U.S. Observers Note Progress In Iraq Surge

Casualties Down In July; Some Critics Of War Strategy Find Reason For Encouragement

(CBS/AP) 
Meanwhile, Iraq's parliament adjourned Monday for an August recess without receiving from the government a series of U.S.-backed draft laws designed to promote national unity and stem support for the Sunni-led insurgency.

Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani closed the three-hour session without a quorum present and declared it would not resume work until Sept. 4.

Legislators blamed 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.

"We were supposed to discuss important issues in the month of July, but we did not. Sitting in August is unconstitutional and even if we sit next month, that's no guarantee that the important business will be done," said Mahmoud Othman, a prominent Kurdish lawmaker.

"There are Iraqi-Iraqi and Iraqi-American differences that have not been resolved. The government throws the ball in our court, but we say that it is in the government's court and that of the politicians. They sent us nothing," he said.

Also Monday, a minibus exploded in a central Baghdad market district, killing at least six people — a brutal reminder of the dangers facing Iraqis who celebrated by the tens of thousands Sunday night after their national team won the prestigious Asian Cup soccer tournament.

Black smoke rose into the air after the blast struck a transit point near Tayaran Square at about 1 p.m., damaging several nearby cars and kiosks selling clothes, fruit and juice, police and hospital officials said. The minibus was one of several waiting for passengers heading to predominantly Shiite areas in eastern Baghdad.

At least 31 people were wounded in addition to the six killed, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to release the information.

The bombing came hours after the expiration of a vehicle ban that had been imposed in the capital and several other cities on Sunday ahead of Iraq's soccer final against Saudi Arabia in the Asian Cup. Iraq won the championship, 1-0, and tens of thousands of Iraqis poured into the streets for largely peaceful celebrations as fans welcomed the victory as a show of pride and unity.

[shingles1]

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.

[cbs_oliver]

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.

[pakaal]

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

[j-whitman]

ArmySGT1,,,, Disposing of Iraq's government & army opened the flood gates for Civil War, Saddam kept it contained

[randalds]

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.

[armysgt1]

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.

[randalds]

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.

[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.


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.

[j-whitman]

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.

[armysgt1]

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.

[j-whitman]

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..

[randalds]

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.

[armysgt1]

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.

[j-whitman]

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.

[armysgt1]

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.

[armysgt1]

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.

[j-whitman]

ArmySGT1,,,, If you are deliberatly missrepresenting the facts, then yes you are a liar.... Is my math wrong, or is yours wrong ??

[armysgt1]

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.

[j-whitman]

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....

[armysgt1]

j-whitman,

Did you read the article yet??? Still think I am a liar?