• 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.

Nothing but more bad news from Iraq.

techs

Lifer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070629/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Iraq ambush caps bloodiest months for US By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
16 minutes ago


A huge bomb explosion followed by a hail of gunfire and grenades killed five U.S. soldiers, the military said Friday. The attack came as the Pentagon tallied up the deadliest three-month period for Americans since the war began.

Seven soldiers were wounded in the attack Thursday in the Rasheed district, a mixed Sunni-Shiite area of southern Baghdad where U.S.-led forces recently stepped up pressure on extremists. The commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad suggested the ambush could be part of an escalating backlash by Sunni insurgents.

Those deaths brought to 99 the number of U.S. troops killed this month, according to an Associated Press count. The toll for the past three months ? 329 ? made it the deadliest quarter for U.S. troops in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion. That surpasses the 316 soldiers killed during November 2004 to January 2005.

Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., who heads U.S. forces in the Iraqi capital, said U.S. casualties had mounted because Sunni extremists are "starting to fight very hard" as U.S. forces press into areas of the capital where militants once had free rein.

"This is a skilled and determined enemy. He's ruthless. He's got a thirst for blood like I've never seen anywhere in my life," Fil told reporters. "And he's determined to do whatever he can."

During a teleconference with Pentagon reporters, Fil described the Thursday attack as "very violent," displaying a "level of sophistication that we have not often seen so far in this campaign."

He said a blast from a "very large" bomb buried deep in the ground triggered the attack, which was followed by volleys of small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades. Four soldiers were killed in the attack and a fifth died Thursday night of his wounds, Fil said.

"As far as the assessment, we believe that we are into an area" of south Baghdad "where we're seeing a very strong al-Qaida cell," Fil said. "Those areas are now denied to them ... They are starting to fight very hard and that's what we saw yesterday."

Sunni insurgents have used similar "swarming" tactics for years, mostly in rural areas to the north and west of the capital. Militants have also been burying explosives deep in the ground, making them difficult to detect and triggering them as vehicles pass by.

Such "deep buried bombs" have been especially effective against U.S. vehicles, including Humvees, Bradley fighting vehicles and Strykers, prompting commanders in some areas to shift to foot patrols to avoid losing so many soldiers in a single blast.

U.S. casualties have been rising since President Bush ordered nearly 30,000 more troops to Iraq in a major push to pacify Baghdad and surrounding areas. The goal was to curb the violence so Iraq's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders can strike agreements to share power in this fractious country.

But progress toward agreements to share oil wealth, provide a greater political role to the Sunni minority and shore up local governments has been slow because of deep suspicions after four years of bloodshed.

In a hopeful sign, radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called off a July 5 march to a bombed shrine in Samarra north of Baghdad after appeals from the government, which feared Sunni extremists would attack marchers along the way.

Sheik Asad Al-Nassiri, an aide to the cleric, told a congregation at Friday prayer services in Kufa that al-Sadr canceled the march because of "the government's inability to secure the route and many officials' appeals for a postponement."

At the same time, however, anger has been welling up among Sunni Arabs, who complain they are being marginalized in the Shiite-dominated government.


A Sunni political party said Friday that four Sunni Cabinet members will refuse to attend government meetings to protest the way Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki handled legal proceedings against the fifth Sunni minister.

Earlier this week, an arrest warrant was issued for Culture Minister Asad Kamal al-Hashimi and security forces raided his Baghdad home after allegations he masterminded an assassination attempt against a politician two years ago.

Sunni politicians considered the move politically motivated and asked al-Maliki, a Shiite, to do something to stop it. The prime minister refused, saying he would not intervene in the work of the judiciary.

"The ministers have decided to suspend their participation in government meetings because they consider the stance of the prime minister and the government unsuitable," Ayad al-Samarraie, a leading member of the Sunni bloc the Iraqi Accordance Front, told AP.

"Had this minister been a member of his (al-Maliki's) party, would he have dealt with the matter the way he did?" al-Samarraie asked.

Muhannad al-Issawi, a spokesman for Accordance Front leader Adnan al-Dulaimi, said the boycott of the 37-member Cabinet "will continue until a compromise is reached."

Al-Issawi said the Sunnis were also protesting the dismissal this month of the Sunni speaker of parliament, who was voted out by the legislators because of erratic behavior.

In April, six Cabinet ministers loyal to al-Sadr quit the government to protest his refusal to call for a timetable for American troops to leave. They have not been replaced.

The boycotts are likely to complicate efforts to enact key "benchmark" legislation that the U.S. is demanding, since the Cabinet must sign off on such proposals before they go to parliament.


Even if the other Shiite and Kurdish members give their endorsement, the absence of key constituencies from the decision-making process would raise doubts whether such legislation would contribute to the goal of national reconciliation.

Elsewhere Friday, a suicide truck bomber attacked an Iraqi army post 20 miles north of the capital Friday, killing six soldiers and wounding five others, police said. Two civilians were also killed in a barrage of gunfire that followed, they said.

The blast occurred at a railway station in Mishada, an officer said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

Iraqi police said a bomb exploded under a pipeline south of Baghdad, spilling crude oil and sparking a huge fire. The pipeline carries oil from Iraq's southern oil fields to the Dora refinery in the capital.



What the heck are we still doing there? The ill fated surge was doomed before it started. And Republicans are ready to save their own political lives by bailing in September anyway.
So are the troops there now just political pawns so the Republicans, who supported the surge, can say they tried? Even knowing now that it has failed?

 
I really thought the surge wasn't going to work and...oh, wait a second, it's not working. Shocker.

It's too bad a president has never looked in the mirror one morning and said "Oh man, I just realized I really suck ass at this job. I think I should just resign today." and do it. Does anybody think that would be a bad thing at this point? At least Cheney can construct sentences until the next elections.
 
I think its time we send Bush over, in his famous flight suit. Or better yet, his two mooching daughters. Hey, there patriotic, arent they? :roll:
 
The best President since Reagan!!!

So they said. Now we know he's the worst since Nixon, but possibly even worse than Nixon.
 
For the firsts four years of the US led Occupation, the US's share of the butchers bill was a rather steady 800/year. Now in four months, the toll is at least 428 which can annualized
at 1281/yr. Or slightly more than a 50% increase. And this has yet to get to a full surge stage of urban combat required to root insurgents out from within neighborhoods.

Nor does it start to address the real menace---which are Shia insurgents who now are content to let the USA do their heavy lifting for them regarding their Sunni opposition. And if insurgents are equally proportioned by Iraqi population, the combined Shia &Kurdish insurgency would be four times larger than the Sunni one. And spread across a far wider area. Right now the Sunni's are the big losers and their former status is most threatened by the new democratic ways of doing things.


And I have to assume that as soon as the US position starts to threaten the Shia&Kurdish visions of a new Iraq---we will start to see a far wider and a more active Iraqi insurgency. And right now Kurds and Shia lay back---as they too play the enemy of my enemy is my fair weather friend game. And as somewhat a worse case scenario, we could easily see the annual US death toll jump to 5000/year in almost no time. And when you realize that every US death, their are least 10 that will be so severely wounded either, physically or emotionally, as to require long term care.

I just want no one to have any illusions of what the cost of the mini-surge plan is and what those costs could well become.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
The best President since Reagan!!!

So they said. Now we know he's the worst since Nixon, but possibly even worse than Nixon.

Nixon at least had the positive diplomatic highlight of breaking the ice with China and getting peaceful diplomatic relations started with his visit.

Bush has no positive highlights that are worth mentioning at all IMHO.
 
Your Tax money well spent........ I can't believe we gave him more $$$$...... Tho he is the commander and chief... If had a pair he would admit his failures and short comings and do the right thing... Step down and and fire the VP so someone else can get a chance to run the nation the right way.
 
The US broke it, the US can have this mess and in 50 years or so when oil revenues are bigger than the actual cost of driving the US into the.. i mean than what it costs to keep Iraq running, then the US can leave and let them keep every cent they ever made off of the oil, because that is theirs and no one elses, if you think that one cent should ever go to anyone but the Iraqis then show me a valid contract from the start of the invasion, anything after that is enforced and contracts under occupation are not legal.

 
Originally posted by: conehead433
More deaths just prove that the surge is working.
It's simple really. More soldiers over there means more deaths. Just give it a few more months.

 
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
The US broke it, the US can have this mess and in 50 years or so when oil revenues are bigger than the actual cost of driving the US into the.. i mean than what it costs to keep Iraq running, then the US can leave and let them keep every cent they ever made off of the oil, because that is theirs and no one elses, if you think that one cent should ever go to anyone but the Iraqis then show me a valid contract from the start of the invasion, anything after that is enforced and contracts under occupation are not legal.
Oil priceses have rocketed since March/03. In case you've not noticed, conflict in the MEast always has this. The iraq war will NEVER have a net gain in oil for the US.
 
Depending on context the surge IS working. Note the word context. The additional troops means that the US can move into areas in ways it could not have before. Because of this we can engage in combat in areas on a larger scale and take out more of the opposition. The price for being more active is the risk to our troops increases and that means more casualties. It's a cold fact of life. The trick is to make sure the opposition pays dearly for every life we loose. I suspect that is the case.

The real question is about the long term. Historically when faced with foreign invaders, the resisting forces will relocate and fight another day. Even worse is the fact that any military success if futile when the political realities don't back them up. If a people are united in wanting to be free from strife, then there is a point to it all. If not, and every militant were killed or captured, new ones would naturally spring up as a result of being "wronged".

Knocking down the insurgency makes sense only if there is the will of a people to make the best of it. I don't see that at all.
 
Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Depending on context the surge IS working. Note the word context. The additional troops means that the US can move into areas in ways it could not have before. Because of this we can engage in combat in areas on a larger scale and take out more of the opposition. The price for being more active is the risk to our troops increases and that means more casualties. It's a cold fact of life. We are getting more results (based on body counts) and that costs us as well. The trick is to make sure the opposition pays dearly for every life we loose. I suspect that is the case.

The real question is about the long term. Historically when faced with foreign invaders, the resisting forces will relocate and fight another day. Even worse is the fact that any military success if futile when the political realities don't back them up. If a people are united in wanting to be free from strife, then there is a point to it all. If not, and every militant were killed or captured, new ones would naturally spring up as a result of being "wronged".

Knocking down the insurgency makes sense only if there is the will of a people to make the best of it. I don't see that at all.

Unfortunately, the US was cought making the same mistake my country's (Israel) leadership is making - use specific logic that dictates:
1. "if we kill X amount we're winning"
2. "if we kill X amount they'll want to stop"
3. "if our ideals worked for us, others must want them"

Well...welcome to the middle-east, where lives are worth nothing and your enemy will never stop, because:
1. There is no single entity to fight - you're fighting 10 different groups who would like to see each other dead as well.
2. For democracy to work, the people as a whole must WANT it. They must have a DRIVE for it. This is how we created Israel, this is also why after 60 years the "palestinians" are not yet a "people", but rather a large amount of individuals.
If anyone plays WoW, you may know the saying in instances - "5-men soloing".
3. Everyone has their own logic, their own ideals. These people are NOT stupid - they are simply not YOU.

But eh, enjoy worthless spending and throwing away lives...making the world a "better place".
 
Originally posted by: Harabec
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Depending on context the surge IS working. Note the word context. The additional troops means that the US can move into areas in ways it could not have before. Because of this we can engage in combat in areas on a larger scale and take out more of the opposition. The price for being more active is the risk to our troops increases and that means more casualties. It's a cold fact of life. We are getting more results (based on body counts) and that costs us as well. The trick is to make sure the opposition pays dearly for every life we loose. I suspect that is the case.

The real question is about the long term. Historically when faced with foreign invaders, the resisting forces will relocate and fight another day. Even worse is the fact that any military success if futile when the political realities don't back them up. If a people are united in wanting to be free from strife, then there is a point to it all. If not, and every militant were killed or captured, new ones would naturally spring up as a result of being "wronged".

Knocking down the insurgency makes sense only if there is the will of a people to make the best of it. I don't see that at all.</end quote></div>

Unfortunately, the US was cought making the same mistake my country's (Israel) leadership is making - use specific logic that dictates:
1. "if we kill X amount we're winning"
2. "if we kill X amount they'll want to stop"
3. "if our ideals worked for us, others must want them"

Well...welcome to the middle-east, where lives are worth nothing and your enemy will never stop, because:
1. There is no single entity to fight - you're fighting 10 different groups who would like to see each other dead as well.
2. For democracy to work, the people as a whole must WANT it. They must have a DRIVE for it. This is how we created Israel, this is also why after 60 years the "palestinians" are not yet a "people", but rather a large amount of individuals.
If anyone plays WoW, you may know the saying in instances - "5-men soloing".
3. Everyone has their own logic, their own ideals. These people are NOT stupid - they are simply not YOU.

But eh, enjoy worthless spending and throwing away lives...making the world a "better place".

I don't think the lives are worthless. For the fighters, it's better to die resisting than living under an occupation. It's similar to our creed: Live free or die.
 
Originally posted by: Skoorb
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
The US broke it, the US can have this mess and in 50 years or so when oil revenues are bigger than the actual cost of driving the US into the.. i mean than what it costs to keep Iraq running, then the US can leave and let them keep every cent they ever made off of the oil, because that is theirs and no one elses, if you think that one cent should ever go to anyone but the Iraqis then show me a valid contract from the start of the invasion, anything after that is enforced and contracts under occupation are not legal.

</end quote></div>Oil priceses have rocketed since March/03. In case you've not noticed, conflict in the MEast always has this. The iraq war will NEVER have a net gain in oil for the US.

Did you notice my time frame being somewhere after about 50 years?

Never is a long time to make predictions of, too long and you should know better.
 
I'd like to see the Administration supporters in here response.

PJ, Shiv etc, please chime in on your assessment of "The Surge" results.

Thank you
 
To Harabec the Israeli who actually tells the truth. That the opposition is actually deeply fragmented and not the single mind that Israel needs to justify collective punishment.
Thank you for that bit of honesty.

And for any that think that US troops deaths are a proportional factor of the number of troops there---thats flat out wrong---we have thus far gone from something like 140,000
to 170,000 or a 21% increase---yet troop deaths are up a full 50%. Or more than double the predicted proportionality needed to support that hypothesis.

The other myth endemic on this thread seems to be the idea that its simply the popular will of the Iraqi people---when in fact many simply have no choice at all and are captives to whatever the violent few within the Iraqi people decide to do. And if we want to give the vast majority of the Iraqi people that real choice, the occupation is going to have to patrol and police the streets 24/7. Which is the difference between what amounts to a mini-surge of 20-60 thousand extra troops and the 200,000 extra needed to even start talking about having a real surge.
 
We are currently engaged in the largest military operation since the war began. But you would never know that by watching or reading the MSM.
This helps to explain the jump in deaths.

If you get away from the MSM and read the military blogs and things by others with military experience you see a different story as to what is going on in Iraq.
For the first time in years we have a real strategy to fight the bad guys and we are using it. For the past 3 years or so we have been sitting around and fighting a defensive war. Now we are taking the fight to them.

Whether this will lead to a long term victory is still up in the air, but we are at least trying to move in the right direction.
The general consensus seems to be that the political pressure to stop the war may cut the mission short.
Finally, let me point out again that the bloodiest battle of WW 2 was also the last battle.
 
Originally posted by: Harabec
Narmer - I meant US soldiers' lives being thrown away, actually 🙂

Yes. Terrible, just terrible how men with no understanding of the military and war can just throw away the precious lives of men for nothing.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We are currently engaged in the largest military operation since the war began. But you would never know that by watching or reading the MSM.
This helps to explain the jump in deaths.

If you get away from the MSM and read the military blogs and things by others with military experience you see a different story as to what is going on in Iraq.
For the first time in years we have a real strategy to fight the bad guys and we are using it. For the past 3 years or so we have been sitting around and fighting a defensive war. Now we are taking the fight to them.

Whether this will lead to a long term victory is still up in the air, but we are at least trying to move in the right direction.
The general consensus seems to be that the political pressure to stop the war may cut the mission short.
Finally, let me point out again that the bloodiest battle of WW 2 was also the last battle.

Strategy? What strategy? You mean the same old strategy of going into a town and clearing it out of insurgents and then having the insurgents move back in? Which worked so well in Viet Nam. Or the strategy of securing Baghdad? Oops. That one already failed and was discarded. Or do you mean the strategy of arming Sunnis in their fight for control against Al-Qaida? The "strategy" we used in Afghanistan when we armed the Taliban against the Russians? And when the Russians were defeated the Taliban came after us?
Or do you mean the "body count" strategy? The one that also failed in Viet Nam? The one where if you claim to kill enough of the enemy he will run out of bodies? The one that failed because for every one you kill you alienate two more, and hence two more of the enemy?
Or do you mean the Iraq "strategy" that Replican Senator Gordon Smith called criminal and then said he meant to call insane?
The only "strategy" is to keep the war going so Bush can keep his 26 percent approval rating from going even lower.

 
The strategy is simply one of attrition. The US hopes eventually the Iraqi people will simply cave in from war fatigue and the complete dismantling of the nation and hand over the keys of the nation to the US, so the US can meet it's multitude of imperial interests in the region. One of the keys is the Iraqi Oil law (the Hydrocarbon Act) the US is so desperate to hammer through. If the Iraqi parliament does indeed (even if it looks unlikely atm) pass that law then the US will never leave.

On the other hand if the Iraqis can hold out longer the US cannot afford to keep the surge up. The price from an political, economical and military viewpoint is too astronomical.


 
Back
Top