How quickly we forget that we still have soldiers dying in a bullshit war:
Six U.S. soldiers were killed in a house rigged with explosives on Wednesday in Diyala province, where U.S. and Iraqi forces have launched a major operation against al Qaeda, the U.S. military said.
George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the administration, along with their supporters have continuously championed how the Iraqi security forces are standing up. Well guess what? That was just more lies from an administration that has never told the truth:
Retired Marine Corps Gen. James Jones, who led a 20-member panel studying Iraqi security forces, is to testify before Congress today. His report, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, said Iraq's security forces would be unable to take control of their country in the next 18 months.
The readiness of Iraq's security forces will be an important element in the congressional debate over the war. Republicans see success by the Iraqi forces as key to bringing U.S. troops home, while an increasing number of Democrats say the U.S. should stop training and equipping such units altogether.
The study found that the Iraqi military, in particular its Army, shows the most promise of becoming a viable, independent security force with time. It predicted that an adequate logistics system to support these ground forces is at least two years away.
Worse off is the Iraq national police force. The study, which described the police force as dysfunctional, corrupt and infiltrated by militias, recommended that the force be scrapped and entirely rebuilt.
So the last 4 years have been for nothing. We have allowed this fully corrupt police force to form in Iraq and that has a great chance of leading us to a worse situation than when Saddam was in charge. Great....
This is been a real interesting weekend in news from Iraq. Not only have we lost 16 soldiers since Friday, but there has been a lot of back and forth regarding the "progress" of the surge. Here is what today's New York Times is reporting:
Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the city’s neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.
The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to “protect the population†and “maintain physical influence over†only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.
In the remaining 311 neighborhoods, troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face “resistance,†according to the one-page assessment, which was provided to The New York Times and summarized reports from brigade and battalion commanders in Baghdad.
Considering Petraeus was before Congress a few short weeks ago praising the surge, this really lends credibility to what Murtha told George Stephanopoulos this weekend:
On ABC’s This Week today, host George Stephanopoulos asked Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) about whether Congress would “move again to get a timetable for withdrawal in September if the benchmarks aren’t met, even if General Petraeus…comes to Congress in September and says he needs more time.†“He has an awful lot of credibility,†he added.
April has been a deadly month for our troops and this latest tally pushes the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq past 100:
Five U.S. troops were killed in separate attacks in the capital this weekend, including three in a single roadside bombing, the military said Monday, pushing the death toll past 100 in the deadliest month so far this year.
Both attacks occurred in eastern Baghdad, a predominantly Shiite area where American and Iraqi forces have stepped up their activities as part of a security crackdown that began on Feb. 14 to quell the sectarian violence.
In violence Monday, a suicide car bomber apparently targeting an Interior Ministry convoy struck an Iraqi checkpoint near a busy square in the predominantly Sunni area of Harthiyah in western Baghdad, killing four people and wounding 10, police said.
The bomber detonated his payload, causing part of the road to buckle, as he emerged from an underpass and was heading toward the checkpoint being manned by Interior Ministry commandos. Those killed included two commandos and two civilians.
Actually we have lost 103 soldiers this month, but let's not forget our coalition. When you add in the 12 U.K. soldiers and one Polish soldier all killed in Iraq this month, we get an average of 3.87 soldiers killed per day. The last time we had an average this high was in January 2005, when a helicopter crash killed 30 American soldiers. Total amount of U.S. soldiers killed in that month was 107.
November 2004 holds the record as deadliest month for American soldiers - 137.
So is this the progress we were supposed to see? Boehner's 90 days are well over now. So John - is the surge working? I will ask that more directly a little later.
Here is one bombing for today Laura:
U.S. and Iraqi forces staged raids in Baghdad's main Shiite militant stronghold Tuesday as part of politically sensitive forays into areas loyal to the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Southwest of the capital, three American soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb. Meanwhile, police said a car bomb exploded near a park in central Ramadi, killing 18 people; most of the victims were children.
Oh yeah - and just for that one other bombing today. The military just said 3 soldier were killed today in a roadside bomb. Gee - that sounds like 2 bombs again today. Must be nice to so easily dismiss life in an attempt to spread right wing talking points.
The big talk last week was the al-Sadr had fled the country and was not an influence anymore. Of course people like CNN's Michael Ware said that is far from the truth. Well once again it looks like the military was wrong and the others were right:
The leader of Iraq's biggest Shiite militia complained Sunday that bombs "continue to explode" in Baghdad and that U.S.-led security crackdown is doomed to fail, issuing a statement the same day a suicide attacker struck outside a college campus, killing at least 41 people.
Many Shiites believe that bombings have continued because the Shiite-led government bowed to American pressure and persuaded the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr to take his Mahdi Army fighters off the streets.
Al-Sadr's statement, read to his followers in Sadr City, is likely to add pressure on U.S. and Iraqi forces to show results in the nearly two-week-old crackdown.
"I'm certain, just like all oppressed Iraqis are certain, that no security plan will work and no good will come of any occupier," al-Sadr said in the statement. "Here we are, watching booby trapped cars exploding to harvest thousands of innocent lives from our beloved people in the middle of a security plan that is controlled by an occupier who does as he pleases."
Of course the article goes on to say that we still believe he is in Iran, but how trustworthy is that? We are relying upon the same people that said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction after all.
In a guest column in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal President Bush addressed a range of issues. On Iraq he said he'll reveal his new strategy in the coming days.
Administration officials tell NBC News it will involve sending some 20,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq.
The plan is being called surge and accelerate: take control over violence in Baghdad, then speed up the handover of territory to Iraqi forces.
The plan would also turn over more money to Iraq for reconstruction and a jobs program.
Bush also said in this op-ed piece that he would discuss his plan with Congress. Discuss? He will be taking his same old imperialistic meme of "this is what I am doing, accept it or else". Time to get these hearings going. The security of our nation and the lives of our brave soldiers are at stake here.
This is a very scary scenario and could result in the neo-cons getting their dream of World War 3:
Turkish officials signaled Tuesday they are prepared to send the army into northern Iraq if U.S. and Iraqi forces do not take steps to combat Turkish Kurdish guerrillas there - a move that could put Turkey on a collision course with the United States.
Turkey is facing increasing domestic pressure to act after 15 soldiers, police and guards were killed fighting the guerrillas in southeastern Turkey in the past week.
"The government is really in a bind," said Seyfi Tashan, director of the Foreign Policy Institute at Bilkent University in Ankara. "On the one hand, they don't want things to break down with the United States. On the other hand, the public is crying for action."
This sounds very similar to what sparked off the recent Lebanon/Israel conflict. This is also very indicative of the failed policy in Iraq which Bush and his merry band of followers has been pushing.
First we come to this story from Reuters:
The U.S. military said on Thursday Iraq was moving away from the risk of civil war and insurgent and sectarian bloodshed would fall dramatically when a new government of national unity is formed.
Attacks on civilians had jumped 90 percent across Iraq since a Shi'ite shrine was bombed in February, but "ethno-sectarian" bloodshed had more than halved in Baghdad in the past week, U.S. spokesman Major General Rick Lynch told a news conference.
"We are not seeing widespread militia operations across Iraq. We are not seeing widespread movement of displaced personnel," he said. "So we do not see us moving toward a civil war in Iraq. In fact we see us moving away from it."
Then we get this one from the AP:
A sister of Iraq's new Sunni Arab vice president was killed Thursday in a drive-by shooting in Baghdad, a day after the politician called for the Sunni-dominated insurgency to be crushed by force.
In southern Iraq, a bomb hit an Italian military convoy, killing four soldiers — three Italians and a Romanian — and seriously injuring another passenger, officials in Rome said. The bomb struck the convoy near an Italian military base in Nasiriyah, a heavily Shiite city 200 miles southeast of Baghdad, said local Iraqi government spokesman Haidr Radhi.
Elsewhere, a U.S. jet fired two missiles at insurgent positions in Ramadi, U.S. officers said. Fighting also broke out northeast of Baghdad between Iraqi forces and insurgents, killing several Iraqi policemen and civilians.
John Kerry appeared on Meet the Press this morning to defend his call for a troop pull out in Iraq. I must say he did really well even with Russert trying to nail him as flip-flopping on the issue.
Kerry brought up one very interesting point that merits repeating. The following is a rough transcript of what he said:
KERRY: The President has said our troops will stand down as the Iraqi forces stand up. We have a target of 270,000 Iraqi forces in Iraq and currently the administration says there are 240,000 forces trained. If we are only 30,000 away from the goal then why are our troops not standing down?
This is a real interesting point and one that has had me thinking for the past hour. When the media reports that there are not enough Iraqi troops trained then the administration starts bashing the media. They say they are not telling the truth or "exaggerating" the news. We still have over 130,000 troops in Iraq and sent 700 more over because the UK has pulled out 800. This truly shows that the President is either a) lying about the progress being made or b) lying about our goals. What ever the case it is resulting in tragic losses for our forces and we do need to start pulling out.
Here are the final results from the December poll.
Bush made a big lie yesterday about progress in Iraq. This should come as no
shock but still merits attention.
Think
Progress has the details on it.
The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent
anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year’s assault
in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions
made up primarily of United States Marines and Army  with six Iraqi
battalions supporting them…This year in Tal Afar, it was a very different
story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces  11 Iraqi
battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support.
An embedded Time Magazine reporter who covered this assault from beginning to
end said that it was an American led attack. Visit
Think
Progress for the details and video of Anderson Cooper brining this up to
Senator John Warner then
Crooks and Liars
who has a video of Cooper discussing this with Rep. Jack Murtha..
Murtha told Cooper he believes people are giving the President the wrong
facts. Something about this stinks of Rove. It is similar to his favorite tactic
of "push polling". Distort the facts to sell the cause. In other words it is the
most vile form of politicizing the war.
A clash occurred between Rumsfeld and the new top military dog Gen. Peter
Pace yesterday. The clash happened before reporters and over torture:
Via the AP
from ABC15 News:
Top U.S. military officer contradicts
his civilian bossWASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top military man, Marine Gen. Peter Pace,
said American troops in Iraq have a duty to intercede and stop abuse of
prisoners by Iraqi security personnel.When Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld contradicted Pace, the general
stood firm.Rumsfeld told the general he believed Pace meant to say the U.S. soldiers
had to report the abuse, not stop it.Pace stuck to his original statement.
The unusual exchange occurred during a discussion at a news conference
about the relationship between U.S. forces in Iraq and an Iraqi government
considered sovereign by the United States.A questioner asked whether the United States and its allies might be
deemed responsible for preventing mistreatment of people under arrest in
Iraq, given that the U.S. and its allies train Iraqi forces."There are a lot of people involved in this, dozens of countries
trying to help train these Iraqi forces. Any instance of inhumane behavior
is obviously worrisome and harmful to them when that occurs," Rumsfeld said.
"Iraq knows, of certain knowledge, that they need the support of the
international community. And a good way to lose it is to make a practice of
something that is inconsistent with the values of the international
community."
I guess the elections last week is starting to bother the Republicans in
Senate. Now they want to pass a resolution forcing Bush to set a clear plan to
withdrawal from Iraq and also supply them with quarterly updates. The plan stops
short of requiring an actual timeline.
From today's
New York Times
WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 - In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional
Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a
Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in
securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for
ending the war.
The Senate is also scheduled to vote Tuesday on a compromise, announced
Monday night, that would allow terror detainees some access to federal courts.
The Senate had voted last week to prohibit those being held from challenging
their detentions in federal court, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the
contrary.
Full article
here
Now what Republican would show that unease and break ranks from the party
like that?
The proposal on the Iraq war, from Senator Bill Frist, the majority
leader, and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the
Armed Services Committee, would require the administration to provide
extensive new quarterly reports to Congress on subjects like progress in
bringing in other countries to help stabilize Iraq. The other appeals
related to Iraq are nonbinding and express the position of the Senate.
Will we ever be able to handle control of Iraq over to its
troops? More importantly will be if we can pass the torch to them and be
somewhat assured that they will not turn to the same tyrannical leadership
styles Saddam followed.
NEW YORK In a remarkable report published widely Thursday, Tom Lasseter,
longtime Knight Ridder correspondent in its Baghdad bureau, reveals what he
learned as possibly the first American journalist to embed with an all-Iraqi
military operation in the war -- and it isn't pretty.Lasseter writes that "a week spent eating, sleeping and going on patrol
with a crack unit of the Iraqi army" (the 4,500-member 1st Brigade of the
6th Iraqi Division) suggests that the Bush exit strategy of turning over
military control to the Iraqis "is in serious trouble. Instead of rising
above the ethnic tension that's tearing their nation apart, the mostly
Shiite troops are preparing for, if not already fighting, a civil war
against the minority Sunni population."Indeed, the soldiers he traveled with are "seeking revenge against the
Sunnis who oppressed them during Saddam Hussein's rule."American commanders often refer to the 1st Brigade as a template for the
future of Iraq's military, and sometimes they operate on their own, other
times with American firepower taking the lead. But Lasseter notes that
increasingly "they look and operate less like an Iraqi national army unit
and more like a Shiite militia."
View complete article at
Editor and Publisher.
