Jun 01 2008
The World Greeted A Different Iraq This Morning
As May 2008 went into the record books as the month with the lowest fatality levels of the entire war, the people of the world awoke this morning to a series of news reports covering the success of Iraq. Probably the most interesting was an editorial in the Washington Post today:
The Iraqi Upturn
Don’t look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.THERE’S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks — which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington’s attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have “never been closer to defeat than they are now.”
Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained “special groups” that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is — of course — too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments — and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the “this-war-is-lost” caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).
The one thing I admire about my hometown paper the Washington Post is they know when to give up the ghost and report the news. They exist in DC so they tend to be less biased than the NY and LA Times. But the changes in Iraq are so stunning the LA Times even noted how May marked the lowest level of US fatalities in a large story. Some propaganda outlets, like the AP, have been trying to state the number of fatalities is two higher than the actual number by including Georgian troop casualties in the US numbers, making it appear that May is not the lowest record of the entire war, but only goes 4 years back. At least today we can easily see who reports news and who twists the news. If it is not reporting the fact that May is the lowest month for fatalities ever, then the source is not a fact-concerned source. For example the French News Service AFP gets the number right today while the AP somehow missed it.
Probably the silliest ‘report’ came from the BBC, which doesn’t know what the true number is and only vaguely admits last month’s figures are the result of The Surge and The Awakening taking hold last year:
US military deaths in Iraq are said to have fallen to their lowest monthly level for four years, after about 20 soldiers were reported killed in May.
…
But our correspondent adds that the overall trend of the violence since late last summer has been downwards.
He says the US troop “surge” was clearly a big factor, as was the trend within the Sunni community to turn against al-Qaeda and other Islamic militant groups.
The withdrawal of the additional US troops brought in last year for the surge is expected to be completed by July.
Emphasis mine. The BBC won’t even go on record noting the current state of Iraq is linked to The Surge, they only allow this is the view of their ‘correspondent’. What they did note was the fact that these conditions allow us to bring our troops home as victors in the war, unlike the Democrat Congressional plan to bring them home as shamed failures and simply pretend they were victorious.
As the NY Post notes (and so did the LA Times), there are still challenges ahead. But there is a bloody and deadly reminder from the last few years of what failure will bring back to the Muslim Street of Iraq, and I think those memories of Islamo Fascists atrocities, will provide a lot of impetus to the various Iraqi factions to succeed in the end. Time will tell.
Let’s look on the bright side, when Obama takes his trip to Iraq it won’t be that dangerous of a place to visit – thanks to the fact President George Bush refused to listen to the Surrendercrats in Congress.
Bush also refused to listen to some members of the ISG.
I just read Frogg’s links to Austin Bey’s article and the TNR article that Austin linked.
I agree (and am glad) that Al Qaeda has been weakened and that Benotman has retired from the radical islamism. His predictions rang true. The TNR article talks about the weakening of the radical jihadism around the world but I still don’t see that yet. The radical ideology still exist. We may still see stealth and quiet jihadism as the radical Islam ideology will continue to spread.
Deoban just claimed that Islam outlaws all terrorist attacks and promotes peace (check Robert Spencer’s site).
I came across something interesting over at American Spectator saying that Islam did go through Enlightenment by trying to push for peaceful verses over violent verses. It is in the May issue if you are interested. It’s available to subscription only.
[…] The Stata-Sphere: the world woke up to a different Iraq […]
[…] AJ Strata, who quips: Let’s look on the bright side, when Obama takes his trip to Iraq it won’t be that dangerous of a place to visit – thanks to the fact President George Bush refused to listen to the Surrendercrats in Congress. — Clicking here supports BitsBlog– […]
The world may have been given a peek at truth but it was very tiny. ABC actually managed to say two things at the same time. They said casualities were somewhat down but unfortuanately sucides were up. So………..no difference. See?
Yesterday when I tuned in CNN they were informing the public that poor Obama was having trouble because some priest took the pulpit at Trintity and said some unacceptable things about Sen Clinton. They said the priest immediately apologized.
Nary a word about Racial Hate Speech against all whites. It must be some more of that complicated “context” stuff they like to tout. You know, you must put the death rate in “context”.
I am going to admit my biggest disappointment in President Bush. Since he is not a petty, finger-pointing person, I think he failed to recognize this country’s biggest enemy. They are within and they slaughtered him with pure lies. They are so powerful that they could turn public opinion, even in the face of 9/11. The MSM chose Obama. Think about how powerful you would need to be to defeat a Clinton Machine and turn a nation against a war when they have witnessed an attack within their own country that forever changed NYC skyline.
They run the show. They are NOT defeated.
To the BBC…
From my earlier comment, the following are the Coalition troop strength (Brookings Institute Iraq Index, pg 27) for ‘The Insurgency Years!!’:
2008: 159,907
2007: 161,812
2006: 152,000
2005: 161,000
2004: 162,000
The American force strength of 150,000 is still 15,000 troops above the absolute low-point in troop strength – but shrinking rapidly. Another 10,000 – 12,000 Americans are to be returned home by July 2008.
The high point of the surge resulted in a Coalition force strength of 182,668.
So, 22,762 Coalition troops have returned home, 21,000 of them American.
My question to the BBC – an entity that cannot seem to read or see or hear (the media’s Pinball Wizard). If the insurgency has not been defeated then why are they far less effective now then when we had thousands more troops on the ground?
To the AP. Those ‘breathing spells’ you are counting on never took place during the annual Jihadi Spring Offensive. April and May have always been bountiful months for the SurrenderMedia, the SurrenderCrats, and Code-Pinkos with their Boots of Dead Soldiers ‘Memorials’. Anyway, there has NEVER been a month with FEWER Coalition casualties. The next fewest were Feb 2004 at 23 and December 2007 at 25 (another surge month). Regardless, why don’t you put your fact checkers to work and sum up the stats for Year to Date and find a countervailing trend.
Obama’s going to look funny all bundled up in body armor and wearing a tankers helmet when McCain wanders around a bazaar getting hawked at to buy some trinket or other.
That will be Barack’s Dukakis moment!!!
Owl: that’s my biggest complaint too.
It’s completely irresponsible how bush has failed to be an effective communicator and leader.
I have been thinking about the war and the Republican party lately. You know what, I am quite okay that the republicans decided to stay with victory for the Iraqi people and the USA. A short term loss in seats is nothing compared to the establishment of democracy in the heart of the middle east.
Those of you complaining about the Bush message machine, I suggest you think about his choice for press secretary, and that was the Presidents choice.
Those of you complaining about the Bush message machine, I suggest you think about his choice for press secretary, and that was the Presidents choice
Which means what?
Lets see Barak talk about “change” now. Lets see Barak “change” and accept that the situation in Iraq has “changed” and let us all see just how “dynamic” he really is.
Scott McClellen was a bad choice.
May wasn’t all that remarkable if you look at only hostile deaths. 15 US casualties were the result of hostile action in May. That is higher than May 2003 when there were only 8. February 2004 when there were 12 and December 2007 when there were 14.
Not to take anything away from May 2008 because it IS important for many additional reasons. Over 200 fewer civilian casualties would be among them.
My reference for the hostile fire deaths is here:
http://icasualties.org/oif/USbyYear.aspx
Select “Hostile” in the fatality type field and refresh.
Scott McLellan might have been a poor choice but Ari Fleischer was not and neither was Tony Snow and Dana, the one there now. 3 out of 4 is not a wash.
And as for Bush not communicating, he has a lot of competition. When he does point out that the message we see and hear from Iraq is biased they just say he is either lying or in denial. When he tries to go on TV, they might or might not give him time. He is the president, not the Fuhrer, he does not control the press.
My real bitch is that these people have such a bias against rational objective reporting that it is even an issue. If they would just do their jobs….
The bad thing about tracking these casualties, and no one tracks them closer than me, I have an Excel spreadsheet I’ve maintained every day of the War; but the bad thing about this is, that when there is the ineveitable uptick sometime in the future, since the Traitor Democrats and the Traitor MSM and the Traitor Barack HUSSEIN Obama are so heavily invested in nothing but Defeat and Surrender, you will see it SCREAMING from all the headlines about the INCREASING viloence and casualties, etc.
So, they will either ignore, or misreport, or diminish the low casualties, such as what is happening now, but just wait until there is one more casualty next month, or ten more, or whatever.
With Traitors, you can never win!
As far as Iraq is concerned, my fear is that Iran will try to kill a bunch of people before the elections, just to cause trouble.
I believe that they’re (the terrorirsts.. worldwide) are laying low until after the election.
I think they suspect if they start blowing things up the voters will go for the hawk and not the sacrificial lamb.
Not to forget that even our own Squeaker of the House says the credit belongs to Iran.
Hey Harry , how’s that War is Lost stuff working out for ya?
Merlin:
Wasn’t that unbelievable, even for Pelosi?
Merlin and Terrye
The Iranian government has provided the weapons that may have killed at least 200 us soldiers. The fact the Pelosi found nice words for them is outrageous, but its better for the speaker to give the people who kill us troops credit then to give it to the military or president Bush. That says a great deal about the state of the modern democratic party.
My God what a terrible story. I saw this at Gateway
On leave from the violence he had survived in the war in Iraq, a young Marine was so wary of crime on the streets of his own home town that he carried only $8 to avoid becoming a robbery target.
Despite his caution, Lance Cpl. Robert Crutchfield, 21, was shot point-black in the neck during a robbery at a bus stop. Feeding and breathing tubes kept him alive 4 1/2 months, until he died of an infection on May 18.
Two men have been charged in the attack, and Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason said Friday the case was under review to decide whether to seek the death penalty.
“It is an awful story,” said Alberta Holt, the young Marine’s aunt and his legal guardian when he was a teenager determined to flee a troubled Cleveland school for safer surroundings in the suburbs.
Crutchfield was attacked on Jan. 5 while he and his girlfriend were waiting for a bus. He had heeded the warnings of commanders that a Marine on leave might be seen as a prime robbery target with a pocketful of money, so he only carried $8, his military ID card and a bank card.
“They took it, turned his pockets inside out, took what he had and told him since he was a Marine and didn’t have any money he didn’t deserve to live. They put the gun to his neck and shot him,” Holt told The Associated Press.
vince:
“It’s completely irresponsible how bush has failed to be an effective communicator and leader.”
while that may be true, the stronger and more forceful Bush is, the more rabid the left and media become. It’s a no-win situation for him with present media.