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/mid...el_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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taco John

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jAZ

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jAZ

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.

Quote:

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/f...atimes180.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?

05-31-2006, 11:35 AM
Taco John Sapere Aude Join Date: Jun 2001 Casino cash: $3507937	Last Throes: Insurgent Attacks hit 2 year high 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/mid...el_in_2_years/
Posts: 77,978

05-31-2006, 11:37 AM	#2
Taco John Sapere Aude Join Date: Jun 2001 Casino cash: $3507937	What, are we looking at here? Another ten years of ground war in Iraq? More? __________________ Ehyeh asher ehyeh. Donger's Razor: "The most establishment-friendly explanation that gives leftist and neocon politicians the most amount of cover is the only possible explanation, even when gaping holes and leaps of logic are required to get there."
Posts: 77,978

05-31-2006, 11:43 AM	#3
BucEyedPea Gimme My Berries Back! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: None of your business Casino cash: $3489963	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.
Posts: 161,792

05-31-2006, 11:44 AM	#4
Taco John Sapere Aude Join Date: Jun 2001 Casino cash: $3507937	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. __________________ Ehyeh asher ehyeh. Donger's Razor: "The most establishment-friendly explanation that gives leftist and neocon politicians the most amount of cover is the only possible explanation, even when gaping holes and leaps of logic are required to get there."
Posts: 77,978

05-31-2006, 11:45 AM	#5
BucEyedPea Gimme My Berries Back! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: None of your business Casino cash: $3489963	I was just venting. I think it may be like the Palestinian conflict...those guys do not give up.
Posts: 161,792

05-31-2006, 11:51 AM	#7
BucEyedPea Gimme My Berries Back! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: None of your business Casino cash: $3489963	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.
Posts: 161,792

05-31-2006, 12:13 PM	#9
BucEyedPea Gimme My Berries Back! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: None of your business Casino cash: $3489963	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?
Posts: 161,792

06-02-2006, 03:39 PM	#15
Taco John Sapere Aude Join Date: Jun 2001 Casino cash: $3507937	So any comment from the supporters how many years until we start seeing a decline in the insurgency? __________________ Ehyeh asher ehyeh. Donger's Razor: "The most establishment-friendly explanation that gives leftist and neocon politicians the most amount of cover is the only possible explanation, even when gaping holes and leaps of logic are required to get there."
Posts: 77,978