An easy way to expose anti-Americanism in a debate. Stun leftists with this..

Let me also add :

An article on which countries are anti-American, and which are pro-American. The results may surprise you.

The past and future of warfare, with trends and some future predictions.

So if America is winning than

Why are there more terrorist attacks in Iraq than less?
Why can the insurgents strike at will in all parts of the country?
Why have more civilians been killed than ever before?
Why are the civilians arming themselves and forming militias?
Why are reconstruction projects running out of funds and running behind schedule?
Why isn’t the electric shortage eased?
Why does Iraq have to import oil?
Why is Bush requesting even more money for Iraq?
Why hasn’t the Iraqi army stepped up and American soldiers sent home?
Why do they have to shut the whole country down to have an election?
Why has the collation casualty rate stayed at a steady 2.3 killed a day for the last three years?
Why has the Collation of the Willing gotten smaller rather than larger?
Why has the Coalition been flying supplies around the country rather than on the ground?
Why did you quantify your comment with “recent months”? Do you think that your comment stands if you say years?

Or Mr. salvage, I'll condense your query in to one line-

"Why isn't everything perfect yet?"

The biggest world event of the last 15 years is the stunning defeat of socialism across the globe.

Gosh, clearly Salvage (above) is right. His comment reminds me of the stupid American air campaign to relieve Berlin back in Truman administration. How about that stupid and wasteful Korean War? Anybody remember that stupid and ineffectual American effort to relieve Italy of facism? All big losers and costly blunders.

We prevented Nicaragua from enjoying the benefits of communism for very long and what about our stupid and costly aid to the Falkland Islands via help to the stupid Thatcherite British? We finaly left the Vietnamese in peace after that stupid slaughter so that they too can enjoy the liberty of their chosen government. Don't get me started on that stupid occupation of Japan.

No, Salvage questions are both brilliant and commonsensical. Bright boy that Salvage.

So if America is losing then

Why is Saddam on trial?
Why can't the insurgents hold a single city?
Why can't the insurgents win a single platoon level battle?
Why are accidents, unrelated to enemy action, a significant source of casualties?
Why are the ISF's numbers and capability increasing every day?
Why were there successful election on Jan 30 2005?
Why was a constitution ratified in October 2005?
Why were there more successful election in Dec 2005?
Why is electrical capacity above prewar levels?
Why is electrical demand far above prewar levels?
Why is off-grid generator capacity far above prewar levels?
Why is water availability above prewar levels?
Why is sanitation better than prewar?
Why are there 34 television station, 145 newspapers, and 73 radio stations where before there were none?

Please, let us know.

From the article:

"In another part of Anbar on Sunday, a flash flood toppled a seven-ton truck, killing five marines riding inside it and wounding one"

You don't get "wounded" in a motor vehicle accident, you get "injured."

You get "wounded" when you are in combat.

Unbelievable.
_______________

Shouldn't your title be "deadliest" instead of "dealiest"?

Gator,

No, that's just how bad the situation in Iraq is: even the trucks are out enemies now. And the water!

"Why isn't everything perfect yet?"

No, I'm asking very specific questions in regards to Iraq being "won" or America “winning”. CY over there is saying that because U.S. casualties were down about 50% of average that must mean America is winning. I counter that is silly bullocks as there is far more metrics in Iraq than U.S. soldiers being killed and wounded.

My theory is that folk like you long for the “Mission Accomplished” of three years ago and will ignore any reality that interferes with that fantasy.

America is not winning anymore than she’s losing Iraq. There is no army on the planet than can defeat America, I know this, the terrorists know this, hell dogs know this. So what the terrorists in Iraq have to do is make the occupation as costly for America as possible both financially and politically. And that’s easy, just create enough chaos and despair to make the occupation impossible to maintain. Than the Americans pull out and the various factions have a full on civil war and a new Saddam or Ayatollah is the boss.

So when someone says America is winning because their casualties are down it’s obvious that they don’t appreciate the full scope of the situation, the goals of the terrorists or the metrics at play. The American public is losing their taste for Iraq (and yes you can blame the MSM for that but only because they’re reporting what is actually going on which is, y’know, their job?) and the cost continues to rise.

For America to truly win the occupation there needs to be:

No more daily multiple bombings.
No more militias.
Oil needs to flow.
Electricity needs to be 24hrs.
The Iraqi police and army must have a monopoly on violence.
The central government can’t be stumped at every political roadblock (how long ago was the last election and how much actual governing have they done?)

And so on.

Looking at one facet of the situation and saying “we’re winning!” while ignoring all the signs that you’re losing is obtuse, delusional and unhelpful.

A handful of basic answers to that long list of stupid 'questions':

Why are there more terrorist attacks in Iraq than less? A: First of all, the opposite is true. But regardless, there *were* terrorist attacks because our presence there attracted hundreds of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda allies to Iraq who, while doing a great deal of damage, have also been killed and destroyed wherever they have poked up. Better fight them there than here.

Why can the insurgents strike at will in all parts of the country? A: the "insurgents" increasingly are a few remaining Sunni former totalitarian remnants, increasingly distinct from Al Qaeda (more and more the terrorists of Al Qaeda and the old time socialist totalitarian terrorists of the Baath party are at odds). The extent to which former Baathists can strike 'anywhere' is highly in doubt. When was the last Sunni terrorist attack in the Kurd region? Mostly they kill Shia. And to the extent there is a low-level shooting war between Shia and Sunni, well, that is a centuries old fight that was only kept out of public view by the butchery and dictatorship of Saddam. That too will pass eventually. Sometimes a civil war is necessary to settle old scores.

Why have more civilians been killed than ever before? A: See above. Old Sunni/Shia fight. Brit leftovers from post-WWI. Sad that we got saddled with it, but shit happens. If they want to pull together a real country out of this, it's in their hands. Or they can be three seperate countries. Whatever. Regardless. *none of them will be Al Qaeda countries* and that's the point.

Why are the civilians arming themselves and forming militias? A: I don't know if they are (you provide no cites). But if they are smart they are in fact arming themselves. Armed societies are polite societies.

Why are reconstruction projects running out of funds and running behind schedule? A: Again, I need a cite to determine if this is something backed by data or just your Air America rantings. Regardless, if they are running behind schedule, well, that's sad, but ultimately, NBFD.

Why isn’t the electric shortage eased? See above.

Why does Iraq have to import oil? There will be no oil biz until the last remnants of the Sunni Baathist dictatorship are hunted down and pacified or dismembered. This takes time. Don't worry, the oil is not going anywhere, it'll still be there when the Sunni issue is settled.

Why is Bush requesting even more money for Iraq? A: Because Bush loves to spend Americans' money. That's why he's in trouble and so is his party.

Why hasn’t the Iraqi army stepped up and American soldiers sent home? A: The Iraqi army has led most of the recent operations. The Americans at this point are mostly training, watching and supporting. Going home now would be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (as you so fervently hope).

Why do they have to shut the whole country down to have an election? A: In order to get some of the highest voter turnout rates in the world. Far higher than in the US or Europe. I didnt' realize that going from totalitarian dictatorship to flourishing democracy happened overnight. So sorry.

Why has the collation casualty rate stayed at a steady 2.3 killed a day for the last three years?
A: Huh?

Why has the Collation of the Willing gotten smaller rather than larger? A: Who are we supposed to add to it, the French?

Why has the Coalition been flying supplies around the country rather than on the ground? A: Maybe it's more efficient that way. I don't know. Why do you read blogs? It's just one of those things. Again, NBFD.

Why did you quantify your comment with “recent months”? Do you think that your comment stands if you say years? A: I think we'll be vacationing in Baghdad before we have another Democrat president.

I don't have time to do a complete response to Mr. Salvage, however, a few highlights: (1) daily terrorist attacks in Iraq have been falling steadily for the past five months; (2) despite an uptick in Civilian deaths following the shrine attack in Feb., Civilian death actually peaked during the Summer of 2005 and have fallen considerably since then; (3) the Collation death rate for March was about 1.07 per day (if you include non-hostile deaths) if you count only deaths from hostile action the casualty rate for March was less than 1 per day and has been falling steadily since October; and (4) insurgent attacks are effectively limited to three provinces in Iraq. Look it up.

By the way, your standards for "America to win the occupation" are yours alone.

My foreign policy standards are much simpler (cuz I'm dumb and never went to collidg):

1. Make sure a 9/11 never happens again (check, thus far)
2. Liberate Afghanistan, destroy Taliban, kill as many Al Qaeda as possible (check)
3. Decapitate the Baathist regime and expose Saddam's connections to 'allies' France and Russia (check)
4. Parade Osama's head on a stick (waiting)
5. Deal with Iran (waiting)
6. Deal with Syria (waiting)

Batting .500. Not too bad.

>Why is Saddam on trial?

Because he’s a very bad man.

>Why can't the insurgents hold a single city?

They can’t, they don’t need to, when the coalition forces leave they come out and assert their authority, when the forces return the hide amongst the civilians.

>Why can't the insurgents win a single platoon level battle?

They can’t, they don’t need to. Neither did the NVC or RNC

>Why are accidents, unrelated to enemy action, a significant source of casualties?

Because the soldiers died serving their country in a war zone. Brushing your teeth in Iraq is hazardous. You go tell their family and survivors that they aren’t “significant”.

>Why are the ISF's numbers and capability increasing every day?

They are? Why do attacks on civilians continue? Why hasn’t the insurgency been put down? Why is there only one Iraqi force that is close to being ready to operate without American support? How do you reckon that?

>Why were there successful election on Jan 30 2005?
>Why was a constitution ratified in October 2005?
>Why were there more successful election in Dec 2005?

Because they shut the whole country down and American forces made it happen. Without that they never would have happened. Do you think America should be in Iraq for the next two decades?

>Why is electrical capacity above prewar levels?

It isn’t, what’s your source on that?

>Why is electrical demand far above prewar levels?

Because there are more consumer goods and so what? Who cares that they have a new widescreen TV when they can’t go to a market without risking a mortar shell landing on them?

>Why is off-grid generator capacity far above prewar levels?

Because they can’ depend on the grid so they have to use generators, the oil for which they have to wait in line for hours to pay far more than they did before the invasion or get it from the black market. I’m sure the Iraqis are very happy about this.

>Why is water availability above prewar levels?

It isn’t there are parts of Iraq that have to boil the water from the taps. What’s your source on that?

>Why is sanitation better than prewar?

It isn’t there are parts of Iraq that have to boil the water from the taps. What’s your source on that?

>Why are there 34 television station, 145 newspapers, and 73 radio stations where before there were none?

Iraq has all of that before , state controlled of course and again who cares? Do you really think that’s more important than multiple bombings, bodies being pulled out the Tigris, civil war and a creeping theocratic state in the model of Iraq? You do know that some reporters in Iraq have been jailed and or disappeared right?

Salvage,

The problem with that definition is that essentially it means every last enemy of Iraqi democracy has given up, every militia leader has given up the source of his power, 20 years of infrastructure have been rebuilt, etc.

Salvage,

The source is a left-wing think tank called the Brookings Institute.

Everything I wrote is accurate. Here, educate yourself.

Ah, so a free press isn't that inmportant to you Salvage.

I guess you wouldn't mind if Bush seized all the U.S. media, as long as he promised to reduce crime and murder.

>daily terrorist attacks in Iraq have been falling steadily for the past five months;

They have not, where do you get that idea?

An American general in Baghdad says insurgency assaults against Iraqi troops and civilians are on the rise. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch says attacks have increased on a daily and weekly basis. Military officials say the spike in attacks is an effort to derail the new Iraqi government.

(for some reason I can't past the URL in? Punch in the first sentence to Google and you can see the whole thing)

>insurgent attacks are effectively limited to three provinces in Iraq. Look it up.

Oh gawd.... you can't be this simple... yes that is true, it's the three provinces with people in them. The bits of desert and lost camels is quite nice. The northern parts where the Kurds have asserted their authority and tossed everyone else out is likewise relatively peaceful.

Y'know what? It's obvious that I could provide all kinds of links like the above and it won't make a lick of difference to some of you.

Iraq is going poorly, looking at one set of numbers that happen to be better this month than last and clinging to it until you can find another silver lining is sad and unhelpful.

You don't know your Vietnam history very well either. The NVA conquered S Vietnam by taking their major cities with armor and infantry. Roadside bombs? Tragic, but little more than a nusiance in military terms.

The Iraqis did not have generators under Saddam, or for that matter much of anything to run with them. Yes, I'm sure they are very happy about that.

Really, you don't seem to know much about this issue. I would suggest reading more.

Salvage,

If all the things you list as signs of sucess happened would you support our efforts in Iraq?

salvage asks: "Why have more civilians been killed than ever before?"

Barring resurrection, the number of deaths won't ever decrease.

Salvage,

I think you need to look at the progress in Iraq in a more realistic way. Think about how long it took democracy to flourish in Japan, or Germany, or even South Korea for that matter. By any measuring stick, Iraq is either on pace or ahead of the pace of those three in its development.
Then look at democratic development in places like the US for example. It took us over 150 years and 600,000 men dead in a brutal civil war before we got the basics for human rights across all races and genders straight.

You examples of why you think we're "losing" in Iraq are simply not valid. The war for all intensive purposes is over, and has been for two years. Saddam is in jail, and the baathists no longer terrorize their own citizens while assisting Islamofascists in terrorizing the rest of the world. We are now attempting to assist Iraq transistion. No one said it would be easy or fast. But by any true comparison, things are going rather quickly.

Iraq is going poorly, looking at one set of numbers that happen to be better this month than last and clinging to it until you can find another silver lining is sad and unhelpful.

In truth, nearly all the numbers are getting better over time. Finding a few numbers that aren't good lately and clinging to them while insisting that things are getting worse in the face of that is sad and unhelpful.

Again, you really need to educate yourself if you're going to try to debate this topic.

"Why are there more terrorist attacks in Iraq than less? A: First of all, the opposite is true. But regardless, there *were* terrorist attacks because our presence there attracted hundreds of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda allies to Iraq who, while doing a great deal of damage, have also been killed and destroyed wherever they have poked up. Better fight them there than here."

I wish all you guys who are pushing that "better there than here" argument would go to Iraq and try telling it to a grieving mother whose children have just been killed by a car bomb and see what she thinks of it. Or, if you're a Christian, tell it to Jesus after you die and see what happens.

I wish all you guys who are pushing that "better there than here" argument would go to Iraq and try telling it to a grieving mother whose children have just been killed by a car bomb and see what she thinks of it. Or, if you're a Christian, tell it to Jesus after you die and see what happens.

You presume to know the mind of God, Ted?

Ted,

I'd like you to explain to the families of the 2 million killed by Saddam why it's better he stay in power.

Here's a little Iraq math:

Conservatively, 2 million people killed by Saddam's wars, civil and with Iran/Kuwait. That's 228 people per day of his rule. We can assume he wasn't turning a new leaf anytime soon, so it was probably going to continue at about that pace.

Things may not be great in Iraq right now, but they're getting better, there's democracy and a free press, and there's nowhere near 228 people per day dying.

So now Ted has invented the "Chicken Disciple" argument?

Ted - these AQ types didn't spring fully armed from the brow of Zeus because Americans came by - they were busy earlier turning Afghanistan into a charnel house, etc. I got to see their handiwork up close and personal. I'd rather we kill them anywhere - preferrable there, but dead, nonetheless.

For America to truly win the occupation there needs to be:

No more daily multiple bombings.
No more militias.
Oil needs to flow.
Electricity needs to be 24hrs.
The Iraqi police and army must have a monopoly on violence.
The central government can’t be stumped at every political roadblock (how long ago was the last election and how much actual governing have they done?)

And so on.

Looking at one facet of the situation and saying “we’re winning!” while ignoring all the signs that you’re losing is obtuse, delusional and unhelpful.

In other words, hold assertations of 'loosing' to the same standard as 'winning' lest you appear to be biased toward a preconceived notion.

"Iraq has all of that before , state controlled of course and again who cares?"

Iraq didn't have all that. News wasn't only "state-controlled," it didn't exist. Only what Saddam allowed existed. Itaqis were incredibly isolated, perhaps more so than any nation besides North Korea. Iraqis were not allowed cell-phones, internet access, satellite TVs. Textbooks were decades out of date. The banking system revolved around Saddam, now they have a modern banking system that allows people to do business. There's a real Iraqi stock market now.

You don't think it matters that they now have financial and news access to the outside world and can express a wide range of political views?

"Do you really think that’s more important than multiple bombings, bodies being pulled out the Tigris, civil war and a creeping theocratic state in the model of Iraq?"

This is not a zero-sum game. You don't have to exchange one for the other. There were far more violent deaths under Saddam, most of them because of Saddam, including systematic torture and bodies pulled out of the Tigris, etc. Now there is far less violence, AND freedom of speech and an incipient representative government and rule of law.

Iraqis don't want a theocracy, and will only get one if we leave and Iran takes over.

Salvage,
If you are going to spout both ideas (statements) and attempt to refute others then make reference to your sources....else you are just spouting off and have no basis for any belief by anyone reading this.

A list of your facts is one unsubstantiated. Unless you can produce those facts or background supporting evidence stop making statements.

Got it moonbat?

Salvage -

>Why isn’t the electric shortage eased?
The electric shortage hasn't eased because the law of supply and demand works in Iraq. Electricity in Iraq is *not metered*, something that was also true under the Baathist regime. If you instituted free electricity in the US, we'd have shortages develop inside a week. Shortages in Iraq are normal so long as that system stays in effect.

Resolving this problem is a political problem, not an engineering one. This is one of the things the democratically elected Iraqi government is going to have to deal with because, properly, the Coalition thought Iraq's electricity pricing structure should be a domestic matter.

>Why does Iraq have to import oil?
They don't. They import gasoline and other refined products. Iran does too because like Iraq, they have insufficient refining capacity. Iraq exports oil.

>Why hasn’t the Iraqi army stepped up and American soldiers sent home?
The Iraqi army is stepping up. Unfortunately, the Army fairy has her magic wand in the shop and so the job isn't done. The privates are ready, the low level officers are ready, the NCOs are getting there (they take longer) the senior level staff is going to take decades, just like it does in the good old USA. The logistical tail is going to take a long, long time and we haven't even started on it.

We've made a conscious decision to reduce Iraqi casualties by sticking around longer with our combat forces so that progress can happen faster. Over time, we'll be drawing down, very likely in 2006, as the Sunnis continue to draw down their insurgency and barring any truly stupid happenings like an Iranian invasion.

>Why has the Collation of the Willing gotten smaller rather than larger?
Combat is hard but counterinsurgency is wearing and brutal work on the politicians back home. Some governments don't have the staying power. Other governments simply don't have the money to keep their forces in the field. Some have left and some have come who weren't there at the beginning. Japan has deployed 1k troops (combat and support) to Iraq, it's largest post WW II foreign deployment as far as I can tell.

Salvage- Did you know that the east coast of the US had a massive brownout a few years ago? A total loss of electricity.

Do you know how many third world countries have 24 hour electricity across the whole country? Heck, how about how many have 24 hour electricity in their capital cities?

This seems like a pretty steep requirement to define a victory. It makes one wonder just how serious your thinking is.

"The Iraqi police and army must have a monopoly on violence."

Oh, hmmm. That statement pretty well answers how serious your thinking is.

Sorry, I had to skip past the debate once my eyes hit this statement from Salvage:

"The Iraqi police and army must have a monopoly on violence"

Salvage certainly isn't part of the Human Rights or Amnesty International crowd. When Saddam was in power, the Iraqi police and army did have a monopoly on violence. For the sake of the Iraqi people, I hope that doesn't happen again.

Lefties that don't think a free press is important have a friend in Dear Leader. Kim also doesn't think a free press is useful. If you consider emigrating, Salvage, I'd put NK at the top of the list.

Late to the game but here is my pass:
In a baiting question you asked "So if America is winning than:"

In the hopeful chance you will listen, let see if I can answer you.

Why are there more terrorist attacks in Iraq than less?
Then when? When Saddam was in charge there were more attacks on civilians then now; to the tune of 10X the number of deaths then today. Or is it not terrorism when the state does it to the population. Let’s just call it genocide.

Why can the insurgents strike at will in all parts of the country?
Ummm... They can't. The north is very safe. Many areas are more safe then Israel. There are only about 3-6 provinces [muhafazāt] out of 18 that are unsafe.

Why have more civilians been killed than ever before?
Before what? Saddam killed 3-4 million. Total killed after the invasion – 30k. Most of them by ex-baath party members or the oppressed peoples they killed getting revenge.

Why are the civilians arming themselves and forming militias?
We have the same thing here in the US… and?

Why are reconstruction projects running out of funds and running behind schedule?
Ever see the reports from the Marshall program. In fact, ever see ANY government program run on time, on budget? It staggers me to think anyone expects any government to do anything right… thus, why to liberals keep putting their trust in more government programs.

Why isn’t the electric shortage eased?
Demand is growing faster then supply. In fact, Iraq is now generating more power then at anytime in their history. However, now everyone is getting power, not JUST the Baath party members. In the “good old” days of Saddam only the elites received electricity.

Why does Iraq have to import oil?
Demand for gasoline has skyrocketed as the number of cars in the country has doubled. And Iraq charges only 5 cents a gallon, encouraging smugglers to take it to neighboring Jordan where they sell it for more than a dollar a gallon.

Why is Bush requesting even more money for Iraq?
See above, but still, this has been one of the most inexpensive wars in history [percent of GDP] not to mention the staggering low casualties.

Why hasn’t the Iraqi army stepped up and American soldiers sent home?
Study military history. It takes at least 5 years to train an army, more to make it professional. Were you not listening to the “long hard slog” part of the speech?

Why do they have to shut the whole country down to have an election?
It seemed prudent at the time, and overall, it worked. There are many calling for the same here so we can vote.

Why has the collation casualty rate stayed at a steady 2.3 killed a day for the last three years?
Hmmm… it’s a war? And that is an average… and it is going down.

Why has the Collation of the Willing gotten smaller rather than larger?
The demands on the governments by misguided people are creating pressure to get out. Leaving only those who are willing to stay and fight. Ones who recognize the need to create a significant change in the middle east or else we will be back there in 10 years. Only this time with radiation suits after they blow themselves up.

Why has the Coalition been flying supplies around the country rather than on the ground?
Huh? Do you have any idea how many truck convoys move each day in Iraq? There are not enough air assets in the world to supply all the needs.

Why did you quantify your comment with “recent months”? Do you think that your comment stands if you say years?
I can’t answer for him, but I would say yes.

TallDave said:

"The Iraqis did not have generators under Saddam, or for that matter much of anything to run with them. Yes, I'm sure they are very happy about that."

Right. Apparently we also brought fire and the wheel to those swarthy savages.

Salvage:

My source for information on daily attacks is the Brookings Iraq Index but there are other sources. The most trustworthy evidence of a drop in the number and effectiveness of attacks is the dramatic reduction in overall casualties since the last Iraqi election.

Approximately 70% of the Iraqi population lives in provinces without any significant terrorist activity.

I could not help but notice that you did not attempt to dispute the observations in my post.

One thing that "salvage" forgets (or never learned in history class, maybe) is that historically you can only really tell you're "winning" a war in hindsight, after you've already won. You can only look back and say: aha! that was the turning point, or from this point on the result was inevitable.

But is it possible to reliably predict ultimate victory well before it happens? Of course not. Think it through, "salvage": if it were possible to logically predict victory for one side of a conflict, what would the other side do? They're no less capable of logic! Clearly if one side could predict with ironclad logic that they're going to lose, then they'd stop throwing their lives away. They'd negotiate, surrender, move to a different part of the world, get a life, whatever. No rational person throws his life away on an utterly lost cause. War continues only as long as both sides are convinced they might, somehow, possibly, in some definition of the word, win.

It therefore follows that the only time that it's perfectly crystal clear to any idiot that one side is going to win the war is just about when the war ends, and pretty much why it ends.

It also has to be borne in mind that how each side defines "winning" may be different. From the point of view of the United States, we've already won the war in Iraq, because the Baathists and the secret nuke and biowar programs are gone and very unlikely to come back. At worst Iraq may turn into a neutral to mildly hostile quasi-ally, run by an overly authoritarian and unpleasantly Islamified government, with a restive population. Like Egypt. We can deal with Egypt. It's not a 100% friend like Australia, but it's not much worse than a 10% friend like France. So the US can pretty much declare victory any time it wants and bring the troops home.

But it's not particularly important that we do so, mind you. Except to folks who are getting a little desperate at the increasing unlikelihood that this will all end so badly, a la Vietnam, that they'll be able to say "ha ha, I told you so." For these folks, the longer the war (or rather anti-guerilla operations) go on, the less likely it is that it will end up ambiguously enough for them to argue that the war was "lost." That's why the NYT wants the troops home now. If they come home now, they can declare defeat. If they come home in five years, when Iraq is no more dangerous a place for them than the Phillipines, that won't be possible.

Furthermore, Iraq is basically now one giant live-fire training exercise, with deaths mildly but not exceptionally high for such things. The risk to our troops on the whole is serious but indefinitely sustainable. Yes, some will get killed every day. That's the nature of being in the army. Or for that matter being alive: there are 150,000 American troops in Iraq, roughly, with an average age of about 30. If they were "safe" at home, statistically about 14 would die every month anyway. Instead, it's about 50. That's enough higher to keep you on your toes, you bet. But not so high that one could speak of a generation being laid waste.

Nor let us forget they are being superbly trained. Nothing teaches officers and men how best to fight a war than, well, fighting one. Nothing proves out weapons systems better than actual operation in theater. The officers, men, tactics and equipment of the US armed forces in the middle of this century -- trained and hardened in Iraq -- will probably be the best the world has ever seen. That national benefit is almost certainly well worth the present modest cost in lives and treasure.

All together now: Civil War! Civil War! There's just GOT to be Civil War!!!! C'mon, Iraqui's--you can do it! We just KNOW there's gotta be a civil war here somewhere.

Sincerely,
The American Left

Good questions:

Why have more civilians been killed than ever before?
Why are more Civilians arming themselves and forming militias?
Why are reconstruction projects running out of funds and running behind schedule?

It's a quagmire, pull out of Detroit now. And don't even get me started with New Orleans.

Iraq doesn't import oil, they import gasoline. This is because they do not have sufficient refining capacity, and never have. Now demand is up over 50% from prewar levels.

The facts are, Iraq exported an average of 1.4 million barrels of oil per day last year, exceding prewar levels. This year, that is expected to increase to 1.65 million barrels per day this year.

Kevin L. Connors, Editor
The Daily Brief

David,

The civilians are getting killed by TERRORISTS. Our pulling out would leave no one to stop the foreign terrorists, and result in many MORE civilians getting killed.

Just like our withdrawal from Vietnam led to 2 million Vietnamese and Cambodians being killed after that. But you excuse that as it was Communists doing the killing.

I notice that you didn't care when Saddam was killing his own civilians DELIBERATELY.

You have been exposed as someone who doesn't care about Iraqi civilians, but merely an anti-American fifth columnist.

Salvage,

By the standards you provide, China isn't winning in China.
Multiple daily bombings: Check
Inconsistent electicity: Check
Not enough oil to meet demand: Check
No monopoly on violence by police and army: Check (although this true everywhere on earth)

Come to think of it, has anyone here been to France during the summer?

Neither India nor China have ever had consistent electricity. Their economies still grow at 7-10% per year.

But the fastest growing economy in the world is.... IRAQ!!! 17% per year !!!

What a stunning success the US mission has been..

Joop, read my note, think satire.

Anon,

Well, we didn't bring them the wheel and fire, but we did remove the dictator who made it very difficult (generally impossible) for them to buy things like generators, satelite dishes, computers, internet... even cars were much rarer in Saddam's time. This was not just because of sanctions; Saddam made those things difficult to buy because he wanted to be the guy who decided who got what.

So I guess you could say we gave them BACK the wheel and fire.

Statistics for Iraq casualities.

Salvage - I skipped over a lot of comments by everyone else just to add this. To your question, "Why are there more Iraqi civilians killed than ever before?" The simple answer is, that there are far less civilians being killed in Iraq now than there were under Saddam, unless you declare that the hundreds of thousands Saddam killed were in some form of opposing Iraqi military force. Saddam sustained a daily killing rate of civilians for decades that was at least three times higher than any daily rate for Iraqi deaths (including Saddam's military) since the invasion began.
Then for good measure, add the over one million Iraqis and Iranians killed in war, and a half-million who died as Saddam diverted oil-for-food money during the sanctions period.
The bottom line, Saddam was responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than any other person for all time -- and more than double the total killed for both sides for all the Crusades combined.

Salvage, it's people like you and the MSM that keep the insurgency going. It's the defeatist's like yourself that fuel the insurgents. Reid, Pelosi, Schummer, Clinton, and the rest. They are trying to do what we let the North Vietnamese and the MSM do, try to sway American opinion and pull out. If you don't think that, there is something wrong with your thought processes. But what about the real GI's that made the ultimate sacrifice, they died in vain? Thats what should be talked about. You are the same as the people that spit on our Soldiers and Marines that came back from Vietnam and called them "Baby killers". Those Brave souls are Hero's and they do not want to quit even though you and the Hollywood elite would like to.

I hesitate to even post a comment on this blog because the staggering level of Bush and Bush-related ass-kissing is so gag-inducing, but...

"News wasn't only 'state-controlled,' it didn't exist. Only what Saddam allowed existed. Itaqis were incredibly isolated, perhaps more so than any nation besides North Korea. Iraqis were not allowed cell-phones, internet access, satellite TVs."

I have NEVER heard this. Proof, please?

Pointing out that our troops are NOT losing in Iraq is "Bush related ass-kissing"?

Gosh, you wouldn't happen to have any pre-concieved notions about how the war is going, would you? Nah, couldn't possibly.....

On trends in casualties:
The year with fewest deaths in the Pacific theater of WWII was ... 1941.
1942 saw MORE deaths than in 1941. (naturally)
But 1943 saw MORE deaths than in 1942!
Then 1944 saw MORE deaths than in 1943 !!
That's because we were LOSING the war, right?

On WWII:

Good point. Maybe we shouldn't have stuck our noses in the Europeans' war.

"News wasn't only 'state-controlled,' it didn't exist. Only what Saddam allowed existed. Itaqis were incredibly isolated, perhaps more so than any nation besides North Korea. Iraqis were not allowed cell-phones, internet access, satellite TVs."

I have NEVER heard this. Proof, please?

Start with this about the ban on satellite television and the ensuing boom once Saddam was deposed, this about the ban and later boom of cell phones... it's all there on this thing called "Google." There are a lot of things you haven't heard of, especially when you don't bother to look.

As for your ignorant crack about casualties, they were for the Pacific theater, as is clearly noted, not the European theater. RIF, Pieter.

As for "sticking our noses in the Europeans's war", Hitler's Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941.

I think you're in a bit over your head.

The European theater was more episodic, so the year-to-year trends were less clearcut. A general rule was that the rate of casualties corresponded to the amount of combat taking place. If you engage the enemy less, the casualty rate will decline. Since the general trend was that the allied forces made steady progress against the axis forces, engaging the enemy less resulted in SLOWER progress in capturing enemy territory.

As an aside re casualties: the WWI experience made commanders on both sides passionately averse to the dysfunctional meat-grinder of trench warfare. Defeat was preferable to a stalemate.

So increases in casualties might reflect "losing the war" .... but more likely, it reflects more occasions of successful engagements with the enemy.

In Vietnam, the Tet offensive led to quite high losses in a brief but relatively intense coordinated engagement. Militarily it was a disaster for the North Vietnamese. But Walter Cronkite declared it a tremendous loss for US and South Vietnamese forces. Walter snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. If he had been a North Vietnamese agent(which he wasn't, he was merely left leaning) he could not have been more effective. Tremendous casualties CAN lead to success since political agents, such as politicians and Main Stream Media folks, can make hay according to their agenda, the situation be damned.

So casualty numbers are an ambiguous indicator. What counts are various indicators of success and failure. Figures "connot" lie but liars can figure.

"There are a lot of things you haven't heard of, especially when you don't bother to look."

Speaking of cracks, that one was polite. I didn't suggest Yehudit was wrong about free speech being suppressed in Iraq...the cell-phones and satellite TVs being banned bit is just something I hadn't heard. Surprising, I know, that I haven't heard everything there is to hear in this world. With "Iraq" producing three quarters of a billion Google results, it's a bit difficult to keep up with ALL the news about that country, especially when, as I care about the U.S. more, I tend to read more American-related news.

"As for your ignorant crack about casualties, they were for the Pacific theater, as is clearly noted, not the European theater. RIF, Pieter."

You're right. I should have paid closer attention.

"As for 'sticking our noses in the Europeans's war', Hitler's Germany declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941."

Well, if we're on the subject of paying attention...

Hitler declared war on us AFTER we declared war on Japan. Such a move would be quite similar to us declaring war on Iran if Iran declared war on Israel. In other words, we wouldn't have been at war with Germany *if we hadn't declared war on Japan*. And as has been rather incontrovertibly proven, Japan was goaded into attacking Pearl Harbor, making our involvement in the Second World War actually something of a war of aggression on OUR part. But I've written about that before, will write about it again, and feel no desire to waste my time discussing the issue here when it's ridiculously easy to find information about. One good place to start would be here.

As it is, I'm out. I ran across a handful of Republican blogs and was surprised, considering Bush's lack of popularity even among his party members, to see all the little cheerleaders STILL dancing and waving pom-poms for the president. It's been a while since I bothered reading any of the semi-mainstream GOP blogs, and I'm just reminded once again why I tend to avoid the dreck they propagate. That, and why I left the GOP.

Not much on my mind these days, but what can I say? It's not important. I just don't have much to say lately. I've just been letting everything pass me by recently, but eh.

Not much on my mind lately. My life's been completely boring these days. I've just been hanging out not getting anything done. So it goes.