Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics General Stuff July Statistics Show Improvement in Iraq

Recent casualty statistics from Iraq are less discouraging


I am sure that we all remember the horrible, seemingly endless bloody morass that Iraq was only one year ago.

IMO it is worth acknowledging that many of us were wrong about future events in Iraq. Pres. Bush was certain the the invasion of Iraq would be cakewalk--- he was wrong. Many of us believed that Iraq was a hopeless mess--- I think we must also admit that we were wrong.

I am not proposing what is the correct policy decision at this point. Nor am I justifying the invasion itself.

I do think that recent events have demonstrated what would have been possible in Iraq without Bush's stubborn insistence on sticking with Rumsfeld's misguided "leadership" for so very long after his debacle became apparent.

Ardy, you can't measure the situation in Iraq by the number of US service people killed in combat. You have to remember that about 20% of the entire population is homeless, Baghdad is ghettoized by a series of 12 foot high concrete walls, Kirkuk is a hotbed of political assassinations, the country is far from unified, and the government is essentially non-functional. Another five percent of the population of Iraq has suffered war-related death since 2003. There are no figures available as to how many have been injured. Care to hazard a guess?

Suffice to say that certainly half the population has been directly, personally impacted by five years of military occupation and internecine violence. Should we find it surprising that those who remain would choose to wait out the Occupation in hopes of a better day?

You also have to bear in mind that combat troops are no longer engaging in significant military action. The bulk of the "combat" is being conducted from the air, with more bombs falling now than in that bloody period you refer to. So no, Americans are not dying due to American actions. But Iraqis are, and their property and infrastructure continues to be destroyed and their children terrorized.

The key to a better future for Iraq is bringing the Occupation to an end, just as it was one year ago, two years ago, or five years ago. It is still quite possible, perhaps even likely, that a bloody civil war will ensue once US troops pull out. Neither the Sunnis nor the Sadrists have made peace with the current regime. They are biding their time. Most of the Sunnis are biding their time in Syria or Jordan - at least the ones who lived in Baghdad.

Surge my butt, this is a "purchased peace" -- we are paying them not to kill each other.

I hope that we agree that I did not mention either the "surge"or your butt for that matter.... being an expert in neither.

That said, if we are paying them not to kill each-other, and if the result is a significantly lower casualty rate for us... I do not oppose that and wish the strategy would have started sooner and thousands of American lives would have been saved.

Ardy, I am aware that you didn't mention either

My comment was just that.

Steve.
I invite you to re-read my posting to verify that I said nothing by way of endorsing the occupation. Neither did I say anything that could be construed as minimizing the horrible effects of that decision.

Given that Bush decided to invade Iraq (a decision I did not and do not support) it is never the less the case that this whole debacle could have been managed much more effectively. And it seems undeniable that the heart of the mis-management centered upon Rumsfeld. And given that fact, it is, in retrospect, unconscionable that Bush waited so long to replace Rumsfeld given his manifest inability to manage the situation.

Further, I have pointed out.... and correct me if I am wrong about this... that many of us could never have imagined that the situation in Iraq could have been turned around to the degree it has been.... which never the less is still a horrible situation... but still far short of the horrible bloody civil war that seemed inevitable about a year ago.

Whats the big deal about war.I read somewhere But can't remember.More humans have been killed at the hands of other humans than any other reason known.About 500,000,000.And life goes on.

I admire your optimism, but also caution you to hold judgment. None of the issues that led to the internal strife have been addressed and unless our pocketbook is forever going to pay for peace, at some point the people of the artificially sewn together nation of Iraq will either grow up or kill one another.

I say the odds are on the latter.

Well, we could indeed have been paying off both Shia and Sunni militias and/or bribing tribal leaders much earlier, but I think we had to wait until a truce was negotiated between the Iranians and the Iraqi government in order to see the current level of violence reduction.

I believe that, unfortunately, Iraq has been "Humpty-Dumptyied" and its eventual dissolution - like the late states of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia - cannot be prevented.

Phil
My own prognosis for the future is likely not much more optimistic than yours. I am making only a few, possibly minor points.

The future is not nearly so predictable as we often assume. IE few people would have predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union or apartheid.

As it happens, based upon my own prior reading, I thought that Patreus and Gates deserved a chance to improve the situation in Iraq. That opinion met with a fair amount of scorn. As it turns out, I think they have been reasonably successful in meeting limited objectives. And while I would not characterize the present situation as an unalloyed miracle, never the less I do think things are moving in a direction where there is a more reasonable path towards departure from Iraq in a manner that does not show us leaving in total disaster. And I think that is better than what would have been the case if we abruptly left Iraq one year ago.

IMO, Obama and many of his anti war supporters need to be able to come to terms with the above or risk losing the confidence of the electorate.

Then beyond that there is the issue of Bush culpability. We have discussed issues surrounding impeachment ad nauseum. I know that few people on this board agree with my position that it is arguably true Bush acted in a way that he felt was in American national interests... even though it is likely that he was also deceptive in his presentation of many issues surrounding the lead up to war.

But what I think is beyond dispute is that President Bush stuck with Secretary Rumsfeld despite very disastrous results. Experience of the past year has demonstrated that there was in fact a better alternative. I am not sure the above is impeachable, but it is certainly something for which I think President Bush should be held to account.