THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

From the LA Times:

Iraqi civilian deaths climb again

War-related fatalities rose in August, the second month in a row, suggesting that the U.S. troop increase has had little effect.
By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 1, 2007
BAGHDAD -- Bombings, sectarian slayings and other violence related to the war killed at least 1,773 Iraqi civilians in August, the second month in a row that civilian deaths have risen, according to government figures obtained Friday.

0 Replies

By my hasty calculation, this would seem to show that the number of civilians killed - and this is a lower boundary, according to the IBC themselves - was around 1950 per month in 2006 and is running at 2630 per month in 2007. According to this data, there has not been a significant reduction in the amount of civilian deaths this year; in fact, the opposite seems to be true.

Yet Petraeus and the WH have been trumpeting reductions in violence. When they do so, and they don't release the methodology behind doing so, and it conflicts so heavily with other, established reports, it robs them of credibility (which they were already lacking to begin with).

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The "new goal" for the Bush-Petraeus war is that if we leave too soon, the Iraqis will have a worse civil war. HUH?

THINK!
A civil war that would result in the deaths of say 7,500 per month is a worse civil war than one that is resulting in the deaths of say 2,500 per month.

0 Replies

Cyclo, It seems many Americans are angry at Petraeus for his message to congress - for essentially not responding to questions, but only articulating the positives and none of the negatives - as if Iraq isn't a basket case - both military and diplomatic. He screwed up his own credibility by smoothing over the problems and emphasizing the so-called positives.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

By my hasty calculation, this would seem to show that the number of civilians killed - and this is a lower boundary, according to the IBC themselves - was around 1950 per month in 2006 and is running at 2630 per month in 2007. According to this data, there has not been a significant reduction in the amount of civilian deaths this year; in fact, the opposite seems to be true.

Yet Petraeus and the WH have been trumpeting reductions in violence. When they do so, and they don't release the methodology behind doing so, and it conflicts so heavily with other, established reports, it robs them of credibility (which they were already lacking to begin with).

Cycloptichorn

Petraeus is talking about an alleged reduction since the surge became fully manned: June thru August. As soon as the IBC data is fully available for July and August, I shall post it. Then we'll both see whether the alleged reduction is a real reduction.

0 Replies

from ican's post :

Quote:

MONTHLY UPDATE OF THE MASS MURDER OF NON-MURDERERS IN IRAQ

are you sure that those murdered may not have been murderers at some time ?
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

from ican's post :

Quote:
MONTHLY UPDATE OF THE MASS MURDER OF NON-MURDERERS IN IRAQ

are you sure that those murdered may not have been murderers at some time ?
hbg

No!

IBC identifies those murdered: "Documented civilian deaths from violence."

You decide!

0 Replies

Quote:

". . . According to the Iraqi Ministry of Interior, 984 people were killed across Iraq in February, and 1,011 died in violence in August. No July numbers were released because the ministry said the numbers weren't clear.

But an official in the ministry who spoke anonymously because he wasn't authorized to release numbers said those numbers were heavily manipulated.

The official said 1,980 Iraqis had been killed in July and that violent deaths soared in August, to 2,890. . ."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/19566.html

There seems to be a little disagreement on the numbers, no surprise there.

The claim that 1100 died in August is clearly ridiculous; more then 600 were killed in a single bombing attack in northern Iraq alone.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

from ican's post :

Quote:

IBC's Count of Non-Murderers Murdered in Iraq since 1/1/2003
iraq body count as of 06/30/2007

MONTHLY UPDATE OF THE MASS MURDER OF NON-MURDERERS IN IRAQ

............................... Monthly ........... Accumulated Total since
............................... Totals .............. January 1st 2003 ...........
December 2005 ............ ------ ..................... 36,859
January 2006 ............... 1,267 .................... 38,126
February 2006 .............. 1,287 .................... 39,413
March 2006 .................. 1,538 .................... 40,951

April 2006 .................... 1,287.................... 42,238
May 2006 ..................... 1,417 .................... 43,655
June 2006 ..................... 2,089 .................... 45,744
...............................................................................
april to june 2006 total ...4,793 lives lost

July 2006 ...................... 2,336 .................... 48,080
August 2006 ................ 1,195 .................... 49,275
September 2006 .......... 1,407..................... 50,682
October 2006 .............. 2,546 ..................... 53,228
November 2006 .......... 3,894 ..................... 57,122
December 2006 .......... 3,219 ..................... 60,341
January 2007 .............. 2,557 ..................... 62,898
February 2007 ............. 2,514 ..................... 65,412
March 2007 .............. 2,720 .................... 68,132

April 2007 ............. 2,359.................. 70,491
May 2007 ................ 3.755 .................. 74,246
June 2007 ................ 2,386 .................. 76,632
...........................................................................
april to june 2007 total .8,500 lives lost - an increase of 77 % !

it's really quite sad (disgusting) how we "calculate" the DEAD !
hbg

0 Replies

hbg, That's exactly the point I've been trying to make; Bush and Petraeus doesn't give a shite about all the Iraqi deaths - they only say American troop casualities is down and some small towns and villages have seen less violence. That's progress? Seems like the same war from 2003.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

from ican's post :

Quote:
IBC's Count of Non-Murderers Murdered in Iraq since 1/1/2003
iraq body count as of 06/30/2007

MONTHLY UPDATE OF THE MASS MURDER OF NON-MURDERERS IN IRAQ

............................... Monthly ........... Accumulated Total since
............................... Totals .............. January 1st 2003 ...........
December 2005 ............ ------ ..................... 36,859
January 2006 ............... 1,267 .................... 38,126
February 2006 .............. 1,287 .................... 39,413
March 2006 .................. 1,538 .................... 40,951

April 2006 .................... 1,287.................... 42,238
May 2006 ..................... 1,417 .................... 43,655
June 2006 ..................... 2,089 .................... 45,744
...............................................................................
april to june 2006 total ...4,793 lives lost

July 2006 ...................... 2,336 .................... 48,080
August 2006 ................ 1,195 .................... 49,275
September 2006 .......... 1,407..................... 50,682
October 2006 .............. 2,546 ..................... 53,228
November 2006 .......... 3,894 ..................... 57,122
December 2006 .......... 3,219 ..................... 60,341
January 2007 .............. 2,557 ..................... 62,898
February 2007 ............. 2,514 ..................... 65,412
March 2007 .............. 2,720 .................... 68,132

April 2007 ............. 2,359.................. 70,491
May 2007 ................ 3.755 .................. 74,246
June 2007 ................ 2,386 .................. 76,632
...........................................................................
april to june 2007 total .8,500 lives lost - an increase of 77 % !

it's really quite sad (disgusting) how we "calculate" the DEAD !
hbg

Petraeus is talking about an alleged reduction in the Iraqi violent death rate since the surge became fully operational in June 2007. As soon as the IBC data is fully available for July and August as well as June, I shall post it. Then we'll both see whether the alleged reduction is a real reduction.

Generally, from May 2006 up until the end of May 2007, there had been an increase in the monthly death rates in Iraq. The Bush administration's strategy for success in Iraq obviously was failing.

Then the Bush administration began a different strategy--the surge strategy--which was not fully operational until June 2007. Consequently, the relevant trend for that strategy starts in June 2007. We know June 2007 had fewer violent civilian deaths in Iraq than did May 2007. But we'll need several more months to properly assess what the trend actually is and probably will be. Then, of course, we must decide how to adjust our strategy to make it better.

0 Replies

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2007/09/10/15/Copy_of_Violence_Table_till_August_31.source.prod_affiliate.91.xls

There was a surge before and the violence went down, yet we can't keep up with the surge forever and the general is calling for a troop draw down next summer. I suspect between now and then we will see little progress. I suppose other than more of our troops dying in a lost cause; for Iraqis it would be better if we stayed. If we left, instead of slowly being ethnically cleansed and divided, it would be on a faster pace.

0 Replies

revel, My sentiments exactly; we're just headed for more dead and wounded for a goal that's not even articulated - except it'll be a disaster if we leave. That's not a plan.

But it seems the GOP is gonna continue to support Bush the madman. They continue to play politics with the soldiers lives.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GOP support for Iraq war on shaky ground By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Tue Sep 11, 5:46 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Republican support for the Iraq war remained on shaky ground in Congress but wasn't lost after a four-star general recommended keeping some 130,000 U.S. troops in the country through next summer.

With Gen. David Petraeus scheduled to testify Tuesday before Senate committees heavy with 2008 presidential candidates, many rank-and-file Republicans said they still were uneasy about the lack of political progress in Iraq. But they also remained reluctant to embrace legislation ordering troops home by next spring, increasing the likelihood that Democrats will have to soften their approach if they want to pass an anti-war proposal.

"I think people recognize the surge (in U.S. troops) has made a difference, but it hasn't enabled the Iraqi government to get its act together," said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., among the nearly dozen House Republicans who went to the White House last spring to personally relay their concerns about the war to President Bush.

0 Replies

CNN's anderson cooper reported from iraq last night .
one of his comments was somewhat like this :
"about two million iraqis have already left iraq , about another two million have resettled in other areas of iraq *** , so the violence is coming down somewhat , but it will also result in fewer iraqis living in their country and more segregation - was that what the surge was intended to achieve ? " .

***(sunnis and shiites have left previously integrated areas and moved to areas of their own religious kinfolk )

of course , these news weren't really news but simply a recounting of what has been taking place in iraq during the last two to three years :
the well-to-do and educated have left iraq and are still leaving and many others have left previously integrated areas to live in segregated areas of iraq .
i don't think that was ever anticipated when the invasion was planned .
hbg

0 Replies

Nothing Bush "plans" ever works out the way he intended. Nothing.

0 Replies

Quote:

Hirsh: Rating Petraeus's Report to the Hill
Not surprisingly, Petraeus performed smoothly in his testimony to Congress. But an internal Pentagon report is expected to 'differ substantially' from his recommendations on withdrawal from Iraq, NEWSWEEK has learned.NEWSWEEK has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will "differ substantially" from Petraeus's recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will "recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there." The strategy will involve unwinding the still large U.S. presence in big forward operation bases and putting smaller teams in outposts. "There is interest at senior levels [of the Pentagon] in getting alternative views" to Petraeus, the official said. Among others, Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon is known to want to draw down faster than Petraeus.

Petraeus is cooking the books; the experienced commanders at the Pentagon know this, and want out much quicker then he recommends.

I've been really surprised at how many lies Petraeus as put forward.

He holds up the success in Anbar as a success of the escalation; in fact, it has little to nothing to do with the 'surge' at all and predates it by several months. What more, it represents about 5% of the country and is not an indicator of overall progress.

Petraeus refuses to release his methodology for counting casualties, which renders his statistics useless.

He claims that success will allow us to draw down 'some forces'; naturally, these forces were scheduled to be drawn down already. Their rotations are up; it has nothing to do with successes on the field.

It's just more of the same crap. We do well in places we can go in strength, not so well when we don't have strength, and things fall apart when we leave. We don't have the troops to cover the whole place, so, eventually we will lose with this strategy. Petraeus and Bush are merely delaying making the tough decision, trying to run out the clock and turn it over to the next Dem president, who they will promptly blame for the problems caused by themselves Sad

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

amen

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

Petraeus is cooking the books; the experienced commanders at the Pentagon know this, and want out much quicker then he recommends.

I've been really surprised at how many lies Petraeus as put forward.

He holds up the success in Anbar as a success of the escalation; in fact, it has little to nothing to do with the 'surge' at all and predates it by several months. What more, it represents about 5% of the country and is not an indicator of overall progress.

Petraeus refuses to release his methodology for counting casualties, which renders his statistics useless.

He claims that success will allow us to draw down 'some forces'; naturally, these forces were scheduled to be drawn down already. Their rotations are up; it has nothing to do with successes on the field.

It's just more of the same crap. We do well in places we can go in strength, not so well when we don't have strength, and things fall apart when we leave. We don't have the troops to cover the whole place, so, eventually we will lose with this strategy. Petraeus and Bush are merely delaying making the tough decision, trying to run out the clock and turn it over to the next Dem president, who they will promptly blame for the problems caused by themselves

Cycloptichorn

True enough. We do not have overall progress in Iraq. But we do have progress in Iraq, your malarkey not withstanding.

FACTS ABOUT THE MONTH OF AUGUST:

Number of multiple fatality suicide bombings:
2006 = 52
2007 = 30

Number of daily attacks by insurgents and malitias:
2006 = 160
2007 = 120

Number of prisoners being held by the U.S. and Iraq:
2006 = 27,000
2007 = 60,000

Number of of Iraqi security forces:
2006 = 298,000
2007 = 360,000

By the way, what's your source for this malarkey? You wrote:
"Petraeus refuses to release his methodology for counting casualties, which renders his statistics useless."

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

Petraeus is cooking the books; the experienced commanders at the Pentagon know this, and want out much quicker then he recommends.

I've been really surprised at how many lies Petraeus as put forward.

He holds up the success in Anbar as a success of the escalation; in fact, it has little to nothing to do with the 'surge' at all and predates it by several months. What more, it represents about 5% of the country and is not an indicator of overall progress.

Petraeus refuses to release his methodology for counting casualties, which renders his statistics useless.

He claims that success will allow us to draw down 'some forces'; naturally, these forces were scheduled to be drawn down already. Their rotations are up; it has nothing to do with successes on the field.

It's just more of the same crap. We do well in places we can go in strength, not so well when we don't have strength, and things fall apart when we leave. We don't have the troops to cover the whole place, so, eventually we will lose with this strategy. Petraeus and Bush are merely delaying making the tough decision, trying to run out the clock and turn it over to the next Dem president, who they will promptly blame for the problems caused by themselves

Cycloptichorn

True enough. We do not have overall progress in Iraq. But we do have progress in Iraq, your malarkey not withstanding.

FACTS ABOUT THE MONTH OF AUGUST:

Number of multiple fatality suicide bombings:
2006 = 52
2007 = 30

Number of daily attacks by insurgents and malitias:
2006 = 160
2007 = 120

Number of prisoners being held by the U.S. and Iraq:
2006 = 27,000
2007 = 60,000

Number of of Iraqi security forces:
2006 = 298,000
2007 = 360,000

By the way, what's your source for this malarkey? You wrote:
"Petraeus refuses to release his methodology for counting casualties, which renders his statistics useless."

Please provide attribution for your statistics.

For the answer to your question, I refer you to the testimony given by Petraeus and Crocker over the last two days; when questioned about their numbers, they refuse to supply raw data or methodology. Their numbers conflict with each and every other source I've seen, sources who DO include their raw data and methodology. This is a sure sign of manipulation.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Nothing Bush "plans" ever works out the way he intended. Nothing.

Right! Bush planned that General Tommy Franks's led troops would succeed in removing Saddam's government in about 6 months. Damn fool Bush! It took Franks less than a month and a half.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know