THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

WASHINGTON ?- The surge of additional U.S. troops in Iraq has failed to curtail violence against Iraqi civilians, an independent government agency reported Tuesday.

Citing data from the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies, the Government Accountability Office found that daily attacks against civilians in Iraq have remained "about the same" since February, when the United States began sending nearly 30,000 additional troops to improve security in Iraq.

The GAO also found that the number of Iraqis fleeing violence in their neighborhoods is increasing, with as many as 100,000 Iraqis a month leaving their homes in search of safety.

The GAO's conclusions contradict repeated assertions by the White House and the Pentagon in advance of the coming congressional debate on whether to stay the course in Iraq or to begin some withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Neither a July report from the White House nor a report last month from 16 U.S. intelligence agencies, however, provided any statistics to support their claims that the surge has improved security. The GAO report, in contrast, includes charts showing the number of attacks against Iraqi civilians, Iraqi security forces and U.S. troops. Only attacks against U.S. troops have declined in recent weeks.

In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Tuesday, U.S. comptroller general David S. Walker, who heads the GAO, said he couldn't vouch for charts that Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said Army Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, had shown him during a recent congressional visit to Iraq. Coleman said those charts showed a decrease in violence.

"Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree. So I don't know what Gen. Petraeus is giving you," Walker said.

When President Bush announced in January that he'd dispatch more troops, he said the goal was to cut sectarian violence so the government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki could work out political compromises on key issues among Iraq's rival religious and ethnic groups.

Supporters and opponents of the surge now agree on at least one thing: Maliki has been unable to bring about those agreements. So does the GAO. Its report found that of the 18 benchmarks Iraq's government set for itself, three have been met, four have been partially met and 11 haven't been met.

"Overall, key legislation has not been passed, violence remains high, and it is unclear whether the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion in reconstruction funds," the report said.

The GAO said it couldn't determine whether sectarian violence in Iraq is down "because measuring such violence requires understanding the perpetrator's intent, which may not be known."

But the report said it was possible to assess the overall daily number of attacks against civilians. A chart showed that those attacks have remained relatively constant throughout 2007, despite the additional U.S. troops. The GAO referred a request for precise numbers to the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq, acknowledged the controversy over the numbers in comments to reporters in Baghdad on Tuesday. But he said that violent incidents in Iraq are at their lowest point in 15 months this week.

"There's been some controversies about civilian casualties," Odierno said. "Ours still see it as below what it was. We think we're making progress."

The GAO said that the Pentagon disagreed with its conclusion that there was no discernable trend in sectarian violence and provided the agency with additional data. But the GAO said it wasn't persuaded and didn't change its conclusion.

The GAO said it did change its assessment of two benchmarks from "not met" in a draft report to "partially met" after it received additional information. Those were whether the Iraqi government had provided three trained and ready brigades to join in Baghdad security operations and whether it had ensured that there were no safe havens for outlaws, regardless of sectarian affiliation.

Walker said that Iraqi forces have made progress in providing some security in Baghdad, but that it's unclear whether they can sustain those gains alone.

"I think there's a serious question whether they on their own will be able to hold these neighborhoods for an extended period of time . . . absent direct U.S. troop involvement," Walker said. "That's probably the $64,000 question."

The report found that many Iraqi military units include fighters with strong sectarian and tribal loyalties, and therefore are unwilling to confront extremist militias.

Walker said it was important to determine not just whether Iraqi forces were ready to fight, but also whether they were "committed to a unified Iraq and committed to fight on that basis."

That kind of loyalty will be hard to achieve until Iraqi politicians reach political reconciliation, Walker said. Currently, he said, the Maliki government is "dysfunctional".

The GAO report also provided evidence to support some analysts' belief that U.S. combat deaths have declined in the past few months because some Iraqi groups have chosen not to face American troops on the battlefield.

U.S. officials had predicted that combat deaths would rise when the surge was at full strength and the U.S. began a series of military offensives. Instead, U.S. combat deaths declined from a high of 120 in May to 55 in August, according to the icasualties.com Web site.

Citing a June 2007 Pentagon document, the GAO report said that many fighters from the Mahdi Army militia of Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr left Baghdad as the number of U.S. and Iraqi troops there increased. However, it said, "they now engage in ethnic and sectarian violence in northern and central Iraq" and are battling another Shiite militia, the Badr Organization, for control of southern Iraq.

(Leila Fadel in Baghdad contributed.)

McClatchy Newspapers 2007

ican wrote:

First, GB is incompetent!

So we went to war because GB is incompetent. I'll buy that.

Wrong! We went to war in Iraq because al-Qaeda was in Iraq. The way we occupied/occupy Iraq is because GB is incompetent.

ican wrote:

Second, it would not have been sufficient to merely attack al-Qaeda in northeastern Iraq in order to prevent their subsequent return. Clinton taught us about that in Afghanistan. Keeping al-Qaeda out of Iraq would require replacing SH's government with one competent to protect its own citizens from being murdered by their own government and by others in and outside Iraq.

... Iraq and Afghanistan are not alike and to compare the two is to compare apples to oranges.

Wrong! Al-Qaeda gained sanctuary in Iraq in December 2001 after 9/11; Al Qaeda gained sanctuary in Afghanistan in May 1996 before 9/11.

ican wrote:

Al-Qaeda in Iraq were legally outside the control of SH. That is, SH did not govern that land where al-Qaeda had established their sanctuary in December 2001 after fleeing from the USA October 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. But al-Qaeda was not outside SH's capability to go into their rapidly growing training camps in northeastern Iraq near Irbil, and do what the USA invited him to do: extradite Zarqawi et al.

... First you say AQ was in an area outside of SH control then you say he was capable of going in there and taking them out.

Both are true! A part of Iraq outside of SH's control means that SH did not govern that part of Iraq.

A part of Iraq inside SH's capability to invade means that SH possessed the ability to invade that part of Iraq.

When invited in 1996 by some Kurds to invade northeastern Iraq, SH chose to invade northeastern Iraq.

When invited by GB in 2002 to extradite some al-Qaeda in northeastern Iraq, SH chose not to invade northeastern Iraq.

... How could SH extradite Zarqawi if he had no control over the territory Zarqawi occupied.

GB invited SH to extradite Zarqawi! It was not then required for SH to govern northeastern Iraq in order to invade it and extradite Zaeqawi.

BTW, try using a little common sense here. That camp was located a hop and skip from the Iranian border. It was put there for a reason. If anyone sent troops there they would take a very short trip and be in Iran. How do you think SH is going to sneak in a force big enough to take them out without being seen? We could do it because we had helicopters and highly trained soldiers to do jobs like that. SH didn't.

Wrong! After the USA invaded Iraq in 2003, it aided a Kurdish group's invasion and destruction of the al-Qaeda camps. Some members of al-Qaeda did flee to Iran. Some members of al-Qaeda were killed or captured.

Wrong! We went to war in Iraq because al-Qaeda was in Iraq.

Quote:

Wrong! We went to war in Iraq because al-Qaeda was in Iraq.

Hold on; do you have any actual evidence that this is true?

I know that this is the reason you like to say we went to war, b/c it fits your narrative well, but that doesn't mean that this is the real reason!

Cycloptichorn

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Congress's Joint Resolution September 14, 2001

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
...
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Congress's Joint Resolution Oct. 16, 2002
Public Law 107-243 107th Congress Joint Resolution (H.J. Res. 114) To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
...
[10th]Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

[11th]Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;
...

American Soldier, by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
"10" Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

page 483:
"The air picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges an a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Isla terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another [Tomahawk Land Attack Missile] bashing. Soon Special Forces and [Special Mission Unit] operators, leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted."

page 519:
"[The Marines] also encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Lybia who were being trained by the regime in a camp south of Baghdad. Those foreign volunteers fought with suicidal ferocity, but they did not fight well. The Marines killed them all. "

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Conclusion 6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations

... [ican711nm] thinks he has all the answers; kill all Muslims.

I'm just wondering how many more 12 to 18 months will be needed to "win" in Iraq with all this "progress" going on? Five more years?
...

Senate Select Committee wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Conclusion 6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.

First,

Quote:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations

You may recall that Iraq did not, in fact, attack America. So there's no reason for you to have included this.

Yes, Saddam's Iraq did not attack nor did it aid the attack of 9/11. But Iraq did contain/harbor rapidly growing al-Qaeda training facilities after 9/11. It included members of the same al-Qaeda that attack America.

The rest of what you wrote is immaterial as well. Wouldn't you think that, if the presence of AQ were the reason we invaded Iraq, it would be listed higher then #10 and 11 on the list? You are using a catch-all as if it were definitive proof of intentions, and it isn't.

I don't care what Tommy Franks wrote in his book; it isn't evidence of why we actually attacked either.

You don't seem to understand that people's stated reasons for doing something are not necessarily their actual reasons for doing something...

You provided zero evidence to support these opinions of yours. You merely provided your rationale that I believe is based on nothing more than your desire to believe what you believe.

Cycloptichorn

ican711nm wrote:

Senate Select Committee wrote:

Congressional Intelligence Report 09/08/2006
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
Conclusion 6. Postwar information indicates that the Intelligence Community accurately assessed that al-Qa'ida affiliate group Ansar al-Islam operated in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq, an area that Baghdad had not controlled since 1991.

You forgot to highlight something ican.

I did not forget to highlight that. It is irrelevant to the point I was making: al-Qaeda was in northeastern Iraq before we invaded Iraq and had to be removed from Iraq for the same reason that al-Qaeda had to be removed from Afghanistan.

BTW can you please give me evidence that GB "invited" SH to go into Kurdish control territory, on foot or by vehicle(no fly zone, remember), and drive AQ out without a Kurdish invitation?

See Colin Powell's speech to the UN February 2, 2003. He stated there more than a month before our invasion of Iraq that Saddam was invited more than once--including, by implication, in that speech to the UN--to extradite Zarqawi

I might mentioned that when we went into the Kurdish territory we sent Special Forces by helicopter and with the aid of our warplanes and 6,000 Kurds we drove out or killed 600-700 rebels.

Explain to me how SH was suppose to do this without the invitation of the Kurds or, more importantly, aircraft. And if GB wanted them out so bad why didn't he do it himself? This business about an invitation is a lot of GB BS. I'm not surprised you believe just as you believed for a long time that SH did have control over that territory.

Saddam was invited to do this by the American government. We had a tad of influence with the Kurds.

See Colin Powell's speech to the UN February 2, 2003. He stated there more than a month before our invasion of Iraq that Saddam was invited more than once--including, by implication, in that speech to the UN--to extradite Zarqawi

Quote:

See Colin Powell's speech to the UN February 2, 2003. He stated there more than a month before our invasion of Iraq that Saddam was invited more than once--including, by implication, in that speech to the UN--to extradite Zarqawi

That speech was so full of lies I can't believe anyone would give it any credibility. Invading Iraq over a small AQ base SH had no control over is stupid and that is not the reason we invaded. We invaded because Israel and the neo-cons wanted to install a government that would be friendly to us and Israel. Instead we got a mess and that mess is getting worse each day.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

Remarks to the United Nations Security Council

Secretary Colin L. Powell
New York City
February 5, 2003

…

Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.

...

After we swept al-Qaida from Afghanistan, some of those members accepted this safe haven. They remain there today.

…

We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi.

Saddam's administration, after Powell's speech, denied Powell's WMD charges and several others made by Powell. Saddam did not deny any of the charges I quoted.

ican wrote:

Saddam's administration, after Powell's speech, denied Powell's WMD charges and several others made by Powell. Saddam did not deny any of the charges I quoted.

...

Besides it mattered little what SH said, GB was going to attack him anyway and he knew it.

...
We invaded because Israel and the neo-cons wanted to install a government that would be friendly to us and Israel. Instead we got a mess and that mess is getting worse each day.

There is something else that is going on that Bush and his henchmen are not sharing with the public. There's been too many justification changes for our war in Iraq - or hasn't anybody noticed?

All the "experts" are telling us that the Iraqi army is broken, and the Iraqi police should be disbanded, and they're saying they won't be ready for 12 to 18 months. Are they all crazy or taking some kind of mind-altering drug? For their information, Bush has been at this war's "progress" for over 4.5 years after we were told we'll be received as "liberators," and there is no hope that the Iraqi government will be operational or influential with the Iraqi people. That's going to take much longer than 12 or 18 years. ... Why are people still supporting this incompetent [administration which] doesn't seem bothered by the thousands of innocent Iraqis getting killed, maimed and starved by this illegal war?