The US military on Thursday announced the deaths of six more US soldiers taking the toll to 122 for the month.
May’s casualties coincide with a “surge” in US reinforcements, which is due to peak next month. April and May together were the deadliest two months since the war began.
Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno conceded that the Baghdad security crackdown has not yet made sufficient inroads.
He said: “We’ve made small progress here. We have not made the progress that I think is necessary yet, but I hope over the summer that we will continue to make progress.
“There are some positive signs. Civilian deaths are down in Baghdad. Sectarian deaths are down” –
– and American deaths are up.
“but I hope over the summer that we will continue to make progress.”
I hope for a pony by the end of summer. And a quad core AMD.
Well, the next 6 months will be key.
And then, the next 6 months.
And the next.
Iraq 4-ever!
Stay the quagmire!
#2
Actually, I think that period is coming to an end. Iraq has to have a viable government by September(which isnt gonna happen btw), or else the Republican congress will adopt the cut’n’run strategy in preparation for the elections next year.
The public is currently angry and the democratic party for caving into Bush megalomania. However they still view this as a republican war. It is not like they are gonna vote for republicans to end the war.
So there is light at the end of the tunnel! After the September report this thing is over! Finally! It is too bad that another 500-700 US soldiers will have to die before the war ends though.
And before May 2007 it was April 2007 and before April 2007 it was March 2007…
Am I really the only liberal in America that does not want to pull out of Iraq?
OhForTheLoveOf: You wouldn’t a lot of company as a Republican or whatever silly name they care to use this week.
oh boy.
As an “old European”, what can I say?
Every life lost there is a shame, and I feel for both the American families as well as the Iraqui families who mourn about their lost ones.
Both nations, the US and Iraq, have been led into a disaster for what now seems nothing more and nothing less than financial reasons.
But the dark side is: if you pull the plug now, the world will be a much unsafer place than it has ever been with Sadam in office.
Chances are that Iraq becomes another pre-war Afghanistan (and it’s not even yet clear if the post-war Afghanistan will be any better).
Watching Sadam kill his own people was bad, but I doubt that what we’re going to see in the future is any better.
The world’s a sorry place.
pj
#5: No. Although I would have rather avoided this quagmire in the first place, we unfortunately have some responsibility to fix the many things we f*cked up over there. . .
There’s no way to ‘fix’ this, and this president is too dense or ignorant or proud (or all) to admit that it’s broken beyond our repair…the ‘reason’ we’re there has changed with the seasons: WMDs, then removing Saddam, then bringing democracy.
Ridiculous that over 3400 of our finest young men and women have died in the name of a president who has no intention of ever getting us out of there.
Next month will probably be just as bad, especially if the assault in Diyala occurs.
#7 – Well with ever increasing help of Old Europe, I’m sure the situation is bound to improve in Afghanistan. Perhaps Sarkozy will pull a Steve Harper and change France’s level of participation, and the same goes for Merkel. Thank god for the anglo-triangle of U.S., Canada, and the U.K., for without them I’d hate to imagine what Afghanistan would look like.
Doug, everybody else as well, I’ll respond to your post from the last Iraq story here. Fusion there should be enough points in here, and there are no links.
General Petraeus said that stability in Iraq is like a stool, there are three legs: political, economic, security. I’ll focus on the political leg.
The political scene:
You said that the U.S. is negotiating with “terrorists” and I find that definition to be far to encompassing. Is it true that the U.S. has been in direct talks with armed Iraqi militias? Absolutely, in fact I would be concerned if we were not. I would estimate that between 80-85% of the Mahdi Army could become productive members of Iraqi society if given the correct amount of political/social/economic goods. A similar situation with the Badr Corps, and the armed groups in Al Anbar & Diyala (I don’t know if they have catchy names, Islamic Army of Iraq is one). The other remaining 20-15%, probably 5% can be turned around eventually, while the remaining actors will either have to be killed or imprisoned. Throw in the players who support/collaborate with AQI in this group of kill/imprison as well. As I already said many times, Al Anbar is a success story on several levels. To say, as the headline does, that “sectarian attacks are down” is right, but in Ramadi (in the top 5 of crucial cities) attacks went down from 50 a day… to two. I call that astonishing. On the broader political scene, with respect to the return of Muktada! Muktada! Muktada! Sadr, it makes sense. I would say that this return is authorized by Sistani & Malaki as a way to unite the Mahdi Army, and try to get that 80-85% on the same page. Also of significance, upon arriving in Baghdad, Muktada met with Sheik Abdul Sattar al-Rishawi, shook hands, drank some honey tea, and agreed to work together to stop the sectarian violence. I find this development incredibly encouraging.
Economics:
I could go into detail here, but with one sentence. Public infrastructure continues to increase, interest rates are low, capital is flowing in by the billions, and oil exports continue to lag behind desirable levels.
Security:
Glass half full or half empty seems appropriate. Progress is being made in a lot of provinces, but the U.S is doing most of this heavy lifting. However, the ISF has shown increased capabilities, especially their Special Forces teams. Over the next month look towards Diyala as the next Fallujah, I just hope it is the ISF doing the breach and clear operations and not Marines, or at least a better ratio.
#5, if I thought we might be able to fix it, I’d probably be less intolerant of the occupation. Unfortunately the only way I think we could fix it would be the roman way (oppress, deport, or kill), and that with ten million troops there. I don’t think we have any moral right to do that.
What I know is what everybody else knows, or will: that the surge won’t work any more than Israel sending troops into Lebanon.
Hey, no worry.
It’s vacation time in Iraq. Gotta enjoy the summer!
The Iraqi legislature is taking two months off… and the insurgents are probably thinking the same thing. Hey, my guess is that even Dubya will ad a few weeks to his “Believe it or not’ vacation time record.
So no worries, things will be great for a couple of months… after all… it’s vacation time!
(If the fact that the Iraq legislature is taking a couple of months off during this terrible period doesn’t just make you want to scream “F^ck you, you idiotic pigs! We are leaving!” then there isn’t much else that we can say.)
“There are some positive signs. Civilian deaths are down in Baghdad. Sectarian deaths are down”
And this is bad how? If your going to attack the terrorists and the bad guys of course your casualties are going to be more than if you just stayed at home and did nothing. The question is, is the “Surge” leading to a more secure Iraq. And based on the Generals quote it sounds like it is.
we now return you to your regularly scheduled anti war/Bush rantings.
That’s a rude picture. If that’s a picture of actual wounded or dead, you’ve crossed a line. You’ve pretty much disgusted anyone who has friends or family over there.
In 1975, we pulled out of Vietnam. Today, Americans are visiting Vietnam and Vietnam has become a trading partner. We have not pulled out of S. Korea and tensions between us and N. Korea are still present to this day. I
I do not get this we cannot afford to leave rhetoric. What goals are we trying to accomplish in Iraq? And how much time have we already allowed for such goals to be reached? How much money spent there is enough? Personally, I think we have spent enough in financial and human capital and need to pull out ASAP.
We aren’t going to leave though until Bush leaves office. Halliburton et. al are making too much money on the war, and it will continue because of that.
The best way to monitor future political events has been shown to be with finanical futures. If you go to online oddsmakers, the odds of a Republican winning in 2008 are 2:1 against.
Because I had not heard one Republican come out and speak against the war, I thought they were doomed to lose the 2008 election, but one Republican actually spoke out against the war, Ron Paul.
Ron Paul reminded Republicans that Eisenhower got us out of Korea and Nixon did so in Vietnam. He has also said the pro-peace candidate almost always wins and reminded Republicans that our forefathers were vehemently opposed to a foreign policy of nation building.
I said before that I missed Ronald Regan. RR was for smaller govt., lower taxes, and offered a vision of a brighter future. The current Republican party is filled with hate and paranoia. In fact, the main Republican talking point is a fight against the evil terrorists and a need to kill them before they kill us. Yeesh.
When Ron Paul spoke out against the war, many mainstream Republicans wanted to shut him up and ban him from future debates, but a curious thing then happened. Poll after poll showed Ron Paul winning the debate. When interviewing Ron Paul after said debate, it was comical to see Sean Hannity totally lose it.
The real issue in Iraq is not can we afford to leave but can we afford to stay. We have paid for the war by printing money and when you do that, the dollars in your wallet go down in value. If you listen to government propaganda about inflation, you think your money has not gone down in value. However, if you go to Canada or Europe, you will see first hand how much less your money is worth.
I went to Rush Limbaugh’s site to see what mainstream Republcians were thinking about Ron Paul and Limbaugh said he didn’t know much about Paul but commented that Paul had no chance of winning the Republian nomination.
I personally think Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who can beat the Democrats in 2008, By speaking out against the war and voting against its funding, he could label Hiliary Clinton, who voted for the war, the pro-war candidate if she were the nominee.
14. What are you afraid of reality, good people are dying but god forbid you should have to see any of it, [edited: comments guide]
I wish people would be consistent, and also call for withdrawals from Bosnia, and Kosovo. Americans are dying in Afghanistan too. Should we withdraw from there?
15. “When interviewing Ron Paul after said debate, it was comical to see Sean Hannity totally lose it. ”
Yes it was, Yes it was. Made the Vannity sweat. People need to give this guy a good hard look. I am not totally sold yet, but I do agree with about 80% of what I know, and thats good enough. I think he could actually bring both parties together, most everyone I work with is a liberal and we have looked at the Dems and Repubs candidates and its just the same old shit. The man has experience, a good and consistent voting record, a veteran (flight surgeon), and the only Republican to vote against the war. Not afraid to look at our history of intervention and the problems they cause, a breath of fresh air in a room full of gasbags.
#16, I am more aware of the death of loved ones in stupid wars than you could possibly imagine. If you can’t add something to the conversation without an explitive, go back down to your mom’s basement and take another hit on your bong.
I know well that war involves death, I just don’t want someone to come along this site and realize it’s their brother laying there dead in the picture…
There is absolutely NO WAY you could identfy anyone in that picture. So lighten up, and support freedom of the press.
#14 – Angus – We need pictures like that to remind us that war isn’t about glory, it’s about death. That’s why the US government tries so hard to keep such pictures out of the public’s eye. Those bodies can’t be identified, but we can be pretty sure they were returned for burial in the middle of the night with reporters banned. Rude? The way the government dishonors our war dead is what’s rude. Showing the truth is not rude, it’s necessary.
#18 – mark – Ron Paul is an interesting candidate for sure. For another look at the candidates declared and undeclared, from a libertarian point of view, there’s an interesting piece at:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/119723.html
I like that writer because he takes a fairly dispassionate look at their records. It’s an anti-PR sort of piece you might find interesting.
21. Thanks I will look into it, I am still forming my opinion.
MikeN, not only we should be out of Bosnia and Afghanistan, we should be out of Korea and all of Europe. People ask what will happen if we leave. I can tell you what will happen if we stay, we will be more in debt than we already are. Borrowing money from China and Japan to keep troops in Korea is the height of insanity.
#10 – “stool” is the appropriate word for your comments; but, probably not the sort you have in mind.
Why on Earth should any part of “Old Europe” wish to assist with Bush’s War? Just because you are part of the ever-diminishing minority of Americans who think we’re doing something useful in Iraq has no bearing on opinion in the rest of the world.
All the other tidy bits of self-delusion, e.g., infrastructure improving, etc. are laughable even by Fox Snooze standards. Virtually all the lame US press plus the journalists with backbone based abroad report back that “improvement” in Iraq infrastructure consists in keeping the lights on 12 hours a day in the Green Zone. About a fifth of that for the rest of Baghdad. Less than that – everywhere else excepting the safe bits where the Brits hang out or the Kurds are in charge.
Of course, that last-named circumstance may change if our Turkish “allies” proceed beyond their current troop buildup for an invasion in the North.
# 6, 8, and 11 – I never would have been stupid enough to go in either… But to borrow a co-opted Republican buzzword – it’s about personal responsibility.
WE invaded a stable soveriegn nation.
WE destabilized the region,
WE expanded the terrorist threat.
WE fucked the Middle East like a we were a Republican Senator from Florida and the region were a congressional page.
It’s our responsibility to fix it. Hearing both the left and the right say “Iraq need to get their act together or we’ll just have to leave” is pissing me off. I don’t want this horribly fucked up mistake of a war. But when I make a mistake, I try to fix it and I expect my nation to do no less.
#24 – You sure know how to structure an well formed argument. First off, did I say that Old Europe should help out in Iraq? No, that was a clear reference to Afghanistan.
With respect to your second paragraph, your four sentences could be summarized into one, “There continues to be a severe lack in municipal power outage throughout the country, especially in Baghdad .” That is quite profound! Here’s a link (http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex) from the Brookings Institute, which is not quite “Fox Snooze,” which gives a broad range of indicators. For example, telephone subscription was 833,000 before the invasion, now it is 9,830,000. It is a safe claim to make that type of infrastructure has increased. Check out the one for internet, it is quite remarkable.
Now I said that I was focusing on the politics in that post, which I did, but if you want to talk more about the broader economic issues facing the country fine. Pick out some numbers from that P.D.F. and we’ll talk.
Yeah, let’s hear it for Brookings figures from Iraqi Telcoms(!). Subscriptions do not a service make. The Green Zone probably accounts for most of those numbers. How numbers of accounts translates to hours of service must require a new variant on string theory.
Though I tend to rely on truly subjective info – blogs and video blogs from Iraq by folks not beholden to the US “enterprise” – there are other fairly detailed sources to reference.
Like this one. Their copy of the Brookings Report must have a different printer because they note an increase to 7,000,000. They also give a whoopee for enough increase in electricity to take care of 5,000 households in northern Iraq.
No doubt another 10-20 years, another couple trillion of taxpayer dollars, will make it all just hunky-dory. And, mostly, people will hang on for the change to spit on our HumVees going down the road to depart. Just like they eventually did with the Brits.
Too bad the bucks couldn’t be spent somewhere that needed it – without being blown to pieces by our government troops in the first place.
#10, mxp,
If you didn’t directly quote and paraphrase others so much, your posts might be readable. As usual, this one is very difficult to understand as it wanders and references unsaid situations.
Get your head out of your butt. That ain’t coffee you’re smelling either. It is the raunch of people dieing for something no one understands.
Thanks for that link #21. That was THE BEST article on all the candidates I have yet read. Now if we can only get the mainstream media to do something like that.
If we withdraw from IRaq, a large majority of the fighters will head across Iraq, into IRan, and then into Afghanistan. When the death toll there rises, will you then call for withdrawals from Afghanistan?