"We're fighting Al-Qaeda.....and they lost"

[dude1394]

Great to see the Iraqi-US led coalition kicking some serious Al Queda butt. Wonderful news for our country and the world. Keep it up boys and be safe.

Hopefully this graph will stay this good.


http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...they-lost.html

Via Glenn Reynolds, Michael Totten reports on the situation in Iraq. He interviewed Lieutenant Colonel Mike Silverman, and he asked him this key question:

“What’s the most important thing Americans need to know about Iraq that they don’t currently know?” I said.

“That we’re fighting Al Qaeda,” he said without hesitation. “[Abu Musab al] Zarqawi invented Al Qaeda in Iraq. The top leadership outside Iraq squawked and thought it was a bad idea. Then he blew up the Samarra mosque, triggered a civil war, and got the whole world’s attention. Then the Al Qaeda leadership outside dumped huge amounts of money and people and arms into Anbar Province. They poured everything they had into this place. The battle against Americans in Anbar became their most important fight in the world. And they lost.”

[mcsluggo]

I hope this person is correct... but that graph is one of the biggest pieces of statisitical butchering I have ever seen. Look at the trend line... it is pushed down towards zero based on ONE data point (Sep 07) and that month isn't even over yet. Just usuing the data from the graph, LAST month was the 4th most violent for civilians in Iraq.

As I said, I hope he is correct in his assessment, but it is bullshit over optimistic "projections" (and I use the term generously) like this that have arguably caused the most problems for the administration to this point. Overpromising is a real problem, and their supporters don't do them any favors by duplicating the mistake.

The text of the quote is another example. Why does it have to be so over stated? Nobody believes that Anbar is EVERYTHING for al-Quada. If he had pointed out that the US military directly confronted Al Qada there, and has had great success, that WOULD be/IS something to trumpet... but instead he makes bullshit statements that hint that this was the END of Al Quada. CLearly this is NOT the case, and now al Queda only needs one SMALL success somewhere else to turn that statement into another stupid over promise. Why why why? This is how military successes can STILL be transformed into tactical losses, it is the Tet offensive all over again.

[purplefrog]

This is great news! Let's declare victory and leave Iraq.

[purplefrog]

On a slightly more serious note, I have recently thought that if we could re-define victory as elimintating Al-Queda from Iraq we might be able to reconnect back to the idea of winning the war on terrorism, begin to remove our troops, and save a bit of our dignity. The lack of cooperation or know-how by the Iraq gov't makes me think that the idea of this country becoming a unified prosperous democracy is questionable at best. We can't change their psyche no matter how much we try. Unfortunate, but perhaps this is reality.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I hope this person is correct... but that graph is one of the biggest pieces of statisitical butchering I have ever seen. Look at the trend line... it is pushed down towards zero based on ONE data point (Sep 07) and that month isn't even over yet. Just usuing the data from the graph, LAST month was the 4th most violent for civilians in Iraq.

As I said, I hope he is correct in his assessment, but it is bullshit over optimistic "projections" (and I use the term generously) like this that have arguably caused the most problems for the administration to this point. Overpromising is a real problem, and their supporters don't do them any favors by duplicating the mistake.

The text of the quote is another example. Why does it have to be so over stated? Nobody believes that Anbar is EVERYTHING for al-Quada. If he had pointed out that the US military directly confronted Al Qada there, and has had great success, that WOULD be/IS something to trumpet... but instead he makes bullshit statements that hint that this was the END of Al Quada. CLearly this is NOT the case, and now al Queda only needs one SMALL success somewhere else to turn that statement into another stupid over promise. Why why why? This is how military successes can STILL be transformed into tactical losses, it is the Tet offensive all over again.

The raw numbers are what's most interesting, you are taking way too much from the trend. I would expect he just took a flat excel spreadsheet linear regression for that. It's unfortunate that you can't look past that to the raw numbers.

With respect to the quote you'd have to read totten's interview with the soldier who gave it and determine if it's over the top or not. If you do read the interview I think you'll find that the guy is pretty deliberate (at least that what totten's describes) when he makes comments. Also he's pretty guarded about what will happen in baghdad.

The reason engram notes it is because he's been wondering why it's been such a secret who we are fighting and he's harped on it for a long, long time. Quite a bit of analysis imo, to back it up as well.

If you read the blog post his comment on that statement was:

That's about as succinct a summary of my last 300 blog posts as you'll ever find! All facts support this analysis, and I have cited the relevant evidence many, many times. Those who don't know this are uninformed, yet many have strong opinions about Iraq anyway. That doesn't make sense to me. If you are going to have a strong opinion about Iraq, you should at least know the basics. Most don't, especially those on the left who mistakenly believe that they have witnessed what they long predicted would happen, namely, a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis that erupted in the power vacuum caused by George Bush's foolish decision to remove the strongman who, despite his faults, kept those hostilities in check.

I don't like posting entire articles, it mucks it up imo.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by purplefrog

On a slightly more serious note, I have recently thought that if we could re-define victory as elimintating Al-Queda from Iraq we might be able to reconnect back to the idea of winning the war on terrorism, begin to remove our troops, and save a bit of our dignity. The lack of cooperation or know-how by the Iraq gov't makes me think that the idea of this country becoming a unified prosperous democracy is questionable at best. We can't change their psyche no matter how much we try. Unfortunate, but perhaps this is reality.

you may be correct, but I tend to believe (when you look at that graph) that thinking political progress was going to occur in that environment is ridiculous. At least I'm certainly hoping that is the case. I did not realize the extent of accelerant being put on the situation. The graph really highlights it.

[AxdemxO]

I wonder how those numbers looked under saddam every 2 months??

[purplefrog]

Originally Posted by dude1394

you may be correct, but I tend to believe (when you look at that graph) that thinking political progress was going to occur in that environment is ridiculous. At least I'm certainly hoping that is the case. I did not realize the extent of accelerant being put on the situation. The graph really highlights it.

I am not quite as optimistic as you are because I really question if striving toward a democracy is something they can relate to. Imo, the Iraqi people and leaders will have to be passionate about this goal if they are going to endure the internal conflicts that will remain for sometime (maybe indefinitely) after the elimination of Al-Qaeda. I am just not sure they have a stomach for the give and take necessary to make it work. I guess time will tell the story, but in the meantime we have to be careful about trying to be a referee in the midst of a civil war among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Imo, eliminating Al-Qaeda and helping to secure the borders of Iraq are worthy goals. Diplomatic assistance to help the factions come together is also something worth our attention and resources. On the other hand, having our soldiers police a civil war is not a good use of our military and should be beyond our objectives. Imo that is an open-ended commitment that has no clear endpoint because it is not clear to me the people of Iraq really want a democracy to the extent that they are willing to make sacrifices. Maybe you can teach them to want this, but I doubt it.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I hope this person is correct... but that graph is one of the biggest pieces of statisitical butchering I have ever seen. Look at the trend line... it is pushed down towards zero based on ONE data point (Sep 07) and that month isn't even over yet. Just usuing the data from the graph, LAST month was the 4th most violent for civilians in Iraq.

But the two before that were the lowest in 8 or 9 months. There are 3 out of the last 4 that bring the "trend" down. Yeah, this person presents the best possible spin on the whole thing, so maybe read it all with a grain of salt, but you can judge the data independent of the quote and framing. You might also ask whether any meaningful changes in in the approach to the war (on either our side or the enemies' side) coincide with upswings and downswings in the graph. If they do, then it supports the argument that those swings are not just random variation.

[Arne]

Your neocon government is pretending to fight the TERRORISTS, but unfortunately the number of terrorists in Iraq has gone way up since your government has invaded the country.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Arne

Your neocon government is pretending to fight the TERRORISTS, but unfortunately the number of terrorists in Iraq has gone way up since your government has invaded the country.

Who are we "pretending" to fight again?
So Al Queda isn't responsible for the mass suicide bombs against iraqis?

What's your guvment doing in this struggle anyway? Not kow-towing to the jews(i.e. neocons) I bet.

[dude1394]

Another congressman returns from Iraq.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../09/018566.php

Congressman John Kline has just returned from a quick trip to Iraq and Afghanistan; the visit to Iraq was his fifth. Kline, one of the few Congressman professionally qualified to evaluate events in Iraq--he is a retired Marine Colonel--was impressed by what he saw there. Here, he talks about Ramadi:

"The security situation there is just truly amazing. Just amazing," he said in a telephone interview. Kline said the Marine battalion commander there told the lawmakers that violence is way down.

"One of the great advantages of going is you can look and get a sense of what the atmosphere is," Kline said. "People are going about their business, the shops are open, they're walking around the street."

Kline said the lawmakers were greeted by children who laughed, teased and asked for money. Adults smiled and gave the thumbs up.

"Just a sense of normalcy — people getting on with their lives," he said.

Like many observers, Kline credits our change of tactics more than the increased number of troops for the success we've seen in recent months.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi think our efforts in Iraq are doomed and we should give up. It isn't clear, though, why their assessment is entitled to any particular weight. John Kline, on the other hand, flew helicopters in Vietnam--so skillfully that he was chosen to fly Marine One, the President's personal helicopter. Under both Presidents Carter and Reagan, he was assigned to travel with the President, carrying the briefcase that contains the codes to launch a nuclear attack. You could infer from these facts that John is a person of strong and steady temperament, not inclined to excitability.

He commanded all Marine aviation forces in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia, and was part of a small group charged with responsibility for planning weapons procurement for the Marine Corps. With respect to Iraq, John's interest is not only that of a former officer. His son, following in the old man's footsteps, is also a helicopter pilot, in the Army, and has recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq.

So when John Kline says that he sees "amazing" progress on the ground in Iraq, his words are entitled to considerable weight. Unless, of course, you think that military officers who disagree with MoveOn.org must necessarily be betrayers of their country.

[AxdemxO]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Who are we "pretending" to fight again?
So Al Queda isn't responsible for the mass suicide bombs against iraqis?

What's your guvment doing in this struggle anyway? Not kow-towing to the jews(i.e. neocons) I bet.

There werent any suicide bombings daily whn saddam was there and before the US went in and like I said I wonder wht those number look like under Saddam every 2 months I am sure they are a lot smaller...

** and its ridiculas how some on here say ohhh yes its a good thin we have gone from 2 or 3 thousand civilians being killed to about 1 or 2.....sooo ignorant

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Who are we "pretending" to fight again?
So Al Queda isn't responsible for the mass suicide bombs against iraqis?

What's your guvment doing in this struggle anyway? Not kow-towing to the jews(i.e. neocons) I bet.

I didn't vote for 'my' government and I most certainly do not defend every position it takes... - UNLIKE YOU. You try to defend every position the NeoCons take regardless of how stupid, irrational and ignorant it is.

It's called the 'War on Terrorism', isn't it? If they had called it the 'War on Al-Qaeda' there wouldn't have been any reason to invade Iraq in the first place you know...

The only thing YOUR government has gotten out of this war is MORE HATRED, MORE TERRORISTS and people coming from all over the place only to fight American soldiers.

I recently saw a film about Dschihad videos. The bottomline of the film was that only very few people actually watch these films and that most of the people who go to fight in Iraq are doing this because of the things they see on television. Anyways, there were pictures of CHILDREN who are preparing to fight the US by playing on their computers. Young innocent children were talking about getting prepared for the day when they could join the war.

Anyway, the WAR ON TERRORISM is like the most stupid thing ever invented. It' a war that can't be won on a battlefield it's a war that can only be won in peace.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by AxdemxO

There werent any suicide bombings daily whn saddam was there and before the US went in and like I said I wonder wht those number look like under Saddam every 2 months I am sure they are a lot smaller...

** and its ridiculas how some on here say ohhh yes its a good thin we have gone from 2 or 3 thousand civilians being killed to about 1 or 2.....sooo ignorant

No suicide bombers, just a permanent killing of anyone that saddamm and his henchmen wanted. You could find the numbers if you really cared.

So you do NOT think it is a good think that 1 or 2 thousand less people have been killed per month in Iraq? How callous.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by Arne

I didn't vote for 'my' government and I most certainly do not defend every position it takes... - UNLIKE YOU. You try to defend every position the NeoCons take regardless of how stupid, irrational and ignorant it is.

You didn't vote or you didn't vote for the government in power?

The only thing YOUR government has gotten out of this war is MORE HATRED, MORE TERRORISTS and people coming from all over the place only to fight American soldiers.

We have gotten that but we've gotten other things as well.
- 50 million people not living under tyranny.
- It appears that Al Queda is becoming a bust as an organization. They can still kill muslims but that seems to be about all they can do well in Iraq. Their "brand" is becoming a very,very poor one. Their support is dwindling throughout the muslim world as their barbarity is uncovered.
- Assuming we can help Iraq stand up we will have two new democracies in the putrid sands of the middle-east. Someone finally was willing to shed blood and treasure to help free 50 million arabs. Not to re-partition them, not to "control" their oil, but to help them form their own government not run by a bunch of homicidal thugs or psychotic islamists.

At the end of the day, I expect I will like this balance sheet, it has been a hell of a lot toughter than anyone thought and a large part of that has been because of the monstrosity of Al Queada.

What these graphs are showing is that Al Queda is being defeated and that will be good for muslims everywhere. And of course us.

Anyway, the WAR ON TERRORISM is like the most stupid thing ever invented. It' a war that can't be won on a battlefield it's a war that can only be won in peace.

It's a war that cannot be won at all unless you are willing to engage it. What the heck does "won in peace" mean?

Thinking that an organization like Al Queda can be negotiated with is extremely naive.

[AxdemxO]

So once again DUDE goes into ignorant mode when it comes to these issues...as proven by some comments above. If you want to respond to this looks up the page and see the Q i was askin U...ad dont act like u know wht people feel like whn you are here in ur nice big house not knowing much about life outside the US while they r in a war zone.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by dude1394

It's a war that cannot be won at all unless you are willing to engage it. What the heck does "won in peace" mean?

Thinking that an organization like Al Queda can be negotiated with is extremely naive.

I'm not talking about negotiating with any terrorists. I'm talking about a non-interventionist foreign policy that would lead into a world that wouldn't give these people a reason to radicalize. Wouldn't give children a reason to radicalize. By following such a non-interventionist doctrine Al Qaeda would most certainly lose the vast majority of their supporters and future supporters.

The problem of terrorist attacks in America, Europe or wherever they happen can be dealt with by allowing airlines to defend their planes with security people and by securing the borders. Any citizen that tries to start a terrorist attack can be handled by the police, the FBI, the CIA and whatever there is right now. They are citizens and therefore there's no military intervention to be made.

Originally Posted by dude1394

You didn't vote or you didn't vote for the government in power?

I didn't vote for the government in power. Still, I support many of it's policies.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Arne

I'm not talking about negotiating with any terrorists. I'm talking about a non-interventionist foreign policy that would lead into a world that wouldn't give these people a reason to radicalize. Wouldn't give children a reason to radicalize. By following such a non-interventionist doctrine Al Qaeda would most certainly lose the vast majority of their supporters and future supporters.

so the bottom line to you arne is american policy has created the radical terrorist? that america's "interventionist foreign policy" produced radical islam?

The problem of terrorist attacks in America, Europe or wherever they happen can be dealt with by allowing airlines to defend their planes with security people and by securing the borders. Any citizen that tries to start a terrorist attack can be handled by the police, the FBI, the CIA and whatever there is right now. They are citizens and therefore there's no military intervention to be made.

I didn't vote for the government in power. Still, I support many of it's policies.

you're going to get a "you can't use a legal approach, that doesn't work! this is a war!" response.....

and they are correct, it is a war. the battlefield of past wars is not the same, and the approach shouldn't be the same either.

it's the "hearts and mind" thing, one man's terrorist is another group's "freedom fighter" if that group controls the story sent to and consumed by the masses.

[DevinFuture]

.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

it's the "hearts and mind" thing, one man's terrorist is another group's "freedom fighter" if that group controls the story sent to and consumed by the masses.

The easiest distinction is that terrorists deliberately target civilians. That doesn't get covered up by honorable labels, and can't be storied out of existence.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

The easiest distinction is that terrorists deliberately target civilians. That doesn't get covered up by honorable labels, and can't be storied out of existence.

those who seek to justify an attack can easily twist the story to make the innocent "guilty", usually by association.

it's easy for people like you and I to see the difference you mention, not so clear to the easily pliable.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

those who seek to justify an attack can easily twist the story to make the innocent "guilty", usually by association.

maybe in the short term, or for a single incident. But people have to be willing to believe the lies. And someone operating by that method cannot hide behind lies forever.

[Mavdog]

absolutely, the people must be receptive. otherwise the natural inclination is to be smpathetic to the victim of the violence.

long term? it depends on writes the story.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

absolutely, the people must be receptive. otherwise the natural inclination is to be smpathetic to the victim of the violence.

long term? it depends on writes the story.

it's too complex a process for anyone to just "write the story". There are more and more writers every day. That there is a truth lends great advantage to those that write that story. People either make it a practice to target civilians or they don't. You simply can't hide that. The people that support terrorism aren't under the impression that the suicide bombers are attacking military targets. They are more likely to claim that it's ok to target civilians sometimes. They aren't falling for a lie. They know who the terrorists are. Arne doesn't sound confused about who the terrorists are, and doesn't sound like he's bought into any lie about who the terrorists in Iraq are targeting.

[dude1394]

And the graph does stay this good for september. I'm surely hoping that we've turned the corner against Al Queda...They have been very resourceful and brutal beyond words, but hopefully their sphere of influence in Iraq is coming to an end.

Assuming that these security gains continue the Iraqi's have to step up now and show that they can create a functioning government. It has been promising with the latest Iraq/Turkey agreement and what seems to be the UN coming back in. Holding my breath.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...-month-of.html

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

I hope this person is correct... but that graph is one of the biggest pieces of statisitical butchering I have ever seen. Look at the trend line... it is pushed down towards zero based on ONE data point (Sep 07) and that month isn't even over yet. Just usuing the data from the graph, LAST month was the 4th most violent for civilians in Iraq.
.

Mr Engram...seems to have heard you about the trendline. So he did a running 3 month average as well.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

it's too complex a process for anyone to just "write the story". There are more and more writers every day. That there is a truth lends great advantage to those that write that story. People either make it a practice to target civilians or they don't. You simply can't hide that. The people that support terrorism aren't under the impression that the suicide bombers are attacking military targets. They are more likely to claim that it's ok to target civilians sometimes. They aren't falling for a lie. They know who the terrorists are. Arne doesn't sound confused about who the terrorists are, and doesn't sound like he's bought into any lie about who the terrorists in Iraq are targeting.

just look at the materials given to palestinian kids. the terrorists are writing, producing 'the story" and unfortunately influencing the children. they're writing the story, with unfortunate results.

the truth only works if knowledge of it is given.

it's easy to make an enemy to justify the terrorist attack. in israel's case it's the fact that all citizens are obligated to be in the military. in iraq they speak of "collaborator".

arne isn't confused about who is a terrorist, he's confused on why there are terrorists.

iraq's confrontation with terrorism tells a good lesson. when the carnage and waste were shown to them, they (it seems) rejected the terrorists. now the terrorists have responded with selective violence rather than random violence.

let's keep our fingers crossed the iraqis find the wherewithall to continue to stand up against the islamists. if they do, we'll be able to leave with our heads up. otherwise, its a tough road ahead.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

..... The people that support terrorism aren't under the impression that the suicide bombers are attacking military targets. They are more likely to claim that it's ok to target civilians sometimes. They aren't falling for a lie. They know who the terrorists are. Arne doesn't sound confused about who the terrorists are, and doesn't sound like he's bought into any lie about who the terrorists in Iraq are targeting.

part of the problem, I think, is that we speak of *terrorism* and *terrorists* as if they were a homogenous, monolithic entity....

....they're not -- there are as many motivations and objectives as there are bloody body parts....

to make matters worse, we then speak of *radical islam* and *terrorism* as if they are virtually synonymous terms, notwithstanding the fact that many terrorists are not muslim and many radical muslims aren't blowing shit up....

...at least not yet.

anyhoo....the only guy, insofar as I'm aware, that has really studied the phenomena of suicide bombings concludes:

“The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland”

....i doubt whether there'd be any less radical islam in the world tomorrow if we shut the empire down....

(....and I really don't care -- i think the *threat* of islamocommunism to the west is vastly overstated....how long, by the way, have the palestinians and the israelis been fighting the most overhyped border dispute in world history? how many people have been killed in the process????)

but I do vehemenently agree with arne that we would be much better off today had we waged a *War on Al-Qaeda* instead of a "War on a particular military tactic* or a *War on a very strong emotion* or whatever it is we're doing....

cheers

[Usually Lurkin]

alexamenos, I'll read what "the only guy" has to say when I get some time. It looks interesting. But, for an immediate reaction: was the dutch filmmaker shot in response to military occupation? Were death threats over cartoons in response to military occupation? What about executions of rape victims and homosexuals? I think part of the problem is that we might too often conflate "terrorism" with "suicide bomber."

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

....But, for an immediate reaction: was the dutch filmmaker shot in response to military occupation? Were death threats over cartoons in response to military occupation? What about executions of rape victims and homosexuals? I think part of the problem is that we might too often conflate "terrorism" with "suicide bomber."

i certainly get where you're coming from.....(still, if a suicide bombing is not proto-typical terrorist behavior, what is?)

i think my point (i'm not sure what my point is, naturally) is first that it's real hard to hit an abstraction with a bullet, and secondly that the US Government is not likely to rid the world of evil....

so.....why lump a very serious film critic with iranian prisons with a bunch of sauds armed with boxcutters? it seems to me that there are enough mohammadens in the world that it is quite easy to find plenty of examples of them doing bad things.....

anyhoo, seriously busy today....sorry for the randomness and brevity.

cheers

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

so.....why lump a very serious film critic with iranian prisons with a bunch of sauds armed with boxcutters?

well, I do think that the distinction between "willing to kill himself on purpose to kill others" v. "willing to hurt some others in ugly ways" is a very valuable distinction to make, if you ignore the motivations, you end up with Japanese zeroes in the same category as the 9/11 hijackers. Doing that loses some pretty important information, I think. While the first distinction might parallel "get your army out of some location," I think that there is a qualitative distinction between doing it for nationalistic reasons v. religious reasons.

edit: Probably what's most important to think about (and why I'm all for lumping the film critic in with the militant, terrorist muslims) is will the suicide bombing stop if the army were to remove itself from some given territory? I'd say no, those that are murduring people around the world for religious reasons are claiming the territory for their religion. It's a step, then to "now get your army out of what used to be your own country."

[alexamenos]

I think that there is a qualitative distinction between doing it for nationalistic reasons v. religious reasons.

I don't know how useful the distinction is between "nationalistic reasons" and "religious reasons"....in some nations the people overwhelmingly believe that the sharia ought to be the highest law of the land....are martydom operations in support of sharia done for nationalisic or religious reasons in that case????

and jap kamikazes, for instance, held a nigh-on religious view of their nation and emporer -- were their bombings motivated by patriotism or religion?

i don't know, frankly....this is why I say "it's tough to hit an abstraction with a bullet"....i don't care whether group x is motivated by nation or religion, i care whether they are a threat to the us or not...

Probably what's most important to think about (and why I'm all for lumping the film critic in with the militant, terrorist muslims) is will the suicide bombing stop if the army were to remove itself from some given territory? It's a step, then to "now get your army out of what used to be your own country."

I think suicide bombings are a lousy choice of weapons for offensive purposes....

i believe the strength of suicide bombings is that it horrifies the shiite out of people, so that those who have a choice to get up and leave get up and leave...eventually. folks who are already home may be more horrified by the thought of leaving their homes than of living with exploding sunnis....

that and suicide bombers make lousy occupying forces and rarely re-enlist for second tours of duty.

cheers

[Usually Lurkin]

This drop in violence is bad, bad news.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...editors_ytop_1

As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch
NAJAF, Iraq — At what's believed to be the world's largest cemetery, where Shiite Muslims aspire to be buried and millions already have been, business isn't good.

A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that's cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.
...

[dude1394]

Thought this was an interesting piece...It is funny that the IBC (Iraq Body Count) has to try and pre-empt good news that they are going to be forced to report. Actually not funny ha-ha, but....well...just sad.

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/w...ody-count.html

WE APOLOGIZE FOR THE FACTS! Iraq Body Count (IBC) is a rather brazenly anti-American organization that has sought to discredit the occupation from Day 1 by counting civilian deaths in Iraq. Still, counting has its merits, even if OxBlog has shown how hard IBC works to skew its data in an anti-American direction.

Recently, IBC faced quite a dilemma. By early September, its data had begun to show a correlation between the surge of US forces and a visible reduction in the number of Iraqi civilians being killed. Remarkably, this development led IBC to worry that the anti-war left might consider it a shill for the Bush administration. In its defense, IBC explained that it:

...is aware that official reports are imminent concerning the progress of the US Government’s New Security Plan or ‘surge.’ However, IBC’s work is not linked to the political calendar, and the charts above are not intended to be directly comparable to data which may be supplied from official sources.

These charts sometimes indicate a modest improvement in the security situation for ordinary Iraqis post-surge, and this is not disputed. But these charts will tend to under-represent reported violence for the more recent periods, for the reasons stated above. The observed downward trend in these charts will likely become less marked as data still in the pipeline is added (see Recent Events for as yet unprocessed data).

You have to give IBC credit for hoping that enough Iraqis would die to discredit the surge. Sadly the terrorists and death squads failed to deliver. And the statistics from October aren't any better, even according to IBC. If you add up IBC's list of recent events, the total so far this month is around 600. Still horrific, but a far cry from the numbers of this spring or last fall.

Now, it's worth keeping in mind that accurate statistics about the civilian death toll are hard to come by. iCasualties, another site with no sympathies for the US war effort, list the current October toll at just over 400. For a look at the challenge of compiling such gruesome and tragic statistics, I highly recommend a recent column by Clark Hoyt, the NYT's public editor.

In closing, it is worth keeping mind a good point made by IBC, a point that has merit in spite of its authors' agenda:

It is important to place the events of 2007 in context. Levels of violence reached an all-time high in the last six months of 2006. Only in comparison to that could the first half of 2007 be regarded as an improvement

We should never forget how much Iraqis have suffered because of our failures as an occupying power. The actual killers were Sunni terrorists and Shi'ite death squads, but a successful occupation could have saved thousands and thousands of lives.

[dude1394]

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/...A?OpenDocument

Iraq: Violence-related deaths drop ‘remarkably’, say authorities and UN

Iraqis are breathing a sigh of relief as violence in their war-torn country is ebbing and the number of violence-related victims has dropped sharply since the beginning of this year, according to statistics compiled by the country’s interior, defence and health ministries.

“Violence-related deaths in September dropped remarkably to levels not seen in more than a year as the number [of violence-related deaths] stood at 290 while in September 2006 the number was about 1,400,” Adel Muhsin, the health ministry’s inspector-general, told IRIN in a phone interview.

According to the ministry’s statistics, between January and the end of September 2007, the number of violent deaths involving civilian, police and military in all of Iraq was about 7,100, against 27,000 in the same period of 2006.

According to Muhsin, the average number of dead bodies sent to Baghdad’s main morgue just over a year ago was between 100 and 150 a day. Now, it is no more than 10 bodies a day, and about 50 percent of them are dying in normal circumstances.

[Usually Lurkin]

Even more bad news reported concerning the drop in casualties: It's just killing the taxi business.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/...A?OpenDocument

Taxi driver Ahmed Khalil Baqir used to station himself outside Baghdad's main morgue, waiting for grieving families who went there to claim their relatives’ dead bodies.

"I was totally dependent on them for my living," Baqir, a 44-year-old father of four, said." I never thought about picking up people in the street as I was being hired five to eight times a day by these families. But now it is a waste of time to wait there and these days I wait only for about three hours in the morning and I continue my work picking up passengers in the street.”

[dude1394]

Dubya versus Al Queda...Al Queda is losing all over.

http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...a-in-iraq.html

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting story about the declining fortunes of al Qaeda in Iraq:

Al Qaeda reveals signs of weakness

The US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, said Thursday that Al Qaeda is 'simply gone' from some areas.

Cairo - On Tuesday in Iraq's Anbar Province, where jihadi fighters once enjoyed sanctuary, Sunni Arabs turned out en masse to commemorate Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha, a leader suspected of having been killed for helping the US rout Al Qaeda from the province. He was hailed as a "martyr."

In Lebanon last month, the efforts of Al Qaeda-inspired guerrillas to take over a Palestinian refugee camp were crushed. And in his latest audiotape, Osama bin Laden adopted a rare contrite tone, admitting "mistakes" by some Al Qaeda militants in Iraq.

Across the Arab world, where Al Qaeda had sought to build influence and bases of operation on the back of widespread anger against the US over its war in Iraq and the broader war on terrorism, the movement is now showing signs that it is stalled, if not in retreat.

Experts say Al Qaeda's failures have largely come down to its brutal methods, which have turned off large numbers of Arabs. They say that Muslims from Iraq to Egypt may want their countries to adhere to strict Islamic law, but not at the price of suicide bombings.


Even Osama bin Laden recognizes the dramatic turn of events in Iraq:

Change of tone in Bin Laden's latest message

Osama bin Laden has resurfaced with a new message urging insurgent groups in Iraq to avoid divisions and unite to defeat the US-led coalition. The message, in an Arabic audio tape broadcast by al-Jazeera television last night, was addressed directly to "my brother fighters in Iraq". They were told: "Muslims are waiting for you to gather under one banner so that justice can be served."

The fugitive al-Qaida leader said, without elaborating, that some fighters had committed "mistakes", and called on the insurgents not to follow "their leaders and groups blindly.

"Everybody can make a mistake, but the best of them are those who admit their mistakes," he said, adding in a rare moment of self-criticism that he advises "himself, Muslims in general and brothers in al-Qaida everywhere" not to be extreme.

The latest recording came amid Iraqi government reports of a sharp drop in violence in Iraq, following a series of US-led offensives in Washington's "surge" strategy.


A sharp drop in violence due to the troop surge? That's the left wing Guardian talking, folks. I wonder how anti-war extremists in America react to stories like this? After all, to them, al Qaeda in Iraq is simply a myth (or, if not a myth, then an inconsequential force). If that's true, then what explains the dramatic drop in casualties over the last 2 months? Who did the Sunni tribes turn against? Why is Osama bin Laden upset?

I also wonder why otherwise excellent stories like these do not bolster their claims of al Qaeda's declining fortunes by presenting poll results from throughout the Muslim world. Almost everyone I know has been brainwashed by our well-meaning but hopelessly misguided mainstream media into believing that our invasion of Iraq has been a huge propaganda victory for al Qaeda. But that's dead wrong. The Muslim world has finally awakened to the reality of the terrorist organization they once cheered (back when they were killing Americans instead of slaughtering Muslims in Iraq), and it happened because of our invasion of Iraq. Here again is the latest Pew poll on how Muslims feel about Osama bin Laden and his penchant for intentionally slaughtering innocent civilians using suicide bombers:

[dude1394]

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htw.../20071027.aspx

Now we're going to go get him in Afghanistan/Pakistan!! Like the terminator, we never give up..(Unless a democrat gets elected).

Bin Laden Admits Defeat in Iraq
October 27, 2007: On October 22nd, Osama bin Laden admitted that al Qaeda had lost its war in Iraq. In an audiotape speech titled "Message to the people of Iraq," bin Laden complains of disunity and poor use of resources. He admits that al Qaeda made mistakes, and that all Sunni Arabs must unite to defeat the foreigners and Shia Moslems. What bin Laden is most upset about is the large number of Sunni Arab terrorists who have switched sides in Iraq. This has actually been going on for a while. Tribal leaders and warlords in the west (Anbar province) have been turning on terrorist groups, especially al Qaeda, for several years. While bin Laden appeals for unity, he shows only a superficial appreciation of what is actually going on in Iraq.

[dude1394]

Good going friends.

Iraqi Army at Besmaya Installation Support San Diego Fire Victims
By U.S. Army Sgt 1st Class Charlene Sipperly
Multi-National Security Transition Command – Iraq Public Affairs

BAGHDAD, Iraq — Members of the Iraqi Army in Besmaya collected a donation for the San Diego, Calif., fire victims Thursday night at the Besmaya Range Complex in a moving ceremony to support Besmaya's San Diego residents.

Iraqi Army Col. Abbass, the commander of the complex, presented a gift of $1,000 to U.S. Army Col. Darel Maxfield, Besmaya Range Complex officer in charge, Multi-National Security Transition Command Iraq, to send to the fire victims in California.

The money was collected from Iraqi officers and enlisted soldiers in Besmaya. In a speech given during the presentation, Col. Abbass stated that he and the Iraqi soldiers were connected with the American people in many ways, and they will not forget the help that the American government has given the Iraqi people. Abbass was honored to participate by sending a simple fund of $1,000 to the American people in San Diego, to lower the suffering felt by the tragedy.