Iraqi violence down

Gee. I saw a chart that look just like that right after the Tet Offensive in Nam. Coincidence?

Possibly, possibly not, tw.

Why don't you find the chart and show us, so we can actually compare information, rather than rely on your word?

Now think how well we'd do if we had enough troops in Iraq... say 300k? It never ceases to amaze me, more troops = less violence. Bill Maher said it perfectly 'it's like daddy stops hitting mommy when the police are on the front porch. Of course the surge 'works.' Now if we had enough to secure the entire country instead of just Baghdad, maybe it would make a lasting difference at all.

You have to remember that Iraqi people are taking matters into their own hands as well.

Right, that would be like handing over New York to people who were half way through police academy... if New York were a gravity well for large scale violence and militia groups.

Ibram;402759 wrote:

Possibly, possibly not, tw.

Not just possible. Well documented. What did the misguided American commanders complain about so often? The enemy would not stand and fight. So commanders even inflated body counts to the point that everyone in Vietnam was killed three times over.

After Tet, Vo Nguyen Giap moved to his next strategy that kept Americans off balance. He consolidated control in the countryside while conducting 'hit and run' attacks on exposed American and S Vietnamese units. His strategy even negated the American strategy based in massive artillery concentrations. Americans even proclaimed victory when a convoy finally reached Khe Sanh. This was also proof that the enemy was being defeated while ignoring the enemy had moved elsewhere. Exactly what happens in an insurgency - Nam or "Mission Accomplished".

No one needs charts. That reality was well documented in history. Americans were so frustrated by casualties and an enemy that would never 'stand and fight' as to even take their anger out on villagers. Demonstrated by another event: the American massacre upon My Lai. Attacks diminished to almost nothing which was promoted in the "5 o'clock follies" into "we are winning" or "light at the end of the tunnel". All that while, Nam was slowly being lost as more S Vietnamese supported a nationalist movement against the American puppet government.

What was ongoing as violence decreased from 1968 through 1970s? Nam was being lost. Does decreased violence mean anything is being won? Only if we ignore what the Wall Street Journal demonstrates in Baghdad. Little reason for continued violence in most of Baghdad. Most of Baghdad has now been conquered. No wonder maybe 5 million Iraqis are refugees in and outside of Iraq.

The only measure of victory is achieving the purpose of war - a political settlement. No political settlement is occurring. And soon, the "surge" must leave. Purpose of that "surge" was to make possible a political settlement. The purpose never happened. The "surge" achieved a tactical victory - and not a strategic objective.

Deja vue Nam where the US military won every battle and lost the war. Welcome to why insurgencies are so successful especially when the conventional military power confuses 'less violence' with strategic objectives. Never take your eye off the prize. Diminished violence says very little especially when "the surge" must leave soon.

The surge definately worked. It is that we just cannot sustain it.

...right because the populace was promised a breeze of a war, contrary to all intelligent estimates. We could actually sustain it (or the much larger numbers to do this cross-country + borders) if we stopped fuggin around and started using our forces without trying to make it look like a not-war. It would surely mean longer deployments, but hey we knew this was probably going to happen when we enlisted, right?

I have been unable to find the original story, but I recall that about 2 or 3 months ago there was a slight change in the collection of death statistics in Iraq. The change was that for bodies found dumped, if they had been shot from behind (i.e. back of the head, execution style) it was still logged as insurgency related, but if they had been shot from in front it was recorded as crime.
I wonder how much of the drop in statistics is due to this simple change. Some, perhaps, but I guess not much; this wouldn't affect the stats for mortar and rocket attacks, for example.
I believe that violence has actually decreased. I guess this is partly because of the surge, partly because of Iraqis confronting and defeating some hostile groups, but also very largely because a considerable amount of population shifting has taken place. There are millions displaced both internally and externally. The rival groups have been segregated, so there is less fighting.
I do believe that the surge has squeezed the lid back onto the violence for a while. But I don't believe that the insurgents/civil war forces have been defeated or pacified. Just driven into hiding, waiting for the draw-down.
Yeah, Vietnam, escalation, Tet, guerrilla tactics/strategies, public support and the lack thereof .... its all been said.

I just found a very interesting article analyzing the causes of the decrease in violence.
It has plenty of links including an interactive map by the New York Times of Bagdad neighborhoods analyzed individually.

The article is a better researched expression of what I posted above. Here are a few teasers:

Clearly, U.S. security operations are having an effect in Baghdad and beyond.... [but a]s a general rule, where Sunnis, Shiites, or Kurds live in close proximity and we have too few American troops on the ground, violence persists....

Political reconciliation efforts have produced qualified successes in Anbar, Baghdad, and Diyala... ... but we should be careful about claiming credit, and we should not consider these arrangements to be permanent.

However, the most persuasive explanation for the good news is that the Shiites have won the battle for Baghdad. Shiite militias and partisans have killed or expelled tens of thousands of Sunnis, changing the ethnographic map of the ancient city.

The Wall Street Journal article published 31 Oct 2007 entitled "In Baghdad Neighborhood, A Tale of Shifting Fortunes" provides a rather upbeat viewpoint for Sayidia. Article was quoted in Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture. However the NY Times map for that same neighborhood says things are worse than bad.

Now, by general consent, Saydia (or Sayidia) is one of the worst neighborhoods since ethnic cleansing is ongoing - surge or no surge. Residents say it remained peaceful and tolerant until January or February when crackdowns in Sunni areas to the east and west led to an influx of hard-line Sunni insurgents. As they began killing local Shiites, Shiites turned to their own militias, principally the Mahdi Army, for help. For months, death squads from both sides have roamed the nearly deserted streets.

Bottom line remains. George Jr says "Mission Accomplished" is a war on Al Qaeda. "If we don't stop them there, then we must stop them here." So when do we go after bin Laden? George Jr was lying and is lying.

Who are the few who still deny "Mission Accomplished"? It is a 'Civil War'. But that would contradict George Jr's propaganda. So George Jr denies what only the fully misinformed would deny one year ago. Wars cannot be won when the leader will neither admit what kind of war exists nor admit who the enemy is. Deja vue Nam.

What the Wall Street Journal, Slate Magazine, and an interactive Map from the NY Times all demonstrate - ethnic cleansing is ongoing and succeeding. "Mission Accomplished" has long been a Civil War created by Americans. Created when some idiot said, "Americans don't do nation building". No phase four planning is an absolute violation of the most basic principles in military science. Who said that lie? What kind of war did that liar create?

Notice how Americans who created 4 million Iraqi refugees will not take in those displaced people. Clearly it is their own fault for being Iraqis. That too is George Jr's attitude.

Words that George Jr will not admit to are 'lies', 'civil war', 'torture', 'extraordinary rendition', 'ethnic cleansing', 'puppet government', and 4 million Iraqi refugees created by George Jr only because god (or Cheney) told him what to do.

I hate the phrase "ethnic cleansing". Very strongly. Using it plays down the fact that you are talking about mass killing and displacement of population along racial or ethnic lines.
There is nothing "clean" about it, and there is nothing "dirty" about living in an ethnic mix. You cannot clean with blood.
Call a spade a spade, and a genocide a genocide.

ZenGum;404680 wrote:

I hate the phrase "ethnic cleansing". ... Using it plays down the fact that you are talking about mass killing and displacement of population along racial or ethnic lines.

The phrase 'ethnic cleansing' mirrors the liar and his party extremists who created all this. No sane person can deny that reality. "Mission Accomplished" is the political agenda promoted by liars.

George Jr was accurately identified long ago. Within his first three months, the Norwegian foreign minister said George Jr would destroy the Oslo Accords. The prediction was accurate and was posted here. His lying has been that routine. "Cleansing" only reflects the integrity of that man. How many suspected what this man represents in 2001?

'Ethnic cleansing' is a George Jr accomplishment. It identifies (mocks) one in three Americans - so anti-American as to support the fool.

Same people also believe we must 'Pearl Harbor' Iran. What kind of 'cleansing' will it be when that new, nuclear, bunker busting bomb is used? Since the radiation will make Muslim beards fall out, then we will proclaim 'God is Great'? Oh. Did we forget four years ago that George Jr wanted that weapon?

Complex 2030 is the new secret facility quietly promoted by our extremists to completely rebuild our nuclear arsenal. What kind of 'cleansing' will that be? Budget cleansing? Coherence cleansing? Screw it. Let's not forget the first paragraph from that Wolfovich paper. America's purpose is to remain number one at all costs. Therefore we must be prepared to attack India, Germany, or Russia. More world 'cleansing'? Review posts from Urban Guerrilla these past weeks. That too sound like cleansing - without using a more accurate word: 'holocaust'.

The unfortunate part is the tone of my posts. Unfortunately, people are too slowly realizing that Urban Guerrilla's posts also reflect a routine Bush/Cheney attitude. What are they 'cleansing'? World wide respect for American principles. 'Ethnic cleansing' is another 'victory' for George Jr.

tw;404699 wrote:

'Ethnic cleansing' is a George Jr accomplishment. It identifies (mocks) one in three Americans - so anti-American as to support the fool.

I first heard the phrase "ethnic cleansing" to describe the shit going on in former Yugoslavia during Clinton's time. There was discussion then that it was being used because to use "genocide" meant that the UN was obligated under its charter to step in and stop it. Nobody wanted an all out war in Yugoslavia, so they used the "ethnic cleansing" phrase to talk about genocide in code.

Are you trying to say Bush invented the phrase/idea of ethnic cleansing?

glatt;404761 wrote:

Are you trying to say Bush invented the phrase/idea of ethnic cleansing?

Obviously not. The same thing called 'ethnic cleansing' is now ongoing in Iraq. Like the conflicts of Yugoslavia, "Mission Accomplished" is a civil war where one religious or ethnic group is driving the civilians from the land by any means.

Yugoslavia 'ethnic cleansing' was stopped when regional forces finally said enough. 'Ethnic cleansing' in Iraq is part of a Civil War created when America removed all stability - even disbanded the army and police - and provided no replacement. 'Ethnic cleansing' in Iraq is ongoing because the 'power that be' has too few troops and a mental midget president.

Yugoslavia is an American triumph. An intelligent president actually got the problems of Yugoslavia (ie Milosevik) to negotiate themselves completely out of power AND without an invasion. And then phase four planning was implemented. This because the president and his subordinates had enough intelligence to meet the definition of patrioitic American.

Iraq is a disaster. A mental midget president mounted a full scale invasion where none was required, and then made things even worse. No electricity. 4 million refugees. Thousands of dead Americans. Ten of thousands of disabled American. Massive debts that will result in recession year later. Destruction of worldwide respect for America. A military so bogged down in one country that 60% of the American military equipment is now in Iraq. Oh. And 'ethnic cleansing' also made possible by that idiot who now wants to invade another Muslim nation - Iran.

Does not matter where the phrase 'ethnic cleansing' comes from. It is ongoing in the civil war called "Mission Accomplished".