• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Iraqi Civilian Death Toll DOUBLED Pace From Last Year, Despite Troop Surge

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Here is the post I used as a OP for another thread about the surge.

All these quotes are from Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Wow, not surprisingly just as lame as it was in your other thread. :roll:
Face it, the surge is only working on easily excited keyboard neocon soldiers who would rather see 10,000+ US dead soldiers rather than admit they were wrong.

I guess the talking point email from the RNC didn't come yet PJ. I think we all were waiting for something a little better than this. You had over 24 hours to refute the OP and you failed. :cookie:
When did all these Democrats become neocons?

You accuse me of ignoring or not responding to the OP and then you totally ignore my point about all the Democrats claiming the surge is working.

We have ONE article claiming the death toll has doubled and dozens of articles claiming the surge is having some positive effects. Amazingly you ignore all the positive articles and focus on this one article.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[ ... ]
We have ONE article claiming the death toll has doubled and dozens of articles claiming the surge is having some positive effects. Amazingly you ignore all the positive articles and focus on this one article.
Whereas you ignore all the articles showing how the surge is not working, especially when one looks at the whole country, in favor of the few that support your point of view. Go figure.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

You accuse me of ignoring or not responding to the OP

Correct, you still haven't other than offering cherry picked quotes that you used in another post that don't back up your claim.

and then you totally ignore my point about all the Democrats claiming the surge is working.

Are you just a pathological liar, fool, or both? Don't bother answering.

Saying the surge is working is like saying you have cleaned the backyard because you picked up one pile of shit from one of your million dogs. This to a war fan = progress, but guess what, the dogs are still shitting all over your yard and in different places every minute. Yep, that sure is progress. :roll:
 
Non Prof John---one of the most important measures of the mini surge is simply the metric of civilian deaths. And months ago when it looked like there was a slight reduction in civilian deaths you were touting that reduction in every post you made. Now that civilian deaths are quite clearly increased, you are saying civilian deaths should be ignored and we should be looking at other measures. And while we are talking deaths, this post ignores the fact that US troop deaths are up sharply also.

Its clear that you are totally biased and cherry pick only things that support your point of view. And you look at the small picture and not the total picture.

Are you sure your secret identity is not Baghdad Bob? You sure reason exactly like ole Bob.
 
link
Major attacks decline in Iraq
The number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.
The high-profile attacks ? generally large bombs hitting markets, mosques or other "soft" targets that produce mass casualties ? have dropped to about 70 in July from a high during the past year of about 130 in March, according to the Multi-National Force ? Iraq.

Military officers say the decline reflects progress in damaging al-Qaeda's networks in Iraq. The military has launched offensives around Baghdad aimed at al-Qaeda sanctuaries and bases.

"The enemy had the initiative and the momentum in '06," said Jack Keane, a retired general who is a chief architect of the increase in troop levels and mentor to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "We've got it now."

Keane spoke from Iraq.

Al-Qaeda militants generally attempt large, headline-grabbing incidents aimed at symbolic targets or mass casualties. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, for example, claimed responsibility for the April suicide bomb attack on parliament.

Successes against al-Qaeda have also been helped by shifting Sunni public opinion and a growing number of insurgent defections, the military says.

"Tribes and people are starting to stand up and fight back," said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, deputy commander of the U.S. division north of Baghdad. "They are turning against al-Qaeda."

Some of the groups have provided intelligence on their former al-Qaeda allies, Lt. Col. Rick Welch, a staff officer who works with tribes, has said.

The increased security in many neighborhoods has also prompted more civilians to come forth with tips, officers said. The U.S. military gets 23,000 tips per month from Iraqis, four times more than last year, said Army Col. Ralph Baker, a former brigade commander in Iraq now assigned to the Pentagon.

Petraeus, who will give his assessment of the boost in troop levels in mid-September, said hundreds of al-Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured in the past month. He cautioned that al-Qaeda still has the "ability to carry out sensational attacks."

Al-Qaeda is generally behind the massive publicity-seeking attacks, but much of the sectarian violence and attacks on coalition forces is the work of Shiite militias, according to the U.S. military.

Violence from Shiite militias remains strong in some areas. In Baghdad, attacks from powerful armor-piercing roadside bombs, called explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, increased to 35 in July from an average of 23 per month between March and June, said Maj. Steven Lamb, a spokesman for the U.S. division in Baghdad.

The U.S. military says the EFPs are supplied by Iran primarily to Shiite militias. Iran has denied the allegation.

Targeting militias has proved more sensitive than attacking al-Qaeda, since Iraq's Shiite-dominated government draws some of its support from Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric whose followers form one of Iraq's largest militias.

In the past, the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had sometimes blocked or criticized U.S. raids in Shiite strongholds. U.S. officers say that kind of interference has diminished. Petraeus said coalition and Iraqi forces have made inroads against Shiite extremist groups.
 
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
and then you totally ignore my point about all the Democrats claiming the surge is working.

Are you just a pathological liar, fool, or both? Don't bother answering.

Saying the surge is working is like saying you have cleaned the backyard because you picked up one pile of shit from one of your million dogs. This to a war fan = progress, but guess what, the dogs are still shitting all over your yard and in different places every minute. Yep, that sure is progress. :roll:
To answer your charge of me being a liar I give you this:
Hillary: ?We?ve begun to change tactics in Iraq and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it?s working.?

Majority Whip Richard Durbin ?The surge has resulted in a reduction of violence in many parts of Iraq,? ?More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq.?

Senate Armed Forces chairman Carl Levin ?The military aspects of President Bush?s new strategy in Iraq?appear to have produced some credible and positive results,?

Senator Jack Reed (D., R.I.) told Charlie Rose: ?My sense is that the tactical momentum is there with the troops, and we?ve had some success in terms of blocking insurgents moving into Baghdad.?

Senator Bob Casey (D., Pennsylvania) ?The troops have met every assignment,? ?They?ve beaten the odds time and again. They?ve done everything we?ve asked them to.?

Iraq war foe, Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.) ?We are making real and tangible progress on the ground, for one, and if we withdraw, it could have a potentially catastrophic effect on the region,?

Rep. Tim Mahoney (D., Fla.) the surge ?has really made a difference and really has gotten al Qaeda on their heels.?

Instead of cheap insults why don't you explain to me why all the Democrats are making these statements?
I don't need to listen to Rush or get some talking point from the RNC I can just listen to the Democrats tell me how the surge is working.
 
Translation: I have nothing but cherry picked quotes and have nothing to show or say that can prove otherwise. Yep, a democrat stating that a pile of shit in Bagdad being picked up yesterday = the surge is working :roll: Yeah, we'll just forget about all the other piles scattered all over the country that haven't been picked up yet and continue to amass in huge numbers.
 
Umbrella? what do you think will happen to the body count if we leave Iraq?

BTW I do find it strange that there seems to be no articles or OP-EDs that address this story. You can find this story in all kinds of sources, but it seems like every right wing or 'pro-war' source is ignoring it.

I want to see month by month figures. A month by month count will be far more useful in making a determination of how successful the surge is or isn?t. Remember the surge did not even reach full speed until June, half way into the year.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Here is the post I used as a OP for another thread about the surge.

All these quotes are from DEMOCRATS!!!! not RUsh, or the RNC or Fox News etc etc.
During a recent speech in front of the VFW Clinton admitted about the surge "It's working. We're just years too late in changing our tactics,"
link

This follows comments by Senator Durbin: ?are starting to have an impact? by ?making real progress? in ?routing out the al Qaeda.?
link

Senator Levin: "We visited forward operating bases in Mosul and Baghdad. In these areas, as well as a number of others in Iraq, the military aspects of President Bush?s new strategy in Iraq, as articulated by him on January 10, 2007, appear to have produced some credible and positive results."
link

Democratic Rep. Brian Baird "saw enough progress on the ground that he will no longer vote for binding withdrawal timelines."
Rep. Jerry McNerney "suggested that his trip to Iraq made him more flexible in his search for a bipartisan accord on the war."
Rep. Tim Mahoney of Florida, who says the troop increase 'has really made a difference and really has gotten al-Qaida on their heels.'"
link

These quotes do nothing to refute the point of the article, as the quotes are referring to areas where the surge is occurring. None of those quoted were taken to outlying areas and were given an overview of the whole-Iraq situation.

None of us disagrees that in those areas where the surge is taking place, we are suppressing violence to some extent. But the point of the article is that looking at Iraq as a whole, violence is worse.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
link
Major attacks decline in Iraq
The number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.
The high-profile attacks ? generally large bombs hitting markets, mosques or other "soft" targets that produce mass casualties ? have dropped to about 70 in July from a high during the past year of about 130 in March, according to the Multi-National Force ? Iraq.

Military officers say the decline reflects progress in damaging al-Qaeda's networks in Iraq. The military has launched offensives around Baghdad aimed at al-Qaeda sanctuaries and bases.

"The enemy had the initiative and the momentum in '06," said Jack Keane, a retired general who is a chief architect of the increase in troop levels and mentor to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "We've got it now."

Keane spoke from Iraq.

Al-Qaeda militants generally attempt large, headline-grabbing incidents aimed at symbolic targets or mass casualties. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, for example, claimed responsibility for the April suicide bomb attack on parliament.

Successes against al-Qaeda have also been helped by shifting Sunni public opinion and a growing number of insurgent defections, the military says.

"Tribes and people are starting to stand up and fight back," said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, deputy commander of the U.S. division north of Baghdad. "They are turning against al-Qaeda."

Some of the groups have provided intelligence on their former al-Qaeda allies, Lt. Col. Rick Welch, a staff officer who works with tribes, has said.

The increased security in many neighborhoods has also prompted more civilians to come forth with tips, officers said. The U.S. military gets 23,000 tips per month from Iraqis, four times more than last year, said Army Col. Ralph Baker, a former brigade commander in Iraq now assigned to the Pentagon.

Petraeus, who will give his assessment of the boost in troop levels in mid-September, said hundreds of al-Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured in the past month. He cautioned that al-Qaeda still has the "ability to carry out sensational attacks."

Al-Qaeda is generally behind the massive publicity-seeking attacks, but much of the sectarian violence and attacks on coalition forces is the work of Shiite militias, according to the U.S. military.

Violence from Shiite militias remains strong in some areas. In Baghdad, attacks from powerful armor-piercing roadside bombs, called explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, increased to 35 in July from an average of 23 per month between March and June, said Maj. Steven Lamb, a spokesman for the U.S. division in Baghdad.

The U.S. military says the EFPs are supplied by Iran primarily to Shiite militias. Iran has denied the allegation.

Targeting militias has proved more sensitive than attacking al-Qaeda, since Iraq's Shiite-dominated government draws some of its support from Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric whose followers form one of Iraq's largest militias.

In the past, the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had sometimes blocked or criticized U.S. raids in Shiite strongholds. U.S. officers say that kind of interference has diminished. Petraeus said coalition and Iraqi forces have made inroads against Shiite extremist groups.

Again, you are focusing on a particular type of attack. The article is talking about TOTAL deaths of Iraqi civilians.

Do you get it? It's kind of like you are engaging in the following discussion:

A: The sum W + X + Y + Z has increased.
ProfJohn: But I can prove that Y has decreased. The surge is working.
A: I'm not talking about Y, I'm talking about the total of W, X, Y, and Z.
ProfJohn: Y is down. Everyone agrees.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Umbrella? what do you think will happen to the body count if we leave Iraq?
1) American Companies can't keep overcharging us for work and goods
2) American Companies can't bullshit us about what they were almost never building
3) American Soliders will not die anymore
4) Americans will not serve as a destabilizing force

And as far as I'm concerned - The Iraqis will have their own problems - and I wouldn't be surprised to see a blood bath after we left...but they'll eventually pick up their shit ~ they did it with the British (When you'd think the country would immediately fall apart since it was so "new" then...it didn't) and I see no reason why they can't do it again.

I don't see foreign countries invading (lest Kurds try to declare indepdence, but then Turkey would be all over them and no one would want to stop that) because neither wants the other to be there. I see plenty of foreign influence - but I don't see how the levels could be any higher than now when massive problems already exist

In point - it can't suck THAT much more if we do.
 
I don't care how many dimocrats, republirats, or independent idiots say something is working. Something works or fails totally independently of what some external
or even internal observer says. That is why one has to have criteria to measure and judge things with. Civilian deaths is just one very important metric. Because civilian deaths in turn is a measure of how strong and active the insurgencies are. When you stop to think, one must ask how can the mini surge work when it fails to engage the insurgencies and at best only moves them around?

But the mini surge could have worked as it was outlined by GWB in the STU address. The problem was that the large numbers of Iraqi army and police troops the mini-surge totally depended on proved to be worse than useless because they got co-opted by the very insurgents they were supposed to fight. That key strategy failure was apparent by March/07. Since then we have somewhat increased the number of US troops, but to get an effective surge, we all must realize its going to take 500,000 troops patrolling Iraq 24/7/365. Gee, thats what Shinseki told us before we went in.

So non Prof John----just write on the blackboard---"The mini surge working" 500,000 times. When you get done, it still won't be working unless someone has scraped together the 500,000 troops its going to take.

Of course there are some other ways to solve the Iraq problem. Its called diplomacy. And the decider has decided not to even explore those options.
 
500,000 troops patrolling Iraq 24/7/365

As I keep saying, no amount of CF troops is going to fix anything here until the Iraqis are able to step up to the plate. Soldiers make rotten cops, and foreign soldiers only antagonize the locals. A police action requires Police, not Soldiers, and local police are the best solution.

Most people in this thread are totally missing that the numbers in the North are mostly from AQ attacks. Between the Tal-Afar bombing and the Yazidi bombing, that almost 600 people alone since the end of April. Total numbers that exclude AQ/AQIZ are LESS than last year overall. This disturbs me because the foregn influence is increasing while domestic violence from politics/gangs are falling at a reasonable rate. Anbar Province is leading a grassroots revolt of sorts, and Mosul is starting to follow. Kurdistan is seeing increased problems as these other Provinces tighten the screws. This show that most of Iraq is still relatively without a strong Rule of Law. Until this changes, nothing can truly improve.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
If what you say is true then explain what Senators Durbin and Leven along with 3 congressional Democrats said after the visited Iraq.

Or the guys who wrote the NY Time piece saying we could win this war.

Or Hillary herself who said Anbar was turning around.

Everyone one of these people are Democrats or lean to the left. Not one of them is on talk radio or from Fox News.

Are all these Democrats lying?
What figures did they cite on behalf of their opinions (if any)?

And if they are lying, are you saying you agree with them? Seems like you've quoted Democrats at least a half dozen times in this thread alone, instead of providing any original thought.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Non Prof John---one of the most important measures of the mini surge is simply the metric of civilian deaths.

-snip-

The US media etc makes it seem that way, since that's about all they report on. Damn lazy too, IMO.

Not too long ago I posted information from a televised (C-Span) panel of military historians. They were of the opinion that the metric of civilian casualties was the least accurate metric to be used in judging the success of any counter-insurgency. I listed the metrics they felt were far better.

All you need to distort the picture is AQ using huge car/truck bombs to kill hundreds of (non-Muslim) people in an out of the way place. This just recently happened.

Fern
 
To Fern---who seems about as inciteful as the average potted plant notes when referring to the metric of civilian deaths---The US media etc makes it seem that way, since that's about all they report on. Damn lazy too, IMO

Well either the media is damn lazy and dishonest, or they are damn inconvenient impediments to neocon propaganda. After 4.5 years of neocon propaganda, daily slightly revised, maybe its time to realize its the propaganda that is lazy and incompetent. And once we can embrace that little concept, we can embrace the concept that GWB&co leadership is lazy, incompetent, totally unrealistic, and dishonest.

Lets face the facts, when the home team is losing badly and having their lunch eaten, its just not the right time to pretend things are going great. When we have that situation you honestly confront it. Until you to and past that step you can't take the next required step which is changing tactics so you can be more competitive. And
if we can't come up with the 500,000 troops we need, it was time to hatch diplomatic plan B three years ago.

And Fern comes out with the house plant guide to survival----hope you don't get moved to a dark room and hope someone does not forget to give you water once in a while.
 
Originally posted by: shira
Again, you are focusing on a particular type of attack. The article is talking about TOTAL deaths of Iraqi civilians.

Do you get it? It's kind of like you are engaging in the following discussion:

A: The sum W + X + Y + Z has increased.
ProfJohn: But I can prove that Y has decreased. The surge is working.
A: I'm not talking about Y, I'm talking about the total of W, X, Y, and Z.
ProfJohn: Y is down. Everyone agrees.
Great analogy, that's exactly what they're doing. One can "prove" almost any propaganda if you frame the issue just right and cherry-pick data to support it.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I've seen no credible counterpoint to these figures. This shows the surge has been a total failure. (shocking) The only government that it has given any breathing room to is Bush's... and that's nothing but a bad thing.
If what you say is true then explain what Senators Durbin and Leven along with 3 congressional Democrats said after the visited Iraq.

Or the guys who wrote the NY Time piece saying we could win this war.

Or Hillary herself who said Anbar was turning around.

Everyone one of these people are Democrats or lean to the left. Not one of them is on talk radio or from Fox News.

Are all these Democrats lying?

Who cares who they are from if they are wrong? They are probably referring to Baghdad, which has gotten better. Of course with that happening, just as everyone predicted, the troublemakers from there have just gone elsewhere in the country... with catastrophic results. Shocking.

This report provides objective measurements of things the surge was explicitly designed to prevent. These things are getting much, much worse. All the happy quotes in the world mean nothing next to this.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To Fern---who seems about as inciteful as the average potted plant notes when referring to the metric of civilian deaths---The US media etc makes it seem that way, since that's about all they report on. Damn lazy too, IMO

Well either the media is damn lazy and dishonest, or they are damn inconvenient impediments to neocon propaganda. After 4.5 years of neocon propaganda, daily slightly revised, maybe its time to realize its the propaganda that is lazy and incompetent. And once we can embrace that little concept, we can embrace the concept that GWB&co leadership is lazy, incompetent, totally unrealistic, and dishonest.

Lets face the facts, when the home team is losing badly and having their lunch eaten, its just not the right time to pretend things are going great. When we have that situation you honestly confront it. Until you to and past that step you can't take the next required step which is changing tactics so you can be more competitive. And
if we can't come up with the 500,000 troops we need, it was time to hatch diplomatic plan B three years ago.

And Fern comes out with the house plant guide to survival----hope you don't get moved to a dark room and hope someone does not forget to give you water once in a while.

Given your obvious agitation, I suppose I actually am "inciteful". You, on the other hand, are not "insightful".

You managed to post a lot without responding to any of my points. One being the metric you quote as being important is actually NOT according to experts in the field - Phd's sifting through historical data on counter insurgency efforts and, two basically all the media feeds us is that type data, because that type of info can be obtained by sifting through reports while safetly sitting on their asses in the Green Zone (instead of getting out and doing some reporting).

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Non Prof John---one of the most important measures of the mini surge is simply the metric of civilian deaths.

-snip-
The US media etc makes it seem that way, since that's about all they report on. Damn lazy too, IMO.

Not too long ago I posted information from a televised (C-Span) panel of military historians. They were of the opinion that the metric of civilian casualties was the least accurate metric to be used in judging the success of any counter-insurgency. I listed the metrics they felt were far better.

All you need to distort the picture is AQ using huge car/truck bombs to kill hundreds of (non-Muslim) people in an out of the way place. This just recently happened.

Fern
Link? It seems to me military historians would tend to have a fairly narrow and perhaps self-serving view of the matter. What metrics do general historians favor? How about humanitarians?
 
Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I'm thinking most Iraqis are quite capable of hating both the "terrorists" who killed their families and the Americans who created the chaos that allowed the "terrorists" to grow and thrive.
I wonder if they'll also manage to hate the neighboring countries for facilitating the terrorists.

Somehow I doubt that, as the Great Satan must always get the blame first.

No matter, as people like al-Sadr will blame the USA no matter what, regardless of the fact that they are partaking in the violence, and ignoring that without the removal of Saddam they would never have amounted to anything.

More people need to see Iyad Jamal Al-Din's perspective on all this.

So in your opinion, Al Sadr is to blame for the carnage in Iraq, not America? Do you even know who Al Sadr is? Yeah, he's the guy who's never entered the Green Zone. He's the guy who's trying to bring Shi'ites and Sunnis together. He's the guy who's called a moratorium on his militia's movement. He's the guy that, like Bowfinger said, hates America and the terrorists. Your simple world-view does not equate the reality in Iraq.

EDIT: No matter how people try to spin this, this war was a war of choice and America has over 160k troops in Iraq, making it the one responsible for violence in that country. As Powell famously said: You break it you own it.

But instead of doing the rounds in the blame game, why doesn't America invite these neighbors into the security discussion? Why not? Because America cares more about America than it does the Iraq it's managed to destroy.
 
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I'm thinking most Iraqis are quite capable of hating both the "terrorists" who killed their families and the Americans who created the chaos that allowed the "terrorists" to grow and thrive.
I wonder if they'll also manage to hate the neighboring countries for facilitating the terrorists.

Somehow I doubt that, as the Great Satan must always get the blame first.

No matter, as people like al-Sadr will blame the USA no matter what, regardless of the fact that they are partaking in the violence, and ignoring that without the removal of Saddam they would never have amounted to anything.

More people need to see Iyad Jamal Al-Din's perspective on all this.

So in your opinion, Al Sadr is to blame for the carnage in Iraq, not America? Do you even know who Al Sadr is? Yeah, he's the guy who's never entered the Green Zone. He's the guy who's trying to bring Shi'ites and Sunnis together. He's the guy who's called a moratorium on his militia's movement. He's the guy that, like Bowfinger said, hates America and the terrorists. Your simple world-view does not equate the reality in Iraq.

EDIT: No matter how people try to spin this, this war was a war of choice and America has over 160k troops in Iraq, making it the one responsible for violence in that country. As Powell famously said: You break it you own it.

But instead of doing the rounds in the blame game, why doesn't America invite these neighbors into the security discussion? Why not? Because America cares more about America than it does the Iraq it's managed to destroy.
Sadr's a guy who desperately wants to be what his daddy was but never will be because instead of being a good person he hides behind Islam to use it as a fig leaf for his lust for power.

Why did he call a moratorium on his militia? Because it has fractured, he no longer has control over it, and he's trying to put the pieces back together. It might have something to do with his extended recent trips to Iran where his militia felt like Sadr abandoned them and the lower command structure made some power grabs themselves.

And according to Petraeus, sectarian violence is down by quite a bit:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...pl_nm/iraq_petraeus_dc

Petraeus told the Australian that there had been a 75 percent reduction in religious and ethnic killing since last year, while the number of al Qaeda "kills and captures" was on the rise.

That could have something to do with Sadr being marginalized since there seems to be an amazing coincidence between when Sadr first hotfooted it to Iran and the reduction in Shi'ite-Sunni violence. But maybe that really is just coincidence? 😉
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: dna
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I'm thinking most Iraqis are quite capable of hating both the "terrorists" who killed their families and the Americans who created the chaos that allowed the "terrorists" to grow and thrive.
I wonder if they'll also manage to hate the neighboring countries for facilitating the terrorists.

Somehow I doubt that, as the Great Satan must always get the blame first.

No matter, as people like al-Sadr will blame the USA no matter what, regardless of the fact that they are partaking in the violence, and ignoring that without the removal of Saddam they would never have amounted to anything.

More people need to see Iyad Jamal Al-Din's perspective on all this.

So in your opinion, Al Sadr is to blame for the carnage in Iraq, not America? Do you even know who Al Sadr is? Yeah, he's the guy who's never entered the Green Zone. He's the guy who's trying to bring Shi'ites and Sunnis together. He's the guy who's called a moratorium on his militia's movement. He's the guy that, like Bowfinger said, hates America and the terrorists. Your simple world-view does not equate the reality in Iraq.

EDIT: No matter how people try to spin this, this war was a war of choice and America has over 160k troops in Iraq, making it the one responsible for violence in that country. As Powell famously said: You break it you own it.

But instead of doing the rounds in the blame game, why doesn't America invite these neighbors into the security discussion? Why not? Because America cares more about America than it does the Iraq it's managed to destroy.
Sadr's a guy who desperately wants to be what his daddy was but never will be because instead of being a good person he hides behind Islam to use it as a fig leaf for his lust for power.

Why did he call a moratorium on his militia? Because it has fractured, he no longer has control over it, and he's trying to put the pieces back together. It might have something to do with his extended recent trips to Iran where his militia felt like Sadr abandoned them and the lower command structure made some power grabs themselves.

And according to Petraeus, sectarian violence is down by quite a bit:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...pl_nm/iraq_petraeus_dc

Petraeus told the Australian that there had been a 75 percent reduction in religious and ethnic killing since last year, while the number of al Qaeda "kills and captures" was on the rise.

That could have something to do with Sadr being marginalized since there seems to be an amazing coincidence between when Sadr first hotfooted it to Iran and the reduction in Shi'ite-Sunni violence. But maybe that really is just coincidence? 😉

You're masking speculation as facts. BTW, how would you compare Petraeus's report to the one Jpeyton started with?
 
Originally posted by: Dari
You're masking speculation as facts.
No, I'm just stating my opinion based on observation and also noted that it may just be a coincidence.

BTW, how would you compare Petraeus's report to the one Jpeyton started with?
Haven't seen Petraeus's report yet. Hopefully it has some facts and figures to support whatever assertions it makes, unlike the article Jpeyton cited.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Dari
You're masking speculation as facts.
No, I'm just stating my opinion based on observation and also noted that it may just be a coincidence.

BTW, how would you compare Petraeus's report to the one Jpeyton started with?
Haven't seen Petraeus's report yet. Hopefully it has some facts and figures to support whatever assertions it makes, unlike the article Jpeyton cited.

Fair enough.
 
Back
Top