PDA

View Full Version : Last Throes: Insurgent Attacks hit 2 year high


Taco John
05-31-2006, 11:35 AM
Insurgent attacks in Iraq at highest level in 2 years
Militants exploiting political uncertainty, Pentagon says
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | May 31, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon reported yesterday that the frequency of insurgent attacks against troops and civilians is at its highest level since American commanders began tracking such figures two years ago, an ominous sign that, despite three years of combat, the US-led coalition forces haven't significantly weakened the Iraq insurgency.

In its quarterly update to Congress, the Pentagon reported that from Feb. 11 to May 12, as the new Iraqi unity government was being established, insurgents staged an average of more than 600 attacks per week nationwide. From August 2005 to early February, when Iraqis elected a parliament, insurgent attacks averaged about 550 per week; at its lowest point, before the United States handed over sovereignty in the spring of 2004, the attacks averaged about 400 per week.

The vast majority of the attacks -- from crude bombing attempts and shootings to more sophisticated, military-style assaults and suicide attacks -- were targeted at US-led coalition military forces, but the majority of deaths have been of civilians, who are far more vulnerable to insurgent tactics.

``Overall, average weekly attacks during this `Government Transition' period were higher than any of the previous periods," the report states. ``Reasons for the high level of attacks may include terrorist and insurgent attempts to exploit a perceived inability of the Iraqi government to constitute itself effectively, the rise of ethno sectarian attacks . . . and enemy efforts to derail the political process leading to a new government."

As if to underscore the grim report, a spate of violence swept Iraq yesterday. Bombs and other attacks killed 54 people, including an American soldier, according to wire reports. The deadliest bombing, in a popular market in a town about 20 miles north of Baghdad, killed at least 25 people and wounded 65.

On Monday, 40 other people were killed in various attacks, including two CBS journalists who died in a bombing that critically wounded a network correspondent. To date, 2,468 US soldiers have died since the March 2003 invasion, while more than 4,000 Iraqi civilians have died in war-related violence since the beginning of the year, according to government figures and media reports.

The Pentagon report, made public yesterday, contained some positive news, including an opinion poll that indicates most Iraqis don't like the insurgents' use of violence as a political tool. In addition, according to the report, a growing number of Iraqi security forces can operate without US military support, more ethnic groups are represented in the security forces, oil production has remained steady, and more than 10,000 new business registrations have been issued.

But the overall picture of progress in Iraq is grim, dominated by the seemingly ceaseless violence.

Despite military crackdowns on insurgents and the installation of the new Iraq government, the Pentagon wasn't optimistic about quelling the violence in the near future. Officials who briefed reporters on the Iraq assessment cautioned that violence against troops and Iraqi civilians probably won't slow until at least 2007 -- if the unity government exerts more of its own authority and, according to the report, ``addresses key sectarian and political concerns" that fuel the bloodshed.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/05/31/insurgent_attacks_in_iraq_at_highest_level_in_2_years/

Taco John
05-31-2006, 11:37 AM
What, are we looking at here? Another ten years of ground war in Iraq? More?

BucEyedPea
05-31-2006, 11:43 AM
Didn't Cheney say the insurgency was in its last throes?

We're never leaving Iraq, TJ, we're building bases...the same kind we have all over the world.

Oh, yeah...this is a war that's not supposed to end either.
Remember that. :banghead:

Taco John
05-31-2006, 11:44 AM
I'm aware of that. I'm just wondering about how long we expect this ground war to last... It's discouraging that we've made no progress in quelling it.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2006, 11:45 AM
I was just venting.

I think it may be like the Palestinian conflict...those guys do not give up.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 11:45 AM
What, are we looking at here? Another ten years of ground war in Iraq? More?
Bush just hired this guy, so I think the Iraq War is now officially over.

The War is Over, and We Won
By Karl Zinsmeister (http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18615/article_detail.asp)

Everything else is merely a problem with effective media relations. Karl and Tony Snow will fix that right up and our troops will be outa there by August.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2006, 11:51 AM
I never heard of that publication before.
I checked some of the editor's out.

Heavens help us!!!

KARLYN BOWMAN
Karlyn Bowman is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute--all I need to know

Brandon Bosworth - National Review Online

The others I've not heard of either.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 12:00 PM
I never heard of that publication before.
I checked some of the editor's out.

Heavens help us!!!

KARLYN BOWMAN
Karlyn Bowman is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute--all I need to know

Brandon Bosworth - National Review Online

The others I've not heard of either.
AEI is a hugely powerful Republican think tank in DC. If you watch much C-Span, you'll see them hosting events all the time.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2006, 12:13 PM
I consider it NeoConservative because it is dominated by them, even if it has some traditional conservatives.

I remember back around 2003, they were going to try to do an end run around the Amendment process regarding electing our Congress, in their own words, in the event of a terrorist attack by having them appointed.

It was Ron Paul and his lobby that got it stopped. I helped by writing in with others. But they don't give up. They're dangerous, imo, because ideas are powerful and it is this think-tank that is framing the arguments on the WoT which are trickling down into the main GOP body infecting it and drawing it away from it's philosophical roots.

They formulated the PNAC agenda.

Wasn't Kristol a founder?

DanT
05-31-2006, 12:26 PM
I consider it NeoConservative because it is dominated by them, even if it has some traditional conservatives.

I remember back around 2003, they were going to try to do an end run around the Amendment process regarding electing our Congress, in their own words, in the event of a terrorist attack by having them appointed.

It was Ron Paul and his lobby that got it stopped. I helped by writing in with others. But they don't give up. They're dangerous, imo, because ideas are powerful and it is this think-tank that is framing the arguments on the WoT which are trickling down into the main GOP body infecting it and drawing it away from it's philosophical roots.

They formulated the PNAC agenda.

Wasn't Kristol a founder?

Irving Kristol (b. 1920) (father of Bill Kristol (b. 1952)) was involved with AEI after it was founded in 1943. Here's the AEI webpage on Irving Kristol, a Senior Fellow at AEI:

http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.34/scholar.asp

jAZ
05-31-2006, 12:31 PM
I consider it NeoConservative because it is dominated by them, even if it has some traditional conservatives.
By "it" I assume you mean both the AEI and the GOP, right?

;)

BucEyedPea
05-31-2006, 12:45 PM
By "it" I assume you mean both the AEI and the GOP, right?

;)

I think the NC arguments have been adopted if that's what you mean...dunno what to say for sure. Haven't investigated it. Not all GOP...not Ron Paul for one.

There was a LA Times article linked from one of my liberatarian sites a few days ago, claiming that the Dems are embracing them as well now. Hillary and Warner are two.

I saw Kristol on Fox come right out and say if they could not get what the wanted from the GOP, they'd just go to the Dems.

jAZ
05-31-2006, 12:59 PM
I think the NC arguments have been adopted if that's what you mean...dunno what to say for sure. Haven't investigated it. Not all GOP...not Ron Paul for one.

There was a LA Times article linked from one of my liberatarian sites a few days ago, claiming that the Dems are embracing them as well now. Hillary and Warner are two.

I saw Kristol on Fox come right out and say if they could not get what the wanted from the GOP, they'd just go to the Dems.
Yes, in fact they lobbied Clinton to start the Iraq war a decade ago. I'm grateful that he recognized what a mess doing so would lead to. Too bad they got their power by electing Cheney to office.

My point is that for the last 6 years, there has been nothing to distinguish a neocon from a Republican. That's just recent history. The original neo-cons were liberal Jews. They just happened to elect a VP who had free reign to impose his (and their) will.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2006, 01:22 PM
My point is that for the last 6 years, there has been nothing to distinguish a neocon from a Republican. That's just recent history.

Well, yes, I'd have to agree with that. There are grass-roots Republicans, such as myself, most of my friends and my brother that are not in this camp though. I do have very good, close friends that have bought into it though. Some have changed their mind.

The original neo-cons were liberal Jews. They just happened to elect a VP who had free reign to impose his (and their) will.

Yes I know. That famous Troskyite cell back in their college days. That's
why I call them liberals with guns. I've looked up their history. One was even a writer for Mondale and some worked in the Carter Administration.

I also knew about them trying to push Clinton and the famous memo. They were disgusted with Clinton for this reason. But they have Hillary it seems.

Here's the link on that story....appears to be making a comeback, even in the Dem ranks:
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes180.html

Taco John
06-02-2006, 03:39 PM
So any comment from the supporters how many years until we start seeing a decline in the insurgency?

banyon
06-02-2006, 03:40 PM
So any comment from the supporters how many years until we start seeing a decline in the insurgency?

The insurgency in Iraq or on Chiefs Planet?

Bootlegged
06-02-2006, 03:47 PM
So any comment from the supporters how many years until we start seeing a decline in the insurgency?


The insurgency of single minded/agenda driven Internet posters? Without proper protections, I don't see the end in sight

vailpass
06-02-2006, 03:47 PM
Why is this not in DC?

Taco John
06-02-2006, 04:24 PM
Someone moved it over here yesterday.

Baby Lee
06-02-2006, 04:25 PM
Last of the DC-hicans!!!

vailpass
06-02-2006, 04:27 PM
Someone moved it over here yesterday.

Oh, thanks. Guess they must have forgotten to repatriate this one.


Last of the DC-hicans!!!
ROFL

StcChief
06-02-2006, 04:29 PM
They will never go away.

They don't want democracy to succeed in their backyard.

Ultra Peanut
06-02-2006, 04:44 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say this sucks.

Ultra Peanut
06-02-2006, 04:44 PM
They will never go away.

They don't want democracy to succeed in their backyard.They hate us for our freedom.

Lurch
06-02-2006, 04:56 PM
They hate us for our freedom.

I sense you are being sarcastic, but that is almost right. The jealous MFers want to drag us down into their own misery, rather than prove there is a way out.

Taco John
06-02-2006, 04:59 PM
I sense you are being sarcastic, but that is almost right. The jealous MFers want to drag us down into their own misery, rather than prove there is a way out.


I think that for the most part, they're doing what we'd do if they were on our land and trying to force their way of life on us.

Lurch
06-02-2006, 05:06 PM
I think that for the most part, they're doing what we'd do if they were on our land and trying to force their way of life on us.Nah. No one's forcing anything, despite whatever the perception is--the US isn't driving shit in the new government. Most people, if asked honestly and without fear of retribution, would welcome a departure from their pitiful lives. The problem is the fanatics with guns who hide behind religion, and impose their will on the rest of their societies. That, and the complacency of people who have lost hope because they don't believe they can really do any better. Too bad the poor bastards can't see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Valiant
06-02-2006, 05:29 PM
I'm aware of that. I'm just wondering about how long we expect this ground war to last... It's discouraging that we've made no progress in quelling it.


Its hard to quell it when the troops are not allowed to take the gloves off and do things the way a war is suppose to be ran.. Hell I watched a video this week of a small child throwing a grenade at an APC in the open... Gitmo would be childs play if we were allowed to operate properly...

Taco John
06-02-2006, 05:33 PM
Its hard to quell it when the troops are not allowed to take the gloves off and do things the way a war is suppose to be ran.. Hell I watched a video this week of a small child throwing a grenade at an APC in the open... Gitmo would be childs play if we were allowed to operate properly...



So then you blame Rumsfeld?

Lurch
06-02-2006, 05:36 PM
So then you blame Rumsfeld?I blame the media and an ignorant citizenry who believe you can win wars quickly by playing nice. I'm not advocating deliberate or systematic war crimes, but the gloves should come off. But they can't, because we've become pussified by the media.

Ultra Peanut
06-02-2006, 05:41 PM
You don't think this has been a cluster**** from the top down? You honestly think the civilian populace is more to blame than those who led said populace to believe that the military would swoop in, find those WMDs, dispose of Saddam, and have flowers tossed their way by countless grateful Iraqis?

go bo
06-02-2006, 05:41 PM
d.c. in 5, 4, 3, 2...

go bo
06-02-2006, 05:43 PM
You don't think this has been a cluster**** from the top down? You honestly think the civilian populace is more to blame than those who led said populace to believe that the military would swoop in, find those WMDs, dispose of Saddam, and have flowers tossed their way by grateful Iraqis?well, when you put it that way, it's hard not to agree... :thumb:

Lurch
06-02-2006, 05:46 PM
You don't think this has been a cluster**** from the top down? You honestly think the civilian populace is more to blame than those who led said populace to believe that the military would swoop in, find those WMDs, dispose of Saddam, and have flowers tossed their way by grateful Iraqis?Sure, there have ben mistakes. Absloutely. But most Iraqis are grateful. Of course you won't read about that in the news very often. The insurgency is lashing out desperately, like a dog that has been cornered. It's angry, and all it's wants to do now is inflict casualities because they know most Iraqi people despise them, not the Americans. The real shame is that the media has conditioned American viewers to a point, where they simply can't handle the horrors of war. And any prolonged "exposure" to it weakens any resolve, legitimate or not, we may have had to fight the war in the first place.

Lurch
06-02-2006, 05:53 PM
Radar's thread covers it pretty nicely....

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=141679

stevieray
06-02-2006, 05:56 PM
well, when you put it that way, it's hard not to agree... :thumb:

like rausch said, just because you don't find crack, doesn't mean it wasn't a crack house.

Stinger
06-02-2006, 05:57 PM
They will never go away.

They don't want democracy to succeed in their backyard.

Just curious do you mean the Iraq war or the great DC - Main forum war of 2006?


ROFL

Taco John
06-02-2006, 05:57 PM
I blame the media and an ignorant citizenry who believe you can win wars quickly by playing nice. I'm not advocating deliberate or systematic war crimes, but the gloves should come off. But they can't, because we've become pussified by the media.



Hahaha! ROFL


Of course you blame the media, and not the people who actually control the military... You're like the parent who blames Ozzy Osbourne for their kid killing themselves.

Taco John
06-02-2006, 05:58 PM
like rausch said, just because you don't find crack, doesn't mean it wasn't a crack house.



Except that doesn't make much sense... Isn't "crack" what makes a "crack house" a "crack house?"

Lurch
06-02-2006, 06:00 PM
Hahaha! ROFL


Of course you blame the media, and not the people who actually control the military... You're like the parent who blames Ozzy Osbourne for their kid killing themselves.
I'd serious question your understanding of politics and the power of public opinion, if you honestly don't believe the tremendous impact of the media. Hell, aren't you in advertising or marketing or some such? If so, isn't your whole livelihood predicated upon the power of the media to shape people's opinion?

JBucc
06-02-2006, 06:01 PM
WTF is a Throe?

Lurch
06-02-2006, 06:01 PM
Except that doesn't make much sense... Isn't "crack" what makes a "crack house" a "crack house?"

Perhaps you missed the operative word: "wasn't" from Mr. Ray's post?

Taco John
06-02-2006, 06:06 PM
I'd serious question your understanding of politics and the power of public opinion, if you honestly don't believe the tremendous impact of the media. Hell, aren't you in advertising or marketing or some such? If so, isn't your whole livelihood predicated upon the power of the media to shape people's opinion?



Indeed. What does any of that have to do with making the best war decisions? For instance, I think the Rumsfeld Doctrine is a joke. I much prefer the Powell Doctrine, and believe we'd be wrapping up about now if we had used it in the first place.

Should I be blaming the media for this decision? Or should I be blaming the guy at the top making the decisions?

memyselfI
06-02-2006, 06:13 PM
You don't think this has been a cluster**** from the top down? You honestly think the civilian populace is more to blame than those who led said populace to believe that the military would swoop in, find those WMDs, dispose of Saddam, and have flowers tossed their way by countless grateful Iraqis?


Shocking isn't it???

And to think Clinton was impeached over blow jobs. :shake:

stevieray
06-02-2006, 06:19 PM
Shocking isn't it???

And to think Clinton was impeached over blow jobs. :shake:

Clinton was impeached for being a LIAR. What is not shocking is that's exactly what you want to project onto Bush.

Lurch
06-02-2006, 06:26 PM
Indeed. What does any of that have to do with making the best war decisions? For instance, I think the Rumsfeld Doctrine is a joke. I much prefer the Powell Doctrine, and believe we'd be wrapping up about now if we had used it in the first place.

Should I be blaming the media for this decision? Or should I be blaming the guy at the top making the decisions?You think war decisions are made in a vacuum? The political pressure and opposition to bucking the UN, the disdain for war itself, the defense cuts, coupled with a pussified American public who is delusional enough to think the horrors of war can be minimized (and even avoided because of our technical and military superiority) place enormous pressure on politicians to do the job in a way that is politically palatable, and preferably even popular way, over doing it the right way--but the right way is much more ugly to report to American living rooms during dinner. That's what leads us to the regrettable situation, in which politicians are running the war instead of the Generals.

stevieray
06-02-2006, 06:31 PM
You think war decisions are made in a vacuum? The political pressure and opposition to bucking the UN, the disdain for war itself, the defense cuts, coupled with a pussified American public who is delusional enough to think the horrors of war can be minimized (and even avoided because of our technical and military superiority) place enormous pressure on politicians to do the job in a way that is politically palatable, and preferably even popular way, over doing it the right way--but the right way is much more ugly to report to American living rooms during dinner. Such desire leads to politicians fighting the war, not the military leadership.


Especially when more people care about who is the next American Idol.

Lurch
06-02-2006, 06:32 PM
Especially when more people care about who is the next American Idol.Our popular culture is becoming more embarrassing every year it seems, yes. As if that is even possible. But you know, "It's Hard Out Here For A Pimp."

Imon Yourside
06-02-2006, 06:55 PM
I agree with Lurch, the solution will be found when we find someone with the balls to do the right thing. As it stands right now the only propaganda that exists is that of the enemy, of which your average liberal will latch onto like a 3 year old who learns a new word and repeats until their blue in the face.