Irvine511 said:
just so we're all on the same page, here's the breakdown in US casualties (which, again, isn't a good indicator of the level of violence in Iraq, just the portion of violence aimed at US troops):
YEAR DEATH WOUNDED
2003 486 2408
2004 848 8001
2005 846 5947
2006 774 5676
Total 2954 22032
what this shows is that there is a very small difference in the number of deaths between 2004 and 2006, and that 2004 and 2005 were exactly the same when it comes to deaths.
and this is quite worrisome for two reasons:
1. we've been battling "the insurgency" for 3 years with virtually no progress
2. US troops are increasingly "in the way" as opposed to being the primary targets in 2006; yet the numbers of dead are easily comparable to 2004 and 2005, when US troops were much more the primary targets than they are today.
and all the while, the US Army has failed at their primary role in the conflict: to protect Iraqi civilians so they may participate in a democratic society.
the insurgency has succeeded in that it has derailed the political process. according to Pentagon reports, since the bombing of the mosque in Samara, there ahs been a sharp incrase in sectarian attacks and Iraqi civilian casualties, especially in Baghdad and despite the increase in US troop presence and the supposedly growing abilities of the Iraqi army.
the Iraqi government has failed in its primary mission: to protect innocent Iraqis. Maliki has failed to convince factional leaders to reign in the death squads and militas; the kidnapping, torture, and executions continue apace not just in Baghdad but in any part of the country where Sunnis and Shiites live close together.
the Baker report is correct: Iraq is deteriorating.
we must find a new approach.
i think everyone agrees that allwoing insurgents and militias to take over Iraq would be a disaster not just for the country, but for the entire Middle East.
the biggest problem is the total lack of ideas about how to deal with the situation. there are no good options.
and this leads us all back to the incontravertable fact that the war was a mistake. it was justified on falsehoods, distortion, and fear using deliberately obfuscated and cherry-picked intelligence in order to fufill an academic, fanciful notion of "democratizing" a region poorly understood by the West.
what is to be done?
US troops are just as much engaged in the violence that occurs in Iraq as they were in 2004. The United States has not pulled back its forces, stopped patrolling or engaging in any of the important counter insurgency and security operations that it did in 2004.
For years now, we have been told that the insurgency is constantly getting worse in Iraq, with each year worse than the one before. The figures clearly show that is simply false. In fact the reverse appears to be true. The number of wounded, sited by yourself as the most relevant casualty statistic has declined by 29% from the level in 2004. The death rate is 8% below that of 2004. Rising insurgency? The figures don't support that claim.
If the US military failed in its primary role to protect Iraqi participation in a democracy, the two elections in which over 12 million people participated in would not have been possible. In fact none of the below would have been able to happen:
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.
All of them significant but ignored by those who want to pretend that nothing has been accomplished in Iraq.
The Sectarian violence in the country is primarily confined to the Baghdad area, despite the fact that Sunni's live all over Iraq, and form an equal demographic number to Shia in many area's of the south including the entire border Iraq has with Saudi Arabia. The Maliki government has only been in office for 6 months, yet people have this unrealistic expectation that all violence in Iraq was supposed to stopped by the end of the year. This is a long term nation building and counter insurgency effort that typically require 10+ years to complete in terms of getting the country to the point where it can handle its own problems without massive foreign intervention.
The US military and other US agencies are already engaged in an effort that will if given the necessary amount of time and resources, produce a stable Iraq that will be able to handle its own problems without massive levels of foreign intervention. The ISG offers many important idea's many of which have already been started, but it is asurdly foolish in its contention that all US combat Brigades could be withdrawn by early 2008. That position is in direct contradiction to its assessment of conditions on the ground in Iraq as well as the capability of the Iraqi military which would have to take over responsibility for departing US troops. 2011 is the earliest date you could seriously contemplate withdrawing all US combat Brigades.
For those that understand fundamental US and global Security concerns in the Persian Gulf Region, why the United States had to send over a half a million troops to the region in 1991 and go to war, as well as what actually took place during the 1990s in the region following that war, they will realize that the removal of Saddam was not a mistake and has boosted the security of the planets critical energy resources in the region. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are safer today from hostile foreign invasion than they have been for decades. But those that get lost in the debate about intelligence which has never had any sort of consistent accuracy on an issue as difficult to detect like WMD, don't realize the more important issue of the failure of Saddams regime to verifiably disarm, how that is consistent with past behavior and an indication of future behavior, and the inability of future intelligence efforts to know when or if a particular WMD program was started or not. Were talking at most a couple of years if not months before certain stockpiles could be created, probably without the knowledge of foreign intelligence. Saddam did not have WMD when he came to power in 1979, but he had significant stockpiles by the start of 1982. All that combined with the fact that Saddam's regime never accounted for over a 1,000 liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of sarin gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells as required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.
