Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).
Saturday, October 07, 2006
300 American Troops Were Wounded In Iraq Last Week
776 were wounded in action in Iraq last month.
The highest monthly figure since November 2004.
"Progress."
The highest monthly figure since November 2004.
"These days, wounded are a much better measure of the intensity of the operations than killed," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
The surge in wounded comes as U.S. commanders issue increasingly dire warnings about the threat of civil war in Iraq, all but ruling out cuts in the current contingent of more than 140,000 U.S. troops before the spring of 2007.
"Progress."
"September was horrific" in terms of the toll of wounded, and if the early October trend continues, this month could be "the worst month of the war," said John E. Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based Web site that tracks defense issues.
posted by tparty at 11:02 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Operation Sinbad: Mission failure casts doubt on entire British presence in Iraq
Some analysts see the operation as epitomising the inability of coalition forces to influence events in Iraq. "Britain has never had the forces needed to make a sustained difference to law and order, and meaningful reconstruction is almost non-existent," said Dr Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert at Queen Mary College, London. "Their role is a minor one, and the question is whether it justifies the casualties and the cost"
The hope is that if security is handed over to the Iraqis in the first half of 2007, the way could be cleared for a significant reduction in the British deployment, from about 7,200 troops now to a little over 4,000. But such a drawdown, which service chiefs believe is essential to reinforce the British presence in Afghanistan, has been delayed several times by conditions on the ground in Iraq.
Some analysts see the operation as epitomising the inability of coalition forces to influence events in Iraq. "Britain has never had the forces needed to make a sustained difference to law and order, and meaningful reconstruction is almost non-existent," said Dr Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert at Queen Mary College, London. "Their role is a minor one, and the question is whether it justifies the casualties and the cost"
The hope is that if security is handed over to the Iraqis in the first half of 2007, the way could be cleared for a significant reduction in the British deployment, from about 7,200 troops now to a little over 4,000. But such a drawdown, which service chiefs believe is essential to reinforce the British presence in Afghanistan, has been delayed several times by conditions on the ground in Iraq.
5 Years On, West Fails in Afghanistan
"In Afghanistan there is now less security today than one year ago, there are a lot of people without jobs," Afghan MP Ramazan Bashardost told Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Friday, October 6.
Bashardost also lashed out at the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai installed by the West, describing it as a "mafia".
He said the government was using international aid for its own benefit to the detriment of reconstruction.
"Look at Kabul for example. The only reconstruction you see is of private houses built with drugs money. We don't even have electricity after five years," he said.
Separate reports by two international think tanks have said that five years after invasion, the strategy of the US-led forces was inflicting more misery and starvation on the Afghan people, especially with the West's failure to carry out adequate reconstruction work.
The opium trade has also been soaring five years after the US occupation.
The country's opium production jumped by nearly 50 percent this year on the previous year.
This accounted for more than 90 percent of the world's supply.
Afghanistan five years later: poverty, violence, misery
Of the 280 U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001, 69 have died in nine months this year.
Glad Mr. Experience, Joe Lieberman has his eye on the ball... Unity™ and Purpose™, Stay The Course.
"In Afghanistan there is now less security today than one year ago, there are a lot of people without jobs," Afghan MP Ramazan Bashardost told Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Friday, October 6.
Bashardost also lashed out at the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai installed by the West, describing it as a "mafia".
He said the government was using international aid for its own benefit to the detriment of reconstruction.
"Look at Kabul for example. The only reconstruction you see is of private houses built with drugs money. We don't even have electricity after five years," he said.
Separate reports by two international think tanks have said that five years after invasion, the strategy of the US-led forces was inflicting more misery and starvation on the Afghan people, especially with the West's failure to carry out adequate reconstruction work.
The opium trade has also been soaring five years after the US occupation.
The country's opium production jumped by nearly 50 percent this year on the previous year.
This accounted for more than 90 percent of the world's supply.
Afghanistan five years later: poverty, violence, misery
Of the 280 U.S. troops killed in Afghanistan since 2001, 69 have died in nine months this year.
Glad Mr. Experience, Joe Lieberman has his eye on the ball... Unity™ and Purpose™, Stay The Course.
The number of U.S troops wounded in Iraq has surged to its highest monthly level in nearly two years
In March, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that Iraqi forces -- not U.S. troops -- would deal with a civil war in Iraq "to the extent one were to occur." Today's operations in Baghdad demonstrate that that goal was not realistic, experts say.
"In a sense, the Baghdad security plan is a complete repudiation of the earlier Rumsfeld doctrine where he said the Iraqis would prevent the civil war," said O'Hanlon.
Despite the mounting cost in U.S. wounded and dead -- including 13 American soldiers killed in combat in Baghdad in three days last week -- Pentagon officials say aggressive military operations in the Iraqi capital are at best a short-term and partial solution, buying time for political compromise, which they call the only way to arrest Iraq's disintegration.
The worsening violence in Baghdad has led some Pentagon officials to criticize decisions by the U.S. military since early 2005 to transfer responsibility for security in large swaths of Baghdad to Iraqi forces while cutting back on American patrols.
"We made decisions to take an indirect approach, which is great if you want low U.S. casualty rates," said the Pentagon official. However, he said: "Passing responsibility to Iraqis does not equal defeating terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency. Period."
Mr. Experience says: Stay The Course.
Several Arab officials and analysts privately dismissed Rice's tour as a cheerleading trip without substance. Others questioned the viability of the Bush administration's Middle East policy.
"It is obvious to anyone that U.S. policy built after 9/11 -- including Iraq and the 'you're with us or against us' attitude -- has now come to a dead end,"
The United States and the Arab world are now engaged in a chicken-and-egg argument over what happens next.
Rice insisted Friday that her exploratory trip to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, the West Bank and two Iraqi cities was beneficial. . .
"I'm very glad I came out at this time," she told reporters traveling with her. "I've really enjoyed this trip to the Middle East, because I wanted to come out in the post-Lebanon period and get a real sense of what people were thinking. . . .
A wide range of senior Arab officials, who all spoke on background because of sensitive diplomacy with Washington, asserted that the administration's brick-by-brick approach to transforming the Middle East is so minimalist that it is unlikely to make significant progress during President Bush's remaining time in office. They also complained that Bush's personal role in the Middle East is nonexistent
A Marine's letter home, with its frank description of life in "Dante's inferno," has been circulating through generals' in-boxes.
Worst City in al-Anbar Province — Ramadi, hands down. The provincial capital of 400,000 people. Lots and lots of insurgents killed in there since we arrived in February. Every day is a nasty gun battle. They blast us with giant bombs in the road, snipers, mortars and small arms. We blast them with tanks, attack helicopters, artillery, our snipers (much better than theirs), and every weapon that an infantryman can carry. Every day. Incredibly, I rarely see Ramadi in the news. We have as many attacks out here in the west as Baghdad. Yet, Baghdad has 7 million people, we have just 1.2 million. Per capita, al-Anbar province is the most violent place in Iraq by several orders of magnitude. I suppose it was no accident that the Marines were assigned this area in 2003.
Remember how Ramadi was cleaned of "insurgents"?
Mr. Experience says Stay The Course.
Biggest Hassle — High-ranking visitors. More disruptive to work than a rocket attack. VIPs demand briefs and "battlefield" tours (we take them to quiet sections of Fallujah, which is plenty scary for them). Our briefs and commentary seem to have no effect on their preconceived notions of what's going on in Iraq. Their trips allow them to say that they've been to Fallujah, which gives them an unfortunate degree of credibility in perpetuating their fantasies about the insurgency here.
Biggest Outrage — Practically anything said by talking heads on TV about the war in Iraq, not that I get to watch much TV. Their thoughts are consistently both grossly simplistic and politically slanted. Biggest Offender: Bill O'Reilly.
Post a Comment
In March, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that Iraqi forces -- not U.S. troops -- would deal with a civil war in Iraq "to the extent one were to occur." Today's operations in Baghdad demonstrate that that goal was not realistic, experts say.
"In a sense, the Baghdad security plan is a complete repudiation of the earlier Rumsfeld doctrine where he said the Iraqis would prevent the civil war," said O'Hanlon.
Despite the mounting cost in U.S. wounded and dead -- including 13 American soldiers killed in combat in Baghdad in three days last week -- Pentagon officials say aggressive military operations in the Iraqi capital are at best a short-term and partial solution, buying time for political compromise, which they call the only way to arrest Iraq's disintegration.
The worsening violence in Baghdad has led some Pentagon officials to criticize decisions by the U.S. military since early 2005 to transfer responsibility for security in large swaths of Baghdad to Iraqi forces while cutting back on American patrols.
"We made decisions to take an indirect approach, which is great if you want low U.S. casualty rates," said the Pentagon official. However, he said: "Passing responsibility to Iraqis does not equal defeating terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency. Period."
Mr. Experience says: Stay The Course.
Several Arab officials and analysts privately dismissed Rice's tour as a cheerleading trip without substance. Others questioned the viability of the Bush administration's Middle East policy.
"It is obvious to anyone that U.S. policy built after 9/11 -- including Iraq and the 'you're with us or against us' attitude -- has now come to a dead end,"
The United States and the Arab world are now engaged in a chicken-and-egg argument over what happens next.
Rice insisted Friday that her exploratory trip to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, the West Bank and two Iraqi cities was beneficial. . .
"I'm very glad I came out at this time," she told reporters traveling with her. "I've really enjoyed this trip to the Middle East, because I wanted to come out in the post-Lebanon period and get a real sense of what people were thinking. . . .
A wide range of senior Arab officials, who all spoke on background because of sensitive diplomacy with Washington, asserted that the administration's brick-by-brick approach to transforming the Middle East is so minimalist that it is unlikely to make significant progress during President Bush's remaining time in office. They also complained that Bush's personal role in the Middle East is nonexistent
A Marine's letter home, with its frank description of life in "Dante's inferno," has been circulating through generals' in-boxes.
Worst City in al-Anbar Province — Ramadi, hands down. The provincial capital of 400,000 people. Lots and lots of insurgents killed in there since we arrived in February. Every day is a nasty gun battle. They blast us with giant bombs in the road, snipers, mortars and small arms. We blast them with tanks, attack helicopters, artillery, our snipers (much better than theirs), and every weapon that an infantryman can carry. Every day. Incredibly, I rarely see Ramadi in the news. We have as many attacks out here in the west as Baghdad. Yet, Baghdad has 7 million people, we have just 1.2 million. Per capita, al-Anbar province is the most violent place in Iraq by several orders of magnitude. I suppose it was no accident that the Marines were assigned this area in 2003.
Remember how Ramadi was cleaned of "insurgents"?
Mr. Experience says Stay The Course.
Biggest Hassle — High-ranking visitors. More disruptive to work than a rocket attack. VIPs demand briefs and "battlefield" tours (we take them to quiet sections of Fallujah, which is plenty scary for them). Our briefs and commentary seem to have no effect on their preconceived notions of what's going on in Iraq. Their trips allow them to say that they've been to Fallujah, which gives them an unfortunate degree of credibility in perpetuating their fantasies about the insurgency here.
Biggest Outrage — Practically anything said by talking heads on TV about the war in Iraq, not that I get to watch much TV. Their thoughts are consistently both grossly simplistic and politically slanted. Biggest Offender: Bill O'Reilly.
<< Home