Ricorun,
No, I won't deny there are as you say, several "species" of terrorists involved now. Each have their own purpose, objectives, and goals, but what really got it all started?
Go back to the campaigning for the 2004 elections. That's when the Democrats really turned up the anti-war rhetoric and propaganda, and made it their position they would pull out of Iraq. We had the Negative-9 Democrat presidential contenders, if you could call them that, touring the nation preaching and shouting their anti-Bush, anti-war speeches, 24/7. That went on for almost a year, and the more they campaigned the more the violence increased. The more they made it clear they were going to pull out of Iraq if they won the election, the more the terrorists killed American troops and Iraqi families. And, it grew from there. The ball had been started on its long and ever faster roll.
After the elections, what have we heard from the liberals and Democrats? More and more "cut and run" positions, speeches, and rhetoric. And the more the liberals and Democrats shouted their message, the more terrorists attacks and suicide bombings occurred. Many of those were intended solely to aid the Democrats in trying to break America's will, and to aid the Democrats in succeeding in pulling us out of Iraq. Even as efforts were ongoing to hold elections and form a new government, even after the voting, even after the new government was formed, the rhetoric from the liberal left Democrats has been unceasing and aimed at forcing America to leave Iraq and turn it over to the terrorists.
When it was apparent that President Bush was not going to leave, and the terrorist attacks weren't succeeding as intended, the terrorists switched tactics. Democrats started harping on a "civil war" in Iraq. Day after day, 24/7, that's all we heard from Democrats, along with the body count of American troops. Again terrorists heard the call -- how could they miss it. In order to help the Democrat propaganda campaign, they blew up the Al-Askariya "Golden [Dome]Mosque" in Samarra -- that our soldiers did all they could to protect during the initial stages of the war -- to get that civil war moving which Democrats "predicted" day after day. What could cause more hatred between Sunnis and Shiites than to blow up mosques and blame it on the other side. Democrats wanted that civil war, so the terrorists did all they could to help, blowing up even more mosques to give Democrats and the drive-by media the fodder for their incessant media campaign... a self fulfilling prophecy!
And Democrats have not stopped or slowed down. The end justifies their means. The Iraq war is the core of their election campaign. They continue to make it clear they will pull out of Iraq. Al Qaeda wants the U.S. out of Iraq and the Democrats have said they will pull us out. The Democrats need bad news from Iraq, so you can bet they will be doing everything they can to stoke the flames of a civil war -- even if it is only localized in Baghdad for the most part.
Yes, now there are other factions involved, but that was part of the Al Qaeda strategy. That was what the Democrats wanted. That was what the Democrats encouraged by their anti-Bush, anti-war, defeatist, and retreat propaganda. And that was what the Democrat got. Unfortunately, our troops and the Iraqi people are the ones suffering while Democrats revel in their chances for a win in November... and still we hear only retreat and run from the Democrats! You can defend the left wing Democrats, but I have no use for them, or maybe I should say no use for their leaders if one can call the that!
As for your suggestion that the best we can hope for [now] is to get them to concentrate on fighting each other rather than our troops, you may be surprised, but I tend to agree with you to a degree. I have thought that for some time. If they can't live together, the let the strong survive (natural selection); although, that may seem rather harsh and not the "proper caring" way to think. Realistically, we don't have enough troops to keep them from killing each other if that's what they really want to do; although, I don't believe that's what the vast majority of Iraqis want. Maybe we are at the point of that "policing action" Kerry talked about -- in Iraq, but not around the world though! I suspect that the Kurds and Shiites would win, but who knows. It sort of give one a different perspective of what Saddam faced, even though I could not justify most of his tactics.
That said, I still believe it was the right thing to do to remove Saddam Hussein for many reasons which I won't rehash now. What we do not want, and can not afford is to allow the country to fall under the control of Al Qaeda or to be run from Iran. I would not pull our troops out as long as that remains a real possibility. The Iraqis can fight each other, but we mush make sure that Al Qaeda doesn't win. We can work with the Iraqi government to fight Al Qaeda and we can provide the government with support in their internal fighting, but they have the lead in the latter.
The Democrats continue to tell the American people that we have no plan for Iraq, but their plan is basically what we are doing now, training their troops and police to take over and run the country. That is happening and that will happen, even though not as fast as we would like. Democrats -- intentionally or not -- have done all they can to make that transition as difficult as possible; although, I realize you do not believe that.
I don't think people understand either that Iraq is not yet like the U.S. where people obey the police and respect the law. The Iraqi government, army, and police have many terrorists, spies, criminals, and anti-government people working in it. Weapons, bombs, munitions, and explosives are scattered all over Iraq which can be used to make IEDs, and they will be for years to come. What the various terrorist groups can't find laying around, they can get from Syria or Iran. And the streets are filled with former members of Saddam's army who were trained in torture and killing and who would have no problem killing innocent civilians. Then there's all of the criminals Saddam released from jail. On top of that, bribery and corruption are rampant. Even under the best of conditions, Iraq would be difficult.
Regardless of the fighting between Iraqi factions, however, we should make it absolutely clear to Al Qaeda that we will remain there as long as it takes to stop them, and we have absolutely no plans to run.
Personally, I don't think all is lost; although, I could be proven wrong at any time. Iraq still has the potential to be a success and a stabilizing force in the region. Perhaps the violence will begin to lessen after the November elections.
A little repetitive and rambling but I'll have to let it go at that...
AAR
Maybe the Iraqi leadership can get some resolution with their talks with al-Sadr. We should have blown this guy up when we had the chance.
They just captured Al-Qaeda in Iraq's #2 guy today; while this won't stop the violence, it's always good when these guys are taken out.
We need to secure Iraq's borders with Iran and Syria. We need to hold these two accountable for their contributions to the insurgency.
But we won't...
Wait - I thought Iraq was no more dangerous than most American cities.
Wait - I thought Iraq was no more dangerous than most American cities.
Come to Baltimore, punk, and you'll soon find out. Please come to Baltimore...
Is there any reason that violence and terrorists attacks would be increasing in Iraq just now?
Why, yes! It's getting closer to the November elections and the terrorists want and need weak willed Democrats in office to "cut and run" from Iraq, leaving the country to the terrorists for their new base of operations and training. What more could terrorists ask or hope for than Iraq -- strategically located between Iran and Syria which would create one continuous region supporting terrorism against the U.S. and Israel -- and permitting easy transport of weapons throughout the middle East, including rebuilding Hezbollah's weapons to attack and destroy Israel.
With Iraq's oil reserves, terrorists will have all of the money they need to fund their weapons programs, training, and terrorist activities. Working with Iran, and right in the middle of the mid-East oil fields -- which Democrats claim we do not need and do not need to help protect -- Iran and terrorists will be able to manipulate the world oil supply and raise prices as they choose! Working with Iran, terrorists will have even more ability to manipulate America's and the world's economies and punish America and Americans right where it hurts and gets the most attention -- in their pocketbooks!
Democrats need more bad news about attacks on our troops and Iraqi citizens to feed and support their election campaigns. Democrats need more attacks to fuel the Democratic claims of civil war and the Democrat's incessant propaganda campaign designed to weaken the will of the American people. Democrats need the news of more suicide attacks, more deaths of American troops, more deaths of Iraqi families, and more violence to support their claims of a civil war to help them win back Congress, and that's is all that matters to the Democrats -- the end justifies the means... no matter who it kills!
We can expect the terrorists to step up their voting in the November elections as evidenced by increased violence and deaths. Terrorists are casting their ballots for Democrats by providing the news and propaganda that Democrats ARE USING in their anti-Iraq war platform! The worse the news from Iraq, the better for the Democrats, and the more Democrats will use it in their campaign ads, speeches, and propaganda. Terrorists will be doing everything they can in the next few months to provide what the Democrats need -- more attacks, more violence, more attacks, more deaths, and trying to create the appearance of civil war.
Terrorists read the news too. Terrorists understand the Democrat message and campaign strategy. Terrorists know their best hope lies with Democrats.
Hopefully American voters will recognize this!!!
AAR
Wait - I thought Iraq was no more dangerous than most American cities.
Come to Baltimore, punk, and you'll soon find out. Please come to Baltimore...
Posted by: keefer at September 3, 2006 09:17 AM
Keefer
Are you honestly saying that Baltimore has more violence than Baghdad? Tell me this, are you unable to do your daily errants without the possibility of being shot or blown up?
Is the Baltimore police breaking down your door on the pretext of looking for terrorists who might be hiding in your home? Are you receiving news on a daily basis of a neighbor, friend or loved one becoming another statistic in the free and democratic country of Iraq?
Less Violence???
"In the notably gloomy report, The Pentagon said illegal militias have become more entrenched, especially in Baghdad neighborhoods where they are seen as providers of security as well as basic social services."
Read the whole news article on MSNBC omline. The report did say (paraphasing) "that all is not lost yet". They had to say something optimistic for you Bush Republicans, a starw for you to grasp.
AAR: "What more could terrorists ask or hope for than Iraq -- strategically located between Iran and Syria which would create one continuous region supporting terrorism against the U.S. and Israel -- and permitting easy transport of weapons throughout the middle East, including rebuilding Hezbollah's weapons to attack and destroy Israel."
Perhaps you might allow, as the Bush administration allows, that there are several "species" of terrorists involved in Iraq. Back in December Bush delineated three of them: (1) Baathists, who were looking to restore their supremacy; (2) Sunni nationalists, who were concerned about Shia and Kurd domination, and; (3) foreign jihaddists, who were looking to fight Americans and/or to foment civil war.
That doesn't even count the Khurdish mujahadeen. So far they have been very pro-American, but less so pro-Iraq: just about all the Kurdish members of the Iraqi military have pledged dual allegiance.
Since then we have seen the emergence of a fourth element (or fifth element, depending upon how you count): the Shia militias. This fourth (or fifth) element (and actually there are factions in it which are not completely indisposed to fight among themselves, much less the other elements) is now a predominant concern. These are the factions that most support Iran and Hezbollah. Yet these are the factions upon which we most rely on to provide security in the middle and southern sections of Iraq.
Considering all that, which of these various factions do you propose are most predisposed to fight and die in order to influence American elections? Whatever logic you attempt to apply, at some point it is likely to break down.
All in all, it seems to me that whatever we do in Iraq now, we will be supporting one species of terrorist or another. Thus, it seems to me that the best we can hope for is to get them to concentrate on fighting each other rather than our troops. Considering the dynamics of the region at large, I see a certain wisdom in that -- however pathetic, and anachronistic, it may be. It is, after all, just more of the same played out on a smaller scale -- but with implications on a scale bigger than ever. What a mess.
Ricorun,
No, I won't deny there are as you say, several "species" of terrorists involved now. Each have their own purpose, objectives, and goals, but what really got it all started?
Go back to the campaigning for the 2004 elections. That's when the Democrats really turned up the anti-war rhetoric and propaganda, and made it their position they would pull out of Iraq. We had the Negative-9 Democrat presidential contenders, if you could call them that, touring the nation preaching and shouting their anti-Bush, anti-war speeches, 24/7. That went on for almost a year, and the more they campaigned the more the violence increased. The more they made it clear they were going to pull out of Iraq if they won the election, the more the terrorists killed American troops and Iraqi families. And, it grew from there. The ball had been started on its long and ever faster roll.
After the elections, what have we heard from the liberals and Democrats? More and more "cut and run" positions, speeches, and rhetoric. And the more the liberals and Democrats shouted their message, the more terrorists attacks and suicide bombings occurred. Many of those were intended solely to aid the Democrats in trying to break America's will, and to aid the Democrats in succeeding in pulling us out of Iraq. Even as efforts were ongoing to hold elections and form a new government, even after the voting, even after the new government was formed, the rhetoric from the liberal left Democrats has been unceasing and aimed at forcing America to leave Iraq and turn it over to the terrorists.
When it was apparent that President Bush was not going to leave, and the terrorist attacks weren't succeeding as intended, the terrorists switched tactics. Democrats started harping on a "civil war" in Iraq. Day after day, 24/7, that's all we heard from Democrats, along with the body count of American troops. Again terrorists heard the call -- how could they miss it. In order to help the Democrat propaganda campaign, they blew up the Al-Askariya "Golden [Dome]Mosque" in Samarra -- that our soldiers did all they could to protect during the initial stages of the war -- to get that civil war moving which Democrats "predicted" day after day. What could cause more hatred between Sunnis and Shiites than to blow up mosques and blame it on the other side. Democrats wanted that civil war, so the terrorists did all they could to help, blowing up even more mosques to give Democrats and the drive-by media the fodder for their incessant media campaign... a self fulfilling prophecy!
And Democrats have not stopped or slowed down. The end justifies their means. The Iraq war is the core of their election campaign. They continue to make it clear they will pull out of Iraq. Al Qaeda wants the U.S. out of Iraq and the Democrats have said they will pull us out. The Democrats need bad news from Iraq, so you can bet they will be doing everything they can to stoke the flames of a civil war -- even if it is only localized in Baghdad for the most part.
Yes, now there are other factions involved, but that was part of the Al Qaeda strategy. That was what the Democrats wanted. That was what the Democrats encouraged by their anti-Bush, anti-war, defeatist, and retreat propaganda. And that was what the Democrat got. Unfortunately, our troops and the Iraqi people are the ones suffering while Democrats revel in their chances for a win in November... and still we hear only retreat and run from the Democrats! You can defend the left wing Democrats, but I have no use for them, or maybe I should say no use for their leaders if one can call the that!
As for your suggestion that the best we can hope for [now] is to get them to concentrate on fighting each other rather than our troops, you may be surprised, but I tend to agree with you to a degree. I have thought that for some time. If they can't live together, the let the strong survive (natural selection); although, that may seem rather harsh and not the "proper caring" way to think. Realistically, we don't have enough troops to keep them from killing each other if that's what they really want to do; although, I don't believe that's what the vast majority of Iraqis want. Maybe we are at the point of that "policing action" Kerry talked about -- in Iraq, but not around the world though! I suspect that the Kurds and Shiites would win, but who knows. It sort of give one a different perspective of what Saddam faced, even though I could not justify most of his tactics.
That said, I still believe it was the right thing to do to remove Saddam Hussein for many reasons which I won't rehash now. What we do not want, and can not afford is to allow the country to fall under the control of Al Qaeda or to be run from Iran. I would not pull our troops out as long as that remains a real possibility. The Iraqis can fight each other, but we mush make sure that Al Qaeda doesn't win. We can work with the Iraqi government to fight Al Qaeda and we can provide the government with support in their internal fighting, but they have the lead in the latter.
The Democrats continue to tell the American people that we have no plan for Iraq, but their plan is basically what we are doing now, training their troops and police to take over and run the country. That is happening and that will happen, even though not as fast as we would like. Democrats -- intentionally or not -- have done all they can to make that transition as difficult as possible; although, I realize you do not believe that.
I don't think people understand either that Iraq is not yet like the U.S. where people obey the police and respect the law. The Iraqi government, army, and police have many terrorists, spies, criminals, and anti-government people working in it. Weapons, bombs, munitions, and explosives are scattered all over Iraq which can be used to make IEDs, and they will be for years to come. What the various terrorist groups can't find laying around, they can get from Syria or Iran. And the streets are filled with former members of Saddam's army who were trained in torture and killing and who would have no problem killing innocent civilians. Then there's all of the criminals Saddam released from jail. On top of that, bribery and corruption are rampant. Even under the best of conditions, Iraq would be difficult.
Regardless of the fighting between Iraqi factions, however, we should make it absolutely clear to Al Qaeda that we will remain there as long as it takes to stop them, and we have absolutely no plans to run.
Personally, I don't think all is lost; although, I could be proven wrong at any time. Iraq still has the potential to be a success and a stabilizing force in the region. Perhaps the violence will begin to lessen after the November elections.
A little repetitive and rambling but I'll have to let it go at that...
AAR
Just a short post to try and pull my last comment from the jaws of the blue screen and limbo land!
Not based on this source:
http://icasualties.org/oif/
US military deaths increased both total and per day. While there's a slight reduction in Iraq military and civilian, but August is still higher than any month (besides July) during 2006. So, yes, the drop from July to August is not a trend.
Coalition Military Fatalities: By Month
Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days
9-2006 5 0 0 5 1.67 3
8-2006 65 1 0 66 2.13 31
7-2006 43 1 2 46 1.48 31
6-2006 61 0 2 63 2.1 30
5-2006 69 9 1 79 2.55 31
4-2006 76 1 5 82 2.73 30
3-2006 31 0 2 33 1.06 31
2-2006 55 3 0 58 2.07 28
1-2006 62 2 0 64 2.06 31
IRAQ Military Deaths:
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
Jan-06 189 590
Feb-06 158 688
Mar-06 191 901
Apr-06 201 809
May-06 150 969
Jun-06 132 738
Jul-06 217 1063
Aug-06 233 970
Sep-06 7 16
Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths
Period Total
Sep-06 23
Aug-06 1203
Jul-06 1280
Jun-06 870
May-06 1119
Apr-06 1010
Mar-06 1092
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 779
"We'll have to see - but I'v full faith in the magnificent men and women of our armed forces, as well as the courageous Iraqis fighting on our side for freedom."
If you have read the news you would know that things aren't going well in Iraq, the sectarian war is on without the presence of Saddam...this is not democracy Mark, and it's not freedom. It probably, factually, matters almost not at all to the people in the USA what happens in Iraq, other than soldiers dying for some paranoid, make-up-stories old men. It's not freedom Mark, it's hell on earth, that's what the people you support have made, it's not democracy, the people of Iraq obvously were not ready to have democracy, the people you support have created chaos by invading a country that has almost nothing to do with our freedoms or the War on Terrorism, that's the truth. I can turn on the tv, and you know what I see, terrorism, not freedom, Mark.
Nice post Mark, Although July had the highest death toll, it's good to see that dropping, and hopefully it will turn into a trend.
Ya know what liberals? Its sucks in Iraq. Fighting a war. Sure would be great if you guys would help out. You know, contribute some ideas. Send a care package to some troops. ---- Actually join the service and help us defeat this mosaic of Islamic enemies we face.
Sure would be cool if we could keep the Sunni's who miss being in power and are being egged on by Al Queada, and the Shiites who like power and who are being egged on by Iran to come to terms and stop being assholes. Sure would be great if we had a nice stable and Democratic country bordering Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, and Iran. Sure would be great to have permission to keep an air base there and maybe an Army Division or two there for a long time - so we wouldn't need to spend months redeploying them some year in the future. Kind of like the divisions we STILL have in Germany after SIXTY years. Sure would be cool if you guys could help out the country by figuring out ways to expand our influence in the gawdawful region. Again, actually help.
But, well just go ahead and criticize and don't help. That's cool too.
Or better yet, lets just pull out. Or lets set some artificial date a year from now and pull out then. Hell, we’ve done our bit. Sadaam is gone. Who cares if hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s die? Who cares if Iran gets control of the oil fields in southern Iraq and the Kurds break off into their own country. I’ll betja Turkey will bomb the crap out of THAT country! But – who cares? Screw ‘em! Lets just get our boys and gals home! Lets just make sure we don’t spit on too may or torture too many at gunpoint like those jerks in Washington State did. Yah… we can SECRETLY hate ‘em. But no need to beat them up! Forcing defeat on them will do enough damage. Should drive some of ‘em crazy I bet! Then we can point at them and say “see, told ya”.
I say – win the elections in November. Impeach Bush (we’ll find SOME law that fits), and pull out of Iraq in February. Then when it all goes to hell, we’ll still blame Bush for going in. It won’t be our fault! It will be his!
September 11, Where Is The Anger?
AAR, if I read you right, you are saying that Democratic opposition caused the current problems in Iraq because the Democratic opposition happened concurrently with events there. I'm not so sure. For example, the insurgency got rolling soon after Bremmer (under the advice of higher-ups) fired the Iraqi army. Most analysts suggest that was a major blunder because it provided the insurgency with a significant amount of expertise. Many of the early operations against the insurgency were marked with insensitivity towards the native population -- e.g., aggressively invading homes, detaining almost everyone, clearing areas of vegetation, and perhaps most importantly, failing to follow up by way of providing basic services. This was exacerbated by concentrating on large-scale infrastructure projects (which were more susceptible to sabotage) rather than small, neighborhood-oriented ones. In short, the coalition heaped on insult without providing much in the way of benefit. And it turned a significant segment of the population against the coalition. The insurgency began to take on a more nationalist tone, rather than a Baathist loyalist one. And it began to include a swelling Shiite faction, particularly among poor, urban dwellers. This period could be said to have culminated in early 2004 with the attacks on Sunni factions in Fallujah and against Shiite factions in Najaf. In Fallujah it was decided to seek a truce rather than press the fight, and transfer control of the city to the ""Fallujah Brigade," a unit created from former members of Iraq's Army, local volunteers, and even the insurgents themselves. Jeepers. But there were few alternatives, because we didn't have the resources to press the issue. As a result,by the end of spring large swaths of Anbar province was under the control of the insurgency. And problems were beginning to coalesce in the Shiite south, in and around Najaf.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point -- that the insurgency responded more to events on the ground rather than it did to opposition in America. I will not say that opposition in America had no effect, I'm sure it did. But I think a very good case could be made that Democratic opposition grew in response tothe worsening situation on the ground more than the other way around.
I am not inclined to defend the Democrats or any other opposition voice, other than to suggest that they are a minor factor in explaining what is happening and has happened in Iraq. If you look at any of my past posts you will find that I am not, nor have I ever been, in favor of "cutting and running" either. On the contrary, I have been consistently in favor of MORE troops, not less. I think the big problem, right from the beginning, is the coalition's inability to secure critical areas sufficiently to allow the development of necessary infrastructure. Everyone points to the fact that we were successful in rebuilding Germany and Japan following WWII, and that it took time. That's true. But it's also true that the per-capita number of troops there keeping order while the social structures re-evolved were significantly greater there than they have ever been in Iraq. Also, if you go up to the Iraq Index and track the number of coalition troops versus the number of coalition troops combined with the number of Iraqis killed, you will note that the last time the number of troops spiked (Oct 2005 - Jan 2006), the number of deaths dropped -- quite a bit, as a matter of fact.
Perhaps a case could be made that if we increase troops strength the Democrats will scream bloody murder. Well... so what? If it suffices to quell the violence, restore order, defeat the (now metastacizing) militias, and facilitate the development of infrastructure, they'll shut up pretty quick. And if it doesn't... they have a right to squawk. It's a free country, and it is precisely one of the rights we're supposed to be fighting for.
But if we don't increase troop strength (and it appears that the Bush admin is disinclined to do so), then I think the best we can do is to attempt to pit one faction against the other, and only step in when it appears that one is gaining the upper hand. And just let them keep fighting each other until everyone's dead or they get tired of bleeding.