Defending a War of Attrition
In his latest column, Dave attempts to rally the 31% giving Bush favorable job approval ratings in Portland over the war in Iraq. (Actually, as only 25% of Multnomah County voted for Bush in 2004, wouldn't that drop his approval ratings in Portland and surrounding areas to something like 12 or 13%?)
Dave quotes from an al-Qaida terrorist's papers seized in Iraq, who bemoans that "recruitment is down" and that they're losing the "hearts and minds of Iraq." Dave uses this as proof that the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq.
One problem, though. For all this "woe is us" that Dave cites from disillusioned al Qaisa experts, the violence in Iraq shows no signs of letting up. In fact, April 2006 was the second consecutive month of over 1000 deaths of Iraqi civilian and security forces. With 410 deaths through 11 days of May, it can be stated resolutely that this month will probably see the highest number of deaths of Iraqi civilians and security forces.
Luckily, according to Dave, the U.S. succeeded in averting a civil war after the Golden Dome bombing in Samarra. The high number of Iraqis killing themselves with lower numbers of U.S. troops getting killed? Purely coincidence. No civil war here!
Dave also offers up a quote by Gen. Barry McCaffery, last seen criticizing Donald Rumsfled a couple of weeks ago. Dave quotes Barry as saying:
If there is only 50 troops in the Iraq army, that is indeed much better than none. But that's a far cry from an independent army large enough to secure its own country and borders. Having quotes like this without context don't hold up inside a vaccum, unless, of course, they're Republican talking points.
Gen. McCaffrey ends his report by stating: "There is no reason why the U.S. cannot achieve our objectives in Iraq." Which is awesome, except for one problem. Three years later, I still don't know what the U.S.'s "objectives" are. The Bush administration has yet to make that clear to me. Did we invade Iraq to tear down statues? Or was it to turn al Qaida in Iraq into a "daily annoyance to the Shiite government," albeit an annoyance that is still successful in killing both Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops on a daily basis?
The fact remains that this is a war of attrition. For every handful of "insurgents" killed, an IED takes lives of U.S. soldiers, as yet two more were killed yesterday. Iraq is a country awash on chaos, and contrary to what Dave would have you believe, the increase of violence between Sunni and Shittes post Golden Dome-explosion can only be described as a civil war, unless you're willing to mince words. Politically, Iraq's in just as much of a mess, with intra-party squabbling allowing armed bands of militias to commit horrors throughout the streets of Baghdad, and beyond. Is this what the "last throes" of the insurgency looks like?
Lies.com offers a graph that compares the number of U.S. deaths in both Iraq and Vietnam. At this point in both wars, the numbers appear to follow a similar path, with perhaps more troops lost in Iraq at the same moment than in Vietnam. The third year of the war in Vietnam, however, saw a huge uptick in deaths, upwards of 500, with huge increases as the war dragged on for a decade. If this trend turns out to be followed in Iraq, Dave will be remembered for what he truly is: an enabler of murderers with no support for our troops.
Dave quotes from an al-Qaida terrorist's papers seized in Iraq, who bemoans that "recruitment is down" and that they're losing the "hearts and minds of Iraq." Dave uses this as proof that the U.S. is winning the war in Iraq.
One problem, though. For all this "woe is us" that Dave cites from disillusioned al Qaisa experts, the violence in Iraq shows no signs of letting up. In fact, April 2006 was the second consecutive month of over 1000 deaths of Iraqi civilian and security forces. With 410 deaths through 11 days of May, it can be stated resolutely that this month will probably see the highest number of deaths of Iraqi civilians and security forces.
Luckily, according to Dave, the U.S. succeeded in averting a civil war after the Golden Dome bombing in Samarra. The high number of Iraqis killing themselves with lower numbers of U.S. troops getting killed? Purely coincidence. No civil war here!
Dave also offers up a quote by Gen. Barry McCaffery, last seen criticizing Donald Rumsfled a couple of weeks ago. Dave quotes Barry as saying:
The Iraq army is "real, growing, and willing to fight," he writes. "They now have lead action of a huge and rapidly expanding area and population. . . . The recruiting now has gotten significant participation by all sectarian groups to include the Sunni. . . . This is simply a brilliant success story."Great! Sounds peachy! One problem, though: Dave provides no context for this quote. Just how large and how much numbers is the Iraq army growing? In September the U.S. military commander in Iraq, Army General George Casey, claimed that only one Iraqi army unit was a "fully capable" unit— that could plan, execute, and maintain counterinsurgency operations with no help whatsoever.
If there is only 50 troops in the Iraq army, that is indeed much better than none. But that's a far cry from an independent army large enough to secure its own country and borders. Having quotes like this without context don't hold up inside a vaccum, unless, of course, they're Republican talking points.
Gen. McCaffrey ends his report by stating: "There is no reason why the U.S. cannot achieve our objectives in Iraq." Which is awesome, except for one problem. Three years later, I still don't know what the U.S.'s "objectives" are. The Bush administration has yet to make that clear to me. Did we invade Iraq to tear down statues? Or was it to turn al Qaida in Iraq into a "daily annoyance to the Shiite government," albeit an annoyance that is still successful in killing both Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops on a daily basis?
The fact remains that this is a war of attrition. For every handful of "insurgents" killed, an IED takes lives of U.S. soldiers, as yet two more were killed yesterday. Iraq is a country awash on chaos, and contrary to what Dave would have you believe, the increase of violence between Sunni and Shittes post Golden Dome-explosion can only be described as a civil war, unless you're willing to mince words. Politically, Iraq's in just as much of a mess, with intra-party squabbling allowing armed bands of militias to commit horrors throughout the streets of Baghdad, and beyond. Is this what the "last throes" of the insurgency looks like?
Lies.com offers a graph that compares the number of U.S. deaths in both Iraq and Vietnam. At this point in both wars, the numbers appear to follow a similar path, with perhaps more troops lost in Iraq at the same moment than in Vietnam. The third year of the war in Vietnam, however, saw a huge uptick in deaths, upwards of 500, with huge increases as the war dragged on for a decade. If this trend turns out to be followed in Iraq, Dave will be remembered for what he truly is: an enabler of murderers with no support for our troops.
posted by true_slicky at 5:04 PM
2 Comments:
So, the question is...did our friend Dave ever serve in the military? He seems so desperately anxious to involve other people in war activities...has he ever experienced this himself? Or is he a Chicken Hawk?
Ah, c'mon. That's an easy enough question to answer. He's a Republican with three degrees- you don't serve a stint in the military while earning degrees and working on political campaigns.
He's a chickenhawk. Ever notice how veterans who return from the war overwhelmingly align with Democrats (check the current Iraqi war vets running for Congress). Conservatives claim that college his a "liberalizing" effect, when in truth its sending troops to die in an unnecessary war that tends to liberalize.
Post a Comment
<< Home