# Is the Reconstruction of Iraq Failing?



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 16, 2004)

On another thread I debated Kaith briefly over the situation in Iraq.  He had cited several sources indicating that things were going well, and I listed more recent articles and reports  stating that things were not all that they could be.

This morning the New York Times posted this on line:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?pagewanted=1&th

The article details a National Intelligence Estimate that is quite gloomy.  It also mentions that only $1 billion has been spent so far on reconstruction.  House Republicans like Lugar and Hagel are pessimistic as to the outcome.


Baroness Amos reported this to the British Parlimant in January of 204:

"Baghdad's three sewage treatment plants serve approximately 80 per cent of the city's population. They are currently under repair by USAID, and are expected to be restored to full capacity by October 2004. Meanwhile, the majority of sewage from Baghdad's 3.8 million residents will remain untreated. 

It is estimated that only 9 per cent of the urban population outside Baghdad is served by sewage systems. In Basra, sewage is currently not being treated. Rural areas and the north of Iraq largely have no piped sewerage systems. 

The United Nations and World Bank have identified the following priority targets for sewerage 200407: raise sanitation coverage in urban areas by 10 per cent; prepare a comprehensive strategy for sanitation in rural areas; develop city master plans for the provision of water and sanitation services in 15 major cities; and, in the medium term, raise sanitation coverage by 30 per cent in both urban and rural areas. 

From its recently agreed supplemental appropriation, the USA has allocated 675 million US dollars towards improving sewerage systems in Iraq. The initial focus will be on the cities of Baghdad, Basra, Erbil and Kula."

Anyone have anything pro or con concerning reconstruction?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 16, 2004)

We are losing this war. It is Vietnam all over again. More and More cities are being declared 'No-Go Zones'. In these cities, elections will not be able to be held, or if they are held, they will not be able to be monitored for fairness and accuracy.

The Bush Administration is pushing for a 'Vietnamization' of the conflict; hurrying to train Iraqi's to do the dirty work.

Since we have returned 'Sovereignty' to the Iraqi's, 171 American Soldiers have died in Iraq.

What's more, as there is no individual leader within the insurgency movement, there is no one with which to negotiate. While it might be possible to ramp back up our military objectives, how will we know when whe have won.

It is ugly, and getting uglier. This article was especially depressing.

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041004&s=greider

Mike


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 16, 2004)

According to the NY Times and Time Magazine, things in Iraq are getting MUCH worse.


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,697589,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 16, 2004)

It is a circular problem.

The Iraqis want peace, supplies*, and income.
(supplies defined as gas/food/electric/water/sanitation/etc)

The problem is, we can't move supplies and provide peace while we're being shot at.
You can't open shops while a war is going on.

Iraqis become angry and take up arms.

It is a self-defeating cycle.

The current plan is to focus on stabalyzing things so that those 'supplies' can then be created/moved/provided/fixed.


Side Note: since turning things over to the Iraqis, well over 500 Iraqi troops/police have also been killed.  Syrians, Saudias and Iranians are a major part of those involved in the fighting, as are the minority Sunnis, and a few rebel factions such as the al Sadr.

How goes the reconstruction in the South, and in the Kurdish controled North, compared to the area around Baghdad?


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 17, 2004)

First off, Saddam was a brutal dictator. Then again, so are a lot of others.

America managed to  turn a stable country into one with no infrastructure about to turn to all out civil war. Not enough troops were originally sent in, and there never was a clear exit strategy. It's no wonder America is hated so much. The average Iraqi under Saddam had a job in a country that worked. In comes the Americans to 'liberate' and all of a sudden, it's all gone to s**t.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2004)

An Iraqi man told a reporter as he stood in the unemployment line, "Saddam is gone, but now we have his teachers to deal with!"


----------



## lvwhitebir (Sep 17, 2004)

In many ways, the Iraqi's (at least the armed factions currently fighting) don't want peace.  That's the problem.  If they all worked with the reconstruction we could be done and out of there.  Unfortunately, their desire is just to create havoc until we leave in frustration; then some other "strong arm" faction will fill in the void and another Saddam will be born.

They take hostages of people trying to help them by providing supplies.  They kill their own police and interim government officials who are trying to give the nation back its stability and sovereignty.  They burn oil pipelines and refineries that can be used to provide money and jobs to Iraqi citizens.

I don't think anyone would argue that what's happening is a rosy picture.  But... what else can we do but move forward?  I think we can agree that we can't just up and leave.

WhiteBirch


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 17, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> In many ways, the Iraqi's (at least the armed factions currently fighting) don't want peace.  That's the problem.  If they all worked with the reconstruction we could be done and out of there.



I think it's safe to say that nothing about American foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly when you consider neoconservative plans for the region, would lead the Iraqi people to believe that the US intends to simply leave after reconstruction.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> I think it's safe to say that nothing about American foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly when you consider neoconservative plans for the region, would lead the Iraqi people to believe that the US intends to simply leave after reconstruction.



I 100% agree with that statement.  There are way to many insurgents for them to all be terrorists.  And the general feeling in that area is that we are after their oil (among other things like creating a religious state).  Honestly, I think that sentiment is true and I think it explains why they keep attacking the oil infrastructure being built with out tax dollars.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 17, 2004)

It is still so early in the process that I can't really say whether this information is indication of "lose" or "win."  During the American Rev, we 'lost' so much of the overall war but 'won' the war (even if you consider the 1812 war an extension of the battle) because here we are.

Things are definitely difficult, but I am not ready to say that the end is clearly written yet.  Remember too that these are short term evaluations...

Regardless of sides or opinions, the Mid East region has a LOOOONGG history of fighting.  I don't know if that will ever changle


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 17, 2004)

Some points to consider:
How long did it take the South to recover from the scorched earth policy of the North?
How long did it take Germany, Japan and Italy to recover after WW2?
How about France, England, Etc?

It takes time to rebuild after a war.  More time if you are trying to do it while in a combat zone, which Iraq still is.  One also needs to look at the country as a whole, not just the 'news bites' of a small area.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Regardless of sides or opinions, the Mid East region has a LOOOONGG history of fighting.  I don't know if that will ever changle



Well, the administration is planning to change that.  One of the outcomes the neocons would like to accomplish with PNAC is the _reformation of Islam_.  In my opinion, this is a very radical plan and I don't know how successful it will be.  Act One was Afghanistan.  Act two is Iraq.  Act Three and Four of this Five Act Play, as they so name it, is Iran and Syria.  If you look at a map, that strip of land goes from the mediterrainian to India.  

Act Five?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 17, 2004)

Quick question: where would I find a copy, either online or otherwise, of the neocon's PNAC?


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 17, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Well, the administration is planning to change that. One of the outcomes the neocons would like to accomplish with PNAC is the _reformation of Islam_. In my opinion, this is a very radical plan and I don't know how successful it will be. Act One was Afghanistan. Act two is Iraq. Act Three and Four of this Five Act Play, as they so name it, is Iran and Syria. If you look at a map, that strip of land goes from the mediterrainian to India.
> 
> Act Five?
> 
> upnorthkyosa


I am cautious of terms like "of Islam" because that is religious persecution...and not targeting Islamic religious based governments/nations that are corrupting the spirit of religion for earthly manipulations.

Would it ultimately, in generations from now, be so bad if there was more stability in the Mid East.  Of course the growing pains, change will cause pain - change always does, but wouldn't a stable political environment around that part of the country have a market impact on the crude oil market, national finances that are being funnelled toward Security and occupation operations intended to keep a finger on the pulse of the instability (I am not just thinking USA but other nations as well)?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Would it ultimately, in generations from now, be so bad if there was more stability in the Mid East. Of course the growing pains, change will cause pain - change always does, but wouldn't a stable political environment around that part of the country have a market impact on the crude oil market, national finances that are being funnelled toward Security and occupation operations intended to keep a finger on the pulse of the instability (I am not just thinking USA but other nations as well)?


Well, all these would be great, but the concern is over the process by which this change is made.  A series of military invasions of the area by the US and its coalition allies would certainly not be an acceptable means of bringing peace to the area.  It would be like cutting down crime drastically in US cities by using the military and/or police to enforce early curfews; great benefit provided, but the cost in liberties and autonomy would be too much.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 17, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Quick question: where would I find a copy, either online or otherwise, of the neocon's PNAC?



http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I'll try and find a copy of an illuminating Esquire article (which argues in favor of PNAC) too.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 17, 2004)

Esquire article, posted on the Navy War College's site:

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Would it ultimately, in generations from now, be so bad if there was more stability in the Mid East.  Of course the growing pains, change will cause pain - change always does, but wouldn't a stable political environment around that part of the country have a market impact on the crude oil market, national finances that are being funnelled toward Security and occupation operations intended to keep a finger on the pulse of the instability (I am not just thinking USA but other nations as well)?



Yeah.  In some ways, it makes sense.  I don't think we have the national treasure to accomplish this goal, though.  I also have a problem with the general level of violence that will ensue over the economic interests of the middle east.  Oil need not be the driving force of our foriegn policy.  Current research in fuel cells has advanced so far that Germany uses them in 25% of its private sector.  And this is growing.  You should see some of things that the University of MN is working on!  Fuel cells in which you could run your automobile on ethanol.  That is amazing technology...and here we are spending all of this money and lives because the powerful oil interests are in power...

It's really sad, in my opinion.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 17, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> ... but wouldn't a stable political environment around that part of the country (world) have a market impact on the crude oil market,


I assume you meant world in your quote ....

But, as I recall, we had a stable political environment in that part of the world under Saddam Hussein; very similar to the stable political environment that exists in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab Emerites, Quattar.  

The United States has always favored stability over democracy around the world, with the possible exception of Cuba.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 17, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Some points to consider:
> How long did it take the South to recover from the scorched earth policy of the North?
> How long did it take Germany, Japan and Italy to recover after WW2?
> How about France, England, Etc?
> ...


Good point.  For a more recent examole, Kosovo is still a mess.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 17, 2004)

Growing pains?  Stability?  The National Intelligence Council says it is likely that Iraq will descend into Civil War before the end of 2005.  There are already signs that the Kurds are backing out of any possible coalition government, and the Shiites and Sunni are barely co-existing.

There WAS a way to help bring about stability in the region.  Richard Clarke outlined it in his very extensive report to the Clinton administration in December 2000, and handed it over to the Bush Administration after the inauguration in January 2001.  It involved targeting Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, specifically, while decreasing the base of support for terrorism by offering our support to moderate Islamic nations.  It did not involve invading Iraq.  This was GW Bush's intent even before 9/11, and even before his inauguration.  This war is about oil, money and power, pure and simple.  And guess what?  NOW they're talking about IRAN, which could mean nuclear war.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Growing pains?  Stability?  The National Intelligence Council says it is likely that Iraq will descend into Civil War before the end of 2005.  There are already signs that the Kurds are backing out of any possible coalition government, and the Shiites and Sunni are barely co-existing.
> 
> There WAS a way to help bring about stability in the region.  Richard Clarke outlined it in his very extensive report to the Clinton administration in December 2000, and handed it over to the Bush Administration after the inauguration in January 2001.  It involved targeting Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, specifically, while decreasing the base of support for terrorism by offering our support to moderate Islamic nations.  It did not involve invading Iraq.  This was GW Bush's intent even before 9/11, and even before his inauguration.  This war is about oil, money and power, pure and simple.  And guess what?  NOW they're talking about IRAN, which could mean nuclear war.



Act 3... :idunno:


----------



## lvwhitebir (Sep 20, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> There WAS a way to help bring about stability in the region.  ...  It involved targeting Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, specifically, while decreasing the base of support for terrorism by offering our support to moderate Islamic nations.  It did not involve invading Iraq.



So what there was a plan; there's always a plan.  Usually many and some of those are in opposition.  For some reason they didn't adopt Clark's.  We'll probably never know why.  You can't tell me that Clark's plan would have been the best because other variables would have come into play that would have mired us in some other war.



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> This war is about oil, money and power, pure and simple.



We've had our hands dirty with Iraq since 1991.  We'd already been there for 12 years and it didn't look like we were going to get out any time soon, because they weren't legally abiding by the UN terms.  We also had information that as soon as we left, Saddam would take right back up with his military engine.  Several times during the 1990s we attacked them with missiles; we constantly had air support over the northern and southern no-fly zones destoying mobile missile launchers.  I believe it was the Butler Report which stated it, but the coalition didn't feel that regional stability was possible with Saddam in control.  They felt the only way to end this stand-off was to invade them and install an elected government.

How can you say that invading after 12 years is suddenly an oil, money, or power issue?  It's just political rhetoric.

WhiteBirch


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 20, 2004)

*I believe it was the Butler Report which stated it, but the coalition didn't feel that regional stability was possible with Saddam in control. They felt the only way to end this stand-off was to invade them and install an elected government.*


And how stable is the region now?  And how will they pull off elections knowing the electorate likely won't turn out for fear for their safety?  We haven't enough troops to provide security and insurgents are in controls of whole sections of Iraq.  How does one conduct a fairly elected government in that sort of environment?



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 20, 2004)

> there's always a plan.


 There wasn't a plan with this Administration as to how to get us out.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 20, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> There wasn't a plan with this Administration as to how to get us out.


Feisty .. of course there was a plan. The problem has been shown to be that this Administration's plan was put together by our friend 'Amhed Chalabi', someone who had not set foot in Iraq for decades before we launched the war. Of course, the intelligence community and the military all had suggestions too ... but they were far less credible than this Iraqi exile.

I hope all can see the sarcasm in this reply. But it als truthful.

Mike


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 20, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> ...the coalition didn't feel that regional stability was possible with Saddam in control.



...Even though most of the major figures of the administration stated up through 2001 that leaving Saddam in power was *desirable* to keep regional stability.

And even though UNSCOM had already destroyed the remnants of Iraq's WMD programs.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 20, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> How can you say that invading after 12 years is suddenly an oil, money, or power issue? It's just political rhetoric.


Because Bush and his cronies are OILmen, they are making an enormous amount of MONEY from the war in Iraq, and they used political POWER to accomplish it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 20, 2004)

And just to be picky about reality, why was it that we went to the aid of poor, beleaguered Kuwait, a country with several hundred thousand foreign workers who are de facts slaves? A country in which lots of citizens aren't allowed to vote? A country where lots of citizens didn't even defend their country? Oh wait....could it have been....OIL?

Yes, I understand that the UN Charter makes invasions illegal, and allows member nations to respond with force following UN authorization, and that's why we....hey, wait just a darn minnit.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 20, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> ...Even though most of the major figures of the administration stated up through 2001 that leaving Saddam in power was *desirable* to keep regional stability.
> 
> And even though UNSCOM had already destroyed the remnants of Iraq's WMD programs.


Something I'd like to have cleared up.  If the administration has had these oil ties for so long, and has therefore had the goal of controlling the Middle East if mind for so long, why would they make statements like these which are so blatantly contradictory to their goals of invasion?  It seems to me that unless either (a) they expected the American public and media to forget about these comments after a few years, or (b) the comments were made by administration members who weren't "in the know" about the overall plans.  

Just a quick question is all.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 20, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Something I'd like to have cleared up.  If the administration has had these oil ties for so long, and has therefore had the goal of controlling the Middle East if mind for so long, why would they make statements like these which are so blatantly contradictory to their goals of invasion?



If I had the answers to that, I'd be on... well, maybe not "60 Minutes" 

Anywho, I've got my theories.  Cheney was the Defense Secretary under Herbert Walker Bush, and was probably involved in developing the original containment strategy.  Colin Powell was involved as well... and used to be sane.  Condoleeza Rice, I imagine, was echoing the common position on Iraq.

The push for Iraq regime change has been coming from neoconservative influences outside this traditional group of power figures for years.  For this reason, I'm not entirely convinced by the oil-personal-gain arguments.

On the other hand, Cheney worked plenty of skeezy, probably illegal, deals for Halliburton to work with sanctioned oil-rich countries before he joined the current administration.

I'm guessing it's a mixture of factors, including the "in-the-know" factor you mention below.  Until the Bush Administration chose to adopt the neoconservative foreign policy agenda, for whatever reasons, I'm sure these people were all just continuing the party line.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 20, 2004)

I still have to ask:
How long did it take to reconstruct Germany, Japan, England, etc after WW2?

It took over 2 years to return all Japanese POWs home after the peace treaty was signed.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 20, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I still have to ask:
> How long did it take to reconstruct Germany, Japan, England, etc after WW2?



And how many popular insurgent movements did we have to battle in Germany, Japan, and England?  

How many cities and towns in Germany, Japan, and England were the Allies unable to enter a year after the conclusion of hostilities (oh, wait, there never was a surrender in Iraq)?

How many airstrikes did we launch in Germany, Japan, and England did we launch after the conclusion of hostilities... oh wait.

Oh, and besides, England was on *our* side.  

Apples... Oranges.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 20, 2004)

It seems to me that it would be better to compare apples to apples. The US jumped into the Philippines for no earthly good reason, in 1899--our "help," has damn near ruined the joint. We took over Panama--how're they doing? How 'bout our "help" for Cuba and Latin America? Hey--how about how much we "helped," Chile into a military dictatorship? Or have there been any consequences to our (illegal, to be sure, but who's counting) invasions of Laos and Cambodia?

Or, best of all--the US sponsored a military ouster of the democratically-elected Mossadegh government, in Iran, and propped up the Shah for what, three decades? Including helping to train SAVAK? How'd that work out anyway--I forget?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 20, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It seems to me that it would be better to compare apples to apples.



Let's not forget destabilizing the leftist government of Afghanistan in order to draw the Soviet Union into a war of counterinsurgency.  Look how well that worked out.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 20, 2004)

Yes, it IS sadly difficult to keep track.

But--in the full Jerome Bixby/Twilight Zone sense of the sentence--"It's a GOOD thing," that we helped train the Mujahaddin and Osama bin Laden, isn't it?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 20, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I still have to ask:
> How long did it take to reconstruct Germany, Japan, England, etc after WW2?
> 
> It took over 2 years to return all Japanese POWs home after the peace treaty was signed.





Kaith, 

Post war Germany wasn't nearly as violent as "post war" Iraq.  There are no parallels that suffice.  Some might claim resistance on the part of the SS trained "werewolves", but the following article pretty much debunks that:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087768/

_"According to America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq, a new study by former Ambassador James Dobbins, who had a lead role in the Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo reconstruction efforts, and a team of RAND Corporation researchers, the total number of *post-conflict American combat casualties in Germanyand Japan, Haiti, and the two Balkan caseswas zero*."_

Reconstructing Iraq and reconstructing Japan and Germany are two totally different ball games.  Both Japan and Germany were modern industrialized world powers prior to WWII.  Both had notions of what democratic/parlimentary government could be.  Japan had a culture that lent itself to discipline, hard work, and obedience--they had an icon (the Emperor) to look to for inspiration--and they had absolutely NO ethnic strife as they were all of one race.  Religious intolerance didn't exist in Japan in 1945.  Both Germany and Japan were brutally humbled by the outcome of the war.  They initiated the conflict, and they had been utterly destroyed.  They were taken from the heights of hubris to complete ruin.

Eric Hoffer, author of "The True Believer" says that a fanatic must have a shred of hope in order to believe in his mission.  What hope the Japanese and Germans had following WWII was provided by us.  For the Iraqi insurgents, hope hinges on Allah...not the United States.  It is a far different scenario than was found in 1945.  Back then we weren't sitting on a powder keg.  Now we are.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 20, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> And how many popular insurgent movements did we have to battle in Germany, Japan, and England?
> 
> How many cities and towns in Germany, Japan, and England were the Allies unable to enter a year after the conclusion of hostilities (oh, wait, there never was a surrender in Iraq)?
> 
> ...


The question is important.

At the end of the second world war, Europe was in ruins.  England had been getting hammered for years.  Entire cities were flattened, little more than rubble.  The dead were in the MILLIONS. Japan had -TWO- cities that had been nuked.

Iraq is mostly intact.

It is not fair to look at Iraq after only 1 year of occupation, and say 'See, its a failure'.

Yes, in the post WW2 era there was little damage done by rebels, insurgants, or sabotage. For the scope of my question, that is not a consideration.

If it took Japan, Germany, England, France, etc time to recover from major damage in a calm, peaceful enviroment, how can we reasonably expect miracles in the repair and recovery of a country still at war?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 21, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The question is important.
> At the end of the second world war, Europe was in ruins. England had been getting hammered for years. Entire cities were flattened, little more than rubble. The dead were in the MILLIONS. Japan had -TWO- cities that had been nuked.
> Iraq is mostly intact.
> It is not fair to look at Iraq after only 1 year of occupation, and say 'See, its a failure'.
> ...


In World War II, the allies achieved an 'Unconditional Surrender' from the Axis powers, didn't they? How is that different from where we stand in Iraq? Where we never signed a treaty at the end of the invasion. The President just declared "Mission Accomplished" & "the end of major combat operations".

So, yes, 1 year is a short time-table for comparison. But, what were we told to expect, concerning the length of the war & reconstruction? These come from the 'Claim V Fact database':
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=124702


> *Speaker:* Cheney, Dick - Vice President
> *Date:* 3/16/2003
> *Quote/Claim:*
> "We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." [Source: Meet the Press, reprinted in Boston Globe]
> ...


So, we were told the conflict would take a very short time, because Iraq is so much weaker than they were in 1991. We were told we would be greated as 'Liberators', which of course, hasn't happened (outside of the first few days). If we examine the trend of activity in Iraq, it does not bode well.

From www.icasualties.org


May 2003 - 41 military fatalities (1.32 per day)

June 2003 - 36 military fatalities (1.2 per day)
July 2003 - 48 military fatalities (1.55 per day)
August 2003 - 43 military fatalities (1.39 per day)
September 2003 - 32 military fatalities (1.07 per day)
October 2003 - 46 military fatalities (1.48 per day)
November 2003 - 110 military fatalities (3.67 per day)
December 2003 - 48 military fatalities (1.55 per day)
January 2004 - 52 military fatalities (1.68 per day)
February 2004 - 23 military fatalities (0.79 per day)
March 2004 - 52 military fatalities (1.68 per day) 
April 2004 - 140 military fatalities (4.67 per day)
May 2004 - 84 military fatalities (2.71 per day)
June 2004 - 50 military fatalities (1.67 per day)
July 2004 - 58 military fatalities (1.87 per day)
August 2004 - 75 military fatalities (2.42 per day)
September 2004 - 60 military fatalites (by the 20th - 2.86 per day)
​Don't forget to view the database at www.iraqbodycount.net to dig into the toll being paid by non-military people in Iraq; some of which, no doubt are bad guys, but all?


Looking at this, we can see the trend is getting worse, not better. 

Since we handed over "sovereignty" to our 'client government', 180 United States service people have died in this foreign country and 17 service members from the 'Coalition of the Willing'. 

Of course, these numbers and trends do not look at the financial costs being placed upon the American taxpayer. The American people were also decieved to the amount of money this imperial exercise was going to require.

Yesterday, I heard there were whispered rumors in the military of a very extensive reserve activation planned for after the election (which seems to be only common sense). 

Perhaps a better analogy would to be to review the first 18 months of the American involvment in Vietnam. In 1959, there were only 760 United States 'Advisors' in Vietnam. (This list is not 'fatalities' but rather US serving in Vietnam ... we do know that 58,148 eventually were killed)

1960 - 900 
1961 - 3,205
1962 - 11,300
1963 - 16,300
1964 - 23,300

Do I need to continue?

We are in a period of escalation in Iraq. We are continuing to enrage young men of the Islamic faith, and they are being told we are fighting because of 'religion'. We are doing an awful lot to develop hatred in the region. We are doing an awful lot to build up support for al Qaeda.

And I fear it is going to get far worse, before it gets any better.

Mike


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 21, 2004)

As point of comparison, at the outbreak of hostilities, Lincoln and his advisors said the same thing.  "Over in a few days, weeks at most".  What followed were 5 of the bloodiest years in US history, followed by 10 years of humiliation, the destruction of the Jeffersonian Constitution, and over 100 years of racial tensions.

The US will need additional manpower. They will need to heavily staff the several US military bases that will remain, as well and the new ones soon to be built in Libya.

Officially, the 'Turn Over' can be seen as the 'treaty' needed as it did return control to the Iraqis.  They do not want us to leave, yet, as their own situation is still 'iffy'.

There was an excellent article on the war in this months Playboy.  It indicates to just what extent the war was 'mismanaged', and suggests that certain incidents need not have happened (The Lynch ambush for example)

It is going to get worse.  I just hope, it starts to get better. 2/3 of the country is peaceful and improving. 1/3 is a powderkeg and the fuze is lit.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 21, 2004)

First off, Kaith--"Iraq is mostly intact?" I don't want to be excessively rude, but are you trippin'? Their infrastructure's shot to hell, they can't get oil out of the ground and out of the country, all their major cities have been bombed again and again and again, they have no police/army to speak of, the Kurds want to break away from the rest, the average wage is something like 25 cents a day, there're bombings and shootings five times a day, they just beheaded more guys on TV and--oh yes--there's gotta be unexploded ordinance lying around everywhere.

Second off--you do realize that what you're arguing for is a garrisoned State, along with Afghanistan, as we hare off down the road to Empire?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 21, 2004)

Robert,
 2/3 of the country is rebuilding. A good deal of the damage was not caused by US action.  Neglect, sabotage, and other actions contributed to the damage.

Interestingly enough, the roadside bombing clip I saw showed some roads in pretty decent repair, with traffic flowing. Repairs and modernization continue on water/electric/etc.

While a few months out of date, this makes for an interesting read: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html

Oh, and this just in:


> *Official: Iraq Oil Fields Resume Exports *
> 09.21.2004, 10:27 AM
> http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2004/09/21/ap1553475.html
> 
> ...



Also "current production is averaging 2.2 million barrels per day (bpd) of which two million bpd were coming from southern oil fields." http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=404344

As to the bombing, stop making it sound like they are being carpet bombed back into the stone age.  The attacks are being done with precision weapons, that take out -a- building in most cases.  This is happening in a -few- locations, in cities that are Sunni strongholds, at the -request- of the Iraqi government.

As to the Kurds, they have always wanted that, and now see the chance. Negotiations are ongoing.

As to Unemployment:


> Unemployment Levels
> Prewar: 60 percent
> Oct. 2003: 70 percent
> Current: 25 percent to 30 percent
> ...


$5 a day sounds real bad..until you factor in that gas sells for 35 cents a gallon. (Unless you're a US based gouger who sells for $3 a gallon)

The Iraqi police and military now numbers in the tens of thousands.  They are the ones currently doing the bulk of the fighting.

As to that unexploded ordinance, my god Robert, you are right.  I mean, just the other day I saw this footage of these kids playing catch with hand grenades in the burnt out hulk of a Bradley.  I mean, it's everywhere. NOT!

Robert, it's a combat zone.  Of course there are unexploded shells.  They still find them all over Europe and the Pacific.  Just recently they found 1 of over 100! 'lost' atomic bombs off the US coast, missing for 45+ years.  

As to the beheadings...so what?
Let them kill 1 guy a day.  It still means that the other 25,000+ foreign workers in the country are working, earning a very high wage, and making progress. Yes, it's a crime, but we lose more than that a day to car accidents in any major city here. Outside of the shock value, it is a meaningless statistic.

As to what I argue for...remember, I argued for the napalming of Columbia to stop the cocaine cartels. 

Robert, argue with facts, not the sensationalized sound bytes from Fox or CNN or some ultra-whatever campus rag where the editors think it's all about oil or otherwise haven't yet adapted to the real world and being apart from 'mommy'. Your post is lacking any quantifiable evidence, and is the same sort of 'scare em' sensationalism that I expect from my local news rag, or the Bush Administration. Apologies if this is rude, but I tire of having my intelligence insulted.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 21, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Robert, argue with facts, not the sensationalized sound bytes from Fox or CNN or some ultra-whatever campus rag where the editors think it's all about oil or otherwise haven't yet adapted to the real world and being apart from 'mommy'. Your post is lacking any quantifiable evidence, and is the same sort of 'scare em' sensationalism that I expect from my local news rag, or the Bush Administration. Apologies if this is rude, but I tire of having my intelligence insulted.


:bow:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 21, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Apologies if this is rude, but I tire of having my intelligence insulted.



As you should be.  He does have a habit of doing that every so often, doesn't he?

That said, and back to the topic...a part of me wants Bush to win this so we can see whether this administration can pull it off.  I don't believe they can, and my inner sadist wants to be able to tell Republicans "I told you so."

Here are the complications we currently face, and that the administration did not--apparently--anticipate:

The Sunni/Shia rivalry.  Two Sunni clerics were killed this week...the country is on the verge of civil war:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0922/p06s01-woiq.html

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/9722069.htm?1c

*One result, it says, could be Iraq's fragmentation into a Kurdish north, Sunni center and Shiite south.*

The situation there is incredibly complex.  There are tensions between the three major factions in the country--Kurd, Shia, and Sunni--and the interplay between the major powers attempting to pull their strings.  Riyadh and Teheran are jostling for power as they have for a quarter of a century. The U.S. is stuck in the middle and increasinly set adrift and alone insofar as support.  There is the complication of foreign fighters thrown in the mix as well.

Great Britain announced this week that it was reducing the numbers of troops deployed in Iraq...right when they're needed most.  

As it now stands free elections can NOT be held due to security concerns.

We have NEVER been in a situation like this.  I can not recall any situation analgous to it...post-war Europe doesn't suffice as an example.  There is no precedent for what we've done, and none for what we ought to do.  The administration states limply what it plans to do, but offers no cogent tactics for doing it.

How long do you think it will take, Kaith?  How long should we allow this nation building effort?  How much shall we pay for it in lives and treasure?  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 21, 2004)

I didn't insult your intelligence, Kaith. I insulted your grasp of reality, if you must be insulted by what I wrote--and as long as we're on the topic, let me assure you that I blow off around 99% of the mean-spirited, pointless insult I read on this Forum. By actual measurement.

I am unlikely to be convinced that I was wrong to question your grasp of reality in this case, when you follow up a claim that, "Iran is mostly intact," with the remark that, "2/3 of the country is rebuilding."

Sorry, but I don't actually watch Fox or CNN very often, since I don't have cable. But really--this, "so what if there're a couple beheadings a day," argument...you're joking, right? 

I see, too, that it remains easier to jump down my silly throat than to a) accept what's actually going on; b) consider its implications--especially since I note that you were so busy chewing me out, that you altogether avoided so much as noticing my question about building an Empire with one garrisoned state after another. 

Ridiculous? Really? We got troops in Korea, troops in Bosnia, we're running governments in Afghanistan and Iraq--and we got Presidential advisors getting on the air and announcing that this is just Act II n a five-act play titled, "World War IV."

What would you call it?

But as I've said before, I hope you're right. I really do. So does Ripley.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 21, 2004)

Steve,


> How long do you think it will take, Kaith? How long should we allow this nation building effort? How much shall we pay for it in lives and treasure?



My opinion...How long? 
As long as it takes.  I'd guess 3-5 years.  Which was the timetable that I've seen the military had had at one point to truely stabilyze the country.

I will estimate that the final butchers bill will be 15,000 dead, 60,000 wounded/maimed.


No, I do not like it. But regardless of 'why', we can not pull out with the job half finished. Unless the situation becomes hopeless.
It has not.  Somalia is hopeless. Iraq still has hope.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 21, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I didn't insult your intelligence, Kaith. I insulted your grasp of reality, if you must be insulted by what I wrote--and as long as we're on the topic, let me assure you that I blow off around 99% of the mean-spirited, pointless insult I read on this Forum. By actual measurement.


Robert,
My grasp of reality is admitedly one on shakey legs. However, in this case, my ability to search out facts, cross reference them, seek out upto date as well as historic information, and stick to an issue without wandering into emotional and sensational pieces of disinformation is not. 



> I am unlikely to be convinced that I was wrong to question your grasp of reality in this case, when you follow up a claim that, "Iran is mostly intact," with the remark that, "2/3 of the country is rebuilding."


Actually, I said Iraq. Thats a little bit west of Iran for those using maps.
2/3 is more than 1/2 therefore 2/3 is a majority, or a 'mostly' in this argument.



> Sorry, but I don't actually watch Fox or CNN very often, since I don't have cable. But really--this, "so what if there're a couple beheadings a day," argument...you're joking, right?


No, I am not.

In the US:
42,000+ die annually due to car accidents
20,000+ die due to illness
15,000+ are murdered
120+ die in airline accidents (not counting 9/11)
90+ are killed by lightning

Statistically speaking, they have a much greater risk from accident or illness, as opposed to some insane fanatic.
Considering that one source (the CBC) places the tally of foriegn aid workers in Iraq at 30,000, even with the high rate of 1 death per day (on average) that is still incredibly low, compared with other statistics.

Another source (year 2000 stats)
*>LEADING_CAUSES_OF_DEATH_in_the_USA_in_2000,_________*
*>unless_year_marked_otherwise._______________________*
*>____________________________________________________*
*>Total_deaths_______________________________2,403,351*
*>____________________________________________________*
*>1.__Heart_Disease____________________________710,760*
*>2.__Cancer___________________________________553,091*
*>3.__Stroke___________________________________167,661*
*>4.__Chronic_Lower_Respiratory_Disease________122,009*
*>5.__Adverse_Drug_Reactions_1994______________106,000**
*>______from_legal_drugs_at_doses_____________________*
*>______used_for_prevention,__________________________*
*>______diagnosis,_or_therapy.________________________*
*>6.__Accidents_________________________________97,900*
*>7.__Diabetes__________________________________69,301*
*>8.__Pneumonia,_influenza______________________65,313*
*>9.__Alzheimer's Disease_______________________44,536*
*>10._Nephritis,_nephrotic_syndrome,_nephrosis__35,525*
*>11._Septicemia________________________________30,680*
*>12._Suicide___________________________________29,350*
*>....________________________________________________*
*>____Homicide__________________________________16,765*
*>____HIV/AIDS__________________________________14,478*

So, now please tell me, is 1,000 deaths in a year that big a deal, considering?



*U.S. deaths in Iraq *


http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1094815807327430.xml


Friday, September 10, 2004 

As of Thursday, 1,005 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq in March 2003, according to the Defense Department. Of those, 759 died as a result of hostile action and 246 died of other causes. The figures include three military civilians. 


​and a bit more recenthttp://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-iraq-us-deaths,0,1172040.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines


By The Associated Press

September 21, 2004, 5:18 PM EDT


As of Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2004, 1,037 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, according to the Defense Department. Of those, 787 died as a result of hostile action and 250 died of non-hostile causes. The figures include three military civilians. 

The British military has reported 65 deaths; Italy, 19; Poland, 13; Spain, 11; Bulgaria, six; Ukraine, eight; Slovakia, three; Thailand, two; the Netherlands, two; and Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Hungary and Latvia have reported one death each. 


​


> I see, too, that it remains easier to jump down my silly throat than to a) accept what's actually going on; b) consider its implications--especially since I note that you were so busy chewing me out, that you altogether avoided so much as noticing my question about building an Empire with one garrisoned state after another.


A- I didn't 'jump down your throat', I refuted your sensationalistic and uneducated 'rable rouser' comments with verifiable and quantifiable data.

B- I did consider the implications, or rather those worth considering. Those were of course those that were based in a solid foundation, not just 'soundbytes' and 'sensationalism'.

As to the "Empire", what of it?
We have bases all over the world. We garrison Japan, have major bases in Germany, had some in Saudi Arabia (source of much of the tension), as well as a dozen other countries easily. These are just 2 more added to the collection, a collection that started in the 1940's, and has been added to by both parties.



> Ridiculous? Really? We got troops in Korea, troops in Bosnia, we're running governments in Afghanistan and Iraq--and we got Presidential advisors getting on the air and announcing that this is just Act II n a five-act play titled, "World War IV."
> 
> What would you call it?


Situation Normal All Fouled Up.



> But as I've said before, I hope you're right. I really do. So does Ripley.


Yeah, I liked Aliens too.



Here are 2 URLs. 
Enjoy.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com

Added: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 21, 2004)

"I didn't 'jump down your throat', I refuted your sensationalistic and uneducated 'rable rouser' comments with verifiable and quantifiable data.

B- I did consider the implications, or rather those worth considering. Those were of course those that were based in a solid foundation, not just 'soundbytes' and 'sensationalism'."

Well, I see that you've chosen the correct avatar after all. Thank goodness you explained your point without slipping into the evils of, say, insulting my intelligence.

See, if I say that most of the country is a mess--and you say no, that's not true, it's just that two-thirds of the country is rebuilding...this is agreement. But it's just TEN ration points for a BIG, BIG, half-ounce BAR OF CHOCOLATE!!!

Incidentally--in your Big List O' Stats of Death....I didn't seem to see "Decapitations By Groups of Lunatics," even once.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 21, 2004)

Once again you manage to hit the wrong points.



> Well, I see that you've chosen the correct avatar after all. Thank goodness you explained your point without slipping into the evils of, say, insulting my intelligence.


 Yes.  I've often said I feel somewhat 'related' to Molarri II.




> See, if I say that most of the country is a mess--and you say no, that's not true, it's just that two-thirds of the country is rebuilding...this is agreement. But it's just TEN ration points for a BIG, BIG, half-ounce BAR OF CHOCOLATE!!!



ok..........



> Incidentally--in your Big List O' Stats of Death....I didn't seem to see "Decapitations By Groups of Lunatics," even once.


That would be "Homicide".  That whole we didn't break down the accidentals into 'sliped in shower' or 'choked on own arrogence' thing.
But you knew that.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 21, 2004)

Wait, I'm puzzled. Occupation?  Reconstruction?  Restoration?

This is NOT like Europe AFTER WWII.  Guys, we're still at war, and likely will be for months to years.  You can't REconstruct anything while it's still actively DEstructing.  In fact, funds that were appropriated for reconstruction have been re-appropriated for "security"--in other words, war.

The situation is worsening.  The death toll is increasing.  (And our own MartialTalk colleagues are flippantly comparing the military death toll to car accidents!  Give me a break!)  There are dozens of cities completely controlled by so-called "insurgents" (an amusing name for citizens of their own country) where neither Americans nor Iraqi "police" can even go.  The only way to control these areas would be to completely destroy the cities.  Kidnapping and murder of Westerners is becoming so common the press barely reports it anymore.  We have barely--if at all--begun to train Iraqis to maintain order in their own country.  The "democratic election" which was promised by the end of the year is highly unlikely, and if there was a democratic election, it's doubtful the new government would be acceptable to the Bush administration.  The interim president is viewed as a US puppet--he may as well have a target printed on his forehead.  

The only people who think everything's going just swimmingly seem to be Bush and Cheney.  And Cheney's making big bucks off the deal.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 21, 2004)

=============
Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation *polite* and *respectful*.

That goes for everybody.  We don't require insults to debate an issue.


-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
=============

That goes for everybody.  We don't require insults to debate an issue.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 21, 2004)

Phoenix,
  Good points.

Let me assure you, I am not making the comparison flippantly. My point is simply that you and I have a greater chance of being in a car accident, than one of our soldiers have of being shot. In fact, the media and some others will wave around this magic 1,000 figure as if it is a major milestone. They fail to tell you the full story.

1,037 US soldiers have died as of 9/21/04
787 died as a result of hostile action 
250 died of non-hostile causes, including vehicle accidents, 4 of those in September alone.

Trust me, I am in no way making light of these deaths.


You mention dozens of cities controled by insurgents. Please Name them.

Kidnappings are on the upswing again, but the main targets are Iraqis, not US.


> http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=Iraq
> September 21, 2004: Anti-government terrorists have increased their use of hostage taking, and attempts at extortion, to destroy the government. Over 130 foreigners have been taken so far, and yesterday, one of the two American civilians held was killed and beheaded. Iraqis are being beheaded as well, especially in an attempt to demoralize Iraqi security forces. For a month or so, terrorists gave up murdering, and especially beheading,  hostages. This was because of the negative reaction of the world media, especially the Moslem media, to beheadings, and the murder of hostages. The terrorists have gone back to kidnapping and tried to compensate by making more "noble" demands. For example, several groups of kidnappers have demanded that the coalition release all its female prisoners.   This has backfired, as the only female prisoners are two senior members of Saddam's government. The terrorists have ignored this fact, and demanded the release of imaginary female prisoners. Increasingly, the terrorists are quietly switching their demands to money, and quietly taking the cash and releasing the foreigners (who bring in a lot more money than Iraqis.) But the Iraqis continue to bear the brunt of the kidnapping efforts. The Sunni Arab gangs are particularly bad, because they can take their victims to places like Fallujah, where there are no Iraqi police. The Shia gangs are taking a beating, and the only Kurdish group that is causing problems is the Ansar al Islam (a small group of pro al Qaeda Kurds), which receives support, and sanctuary, from Iran.



There are over 60,000 Iraqis now engaged in the fight for control of their country from the 'hard liners', many of whom aren't even Iraqi. The US has moved into a supporting role, however at times must lead the way.  The Iraqis aren't quite 'there' yet.

Saddam emptied the prisons before he went into hiding. The borders were left open. Every fanatic in the regions got a 1 way 'jihad' ticket to Iraq. It's a bloody mess, no pun intended. But what the media reports, is often not the complete picture. Remember, sensationalism sells, peace doesn't.  That is why the top blood doner in your city isn't front page news, but some congressman getting caught flashing is.



> September 20, 2004: The reality is that most of the violence in Iraq comes from a minority of the Sunni Arab minority who are willing to kill because they either want a religious dictatorship (like the one next door in Iran, except with Sunni clerics in charge), or from members of the Baath Party that was, until recently, led by Saddam Hussein. Now you would think that this bunch of cutthroats, whose favorite tactics are kidnapping or threatening unarmed civilians, would be widely reviled. Nope. They are the underdogs, and have been labeled in the media as "insurgents." Since many countries, and their media,  opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, the "insurgents" get favorable press. Very favorable press. Iraq's problem with it's armed anti-democracy groups is described as "widespread unrest," despite the fact that it is confined to that third of the country (most of it desert) that is dominated by the Sunni Arab minority (about 20 percent of the population). The Baath Party and Islamic radical leaders can read, and make the most of their status as "freedom fighters." OK, that last tag isn't used very often, as even most journalists gag at so describing two groups so openly dedicated to restoring dictatorship. The anti-government forces and Islamic radicals keep their agendas out of the press as much as possible. Instead, they go on about wanting to "drive out the occupiers." Opinion polls of the entire population consistently state that the majority want the foreign troops to stay until the Sunni Arab gunmen are put down. American policy is to get out as soon as the Iraqi majority has a large enough security force to deal with the remnants of the old dictatorship, and their new allies from al Qaeda and other Islamic radical groups. But this isn't news. That most of Iraq is at peace isn't news. That the reconstruction of Iraq has brought a better life to the majority of Iraqis isn't news. That the anti-government forces have no chance of prevailing isn't news. That American troops have fought a spectacularly successful military campaign (check the historical record for details) isn't news. That the Iraqi "insurgents" are mainly war criminals, gangsters and terrorists isn't news. What is news are headlines that have been consistently wrong since before the war began. What is news is what news directors feel will generate the greatest fear, uncertainty and doubt among their audience. That's what gets people's attention. That's the way the news business has always been. The mass media news business is only some 150 years old, and early on, competitive editors realized that the colorful lie was more profitable than the drab truth. There are those who quickly realized that they could use this fact of life to their advantage. So today, dictators and terrorist organizations hire publicists to get themselves the most useful (if not truthful) portrayal in the media.  When it comes to mass violence, playing the press is just another weapon. It worked for Saddam, it's working for his bloody minded supporters, who are still willing to kill for Saddams ideals. But now they are "insurgents" and "freedom fighters." After they are defeated, they will go back to being thugs. And the media will march on, secure in the knowledge that selective amnesia is their friend.



No argument though on Cheney though.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 21, 2004)

Dan - Message Received.  Will watch the 'personalization'.

:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 22, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Phoenix,
> Good points.
> 
> Let me assure you, I am not making the comparison flippantly. My point is simply that you and I have a greater chance of being in a car accident, than one of our soldiers have of being shot. In fact, the media and some others will wave around this magic 1,000 figure as if it is a major milestone. They fail to tell you the full story.
> ...


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 22, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think your comparisons are not taking into account the total pools that you are comparing. Nationwide, we are a country of 275,000,000. In Iraq, there are only a 150,000 or so. Therefore, the casualty rate = (casualty / population) in Iraq is much higher then the examples in which you are comparing it.
> 
> Crunch a few numbers...
> 
> upnorthkyosa


Upnorth, sorry to correct, but this site claims the 2004 population to be over 27 million.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 22, 2004)

Good point...the odds of a soldier getting popped in Iraq ARE far greater than the odds Kaith faces on the road here.  T'is a matter of proportion.

Currently Fallujah, Ramadi, Talafar and Baqouba are under insurgent control.  We just got Samarra back.  What this report fails to mention is that we're fighting for the major cities...the smaller towns have no US troops.  You'll recall last month rebels controlled the shrine in Najaf.  Sadr City, a neighborhood in Baghdad, is now hotly contested.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-09-09-samarra_x.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3640146.stm


This third article has a picture of a terrorist in a hospital after having been injured by US forces:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/Iraq/2004/09/08/620726-ap.html


Regards,


Steve


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 22, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Good point...the odds of a soldier getting popped in Iraq ARE far greater than the odds Kaith faces on the road here. T'is a matter of proportion.
> 
> Currently Fallujah, Ramadi, Talafar and Baqouba are under insurgent control. We just got Samarra back. What this report fails to mention is that we're fighting for the major cities...the smaller towns have no US troops. You'll recall last month rebels controlled the shrine in Najaf. Sadr City, a neighborhood in Baghdad, is now hotly contested.
> 
> ...


What about 'zones' or how ever they are gridding the operational theater so that units know where their left and right 'limits' are for patrols and actions.  In the smaller towns and 'bush' there must be some kind of patrolling going on, either with ground mobile or air mobile (even predator RV type devices or satellites) assets.  Even with the amount of troops in country, there are bound to be holes in the wire.

In a desert, more than any other evironment I would think, that controlling the built up areas (like in the old Arabian nights tales with control of Oasis' and such) and resource 'hubs' is a good way of choking out insurgencies in a long term plan.  Can't say it is going to give immediate gratification though.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 22, 2004)

According to Bob Novak, Bush is going to get us out within a year after the election:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak20.html

This might be hype to placate those on the right that are against the war.  

If true, then I give Iraq about three months before it erupts.  It isn't a quagmire.  Its a volcano.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 22, 2004)

Pat Buchanan was making the same arguement on WBUR last evening; 'any rational examination of Iraq is bad and needs to change.' I see no reason to believe that President Bush has the capability of a 'rational examination' Mr. Buchanan hopes for.

Are they just spinning these possibilities to attempt to draw votes from the Dean camp? I think so. 

I think giving Iraq 3 months before a complete meltdown is optimistic.

Every Day, it looks more and more like my man Dennis Kucinich was right.

Mike


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 22, 2004)

Dean camp?  As in Howard Dean?  I didn't even know that, after the Democratic runnings disaster, he was even still in the game.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 22, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Upnorth, sorry to correct, but this site claims the 2004 population to be over 27 million.



Sir, Kaith was referring to US statistics, so I provided the total US population.  The rates for the events that are referenced, when held in this light, are incredibly low in the US.  The casualty rate in Iraq is MUCH higher then anything we can generate using US statistics.  These rates show us that serving as a soldier in Iraq is by far more dangerous then a typical day in the US.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 22, 2004)

Oh, Upnorth, sorry, man! I totally misread your post. I thought you were claiming the Iraqi population to be at 150,000, hence my immediate desire to correct you (and surprise at such a loony figure). I just can't read. Again, my apologies. You meant 150,000 American soldiers. Yeah, I'm dumb. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





ETA - Dan will suffice.  Sir is way too much. :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 22, 2004)

Ok, I did some 'crunching' on casulties.  I've posted that info in the "1,000 and climbing' thread.

:asian:


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 22, 2004)

> You mention dozens of cities controled by insurgents. Please Name them.


For starters:

Tal Afar
Sadr City
Fallujah
Ramadi


About the comparison to highway deaths:  Tragic though they may be, they are accidents.  No one intentionally put people into this situation--especially not on a series of lies.  No one blames Bush for highway deaths.  (And no offense, but the comparison between traffic fatality and military casualties is a direct quote from Rush Limbaugh.  I doubt that was who you wanted to sound like.)


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 22, 2004)

This is a straightforward report that gives a clear indication of the scope of human misery in this conflict.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6021654/

Suicide car bombing, US forces fighting insurgents, US soldiers indicted for murder, innocents killed in the cross fire.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 27, 2004)

More actual data on the failure of Iraq's reconstruction:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50259-2004Sep25?language=printer

 Some highlights:

 -- Attacks against US troops, Iraqi security forces, and private contractors are occurring at the rate of 70 per day, up from 40-50 daily in the weeks preceding the handover of authority to the Iraqi interim government (a handover that was expedited by the Bush Administration to DECREASE insurgency, natch)

 -- Attacks range from complex ambushes to children throwing molotov cocktails (events that, to my knowledge, do not happen anywhere in the United States)

 -- Every major city in Iraq (except for Kurdish-controlled strongholds) is suffering, including areas in the Shiite south that had observed relative peace in recent months

 "In number and scope, the attacks compiled in the Kroll reports suggest a broad and intensifying campaign of insurgent violence that contrasts sharply with assessments by Bush administration officials and Iraq's interim prime minister that the instability is contained to small pockets of the country."  

 In particular, recent statements by Prime Minister Allawi and the Bush Administration are unequivocally shown to be outright lies.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 27, 2004)

More fun information about our failure in Iraq:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...7sep27,1,2359615.story?coll=la-home-headlines

 Bush Administration officials are quietly giving up on any hope of building a Western-style democracy in Iraq.  

 "Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said administration officials have told him privately that they have lowered their expectations. "They've definitely recalibrated their goals," he said. "One of them told me: 'When we went in there, I thought we would build American-style democracy. Hell, I'd be happy with Romanian-style democracy now.' "

 I'm certainly glad that we've spent upwards of $285 billion dollars, and thousands of American and Iraqi lives, to bring Romania to Iraq.

 More interesting data: apparently, despite US predictions that Iraq could quickly pump up to 6 million barrels of oil daily, the country will struggle even to pump 2.8 million/daily by the end of the year.  Attacks on the oil infrstructure have put the oil program over $1 billion in the hole.

 Oh, and of the $18.2 billion allocated for Iraqi reconstruction, only $1.2 billion has been disbursed, and so much of that money has gone to foreign firms that the Iraqis have only seen *half* of that figure.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 27, 2004)

More data about how Bush Administration and Allawi claims about the state of Iraq are completely false.

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5240190


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 26, 2004)

This just in ... 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6590045/



> WASHINGTON - A third or more of the government property Halliburton Co. was paid to manage for the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq could not be located by auditors, investigative reports to Congress show.


I especially liked this quote.



> Company spokeswoman Cathy Gist said Friday that KBR recently conducted a "wall-to-wall" review of all property it is managing for the Pentagon in war zones including Iraq and Afghanistan and produced results far better than Bowen's findings.
> "We are pleased to report that this total inventory review *confirmed 99.4 percent accountability* of all property," she said. "The facts show that KBR has adequately managed property for this mission by aggressively monitoring its property management functions -- above and beyond what is required."


What is interesting is that most production facilities in the world struggle to reach 95% accountability for inventory under the most ideal circumstances. In a war-time environment (oops sorry - post major combat operations environment), a statistic of 99.4% accountability is miraculous. 

Anyone familiar with methods of Production and Inventory Control would recognize Ms. Gist's quote as one of the 47.5% of statistics that are made up on the spot.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 26, 2004)

But it is important to remember that this IN NO WAY resembles the 99 & 44/100% of the vote that old Uncle Joe Stalin used to receive.

That's just 10 ration points for a BIG, BIG, half ounce BAR!!! (Well, ten for Ersatz chocolate. Fifty for real.)


----------

