Ex-General: Iraq a 'Nightmare' for US

[BillCA]

Juan,
Okay, my fault for not using news.google instead of just checking the major sources ... who seem to have stopped reporting "minor" incidents.

It does seem like the number of attacks is down considerably. Note that the original ABC News report specified only Bahgdad and not all of Iraq.

Here would appear to be attacks on US forces on either Thursday or Friday.

These were not attacks but fighting in response to allied raids on enemy locations. I'd consider it "violence" but not an "attack" by the enemy.

Attacks on civilians on the 19th/20th or so here.

This is not one that I would count in the sense of an attack. The bombings would count, however if they'd been reported by one of the networks or AP.

Here is a soldier dead from insurgent attacks on Thursday. I've not thoroughly cross-checked, this may be from one of the aforementioned incidents...but a cursory glance seems so suggest it isn't.

Not being clarivoyant, I can't include a story that wasn't reported until 4 hours after my post, now can I?

No, I didn't do time consuming research, just checking the major outlets for stories of bombings or fighting in Iraq. Heck, maybe all of the reporters were taking a vacation or something.

[JuanCarlos]

It does seem like the number of attacks is down considerably. Note that the original ABC News report specified only Bahgdad and not all of Iraq.

True, but I was responding to your post (the second one) and not the ABC report. You did not specify Baghdad, but used the more general "Iraq."

This is not one that I would count in the sense of an attack. The bombings would count, however if they'd been reported by one of the networks or AP.

Yes, I was referring to the bombings of civilians, not the accidental deaths.

Not being clarivoyant, I can't include a story that wasn't reported until 4 hours after my post, now can I?

No, that news article is timestamped 12:57 AM (as in, in the morning) on the 20th. Your post (the second, the one I was replying to) was like 21 hours later.

No, I didn't do time consuming research, just checking the major outlets for stories of bombings or fighting in Iraq. Heck, maybe all of the reporters were taking a vacation or something.

Like I said, I didn't do time-consuming research either. Those links were found by searching google for two minutes and spending about two more skimming the articles. If I actually spent the time to "research" I'm sure I could found more and checked sources on them more thoroughly.

EDIT: And my point is that it's easier to say things are going well if we start ignoring the "minor" incidents. If the incidents I linked to (and any others I might have found had I looked harder) somehow don't "count," then things must still be pretty bad over there as far as I'm concerned.

[BillCA]

EDIT: And my point is that it's easier to say things are going well if we start ignoring the "minor" incidents. If the incidents I linked to (and any others I might have found had I looked harder) somehow don't "count," then things must still be pretty bad over there as far as I'm concerned.

I'll agree that it's no picnic over there either. It certainly wouldn't rank anywhere on my choices of a vacation spot. But I think we make the distinction between attacks initiated and carried out by their forces and combat when we attack one of their hideouts.

There are several news stories about the large drop in activity by the "insurgents" in the last few months.

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.

In Baghdad, considered the epicenter of the violence because of its mix of Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs, car bombs had decreased by 67 percent and roadside bombs by 40 percent, he said. There had also been a 28 percent decline in the number of bodies found dumped in the capital's streets.

In Anbar, a former insurgent hotbed where Sunni Arab tribes have joined U.S. forces against al Qaeda, there has been an 82 percent drop in violent deaths.

To be sure, it's not all a bed of roses;

While the figures confirm U.S. data showing a positive trend in combating al Qaeda bombers, there is growing instability in southern Iraq, where rival Shi'ite factions are fighting for political dominance.

[GoSlash27]

All this back-and-forth about the overall level of violence in Iraq is a side issue. The lulls and spikes in insurgent activity have no bearing on the fact that the criteria for victory (as re-defined over the years) are unobtainable.
We went in there in the hopes of creating a friendly stable government that would grant us basing rights and deny our enemy (remember them?) a haven.
Now we're just hoping for any stable government, but Turkey is threatening cross-border raids to deal with terrorists that we don't seem to want to confront, the Basra area is threatening to come unhinged faster than you can say "Iran", and our enemy is now stronger than it's ever been.
I think "nightmare" is an accurate description.

[Fremmer]

our enemy is now stronger than it's ever been

Not according to Gen Patraeus.

Not everyone is ready to cut and run (I mean, to "redeploy", I mean, to surrender) from Iraq and to allow a slaughter to occur after terrorists assume control there.

[Musketeer]

Not everyone is ready to cut and run (I mean, to "redeploy", I mean, to surrender) from Iraq and to allow a slaughter to occur after terrorists assume control there.

We are told over and over that the insurgents are primarily foreigners and a small minority. If they are so small and the Iraqi people are really dedicated to a free governemnt then there is NO WAY they can take over. On the other hand if the Iraqis by and large are content to sit on their duffs and do nothing the motivated minority will take over.

My question is... Why don't we let the Iraqi's handle their own problems? They outnumber their "foes." If they do not have the stomach to handle matters on their own then why should we sacrafice American lives for Iraqis unwilling to defend their own nation?

[tube_ee]

Not everyone is ready to cut and run (I mean, to "redeploy", I mean, to surrender) from Iraq and to allow a slaughter to occur after terrorists assume control there.

You are, of course assuming, that there is anything we can do to prevent that, either now, or later. You're also assuming that the primary agents of violence in Iraq are "terrorists', rather than native groups contending for control of the country.

I doubt very much that either of these premises ore correct. The second is provably false, and the first is unlikely at best.

The real question is, what can we reasonably expect to achieve in Iraq, that will justify the cost in blood and treasure? From where I sit, nothing. I would not spend a single US Dollar, or the life of a single Marine, to create a pro-Iranian Shi'a theocracy in Iraq. If that's what we end up with, and I think it likely will be, all of our sacrifice will have been for nothing.

Yours in despair,
--Shannon

PS: Yes, we have a vital strategic interest in Iraq, and in the region. In fact, we have precisely one. Access to oil. Nothing else in that part of the world matters to us. That's reality. So, whatever serves that end is in our interest, and whatever does not, is not. But we can do business with whoever wins control of Iraq, if there even is an Iraq after it's all over. Which I doubt there will be. Cash and carry. We need oil. If you've got it, we'll do business. If you don't, under the bus you go. No more hopes. No more dreams.

[Bruxley]

BillCA,

Until Iraq has less violence then the US and has better political relations then the US the Dems that have their stake on Iraq being a failure will never admit what is becoming more and more evident, we ARE winning there. Petraeus IS achieving the objectives he laid out before Congress.

It kicks em in the gut that things are improving so much. If it continues at this rate for another year they will be facing the god awful prospect of having to admit that Bush was RIGHT not caving in.

I think the same types were calling Reagan an imbecile the way he was handling the former Soviet Union. They are just NOW getting some footing back after that one. Now they are facing it again. It has already split their party and caused the Dem candidates to go from debating who would pull troops faster to who would still have them their at the END of their 1st term.

2 biggest issues, immigration and Iraq - 2 Dem answers, Dream Act and pissing off Turkey. Yeah, they are the 'enlightened'. My grandparents called it 'touched'.

[GoSlash27]

Shannon,

The real question is, what can we reasonably expect to achieve in Iraq, that will justify the cost in blood and treasure? From where I sit, nothing. I would not spend a single US Dollar, or the life of a single Marine, to create a pro-Iranian Shi'a theocracy in Iraq. If that's what we end up with, and I think it likely will be, all of our sacrifice will have been for nothing.

Knocked that one out of the park. It infuriates me that we're sending our people over there to come back in body bags or wheelchairs for the "greater good" of creating an Iranian puppet state.
Our brave defenders are sacraficing over there because our elected representatives over here (on both sides of the aisle) are cowards. The Dems lack the stones to end it for fear they'll be labeled as defeatists and the Republicans are too scared to admit they were wrong.