Aug 13 2007

Surge Produces Impressive Drop In Carnage

Published by at 8:04 am under All General Discussions,Diyala,Iraq

al-Qaeda long ago surpassed the American death toll it achieved for 9-11 with a Muslim death toll that is just stunning. We can figure this out by looking at the impressive drop in al-Qaeda bombings in Iraq:

he number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.

The high-profile attacks — generally large bombs hitting markets, mosques or other “soft” targets that produce mass casualties — have dropped to about 70 in July from a high during the past year of about 130 in March, according to the Multi-National Force — Iraq.

Successes against al-Qaeda have also been helped by shifting Sunni public opinion and a growing number of insurgent defections, the military says.

“Tribes and people are starting to stand up and fight back,” said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, deputy commander of the U.S. division north of Baghdad. “They are turning against al-Qaeda.”

Some of the groups have provided intelligence on their former al-Qaeda allies, Lt. Col. Rick Welch, a staff officer who works with tribes, has said.

The increased security in many neighborhoods has also prompted more civilians to come forth with tips, officers said. The U.S. military gets 23,000 tips per month from Iraqis, four times more than last year, said Army Col. Ralph Baker, a former brigade commander in Iraq now assigned to the Pentagon.

These bombings of Muslim at work, prayer or school can kill 20-50 people at a time. Even at the current lowered rate of bombing and assuming 25 deaths/attack as a conservative average we get 21,000 civilian deaths per year. The rate in March was nearly twice that. al-Qaeda is being rejected because, bottom line, it is killing more Muslims than Americans. At about a 10 to 1 rate or higher. It is not surprising Muslims are rejecting their out of control violent nature when they are the victims of al-Qaeda much more than people in the West.

This also shows that the use of asymmetrical warfare – where one side uses gang-level tactics and the other is a well armed military force – does have its limits and can run out of support due to the resultant killings of innocent locals. Without local coverage these ‘insurgency’ tactics fall apart.

In separate news the people of Baquba were visited by the Deputy Iraqi PM and had a load of grievances that they wanted corrected ASAP:

“What you are talking about are dreams,” said Sheik Hamid Anbagiya. “First we have to stop the insurgency. Then we can talk about civil services and projects.”

But Salih told reporters he was encouraged by what he saw in Baqubah, the provincial capital: streets full of shoppers, produce and sodas for sale in the market, and men with graying beards smoking cigarettes and sipping tea at a cafe.

A month ago, he said, the governor dared not leave his home for fear of militants who for more than a year had imposed a reign of terror in the city. “Today, we could see life returning to Baqubah,” he said.

As he spoke, gunfire erupted nearby as U.S. forces guarding the meeting took aim at a sniper who had fired at them.

“This is a work in progress, apparently,” Salih acknowledged with a shrug and a smile.

Optimistism mixed with pragmatism. Not naive handwringing form Surrendercrats or ridiculous high expectations (which the left puts up as if the Bush administration made claim to optimistic expectations). The sense in Baquba is one of eagerly looking ahead to build a future, with the requisite complaints going to ‘city hall’ demanding results. Does anyone think the people of Iraq could demand results from their leaders under Saddam? The change is going to be dramatic in Iraq – going from oppression under Saddam, to even worse oppression under al-Qaeda, to finally democratic freedom. The difference in life will be amazing for Iraqis.

13 responses so far

13 Responses to “Surge Produces Impressive Drop In Carnage”

  1. ridiculous high expectations (which the left puts up as if the Bush administration made claim to optimistic expectations).

    Reality is a pain in the neck, isn’t it?

    “Liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.” – Ken Adelman, 2/2002

    “The idea that it’s going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990,” he said on an Infinity Radio call-in program. “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” –
    Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Nov. 15, 2002

    “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” – Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Feb. 7, 2003

    “My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . [in] weeks rather than months.” – Dick Cheney, 3/2003

    “I can’t tell you exactly how many days or how many weeks. But by
    historical standards, this will be a short war. – Richard Perle, Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Mar. 25, 2003

    Iraq: “can really finance its own reconstruction.” – Paul
    Wolfowitz, 3/2003

    “Thank you all very much. Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” (Under the banner “Mission Accomplished.” ) – George W. Bush May 1, 2003

    “Some feel like they can attack us — bring ’em on. “- George W. Bush
    Jul. 02, 2003

    On WMD’s in Iraq:
    “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” –
    Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Mar. 30, 2003

    “They’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.”
    – Dick Cheney, 5/2005

    “Good news to the men and women who fought … their mission is complete.” – George W. Bush 5/2005

  2. AJStrata says:

    I have no idea who Ken Adelman is. For the totally naive I guess we should point out the Rumsfeld comments were on taking out Saddam’s army, not in building a democratically controlled Iraq. I guess only a liberal naive would not go looking for the quotes from Rumsfeld and others who said Iraq could go beyond Bush’s second term.

    So, am I to be inpressed with your inability to face reality SNAFU (great moniker, fits you perfectly)? It is always better to remain silent instead of confirming your lack of credibility. You and I both know you bypassed a lot of quotes to find those paltry few that are not on the topic whatsoever.

  3. Terrye says:

    I can remember Bill Clinton saying that there was no reason why the Iraqi people could not embrace democracy, he said that back in the 90s. I remember when Zinni made sure all of our troops had anthrax vaccinations in Kuwait in 98 after the US bombed Iraq, because he felt that Saddam would use those wmd on our people.

    The left has a different reality today. Now they forget the things they did and said just a decade ago and instead cherry pick some isolated comments made by people like Rumsfeld years ago.


    In truth, the US took out Saddam’s military in far less time than anyone imagined possible. I know I expected thousands of casualties just taking Baghdad, instead the US military made history when it rolled into Baghdad.

    And as for where the wmd are, that is not what Rumsfeld meant, they never thought all the weapons were in one place anyway, if they had they would have bombed the place years ago and been done with it.

    It is so tiresome to listen to people who do not know what they are talking about take a sentence out of context and turn it into something it is not.

    I guess that Hans Blix must have been lying when he told the UN that Saddam was hiding weapons back in 1999.

  4. AJ,

    It’s SNAFU Principle. Basic word comprehension is a good start. Two words together can mean something new and different. Getting bogged down with the first word is a killer, I know. It’s really deep. Look it up.

    Ken Adelman… interesting, so you’ve never heard of him, thus that means it is to be rejected? Interesting. Look him up.

    The quotes speak for themselves.

    we should point out the Rumsfeld comments were on taking out Saddam’s army, not in building a democratically controlled Iraq.

    But, wasn’t taking out Saddam’s army a step in the fight to liberate Iraq and establish a democratically controlled Iraq? That fight is still going on, yes? Your argument is simplistic at best. And, it’s a logical fallacy called moving the goalpost.

    So, am I to assume that you don’t contest the rest of the quotes or are you a generalist? (You know, you “debunk” one or two quotes, thus all of them are debunked.)

    Finally, you’re over eagerness to launch directly into attack mode speaks volumes.

    Sad that.

  5. It is so tiresome to listen to people who do not know what they are talking about take a sentence out of context and turn it into something it is not.

    I guess that Hans Blix must have been lying when he told the UN that Saddam was hiding weapons back in 1999.

    So, Hans Blix wasn’t lying in 1999, but he was in 2003 when he said there were NO WMD’s in Iraq? Because that is what the UN Commission was stating then. But, righties like you said he was lying. Or he was wrong. Duped by the Iraqi’s.

    Then, in 2004, the Commission reported that Iraq’s WMD program was effectively not cogent since 1994 due to the coalition sanctions.

    So, was right in 1999 but not in 2003? Is that what you are saying?

    Because what we know if we look at the facts (I know, oh so pesky) is that the Commission was an ONGOING affair, and that in 1999 they ASSUMED that Iraq had active WMD programs as they did prior, but as early as 2003 it has been understood that those programs were affectively not active enough to promote usable weaponry.

    Get your story straight. The facts are out there.

    Get your story striaght. You

  6. Jules Roy says:

    Ken Adelman must have appeared on hundreds of CNN and other cable talk shows making the argument for war. His arguments consisted of the usual neo-con talking points. Strange how one never sees him anymore. The explanation for that is that he’s now identified with the ‘cakewalk’ remark and so the pro-Iraq invasion/occupation forces in the media no longer consider him of value. But BEFORE the quagmire he was still appearing on Crossfire making the case for war. If the neo-cons with their tremendous influence in media had disagreed with Adelman’s ‘cakewalk’ remarks before the war why was he so regularly making their pro-war case on TV?

  7. The Macker says:

    It would help if you could keep your quotes and factoids in proper context.

    Your theme that the War has taken longer than “expected” mixes up the Iraqi theater with the rest of the GWOT which Bush expected would take time. The removal of Saddam was quick and we were greeted as liberators by the Kurds and others. And that mission was accomplished.

    It is a false template that the war in Iraq is a self contained, “war of choice” and unrelated to surrounding enemies. And it is a false implication that there were no WMD programs.

    CNN and the rest of the MSM are poor sources of information, given that they have taken sides against the war and refuse to report anything favorable.

  8. Terrye says:


    Hans Blix did not say there were no weapons in Iraq in 2003, in fact he said there had to be a presumption that there weapons because there was no proof that Saddam had destroyed the weapons that we there.

  9. Terrye says:

    What people like Snafu and Jules ignore while they cherry pick and rave about neo cons is that our history with Saddam Hussein precedes Bush coming to office. If the man was such an innocent little lamb the international community could have turned him loose on his hapless population a decade ago. But they did not.

    But for people who think history began when Bush became president, studying history is way too much like work.

  10. Terrye says:

    And btw Snafu, Saddam was a vicious dictator and it is sad to see how many so called liberals mourn his passing.

  11. The Macker says:

    The “quagmire” is in your mind.

    And if the “neocons (translate: Jews) controlled the media, why is it so universally opposed to the war? Your storyline just doesn’t work.

  12. Dc says:

    Hans Blix never stated that “there were no WMD in Iraq” in any of his offical UN assessments in 2003.

  13. Dc says:

    Facts are pesky…yes…Iraq had disarmament discrepancies showing up in what they “claimed” to have or have produced or had destroyed…vs what was found, what was known, etc. These issues remained all the way up to the very end and were part of the final breifings that Hans Blix made to the UNSC in 2003.

    I won’t even “mention” our own intelligence systems analysis of the situation…and the “NIE”.

    As to Saddam your assesssment of previous UN disarmament actions in Iraq: here’s Blix’s last couple of paragraphs of his UNSC breifing in Feb 2003:

    …”By contrast, the task of “disarmament” foreseen in resolution 687 (1991) and the progress on “key remaining disarmament tasks” foreseen in resolution 1284 (1999) as well as the “disarmament obligations”, which Iraq was given a “final opportunity to comply with” under resolution 1441 (2002), were always required to be fulfilled in a shorter time span. Regrettably, the high degree of cooperation required of Iraq for disarmament through inspection was not forthcoming in 1991. Despite the elimination, under UNSCOM and IAEA supervision, of large amounts of weapons, weapons-related items and installations over the years, the task remained incomplete, when inspectors were withdrawn almost 8 years later at the end of 1998.

    If Iraq had provided the necessary cooperation in 1991, the phase of disarmament – under resolution 687 (1991) – could have been short and a decade of sanctions could have been avoided. Today, three months after the adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the period of disarmament through inspection could still be short, if “immediate, active and unconditional cooperation” with UNMOVIC and the IAEA were to be forthcoming.”

    There are a couple of things to be drawn from this: Saddam, while opening doors, was “not” fully cooperating under terms of the agreement in resolution 1441 (nor had he “ever” fully cooperating in substance on any issue related to weapons weapons manf, etc.). Further, there have always been disarmament issues related to Iraq that were ongoing BECAUSE of Saddam and his regimes lack of cooperation in this area that were even acknowledged up and to the very end by Blix (listed in his briefings to UNSC in 2003).

    Of course, I wont’ even mention…the logic of Bush the dead-brain chimp, being the evil genius that has carried out some of the greatest conspiricies this world has ever known …who failed to just have a spec ops team just drop a few pounds of antrhax or Iraq that they could “discover”??? I won’t mention the irony of such a dead brain outsmarting “you”.

    I guess it’s not quite as far fetched as believing that certain areas of our intelligence community, barfed, then tried to cover it up with media leaks and scandals designed to divert attention elsewhere.
    It’s just easier to believe that someone who can’t write thier name, devised the most diabolical and sinisterly brilliant scheme in all of mankind…to attack our own country, blame it on somebody else and then use the entire might of this nation to get get the guy who tried to shoot his “paw”.

    You want to talk about making up your mind?? We need better trolls.