvelous idea, send the whole guard away. The National Guard is supposed to be a HOMELAND security force. Sending more and more guard troops only leaves the general population more vulnerable to disaster, natural or terrorist-made.

 

[Varitek]

Actually it was the fourth deadliest month, and still not at the level of April 2004. The only mis-information going on about statistics are those that don't aknowledge the statistics from other time periods, like 2004, when the US death rate was higher and the number of wounded significantly higher.

OOooooh 4th. Well pat on the back we're doing sooooooo good.


Sting even Bush says we're not winning:

WaPo

U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time
President Plans to Expand Army, Marine Corps To Cope With Strain of Multiple Deployments

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 20, 2006; Page A01

President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."

Oh what a little distance (6 weeks!) from the election can do.

LIAR

 

[A_Wanderer]

I don't see how a rise in troop numbers will do anything other than put more targets on the ground. It seems more a question of tactics.

 

[Infinity]

I also find it interesting how no one mentioned the fact that US casualties declined by 40% in November from what they were in October.

Nobody is going to mention that, at least none of us anti-war people. We might mention that soldiers are continuing to die in November, be won't mention that there is a 40% decline.

You are saying as if there is a positive side to this. But there is NO positive side. Even if only 10 U.S. Soldiers die per month, it still doesn't make it worth it!

So therfore, regardless of the 40% decline, soldiers and civilians continue to DIE!

When will the radicals get that through their heads????

 

[Irvine511]

Actually it was the fourth deadliest month, and still not at the level of April 2004. The only mis-information going on about statistics are those that don't aknowledge the statistics from other time periods, like 2004, when the US death rate was higher and the number of wounded significantly higher.

putting aside the whole fact that AMERICAN CASUALTIES ARE A POOR INDICATOR OF VIOLENCE IN IRAQ, why was April 2004 so deadly?

the siege of Fallujah.

nothing comparable happened in November of 2006.

 

[Irvine511]

Yep, which shows that the vast majority of people in Iraq don't experience what goes on in Baghdad.

are you kidding me? this must explain the 1.6 million Iraqi refugees who clearly don't experience what goes on in Baghdad.

you are every bit as disingenuous as Michael Moore. he was criticized, rightly, for presenting Iraq as a peaceful place where children flew kites prior to the invasion of 2003. McCain called him out on this at the Republican National convention. YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING. presenting non-Baghdad Iraq (which we still know is a lie, since over 50% of the nation deals with horrifying violence on a day-to-day level, and we haven't even touched on the growing Shiite theocracy in the south were women are put under veils and not allowed to drive and homosexuals are being murdered in the streets) as the peaceful Michael Moore fantasy underscores the fundamental circularity of the political spectrum, how you will distort and manipulate to make a desperate point, thus revealing the lack of argument being put forth.

just imagine if California, or the entire east coast from Boston to Washington DC were dealing with the level of violence we see in Baghdad. the country would be in chaos, we'd be seeing millions and millions of refugees and a country on the verge of total collapse.

it's also amazing how you're managing to disagree with both Bush -- that we're winning, when not even Bush says that -- as well as the Generals -- who say they don't want more boots on the ground, when you say that we do.

 

[Irvine511]

The only 100% accurate figure in regards to casualties in Iraq are the coalition casualties. This makes it far and away the best metric for gauging the level of violence in the country. The reports on civilian casualties do not have anywhere near the same level of accuracy, although its probably better now than it was in the first couple of years of the war.

this is such crap.

this might have some basis in reality if THE MAJORITY OF THE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ WAS AIMED AT AMERICAN TROOPS, but it isn't. it's like your insistence on "the insurgency" as the problem. it isn't.

the biggest source of violence in Iraq is Shiite vs. Sunni violence, which is sectarian strife, also known as a Civl War, and the inability of the Maliki government to deal with this problem (as well as pretty much anything else).

it is the Iraqi people who are bearing the brunt of the violence NOT American troops.

 

[STING2]

putting aside the whole fact that AMERICAN CASUALTIES ARE A POOR INDICATOR OF VIOLENCE IN IRAQ, why was April 2004 so deadly?

the siege of Fallujah.

nothing comparable happened in November of 2006.

WRONG! Only a fraction of the casualties in April 2004 occured because of operations in Fallujah. The "siege" of Fallujah took place after April 2004 as US forces deployed to contain insurgent activity from spreading out from the city instead of going in to remove them. Then in November 2004, the US military forces moved into Fallujah to remove insurgents from the city. The operations inside Fallujah during that month cost the US military 50 dead, less than half of the total dead in Iraq for that month. The operation re-wrote the book on urban warfare according to Marines involved in the operation.

In any event, US forces were not conducting any less patrols or operations throughout Iraq in November 2006 than they were in April 2004. No matter how you want to compare the two things, US forces are suffering less casualties in 2006 than they did in 2004, the peak of the insurgency. The only accurate gauge for casualties in Iraq are US casualties making it the best indicator of the level of violence.

 

[STING2]

are you kidding me? this must explain the 1.6 million Iraqi refugees who clearly don't experience what goes on in Baghdad.

you are every bit as disingenuous as Michael Moore. he was criticized, rightly, for presenting Iraq as a peaceful place where children flew kites prior to the invasion of 2003. McCain called him out on this at the Republican National convention. YOU ARE DOING THE SAME THING. presenting non-Baghdad Iraq (which we still know is a lie, since over 50% of the nation deals with horrifying violence on a day-to-day level, and we haven't even touched on the growing Shiite theocracy in the south were women are put under veils and not allowed to drive and homosexuals are being murdered in the streets) as the peaceful Michael Moore fantasy underscores the fundamental circularity of the political spectrum, how you will distort and manipulate to make a desperate point, thus revealing the lack of argument being put forth.

just imagine if California, or the entire east coast from Boston to Washington DC were dealing with the level of violence we see in Baghdad. the country would be in chaos, we'd be seeing millions and millions of refugees and a country on the verge of total collapse.

it's also amazing how you're managing to disagree with both Bush -- that we're winning, when not even Bush says that -- as well as the Generals -- who say they don't want more boots on the ground, when you say that we do.

As General John Abazaid said in AUGUST, 90% of the sectarian violence in Iraq occurs within 90 miles of Baghdad. Thats a fact! In addition, the only 5 of Iraq's provinces have significant levels of violence, the other 13 do not. Another fact reported by the US military on the ground in Iraq. Polls in those 13 provinces show that the majority of people do not consider "security" to be their most important problem.

Those are facts, and there is NOTHING disingenuous or distorted about stating them. What is disingenuous, distorted and completely inaccurate, is to extrapolate what is going on in Baghdad and the 5 Sunni majority provinces as being the condition that all of Iraq is in. To hell with the facts and attempting to understand that there a huge differences in conditions between various provinces in Iraq. It is a fantasy to assume that conditions in the Kurdish north and the Shia south are as bad as they are in Baghdad.

The Generals disagree with the TYPE of troop increase Bush is contemplating and I also disagree with it as well. It is in fact not really a true troop increase because it only achieves a temporary increase in troop levels by manupulating the troop rotations. The Generals are saying that the United States needs to use the National Guard and Reserves more in order to help out the active duty compenents and I agree.

Whats amazing is how you continue to ignore basic facts about the differences in conditions on the ground in Iraq, as well as failing to understand my position on the issues.

 

[STING2]

this is such crap.

this might have some basis in reality if THE MAJORITY OF THE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ WAS AIMED AT AMERICAN TROOPS, but it isn't. it's like your insistence on "the insurgency" as the problem. it isn't.

the biggest source of violence in Iraq is Shiite vs. Sunni violence, which is sectarian strife, also known as a Civl War, and the inability of the Maliki government to deal with this problem (as well as pretty much anything else).

it is the Iraqi people who are bearing the brunt of the violence NOT American troops.

This is not crap, its a fact. The only truely accurate gauge of casualties in Iraq are those for the coalition. There for, to get the best idea of the level of violence in the country, you have to refer to those numbers. It does not matter where one sees the majority of violence going, because the only accurate recording of casualties is for coalition troops. With civilian casualties, the numbers are all over the place, because there is no process to record and verify civilian deaths in the way it is done for the coalition military.

Recording of civilian casualties has improved this year, but that alone could explain the rise in civilian casualties from the year before. Again, the bombings and executions did not start in 2006, they have been happening since 2003.

Since day one, the only accurate figure for casualties in Iraq has been coalition casualties. Because of this, accurate comparisons can be made between any month or year. The same can not be done with civilian casualties.

 

[STING2]

Nobody is going to mention that, at least none of us anti-war people. We might mention that soldiers are continuing to die in November, be won't mention that there is a 40% decline.

You are saying as if there is a positive side to this. But there is NO positive side. Even if only 10 U.S. Soldiers die per month, it still doesn't make it worth it!

So therfore, regardless of the 40% decline, soldiers and civilians continue to DIE!

When will the radicals get that through their heads????

The only thing that is radical is suggesting that a falling death rate is not a good thing in any way.

 

[Irvine511]

As General John Abazaid said in AUGUST, 90% of the sectarian violence in Iraq occurs within 90 miles of Baghdad. Thats a fact! In addition, the only 5 of Iraq's provinces have significant levels of violence, the other 13 do not. Another fact reported by the US military on the ground in Iraq. Polls in those 13 provinces show that the majority of people do not consider "security" to be their most important problem.

did you just ignore this:

[q]The Pentagon report, released on the same day Robert M. Gates was sworn-in to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, paints a bleak picture of a nation on the edge of chaos with 959 attacks a week attributed to militias, death squads and insurgents. According to the report, attacks increased 22 percent between August and November with more than half taking place in the major population centers of Baghdad and Anbar provinces. The high attack rate resulted in an average of 93 civilian deaths a day.[/q]

slightly more than half is taking place in Baghdad an Anbar provinces (and please note how big Anbar is). Abizaid is not correct, and we've pointed out repeatedly how the US military is not the best source of information on their own progress.

it's like asking Enron to report on how well their stock is doing.




[q]Those are facts, and there is NOTHING disingenuous or distorted about stating them. What is disingenuous, distorted and completely inaccurate, is to extrapolate what is going on in Baghdad and the 5 Sunni majority provinces as being the condition that all of Iraq is in. To hell with the facts and attempting to understand that there a huge differences in conditions between various provinces in Iraq. It is a fantasy to assume that conditions in the Kurdish north and the Shia south are as bad as they are in Baghdad.[/q]

it is TOTALLY disingenuous to pretend that 90% of Iraq -- which we've already debunked -- is a democratic fantasy land. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to say that a 40% decrease in American casulaties between October and November is somehow progress when October was the 4th highest month ever and November was a fairly typical month. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to continue to talk about "the insurgency" when the issue is the sectarian violence. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to only point to American casualties when the real issue are Iraqi victims of sectarian violence. it is TOTALLY disingenous to give the same weight to a small Shiite province as to Baghdad. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to equate Kurdistan and Baghdad. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to point to the Shia south as a model of democracy when it's slowly being turned into a theocracy where women can't drive, go to school, vote, or have their faces uncovered in public. it is TOTALLY disingenous to dismiss any Iraqi civilian casualties because you don't have an "accurate" number -- does it matter if it is 50,000 or 500,000? it's all grotesque. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to ignore the deliberate underreporting of the nearly 100 casualties a day. it is TOTALLY disingenuous not to understand the 1.6 MILLION iraqi refugees as a commentary that speaks louder than any poll about the lawlessness and violence in Iraqi society.



[q]The Generals are saying that the United States needs to use the National Guard and Reserves more in order to help out the active duty compenents and I agree.[/q]

and does this not totally change the mission of the national guard?

god forbid another hurrican hit New Orleans.

Whats amazing is how you continue to ignore basic facts about the differences in conditions on the ground in Iraq, as well as failing to understand my position on the issues.

almost as amazing as your unwillingness to call a spade a spade and acknowledge that your occupation is a disaster, no matter how you try to obfuscate.

and your dismissal of the dead, Iraqi and American.

 

[Irvine511]

The only accurate gauge for casualties in Iraq are US casualties making it the best indicator of the level of violence.

this is positively delusional.

the sectarian violence is not aimed at US troops, it is aimed at ordinary iraqis.

the Shiite death squads who have infilatrated the Iraqi police aren't targeting US troops, they are targeting Sunnis.

i am baffled as to why this is impossible for you to grasp.

 

[Irvine511]

The only thing that is radical is suggesting that a falling death rate is not a good thing in any way.

not a "falling death rate," but a return to the normal death rate after a horrible spike in deaths in October.

again, your distortion and rosey presentation of "facts."

 

[STING2]

did you just ignore this:

[q]The Pentagon report, released on the same day Robert M. Gates was sworn-in to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, paints a bleak picture of a nation on the edge of chaos with 959 attacks a week attributed to militias, death squads and insurgents. According to the report, attacks increased 22 percent between August and November with more than half taking place in the major population centers of Baghdad and Anbar provinces. The high attack rate resulted in an average of 93 civilian deaths a day.[/q]

slightly more than half is taking place in Baghdad an Anbar provinces (and please note how big Anbar is). Abizaid is not correct, and we've pointed out repeatedly how the US military is not the best source of information on their own progress.

it's like asking Enron to report on how well their stock is doing.




[q]Those are facts, and there is NOTHING disingenuous or distorted about stating them. What is disingenuous, distorted and completely inaccurate, is to extrapolate what is going on in Baghdad and the 5 Sunni majority provinces as being the condition that all of Iraq is in. To hell with the facts and attempting to understand that there a huge differences in conditions between various provinces in Iraq. It is a fantasy to assume that conditions in the Kurdish north and the Shia south are as bad as they are in Baghdad.[/q]

it is TOTALLY disingenuous to pretend that 90% of Iraq -- which we've already debunked -- is a democratic fantasy land. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to say that a 40% decrease in American casulaties between October and November is somehow progress when October was the 4th highest month ever and November was a fairly typical month. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to continue to talk about "the insurgency" when the issue is the sectarian violence. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to only point to American casualties when the real issue are Iraqi victims of sectarian violence. it is TOTALLY disingenous to give the same weight to a small Shiite province as to Baghdad. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to equate Kurdistan and Baghdad. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to point to the Shia south as a model of democracy when it's slowly being turned into a theocracy where women can't drive, go to school, vote, or have their faces uncovered in public. it is TOTALLY disingenous to dismiss any Iraqi civilian casualties because you don't have an "accurate" number -- does it matter if it is 50,000 or 500,000? it's all grotesque. it is TOTALLY disingenuous to ignore the deliberate underreporting of the nearly 100 casualties a day. it is TOTALLY disingenuous not to understand the 1.6 MILLION iraqi refugees as a commentary that speaks louder than any poll about the lawlessness and violence in Iraqi society.



[q]The Generals are saying that the United States needs to use the National Guard and Reserves more in order to help out the active duty compenents and I agree.[/q]

and does this not totally change the mission of the national guard?

god forbid another hurrican hit New Orleans.





almost as amazing as your unwillingness to call a spade a spade and acknowledge that your occupation is a disaster, no matter how you try to obfuscate.

and your dismissal of the dead, Iraqi and American.

I did not ignore the report and it does not contradict ANYTHING that I said. The vast majority of violence in Iraq happens in the 5 Sunni majority provinces. The report goes into more detail saying that MORE THAN HALF THE VIOLENCE occurs in just two provinces. The report you site makes my point even more clear.

The US military is by far the best source of information, because they have access the largest amount of accurate information of any other group in the world. They are also deployed on the ground in Iraq in numbers and in area's that vastly exceed any other organization. Their job is one of service and has nothing to do with making a profit. You will get a far more intelligent and honest perspective from those serving than those attempting to report on things they often don't understand or have made little attempt to understand. Conflict after conflict, civilian journalist repeatedly make factual errors in their reporting on the military and the conflict.


I have never once said that 90% of Iraq is a democratic fantasy land. Now your distorting what I have said. The 90% figure refers to the sectarian violence in the country, which you say is the majority of the violence. 90% of it occurs within 30 miles of Baghdad.

You went to great lengths to use the month of October and its higher casualty total as an example of how the insurgency was rising and the US was losing. November's figure proves that was simply false.

The insurgency and the sectarian violence overlap each other. American casualties continue to be the best gauge of violence in the country because there are not yet any comparably accurate figures for civilians. Its TOTALLY disingenuous to be equating Baghdad with the rest of Iraq. Kurdistan is the same size as Baghdad. I've never said the Shia south was a model for democracy, but it is a much more stable area' relative to Baghdad where most people site lack of services as the most important problem, rather than security. Its disiingenous not to realize the inability to accurately compare various months on civilian casualties in Iraq, when the data is so inaccurate. More disingenous is to make grand statements based on such inaccurate data. Its also disingenous to ignore the fact that despite all this violence, Iraq still has annual population growth rate of nearly 3%. Historically, rising populations are not seen in war zones.

The National Guard combat Brigades are equipped the same way that Active Army Brigades are. They have M1 Tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Palliden Artillery systems, MLRS systems, light anti-tank weapons, small arms, scout and attack Helicopters etc. They train and are designed to perform the same missions that the Active Army Brigades engage in.


This is why the occupation is NOT a disaster as you claim:

1. two successful democratic elections in which the majority of the population participated.
2. the passing of a constitution
3. Iraq's first elected government coming into office.
4. Over 300,000 military and police forces in training.
5. compromises between the various ethnic groups of Iraq including Sunni acceptence of Maliki as the new leader of the government when Jafferi was seen as unacceptable.
6. Iraqi military units that have performed very well in combat in various operations in Anbar province with little or no support from the US military.
7. The continued professionalism of the Iraqi military and non-sectarianism compared with police forces which have sometimes been caught in engaging in sectarian violence. The problems in the police forces are not seen anywhere near to that degree in the military.
8. Substantial GDP growth across the country.
9. Relative calm and peace in 13 of the 18 provinces of Iraq.
10. Polls in those provinces showing that "security" is not a top concern for the people that live there.
11. The distribution of humanitarian aid, electricity, and other services to many parts of Iraq that had often been denied such items for decades.
12. The standard of living of the average Iraqi in Shia and Kurdish area's of Iraq has improved since the removal of Saddam. Iraq, despite all the violence, still has a standard of living much higher than countries without any such violence, which is unusual historically.

 

[STING2]

this is positively delusional.

the sectarian violence is not aimed at US troops, it is aimed at ordinary iraqis.

the Shiite death squads who have infilatrated the Iraqi police aren't targeting US troops, they are targeting Sunnis.

i am baffled as to why this is impossible for you to grasp.

Thats NOT the point! The casualties they inflict are not accurately recorded in the way that it is for the coalition which is 100% accurate. You can't use civilian casualties as a gauge and make month to month comparisons because its simply not accurate. You can make 100% precise comparisons with coalition casaulties. I am baffled why you can't grasp this! US forces are engaging in stopping the sectarian violence and have had increased casualties because of these operations, so the two are related.

 

[STING2]

not a "falling death rate," but a return to the normal death rate after a horrible spike in deaths in October.

again, your distortion and rosey presentation of "facts."

Your position in October was that this was a clear sign that things were getting worse. The November figures totally rebut that contention and continue to show that the insurgency has been unable to grow in any significant way since 2004.

 

[Irvine511]

Thats NOT the point! The casualties they inflict are not accurately recorded in the way that it is for the coalition which is 100% accurate. You can't use civilian casualties as a gauge and make month to month comparisons because its simply not accurate. You can make 100% precise comparisons with coalition casaulties. I am baffled why you can't grasp this! US forces are engaging in stopping the sectarian violence and have had increased casualties because of these operations, so the two are related.

if you want to understand the level of violence in Iraq you need to understand what the targets of the violence are -- they are NOT americans, they are everyday iraqis. simply because one number is more verifiable than the other doesn't mean that the verifiable number is an accurate metric to use when gauging the overall level of violence in the country. tell me, what pecentage of the nearly 100 attacks a day are aimed at US troops? or do we discard the 100 attacks a day and only record and use the attacks that specifically happen against American troops? do we only count my dead friend, and not the 2 dozen iraqis who wash ashore with holes drilled in the back of their heads?

in 2004 the insurgency was targeting American troops, not so in 2006, where "the insurgency" has taken a backseat to the sectarian violence. and yet we still see figures of American deaths in 2006 that are comparable to 2004 despite the fact that American troops are no longer the primary targets of violence in Iraq!

 

[Irvine511]

Your position in October was that this was a clear sign that things were getting worse. The November figures totally rebut that contention and continue to show that the insurgency has been unable to grow in any significant way since 2004.

continue to worry about "the insurgency."

the rest of us will deal with the sectarian violence.

my position in October was that violence against US troops was increasing. which was certainly the case. the decline in November does not "totally rebut that contention" -- it means that October was deadlier than November, and it also means that you can't hide behind your smokescreen of decontextualized percentage comparisons (something the military does very, very well, and often) that violence is decreasing overall. it is not, despite the fact that Americans are less and less and less the direct targets of the violence like they were in 2004.

look at overall instances of violence in Iraq in 2006 -- about 100 a day. over 3,000 Iraqis killed, on average, a month.

what were those numbers in 2004?

as for Baghdad, it is far more important to Iraq than any comparable city in the US. 20% of Iraqis live there. 20%!!! and the city is in total chaos. and what's worse is that the provinces of Diyala and Salahuddin and Anbar all have higher death rates.

of course the Shiite provinces see less violence -- because the violence in Iraq is SECTARIAN!!! there are no Sunnis to kill there! they've already been killed, or have fled. hence, this is a CIVIL WAR! you have an ineffectual central government and one ethnic group attempting to seize power while eliminating another rival ethnic group. the places consumed in an orgy of violence are the places where Shiites and Sunnis live together.

but, hey, if you want all of Iraq to be just like those peaceful Shia provinces, then start funding the Shia like Dick Cheney wants; then all the Sunnis will be cleansed and then the violence will stop and i'm sure you'll tout that as another accomplishement.

but that will be hard, seeing as how the Saudis are going to start funding the Sunnis, as they've publically stated.