THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
A Month by Month, Daily Average of IBC's Count of Violent Deaths in Iraq, After April 30, 2007:
______________________________________________________________________________

May = 3,755 / 31 = ………………... 121 per day

…………….. Surge fully operational in June ……………..

June = 2,386 / 30 = …………......… 80 per day.
July = 2,077 / 31 = ………….......... 67 per day.
August = 2,084 / 31 = ……...…..... 67 per day.
September = 1,333 / 30 = ………... 44 per day.
October = 1309 / 29 = ……………...... 45 per day.* {1,309 = 83,435 - 82,126}
November = ----? / 30 = ----? per day.**
December= ----? / 31 = ----? per day.**

… *Data currently available for only first 29 days of this month.
… **Data not yet available.
_____________________________________________________________________________

As of September 30, 2007, Total Iraq Violent Deaths since January 1, 2003 = 82,126
_____________________________________________________________________________

Daily Average Violent Deaths in Iraq--PRE and POST January 1, 2003:

PRE = 1/1/1979 - 12/31/2002 = 1,229,210/ 8,766 days = 140 per day;

POST = 1/1/2003 - 10/29/2007 = 83,435/1,763 days = …... 47 per day;

PRE / POST = 140/47 = 2.96.
_____________________________________________________________________________

We must win and succeed in Iraq, because we Americans will suffer significant losses of our freedoms, if we do not win and succeed in Iraq.

The USA wins and succeeds in Iraq when the daily rate of violent deaths in Iraq decreases below 30, remains less than 30, while we are removing our troops, and remains less than 30 for at least a year after we have completed our departure.
_____________________________________________________________________________

http://www.icasualties.org
MILITARY FATALITIES IN IRAQ BY MONTH
November 10, 2007--1,698 days in Iraq.
Month .... Totals ……. US ….. UK …. OCC …. DA
11-2007 ...... 17 ……….. 16 ……. 1 …….. 0 ……. 2
10-2007 ...... 40 ……….. 38 …... 1 …….. 1 ……. 1
9-2007 ........ 69 ……….. 65 ……. 2 …….. 2 ……. 2
8-2007 ........ 88 ……….. 84 ……. 4 …….. 0 ……. 3
7-2007 ........ 87 ……….. 78 ……. 8 …….. 1 ……. 3
6-2007 ….... 108 ………. 101 ……. 7 …….. 0 ……. 4
5-2007 ....... 131 ……… 126 ….. 3 …….. 2 ……. 4
4-2007 ....... 117 …….. 104 …… 12 …….. 1 ……. 4
3-2007 ........ 82 ……….. 81 ….… 1 ……… 0 ……. 3
2-2007 ........ 84 ……….. 81 ….… 3 ……… 1 ……. 3
1-2007 ........ 86 ……….. 83 ….… 3 ……… 0 ……. 3

...

3-2003 ….... 92 ....... 65 ….... 27 …….... 0 ……. 3 …
Total ....... 4164 …... 3860 …. 171 ..... 133 …… 2 {4164/1698=2.45}

US=United States
UK=United Kingdom
OCC=Other Coalition Countries
DA=Daily Average (for the month)

The U.S. found it convenient to support a dictatorial government in cuba for a very long time until it was ejected by castro and the cuban people, AND REPLACED BY ANOTHER DICTATORSHIP THAT THE USA DID NOT NOT AND DOES NOT SUPPORT.

Monday, November 12, 2007
Maliki Said to Induct 18,000 Militiamen into Security Services

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that PM al-Maliki has taken the controversial decision to recruit 18,000 members of Shiite militias into the Iraqi government security forces. (In fact, the Iraqi military has de facto been recruiting a lot of Shiite militiamen anyway).

You have to wonder if this step is intended to offset the American military's pressure to recruit Sunni tribesmen and neighborhood volunteers into the security forces.

Aljazeera is reporting that Iraqi vice president Tariq al-Hashimi has come out vigorously denouncing al-Maliki for this move.

Well, something has to be done with the Shiite militiamen. You can't just demobilize them without risking their turning to violence. I think it would be better to give them civilian desk jobs in some department where they can't do much mischief, until the Iraqi economy can get its act together. (Eventually Iraq is likely to get rich, and there will be plenty of jobs in the oil sector and in industry; the question is what to do with trained militiamen until that comes about.) But putting the militiamen in the official security forces will cause a lot of trouble.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that Syrian officials say 1,500 Iraqis are being forced to leave Syria every day as a result of strict new visa requirements. Still, about 500 new Iraqi refugees are able to come into Syria every day, since they managed to get visas. There are an estimated 1.4 million Iraqi refugees in Syria. There is now a net reduction of 1,000 per day, so that if it continues, in about 4 or 5 years all the Iraqis will be out of Syria. Which is probably what the Syrian government intends. Note, however, that this influx of 7,000 Iraqis a week from Syria is not spurred by better security in Iraq (otherwise, why are 500 a day or 3500 a week still leaving Iraq for Damascus?) The exodus is being dictated by new Syrian strictness about visas and residency permits.

What I don't understand about American newspaper articles is why they let people like Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki dictate the headlines, even when the headline is undermined by the information gathered by the journalist who wrote the article. So the NYT reports,



' Most of the capital's displaced people have yet to return, and the number of those leaving still outpaces those returning, according to Dana Graber Ladek, the Iraqi displacement specialist for the International Organization for Migration.

Over a million Iraqis have fled their homes in the past year and a half, she said, nearly three-quarters of them from Baghdad. And though the Iraqi government is offering one million Iraqi dinars, or roughly $812, to each Baghdad family that returns, she said, only a fraction of residents has done so. '


So, why isn't that the headline? "More Iraqis still Leaving Capital than returning to It"? Why is it al-Maliki's irrelevant assertion that "7,000 families" have come back to the capital? First of all, that isn't that many people, and second of all, what we want to know is if they are the ones kicked out of Syria during the past month.
And we want to know how many Baghdadis are still fleeing their own city every week. Do the editors just automatically cede the headlines to the Rich and Powerful? Why? Isn't this sort of complaisance toward propaganda what got us into the Iraq War in the first place?

Rashid Khalidi situates the American war on Iraq in the history of Western colonialism in the region.

Bob Drefuss at Tomdispatch.com has more on the issue of Iraqis still being displaced.

The tribal sheikhs making up the al-Anbar Salvation Council have suggested names to PM al-Maliki of tribal Sunnis who could serve as cabinet ministers in the place of the Iraqi Accord Front ministers who resigned this summer. The Sunni fundamentalist Iraqi Accord Front is complaining that for al-Maliki to appoint cabinet ministers outside parliamentary channels would be unconstitutional.

John Bolton complaining about bureaucrats acting outside the rules would be like Britney Spears complaining about starlets with self-destructive lifestyles. Bolton attempted to do a hatchet job on Colin Powell, claiming that he-- gasp -- sought a diplomatic solution to the Iran issue. Bolton quite illicitly fired Jose Bustani for getting in the way of the Iraq War, and he once said that the US was not legally bound by the international treaties it had signed, that they were only 'obligations'. Even though Bolton was just an underling under Powell, he and his ilk always tried to withdraw from Powell the prerogatives of secretary of state, attempting to reduce him to their water carrier. He didn't have the authority to dictate diplomacy to Colin Powell, and now he has no authority at all. Putting Bolton on television all the time is bizarre. Who does he represent? Bad-tempered lawyers who are abusive to their employees and employers?

For the real Iran, not Bolton's fevered imagination of it, see Farideh Farhi's posting at the Global Affairs blog.

ican wrote :

Quote:

The U.S. found it convenient to support a dictatorial government in cuba for a very long time until it was ejected by castro and the cuban people, AND REPLACED BY ANOTHER DICTATORSHIP THAT THE USA DID NOT NOT AND DOES NOT SUPPORT.

seems to me that is at least somwhat similar to what happened in vietnam - unfortunately at a great loss of american lives .
now , however , the U.S. finds it quite "convenient" to trade with vietnam but not with cuba .
U.S. tourist are travelling quite freely to vietnam , but not to cuba ; i wonder why ? (i think i already have the answer :wink: )

perhaps at some point the U.S. might also find it "convenient" to install/support a dictatorial government in iraq .

from what i understand , many former supporters of SH's government - mainly sunnis - are being recruited into U.S. supported "security forces" to keep the shiites "under control" (read : give them freedom) .
hbg

Are you recommending that the USA support a Shiite dictatorship in Iraq?

Or are you thinking that the USA allowing Sunnis, who were formally supporters of Saddam Hussein, into the Iraq security forces is a first step toward a Sunni dictorship?

ican wrote :

Quote:

Are you recommending that the USA support a Shiite dictatorship in Iraq?

Or are you thinking that the USA allowing Sunnis, who were formally supporters of Saddam Hussein, into the Iraq security forces is a first step toward a Sunni dictorship?

i believe that there is a saying : "all will be revealed in good time" .
i'll just have to wait and see how things turn out - "wheels within wheels will turn" without my asssistance .
hbg

I did not ask you to predict anything. I asked you what you are recommending and what you are thinking.

I interpret your misinterpretations of my questions to be traceable to your reluctance to answer direct questions submitted by the likes of me.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007
US Drawdown Begins
Sadrists call for New Parliamentary Elections

The US military has begun to reverse last year's troop escalation, which brought the number of combat brigades in Iraq up to 20. It is now going back down to 19, and will stand at 15 in July of 2008 if things go according to plan. That is, the number of US troops in Iraq on the eve of the 2008 election will be about 140,000. If the "take, clear and hold" strategy of clearing guerrillas out of Baghdad neighborhoods has been successful, and if Iraqi security forces can continue the "hold" stage on their own, and if Sunni Arab guerrillas and Shiite militias don't reemerge in the neighborhoods that the US abandons in the capital, then violence looks set to hold at some 10,000 civilian deaths a year.

That level of violence is horrible, among the worst in the world. But the American Right, having promised us garlands, then democracy and secularism, then peace both in Iraq and in Israel & Palestine, has finally declared that an ongoing low intensity guerrilla war is a glorious victory and is 'turning the corner.'

ican wrote :

Quote:

I did not ask you to predict anything. I asked you what you are recommending and what you are thinking.

I interpret your misinterpretations of my questions to be traceable to your reluctance to answer direct questions submitted by the likes of me.

since my earlier recommendations - not starting an unwinnable war - were ignored by all powers concerned :wink: , i must now "re-think" as to what recommendations to make .

MY THINKING
----------------
the U.S. is between a rock and hard place .
they can support the sunnis and incur the wrath of the shiites - and not just those in iraq
OR
they can support the shiites and incur the wrath of the sunnis - which , i understand , include the rulers of saudi-arabia .
the U.S. - and other western countries - might have done well had they involved the governments and leaders of the many other mid-eastren - and asian - countries before the invasion .

i would also think that it might be a good idea to "get together" with the many governments of the middle-east and asia to try to come up with workable solutions to try and find some way to settle the conflicts in afghanistan AND (!) pakistan .
(i noticed that japan - certainly one of the POWERS in asia - has decided to quit afghanistan . i would think that japan would have an interest in stability in asia - perhaps i'm wrong . might an unstable asia be to their advantage ?) .
hbg

Per Juan Cole -

Quote:

Tuesday, November 13, 2007
US Drawdown Begins
Sadrists call for New Parliamentary Elections

The US military has begun to reverse last year's troop escalation, which brought the number of combat brigades in Iraq up to 20. It is now going back down to 19, and will stand at 15 in July of 2008 if things go according to plan. That is, the number of US troops in Iraq on the eve of the 2008 election will be about 140,000. If the "take, clear and hold" strategy of clearing guerrillas out of Baghdad neighborhoods has been successful, and if Iraqi security forces can continue the "hold" stage on their own, and if Sunni Arab guerrillas and Shiite militias don't reemerge in the neighborhoods that the US abandons in the capital, then violence looks set to hold at some 10,000 civilian deaths a year.

That level of violence is horrible, among the worst in the world. But the American Right, having promised us garlands, then democracy and secularism, then peace both in Iraq and in Israel & Palestine, has finally declared that an ongoing low intensity guerrilla war is a glorious victory and is 'turning the corner.'

Cycloptichorn

US Military Reversing Iraq Troop Surge

The commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil of the 1st Cavalry Division, told reporters Nov. 6 that it was too early to declare victory over al-Qaida in Iraq, the mainly Iraqi terrorist organization that has been a chief target of U.S. offensive operations in recent months.

But Fil said it was now clear that U.S. forces, with Iraqi help, have gained the upper hand in Baghdad.

"Perhaps even most significantly, the Iraqi people have just decided they've had it up to here with violence," he said, echoing the assertion of numerous other commanders that one of the most important developments since early summer has been an erosion of what some call a culture of fear in Baghdad.

Their belief is that the tide has turned in favor of the forces of moderation. But will it last?

revel wrote:

US Military Reversing Iraq Troop Surge

Quote:

The commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil of the 1st Cavalry Division, told reporters Nov. 6 that it was too early to declare victory over al-Qaida in Iraq, the mainly Iraqi terrorist organization that has been a chief target of U.S. offensive operations in recent months.

But Fil said it was now clear that U.S. forces, with Iraqi help, have gained the upper hand in Baghdad.

"Perhaps even most significantly, the Iraqi people have just decided they've had it up to here with violence," he said, echoing the assertion of numerous other commanders that one of the most important developments since early summer has been an erosion of what some call a culture of fear in Baghdad.

Their belief is that the tide has turned in favor of the forces of moderation. But will it last?

Ican you are a sickening purblind self-satisfied smug posturing little apologist.

Army Desertion Rate Up 80 Pct. Since '03

By LOLITA C. BALDOR
The Associated Press
Friday, November 16, 2007; 11:02 PM

WASHINGTON -- Soldiers strained by six years at war are deserting their posts at the highest rate since 1980, with the number of Army deserters this year showing an 80 percent increase since the United States invaded Iraq in 2003.

While the totals are still far lower than they were during the Vietnam War, when the draft was in effect, they show a steady increase over the past four years and a 42 percent jump since last year.