BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 30, 2007
U.S. Observers Note Progress In Iraq Surge
Casualties Down In July; Some Critics Of War Strategy Find Reason For Encouragement
-
Play CBS Video Video Progress In Iraq A decrease in civilian and military casualties in Iraq is a sign the troop surge is working, officials say. Even some prior skeptics of the surge feel cautiously optimistic. David Martin reports.
-
Video Iraq United Over Soccer Win A team dubbed "The Lions of the Two Rivers" gave Iraqis a sense of pride and unity that few have even dreamed of for years-a release from hatred and violence, if only for a day. Allen Pizzey reports.
-
Video On Progress In Iraq Only On The Web: Former CIA analyst Ken Pollack tells David Martin that progress has been made in Iraq in regards to security as well as local politics and economics.
-
-
Iraqi legislators blame the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for failing to construct compromise versions of the key pieces of legislation, such as the so-called oil law, intended to ensure a fair distribution of Iraq's considerable oil wealth. (AP Photo/Ali Yusuff, Pool)
-
A soccer fan, whose body is painted with the Iraqi flag, celebrates in the streets of the Shiite enclave of Sadr City in Baghdad after the Iraq national soccer team beat Saudi Arabia in the Asian Cup finals, July 29, 2007. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)
-
An Iraqi soldier shoots in the air as people, waving Iraqi flags, celebrate in streets of central Baghdad on July 29, 2007. (AP)
-
Jubilant Iraqi national soccer team members pose with their winning trophy during the presentation at the end of the final match of the Asian Football Cup at the Bung Karno stadium in Jakarta, Indonesia, July 29, 2007. (RAHMAN/AFP/Getty)
-
Iraq's Younis Mahmoud, right, battles for the ball with Saudi Arabia's Ahmed Al Bahari during their AFC Asian Cup 2007 final match at Gelora Bung Karno Stadium in Jakarta, Indonesia, July 29, 2007. Mahmoud scored the winning goal in Iraq's 1-0 victory. (AP Photo/Dita Alangkara)
-
-
Interactive Battle For Iraq The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
-
Photo Essay Iraq In Pictures A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
U.S. officials attribute that to the dismantling of networks which make roadside bombs and to American soldiers protecting the local population.
It would only take a few spectacular attacks to reverse those trends, but even critics of the war strategy are encouraged.
"The moment we got to Baghdad, everything felt very different from previous trips to Iraq," says former CIA analyst Ken Pollack.
Earlier this year, Pollack published an article about Iraq titled "Things Fall Apart." Now he sees "a sudden change in American fortunes."
"This is the first time I have gone to Iraq and actually felt that the United States knew what it was doing and was actually creating some degree of progress," Pollack says.
Retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones, who is conducting a congressionally ordered study of the Iraqi security forces, also came back from Iraq saying privately it was better than he expected.
By any measure, Iraq is still a deadly mess; no one is claiming to see light at the end of the tunnel.
"We have not won this war," Pollack says. "And we didn't see something that looked like victory over in Iraq. All we saw was progress."
It's just enough progress so that a critic like Michael O'Hanlon, who used to think the surge was too little too late, now believes it should be continued.
"For me, gut instinct, just piecing all of the information together subjectively, I thought we should give it a few more months into 2008," O'Hanlon says.
That is exactly what the American commander Gen. David Petraeus wants — continue the surge into next spring and then start a gradual withdrawal back to the pre-surge troop level of 130,000 by the end of 2008.
In other developments:
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 202 Comments
- pakaal, it's a beautiful scam. War supporters can point and say "See, even critics of the War and (gulp) EVEN liberals see progress!"
Even Pollack and O'Hanlon have supported and been cheerleaders for the war all along.
You think the media would notice the fact that Pollack wrote a book back in 2001 or 2002 titled "The Case for Attacking Iraq". But duh.
According to this bizarre logic, you might as well consider the Bush Administration to be critics of the war, since at various times they've admitted that things haven't always gone as planned.
But the media's really liberal and defeatist and out to get the President and insert cliche here and blah blah blah. - Reply to this comment
- If US casualties are running about 100 killed per month and soldiers and these deaths are typically caused by about 50 events per month (about two soldiers killed per "event") then the expected variation in monthly casualties would typically be about plus or minus 14 or so and a variation as high as plus or minus 28 would not be significant.
The news folks need to do more homework - or talk to other people who have. Or else maybe the military people need to be more forthright and straight. - Reply to this comment
- It's amazing how easily mainstream media gets suckered into believing guys like Pollack and O'Hanlon without even checking. Who said they were critics? Why, they themselves, who else? But seriously, O'Hanlon has been a supporter of the war from the beginning. In 2003 he came back from Iraq saying "most indicators" for winning the war "were now favorable". In October of that year, he said to congress "The overall effort in Iraq is succeeding." Wow, harsh criticism of the Bush Administration! I recommend reading just how these guys have been war enablers from the start to today....
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/07/ohanlon-primary.html - Reply to this comment
- ArmySGT1,,,, Disposing of Iraq's government & army opened the flood gates for Civil War, Saddam kept it contained
- Reply to this comment
- Posted by ArmySGT1 at 04:50 PM : Jul 31, 2007
No it does not fit the same definition of civil war as the American or Spanish civil wars because those were wars between political ideologies, but this is still a civil war except it's between religious ideologies. Yes this war has been going on for centuries, however it was the raw ignorance of the Bush administration in invading Iraq that tore the scab off from this old wound and infected it with the presence of "infidel soldiers" on their holy land. We didn't start this fire, but we sure as hell poured gallons and gallons of fuel on to it. - Reply to this comment
- The conflict has been going on since the death of Muhammad in the 600's. Following his death the Sunni and Shi'a began to fight, they have never stopped. Now we just stepped in the middle of a religious fight.
Some might call it a civil war and by definition it is a civil war, but too many people believe we started this civil war. We did not; we just got in the middle. The middle is a very dangerous place, but with the correct Information Operations campaign we might be able to stop the fighting.
If you had been in one of Saddam's (sunni) torture chamber's and seen what he did to the Shi'a and Kurds you would have known the war was going on, but not on CNN. - Reply to this comment
- The reason we're always finding ourselves in new wars is because young warrior want-to-be's never listen to the wisdom of old warriors. Every new war is sold as "different" or "the right one" or some such bullsh*it. Yet this war has the same stench of stupidity and death Vietnam had about it. This war is not "different". It's just as ignorant and wasteful as Vietnam and just like Vietnam every person who died there, soldier and civilian, died for nothing. In vain. Their lives wasted on a lost cause.
- Reply to this comment
- It is a shame you felt that way, but we didn%u2019t %u201Cimpose a democracy on a hyper-religious nation.%u201D I was there the day that a greater percentage of Iraqis voted than Americans voted in our presidential election. That should tell you something about imposing democracy.
There is no civil war. There are a few that believe we will leave and they are wrong. If you walked into just one Iraqi family%u2019s home and sat down and ate with them you would know we did the right thing.
Posted by ArmySGT1 at 04:35 PM : Jul 31, 2007
They voted because the election was promoted to them as a step toward getting us the hell out. they were told (lied to as it turned out) that if they voted in a president and parliament that the US troops would then be able to leave. They ignorantly believed what they were told because they did not yet realize what a bald faced liar Bush is.
And if you don't think there's a civil war going on there right now then you really should not have drank the koolaid you were being served in the mess hall. - Reply to this comment
- ArmySGT1,,,, Now you say there isn't a civil war & Iraqi's welcome us with roses & want us to stay ???? --- Come on now, that's a streatch & you know it,,, I think you are just trying to defusse the issues..... But you can do that, it's your opionion.
- Reply to this comment
- RandalDS,
It is a shame you felt that way, but we didn%u2019t %u201Cimpose a democracy on a hyper-religious nation.%u201D I was there the day that a greater percentage of Iraqis voted than Americans voted in our presidential election. That should tell you something about imposing democracy.
There is no civil war. There are a few that believe we will leave and they are wrong. If you walked into just one Iraqi family%u2019s home and sat down and ate with them you would know we did the right thing. - Reply to this comment
- ArmySGT1,,, You did shed some light on the subject, thanks for that... No link yet to anything other than 9 weeks of training.. Like I said I was shocked to hear that this morning, the story will no doubt develope..
- Reply to this comment
- I bet the day that Saddam was captured you had a little smile. Everyone knows that this world is better with him gone.
Posted by ArmySGT1 at 03:53 PM : Jul 31, 2007
No, actually I thought Iraq, as far as it relates to our foreign policy, was better off with him in power. You can not impose democracy on a hyper-religious nation like Iraq, it has to come from within. The sheer idiocy of knocking off the strongman who was holding Iraq together (and providing a balance against both Iran and al-qaeda), just to try to impose western style democracy on a nation that is dying for a religious theocracy is mind boggling. This civil war and the rise of the influence of Iran could not have been more obvious before we stupidly invaded then if it had been posted in bright red neon signs at the border. This invasion was foreign policy ignorance on a massive and historic scale.
Besides it not our RIGHT to decide that the leader of another foreign power that is no direct threat to us needs to go. - Reply to this comment
- All I ever said to you was to actually look into information before you post it. People on here do listen to you and you are not being truthful.
- Reply to this comment
- ArmySGT1,,,, Oh, I'll check for sure, count on it... This morning was the 1st I've heard of it,, I allready knew other training has been eleminated or curtailed.
- Reply to this comment
- Just do a simple google search to see if you can find any document that states basic training is not 9 weeks.
If you find that then you are right and I am a liar. - Reply to this comment
- You are wrong. It takes about two days for your enlistment processing once you get to a MEPS station. Then you travel to Basic. Your improcessing at basic usually takes a week. Then you have 9 weeks of basic training if you are not combat arms. If you are infantry you have a 12 week basic (still dependant on what MOS you are) and are then sent to your unit. If you are not combat arms you are sent to AIT which takes anywhere from a few weeks to over a year.
If you enlist today you are not going to be shipping out to Iraq by 30 September.
There is nothing more that can be said, you are just not understand what is going on. Go to GOARMY.COM and see for yourself. - Reply to this comment
- ArmySGT1,,,, If you are deliberatly missrepresenting the facts, then yes you are a liar.... Is my math wrong, or is yours wrong ??
- Reply to this comment
- RandalDS,
I understand what you are saying and am not trying to say you are wrong. All I am saying is that if you were there you might have a different view, but you would be armed with the more knowledge than the news to formulate that view. I bet the day that Saddam was captured you had a little smile. Everyone knows that this world is better with him gone. - Reply to this comment
- ArmySGT1,,,, Do the math, 30 days for enlistment processing (that's the entire month of August), ship out for active duty by Sept 30, that is less time for basic training 30 days, if my math is correct....
- Reply to this comment
- j-whitman,
Did you read the article yet??? Still think I am a liar? - Reply to this comment
The road ahead in Afghanistan, and the crucial decision Obama faces.
