« Why We Can't Win Militarily in Iraq | Home | American Exceptionalism: Home of Equality or Opportunity? »

Why We Can't Win Militarily in Iraq

The Bush surge is not about "Mission Creep", it is "Mission Leap". Every justification for going to war in Iraq has been exhausted and repudiated. Finally, with the execution of Saddam Hussein, we have jumped the shark. Yes we have deposed Saddam and his regime, we have certified that there are no WMD's in Iraq, and have helped the Iraqi Shia create a fledgling Shia-led government. Go get that "Mission Accomplished" banner and let's start the celebration. It is time to send our combat forces home.

That does not mean we will leave Iraq in peace. Far from it. A sectarian civil war is underway and will probably worsen. But this is a war we cannot win. We might have a chance if we were fighting one insurgency--let's say Zarqawi's Al Qaeda. But we are not. We are in the middle of a hydra headed civil war. We have helped create a lethal version of an Animal House food fight. There are no clear discernible sides. There are multiple Sunni insurgent groups and there are multiple Shia insurgent groups. The most extreme Sunni groups believe their ultimate mission is to kill Shia. Some Shia groups are willing to collaborate with some Sunnis. There is only thing these groups agree on--all see the United States as an intruder and want it expelled.

There is not much we can do to quell the violence in Iraq. In the face of our conventional military force the various insurgent groups refuse to stand and fight and melt into the populace. They hide out until we go away and then filter back in. We can surround the various Baghdad neighborhoods and embed our troops with Iraq police. And our troops will search fruitlessly for the insurgents as we invade homes and, more often than not, roust unsuspecting Iraqis. God help us if we do a Fallujah style clear and hold. It will be a human tidal wave spilling out of the city.

And when all is said and done these tactics simply antagonize the Iraqi populace--sunni and shia--and spur recruits for the various insurgents. Until we come to grips with this reality we will continue to fail to get a handle on the Iraq of our dreams. Lawrence of Arabia described this frustration as trying to eat soup with a knife.

The United States needs to redefine its mission and goals in Iraq. Like it or not we have created a Shia majority country that is favorably disposed towards Iran. We also have created regions of the former Iraq that are defacto independent regions--one Kurdish and one Sunni. We lack the power and the resources to impose our will on the region. We cannot make the Iraqis nor the Iranians nor the Syrians nor the Saudis act like we want them to act. If we persist in that madness we will destroy ourselves as a great power.

So, if everything is coming up lemons we need to consider making lemonade. What should we do?

1. Negotiate an immediate agreement with the Maliki Government for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. This agreement should include permission for the United States to maintain a joint military/law enforcement base in Iraq dedicated to combating terrorist threats. We should also be willing to offer to commit to a longterm program for training and equiping the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi National Police. But this will require employing U.S. personnel who speak Arabic and will accpet longterm assignments in Iraq. And we should not be surprised if our offer is rejected.

2. Working through the Arab League, recruit and deploy a genuine multi-national peacekeeping force to police Baghdad.

3. There is a lot of diplomatic work to do on the periphery of Iraq. We have damaged our credibility with Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey. We have all but declared war on Syria and Iran. We need to cool things down and work towards some broad-based agreements. The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group offers an excellent guide in this regard.

We need to step back and refocus on the issues that are important, not only to us, but to all countries in the region. We must combat religious extremism and ensure that all countermeasures possible are employed to detect and defeat terrorist threats from these various groups. We must prevent nuclear proliferation. We found a way to live with Pakistan, who has been the biggest proliferator in the world, surely we can find a way to contain Iran.

The neo-cons continue to try to foist their vision of terror on the people of the United States. They insist we must stay and fight in Iraq or else the Islamofascists--militant muslims keen on building a worldwide Caliphate (think of International Communism with God at the center)--will take over. A scary vision but it is nonsense. Ignore for a moment the gulf separating the aspiring Sunni Caliphs from the aspiring Shia Caliphs, there are 800 million muslims who have not bought into this craziness. We need to stop acting out of fear and concentrate on what is in our national interest. That's where the debate needs to be. But one thing is clear--continuing to kill Iraqis with U.S. troops is not in our interest or theirs. Accepting that fact is the first step on the road towards peace.


Comments (54)

J. McCutchen


"[I]f we look at the president's proposal more carefully, we find it actually amounts to less than zero. It hints at actions that may turn a mere debacle into disaster on a truly historic scale.

As I have said before and will say again, the price of an attack on Iran could easily be the loss of the army we have in Iraq. No conceivable action would be more foolish than adding war with Iran to the war we have already lost in Iraq. Regrettably, it is impossible to read Mr. Bush's dispatch of a carrier and Patriot batteries any other way than as harbingers of just such an action....

Incurious George has offered no new strategy, nor new course, nor even a plateau on the downward course of our two lost wars and failed grand strategy. He has chosen instead to escalate failure, speed our decline and expand the scope of our defeat. Headed toward the cliff, his course correction is to stomp on the gas."


Less Than Zero - William Lind

I agree except I question:

"We should also be willing to offer to commit to a longterm program for training and equiping the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi National Police."

I guess I don't know whose side the Iraqi Army and Iraqi National Police are working for? We also seem to be in a situation in which all sides both in Iraq and in the region are working both sides and double crossing us half the time. Until we can somehow restore the credibility of our intelligence services and State Department -- how can anybody figure out who we should be training or equipping?

That is an excellent outline of what our new policy towards Iraq and the Middle East should be. As far as recruiting a peace keeping force for Iraq is concerned, that must be left to the Iraq government or governments. And, training Iraqi police or armed forces is also something the Iraqi government or governments must take care of. Offering our services is fine, but generally when we do that, the offer is not allowed to be refused.

Iraq is in fact at least three different nations now, so our insistence that Maliki is the Prime Minister for "Iraq" is nonsense. I would much prefer that we work to make the transition to three separate nations go as easily, with as little bloodshed as possible. And, I feel strongly that the way to do that is the obvious way - stand aside!

Hoppy in Sacramento

avatar

Well written, Larry. The details are the devil in this Bush strategy. No one seems to be asking this administration exactly how they expect this strategy to work, and how they are going to implement it.

They cannot "clear and hold" areas of Iraq or "neighborhoods" as they so disengenuously call them, without a wholesale rounding up of men and weapons and holding them indefinitely in prisoner camps. There is simply no way to distinguish between "insurgents" of any kind of ethnic or religious background, without incurring the enmity and hatred of one group or another and fueling further violence against our troops. According to the State dept. 68% of attacks are directed against our troops, with Iraqi civilians overwhelmingly the victims in the attacks. Obviously then, it is our presence that is the cause, and the solution is not to increase that presence.

When these men are rounded up and imprisoned, who then is going to win the bread for those families left without the financial mainstay of the family? Will we then be obligated to support these families until the country is "stabilized?" As each neighborhood is "cleared" our troops will become the defacto welfare and relief administration of every single neighborhood in Iraq. They will be called upon to distribute food, money and work and make security decisions for which they have not had the training nor are they supposed to be trained to do.

This mission will require house to house searches in every single neighborhood to seize weapons and make decisions as to who can stay and who must be taken away if we're to expect any kind of success in this strategy. Embedding our troops with Iraqi security forces is to place these troops in the utmost danger from within the IRF, which is rife with corruption, ethnic bias and lack of training. More often than not, those attacks on our troops are done with the collusion and complicity of the IRF.

The training and arming of the IRF has been a disaster - it has increased the violence by the arming of these security forces. The black market in weaponry is out of control in Iraq, with 4% of the weapons to be provided to the IRF being stolen before the weapons are distributed to those forces. Those weapons that are distributed are often sold or supplied to insurgents. We're supplying the weaponry to kill our own troops.

We are making decisions that affect the everyday lives of Iraqi citizens unilaterally, without any kind of consultation at all with those Iraqi citizens. If we would resent this, why wouldn't the Iraqis? The Iraq Study Group had not one Iraqi on the committee, and we wonder why they hate us. The biggest obstacle we face in Iraq is our own arrogance and lack of empathy for the Iraqis.

The way of this President is madness and until we form a coalition in this country to find a way out of this tar pit, we're stuck.

It's always been obvious to anyone who knows anything about history that we couldn't "win" militarily in Iraq in any sense except that the world's most powerful military could depose the government of a weakened Iraq, which we did with Bush's war of aggression. Which, by the way, is a war crime that Cheney/Bush and WHIG should be held legally accountable for.

.Tom

As you mention, there will always be elements of an American force in Iraq; at least for the next several years. Evidently the Green Zone has become a defacto permanent military base in Iraq.

Whomever wins the presidency in 2008 will have a very difficult time of defining the term "withdrawal." For one, it will not be a complete withdrawal. Second, a sizable force must remain in the region on 'stand-by' if some emergency were to befall Baghdad or Fallujah.

In other words, an American troop withdrawal in Iraq will not be the same definition of the word as you would find in the dictionary. More like 'Strategic Redeployment' or something along those lines.

On another front, Bush's new policy seems to be focused more on Iran than Iraq. First, the Surge is intended, by and large, to deal directly with the Shiite army of Al Sadr. Now, we learn that American forces will be targeting 'foreign' operatives in Iraq, with an added emphasis on Iranians who are meddling in Iraqi affairs. Finally, adding an extra aircraft carrier to the Gulf is not intended for Iraq. After all, the Shock and Awe campaign is a thing of the past.

If one were to closely analyze the new Bush plan, they might just draw the conclusion that strategic failure in Iraq has been tacitly acknowledged by the Bush administration. Indeed, this new plan seems to be a subtle form of moving away from Iraq without admitting failure.

avatar
We are in the middle of a hydra headed civil war. We have helped create a lethal version of an Animal House food fight.

Sure, but we gotta stay to look after the keg.

I think we can win militarily, but the cost is so great, that the American public will have none of it. I think it would require us to double the number of troops in Iraq by a) instituting a draft, b) creating an American foreign legion, or c) answers both a & b.

Chances of this actually happening? Zero. Therefore I believe that the war is already lost. The question for us is how long do we forestall the inevitable. I think Bush wants to stick it out, in his own infantile way, just long enough so that he can dump this on the legacy of the next President.

avatar

Similar to an Op-Ed piece by retired General William Odom.

"Write off the democracy goal as a draw, declare a tactical victory, and withdraw in good order. Of course a terrible mess will be left, but more troops and money can only make it worse, not better. The new strategic aim must be regional stability, not democracy in Iraq. The United States alone cannot achieve it. It will need help. And other countries will not help while we are bogged down in Iraq. They enjoy our pain."

Know when to fold 'em

avatar

On January 13, 2007 - 4:04pm BevD said: When these men are rounded up and imprisoned, who then is going to win the bread for those families left without the financial mainstay of the family? Will we then be obligated to support these families until the country is "stabilized?"

I’d like to put another perspective on family support structures.

 When Boxer, asked this administration, about who’s making the sacrifice.

 This President has shown time and again his lack of compassion to the citizens of the United States. The phrase” by their fruits you’ll know” how much effort they’ll place on protecting the homeland, and it’s citizens against the ravaging effects of hunger and shelter, security. Katrina was the proof!

 These young men and women, that this Administration is so willing to put in harms way, in a foreign country , to secure America’s interest, makes me sick. The President places his so called America’s interest above the lives of those he sends. What a misplaced value.

 When a soldier is sent, who bears the sacrifice, the government? Or Families?

 When the soldier comes home severely hurt requiring years of recovery, who makes the sacrifice? The government ?

 When the soldiers parents, in old age, look to their children for help, whose sacrifice is it? The Government?

 When the soldiers fatherlless chidren struggle through lifes difficult challenges, who’ll be there? The Government?

 Despite these glaring questions, What has this government done? Cut taxes, redistribute the wealth to the upper earners, claiming it is their money.

 Now in the near future, this Administration and future ones will be cutting the support system, the safety net that should be there. When the soldier, who was willing to lay down their lives, relying on the nation, to care for the folks, Who’ll be there? The government ? 

 This Government talks about rebuilding Iraq, ($1,500,000.00) 1.5 millon dollars a day, for the war .

 But this Administration will not raise taxes to pay for this blunder.

 This surge idea has a cost, not only in lives (blood) but treasure, When the cost of this war hits the pockets of these war lovers, greed might wake them to the fact that we can’t afford these expansion ideas.

 The loss of lives hasn’t pricked their conscience, maybe loss of treasure will.

Democrats need to raise the issue of paying for the war, not withholding the support.

avatar

Why do the talking heads and the Bush gang
keep saying that the Democrats don't
offer a plan .

Congressman John Murtha has a plan.
It should be read and posted more often

avatar

This is a good piece- it's really informative and well written. It discusses the problems, and proposes solutions.

Maybe it's just me because I'm a progressive news/opinion junkie, but it seems like people, even with excellent pieces like this, are having to repeat themselves. A lot of us know that we can't win militarily in Iraq, and a lot of us know about all the lies, both military and civilian, that Duhbya and The Evil One have perpetrated on all of us for six years. We know that this presidency is catastrophic, and that this has indeed been the worst in American history.

I guess maybe it's just time we all direct our attention to making the case, and repeating it over and over again, that they all should be impeached simultaneously and immediately. We do have charges to impeach them with, and we could "pre-empt" an attack on Iran if we impeach them now.

avatar

I would add that the only "Mission Creep" here is George Duhbya Bush.

avatar

Good suggestions, Larry. We certainly seem to be at the stage where the term "quagmire" is becoming less of an exaggeration and more of an operative description.

In looking for estimates of the total number of those involved in the Iraqi resistance (not including Shia militias), an initial number that seems to pop out is about 100,000, probably spearheaded by a core of 50,000 or so of the well trained and equipped Fedayeen Saddam plus 12,000 - 15,000 members of the various Iraqi security services active under Saddam, and other spontaneous resistance fighters.

While their original numbers have certainly been attrited,it would appear this group has had few recruiting problems. Since we in the public have never even had our government's ball-park estimates of the actual number of resistance fighters our troops face, it's all a guessing game from our perspective.

That closely held bit of information is, unfortunately, critical for any sensible public discussion of force levels required for a reasonable chance at "success", hence, no one in the public has any idea as to the advisability of deploying additional troops to the Iraqi theater, or in what numbers if that course is advisable.

The irony is that the Iraqi resistance leaders know very well what their numbers are, just as they can pick up a newspaper and find out what our numbers are. The only people left in the dark are the American people. From their behavior, one would have to assume the Iraqi resistance is encouraged by their understanding of the correlation of forces.

Even if we did an about-face and attempted negotiating our way out with resistance forces directly, we'd likely be negotiating from a position of extreme weakness with predictable results. That's why the course you recommend seems our last best fling at anything approaching common sense.

Sam Thornton

AFAIK, the Green Zone does not have an airfield capable of handling tactical fighters and transports. As such, it has to be covered by another base. Since Baghdad International has been returned to civilian use, LSA ANACONDA, the former Iraqi Balad Air Base about 60 miles north of Baghdad, really needs to be treated as a unit with the Green Zone.

While I agree that published reinforcements suggest Iran more than Iraq, it is not at all clear, from the order of battle, what sort of mission is planned. You don't take Marine Amphibious Forces into major battles, unless you expect to do a huge amount of Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel, or conceivably try to seize a offshore platform or a coastal base.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

 I agree with you except that I don't believe any nation can "win" a war such as this one, where we are trying to conquer another nation with people having a much different culture, and those people do not see us as "liberators", but as "conquerors".  So, it makes no difference how many insurgents there are in Iraq.  We are not going to be engaging in battles as we normally think of them, since the insurgents have nothing to gain by allowing themselves to be drawn into battles.  All they have to do to win is to keep up the pressure on us and wait it out.  Time is on their side.

I have to wonder if the American people really want us to be trying to conquer other nations, just to make more money for the American oil industry.  My gut feeling is that the answer is no, but my gut feeling was also that American voters would accept the opportunity to vote Bush out of office in 2004.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Larry said:

We are in the middle of a hydra headed civil war. We have helped create a lethal version of an Animal House food fight.

And if we haven't learned anything else from the past, and as long as our combat troops are there, things will get worse before they get worse.

~OGD~

avatar

Well, it's winnable "in theory". There have been instances where insurgents were defeated. But I think you're right, won't happen here. By insisting that the administration provide some believable numbers on what we're actually facing, however, I think giving the lie to their strategy and tactics will be that much simpler. But, I could be wrong.
Sam Thornton

Perhaps they did.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

Just like everything else, this administration likes to regurgitate the same smelly old talking points: "What's YOUR plan, then?"

Here's a little story to illustrate the problem with that argument.

One day little Bushie was throwing a hard rubber ball around his Mommy, Barbara's, bedroom. His mommy said, "don't do that, Georgie, you'll break something. He ignored her and continued to hurl the ball around, twice as hard as before. It hits a priceless ceramic vase breaking it into 3 pieces. So his mommy says, "you'd better go find your daddy, he'll get you some glue, and someone that can help you fix that Georgie." Instead spoiled rotten little Georgie says, " No! I have a better idea!" and stomps on the broken vase until it's powder. When his mommy asks him how he plans on fixing it, he aggressively yells at her, "what's YOUR plan to fix it, you rotten old hag!"

I wonder what his mommy did when he said that.

It's an idiotic argument and talking point, and I'm sure I am just as fed up with it as 75% or so of Americans are.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

avatar

I agree that we need to stop inflicting such awful destruction on the Iraqi people at such ruinous costs to ourselves. As with the American War on Vietnam in which I served, so too with the American War on Iraq: "We lost the day we started and we won the day we stopped."

Still, like the Vietnamese who defeated us in Southeast Asia with a whole lot more weaponry and international support than the Iraqis could even dream of, why would the Iraqis who defeated us with little more than the "improvised" combination of small arms, some old artillery shells, and garage-door openers think that they have anything to learn from earstwhile American "trainers" who believe that police work involves airstrikes on urban areas that real police serve and protect? As the Israeli military historian Martin Van Crevald says: "The American military is competely incompetent. They only know how to train Iraqis in how to fight Americans. How stupid can they be?" So, really, who would want such bungling incompetents for trainers?

At least by leaving Iraq as quickly as possible, we can keep our too-stupid-to-stipulate military from costing us two billion dollars a week to accomplish absolutely nothing whatsoever in our national interest. This Warfare Welfare and Makework Militarism has got to stop. America doesn't have a small enough military. The Lunatic Leviathan needs a serious downsizing. At least half of our "warrior wards of the state" need to get off the public dole and go find some honest work in the private sector. Perhaps with all that "talent" "unleashed" for productive instead of destructive purposes we could then learn how to make some of our own cars again.

Mommy Barbara is the only member of the clan with whom I've ever spoken; we shared an airline cabin when GHWB 41 was Vice President. I wouldn't want to challenge her; sometimes I wonder if she would have been the most presidential of the bunch.

Seriously, the "what's your plan" immediately runs afoul of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group recommendations. I wonder if there's any way to get a bipartisan media presence driving home that alternatives indeed have been mentioned. Perhaps one of the ways to validate the Administration's resistance is to look at the ISG's recommendation to talk with Iran and Syria, yet see the Administration trying to tie them to other initiatives and not focus on Iraq. Yes, they can argue that they are doing things for overall Middle East policy, based on success to dats. :-(

Rice coming to a deal with Abbas might support the other anti-negotiation positions; too early to tell.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

avatar
Mommy Barbara is the only member of the clan with whom I've ever spoken; we shared an airline cabin when GHWB 41 was Vice President. I wouldn't want to challenge her; sometimes I wonder if she would have been the most presidential of the bunch.

I think it was Al Franken who mentioned in one of his books that GW is Momma Bush's favorite and Jeb Daddy's. Since GW and his Iraq fiasco is dragging down the Bush family reputation he's probably hearing from Momma quite often.

avatar

"When the cost of this war hits the pockets of these war lovers..."

War lovers are and always have been those who profit financially from them. The cost of this war will hit OUR pockets while their's will hardly register a blip.

David Brooks, formerly of DHB Industries, certainly can attest to how profitable wars can be. He was able to throw a $10 million , celebrity-studded party for his daughter not long ago. By the way, he's the guy who stuck the Pentagon with 23,000 worthless bullet-proof vests - since recalled. (Obviously Mr. Brooks loves war for the profits he realizes but could care less about the lives of those fighting it.)

avatar

I really feel that one morning a few years ago I woke up and found myself an inmate in an asylum for the mentally deranged.

We are engaged in a war which isn't a war with an enemy we can't identify led by a president who is waging a war against "evil." The latest from the new sec of DOD is we are committed to disarming the insurgents - (if we just knew who they were and if we knew that where they were.) Maybe they'll voluntarily turn in their weapons? That would be a big help.

If your house is falling down a hill, you move out.

phelicity
Short and sweet. That's the clearest summation I've heard.

Welcome to Vietnam Redux.

Tom

avatar

In response to 1:41am workerbee comment
The illustration works for me. The Republicans will miss the point entirely and talk about how you insulted Mama Bush. Bush collaborators went after John kerry and also attacked Barbara Boxer, when she asked about sacrificing our loved ones, and the Republicans twisted the significance of the question. Instead focusing on Condi's lack of children to enlist for service or blood to be offered at the altar of fire.

Some Republicans, want to attack the messenger rather than reflect or meditate on the message.

Maybe we can appeal to Mama Bush, to talk some sense in to her son. Tell George to seek help, before he destroys America like he did the vase.

IF A SHEPHARD TAKES A WRONG PATH, finding himself and his flock in a bad place. Should he forge ahead assuming everything will work out? or should he turn around, back tracking his steps back, and leading those who depend on his judgement back to safety? Or will he be haughty and self assuming, convincng himsef that if he turns around he'd be a coward. Realizing that the flock is ahead of him, he himself can run to safety but he'll lose the flock. No skin off his ***

Didn't Colin Powell say you break it you bought it. I guess the nation as a whole, not only has to buy it but has to die for it.

Did Bush even apologize when he said he accepts responsibilty? He couldn't humble himself for that. For one, did he tell Cindy Sheehan I'm sorry for your son's loss, her loss. Instead throughout the ordeal at the Ranch he ignored and his cohorts belittled her. He lies we die.

We need another shepherd

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

He didn't listen then and doesn't really care now.

avatar

The saddest thing...we can't trust GWB. Too many times has he lied to the american people acting as if he knows what's best for us.We can't stop him from exercising any war policy he wants regarless of how loud we make our opinions and objections. The only thing that might influence his actions is by making him know that there will be penalties...CONSEQUENCES...that we will make him pay...that he will be punished for going against the nation and causing so much death and destruction by his self willed incompetence and hidden agendas. Seriously, he acts like a man on prescription medications which unlike drinking isn't publicly noticed.

Sam,
If we were fighting "an insurgency" I would agree. However, when you are fighting at least 20 different insurgent groups that are also embroiled in a civil war--battling each other--then I don't know of any "counterinsurgency strategy" that is applicable in this situation.

Presidents don't win or lose wars; "we" don't win or lose wars. Generals --Wellington, Lee, Grant, Pétain, Haig, Pershing, Rommel, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Westmoreland, Abrams -- win or lose wars.

If you don't like what's going on, best take it up with Gen. Petraeus.

Most of your list -- Petain is probably the best counterexamples, and Wellington isn't bad -- won or lost theaters, campaigns, or battles. Well, depending on which Haig (Alexander or Sir Douglas) you have in mind, it might be campaigns or bureaucratic battles.

Indeed, in a number of cases, there are unnamed but relevant generals, at the Joint or Combined Chiefs, or even theater commanders.

Wars, at least in the American system, lie at the level of grand strategy including nonmilitary means. A general may do well tactically or operationally, but fail strategically because his strategic and grand stragegic masters gave him an impossible task.

Abrams was considerably more competent than Westmoreland, but both were constrained both by Saigon and Washington leadership to a mission unwinnable without massive changes in the South Vietnamese government.

Even MacArthur and Eisenhower had to deal with prioritization set by the Joint or Combined Chiefs of Staff. For MacArthur, those priorities included "Germany First" and the split of the Pacific among MacArthur, Nimitz and Mountbatten. Eisenhower was limited in North Africa by constraints on sealifts, incompetent subordinates like Fredendall, the nuances of diplomacy with the French, and his own inexperience that was polished by 1944.

Petraeus is important, but so are Fallon and the outgoing Abizaid, as well as other regional commanders, the commanders of support organizations, and civil forces (local, US, and NGO) in Iraq.

Failure to understand these multiple levels is a major reason for the Administration failure in Iraq.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Impeachment is included in the Constitution just for cases like this, where the President must be removed from office for the good of the nation.  Unfortunately, impeachment is no longer "on the table", most likely because the Democrats see attempting one as a sure way to lose in 2008.  That means the Democrats in Congress are putting themselves above the welfare of the nation.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Actually, we might better think of Wellington in the Peninsular War and of MacArthur post-Inchon.

While as of 2040c. we may be referring to the "war" in Iraq as an incidental feature of the Wars of the Persian Gulf, I would characterize the current goings on in Iraq as a number of campaigns in a single theater where the theater and the "war" are one and the same.

Thusly, as theater commander Petraeus is responsible for "winning" the "war." He says he can "win" with the resources he's being given. Else, he has the option of resigning (or not taking on the job in the first place). Success and acclaim or failure and opprobium are his, alone.

avatar

I don't mean to pick on you, Hoppy. I really don't.

But you seem to be arguing here that the Democrat legislators should vote their consciences and to hell with effectiveness or consequences. But when voters vote the same way and (theoretically) GWB benefits from it, you blame them for his victory.

Certainly McCain in the White House with a revitalized Republican Congress could be nearly as disasterous as was the Monkey Man with his Wignuttian legislature, no?

Cognitive dissonance? Help us understand what looks to me like inconsistency.

avatar

"We have all but declared war on Syria and Iran."

Huh? Arresting a small group of Iranians in Iraq is "all but declaring war"? What are you smoking Larry?

Oh right, you are just continuing to peddle the VIPS propaganda that Bush is about to invade/attack Iran - which you guys have been peddling for 2 years now.

A clock is right twice a day, maybe VIPS will be right some time between now and January 2009. Of course, being right isn't the point at all, now is it?

I think the Congress should do the job they were elected to do, as outlined in the Constitution.  One of the parts of that job is impeachment, where justified.  Just because the Democrats in Congress seem to believe an impeachment would damage their reelection efforts, doesn't mean I believe that or that it would.  I think impeachment hearings stand a very good chance of finally getting the press coverage that is needed before Joe Average begins to understand what has been happening.  I also believe that as Joe Average starts to achieve understanding, the Republicans in the Senate will begin to worry about their own reelection prospects and think strongly about cutting their losses now, by voting to convict.

So, no, there is no "cognitive dissonance" or inconsistency.  Voting by individual citizens is nothing at all like being a member of Congress.  It is in our personal best interest to work to ensure that the better of the two persons who can win the presidency actually does win.  And, the bonus is that it is also in the best interest of our nation.

Hoppy in Sacramento

avatar

Frankly, I think that conviction is a fantasy. But since it's not going to be put to the test, we can't prove anything one way or the other, so let's not argue the point.

Regardless, saying "Democrats in Congress are putting themselves above the welfare of the nation" is inaccurate, unless you just mean it as empty rhetoric. The Democrats think an impeachment attempt would hurt their re-election chances, sure. But they also think that the attempt would be bad for the country at large. KJ raised the spectre of "McCain in the White House with a revitalized Republican Congress." If you really believe that would be the most likely outcome of attempted impeachment, then impeachment simply isn't good for the country.

avatar

Welcome back Seixon, of course Bush won't attack Iran because Bush is a coward and a bully. Shame on Larry for even suggesting it.

Bullies only attack those who can't mount a defense. Like Iraq after a decade plus of sanctions. Iraq will have to remain the only Shining City on a Hill of dead bodies that represents 'freedom' to George W. Bush and Seixon.

Special wisdom from Seixon's blog, to give some perspective on where this wingnut is coming from:

"Just what is this unspoken rationale for opposing the war?

Why help Iraqis with freedom when we could have universal health care instead? Or better schools? Or better highways?

Ah yes, why indeed. I have seen this rationale for opposing the war lurk forward every now and then, only to quickly retreat into the shadows when exposed to light. What type of person holds this view? Certainly liberals who are intent on beefing up the socialist credentials of the United States to appease the Europeans. However, I would venture that this sentiment is not simply contained to Big Government Liberals, or as they are more commonly referred, communists and socialists."

Talk about conspiracy theories, Seixon! Dead-ender communist American liberals oppose the Iraq war purely to appease the Europeans by 'beefing up' their socialist credentials by pretending to want universal health care instead of war. I guess there could be no other explanation for wanting to save lives instead of destroying them.

Glad you have such faith in the good judgment of George W. Bush - he's proven to be such a genius.

Tom

avatar

Wait a minute. You think Democratic Senators are worried that they won't get reelected if they do push for impeachment, right?

But if the Dems do push, then Republican Senators will worry that they won't get reelected if they don't vote for impeachment? You, sir, have a far more subtle political mind than I.

 The first step in an impeachment process should be Congressional hearings into whether or not there are grounds for impeachment.  These hearings would be held with the power of subpoenaing members of the Bush advisory team, who would either have to refuse to appear, or refuse to testify, or tell how the Bush adminstration lied us into a war, and for what reasons.  Plus, they would look into the abuse of the Constitution in regards to the phone tapping, mail opening, refusal of habeus corpus, refusal to allow attorneys to represent the accused, the ordering of torture,  etc.  The newsmedia would have little choice but to cover the hearings, and all of this would stay in the news for months.  Public opinion is heavily against Bush and his gang now, but after all of this public opinion would be stronglly in favor of impeachment and possibly more.  So, of course any thinkng Republican would have to strongly consider tossing Bush and Cheney overboard to save his own skin.

Against that is the Democrats fear that the very mention of the word "impeachment" could cost them reelection, seeing what it did to Republicans when that word last came up.  Irrational fear, but still fear.

 I don't see any subtlety involved???

Hoppy in Sacramento

avatar

Hearings!!!??? Shit, yeah.

Subpoenas!!!??? You bet. Tons of 'em. Keep 'em comin'. Writer's cramp for whoever it is that signs 'em.

You're gonna have a helluva time finding a lefty who wants ta argue with you about any of that.

But impeachment? Sorry. Ain't gonna happen. Ain't gonna. You think Hatch is worried about getting reelected? McCain? Alexander? Brownback? You think you got Lieberman? Fageddaboudit.

There's no particular reason why many hearings on these topics need to be convened with respect to impeachment.


Plus, they would look into the abuse of the Constitution in regards to the phone tapping, mail opening, refusal of habeus corpus, refusal to allow attorneys to represent the accused, the ordering of torture, etc.

Procedurally, it would take draft bills to authorize additional forms of communications surveillance, mail covers and interception, grounds for suspending habeas corpus, etc.--perhaps as close to what the Administration is doing as possible. Each of these bills would go to a committee. The committee would ask for testimony, which variously might get people speaking in favor of the authorization or against it. In the course of hearings, when there is no Administration testimony and the committee believes some official has relevant information, the committee may subpoena.

Some of these hearings might produce bills explicitly denying some positions claimed by the administration. Some might even conclude that there is some merit to the position, but it should be formalized.

Refusal to follow the "updated" law becomes grounds for court action, or, indeed, articles of impeachment. But why is it necessary to start with impeachment hearings, when there are perfectly valid reasons to look at current legislation and its effectiveness? Strangely to some, the PATRIOT Act, as amended, did clean up some unneeded ambiguities; I'm directly familiar with some sections dealing with computer crime.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Which is a tiny shame given the fact that Bush is destroying our Constitution, our country, Iraq, and the world. But why would politicians let little things like that interfere with political expediency, which is the really important thing?

Tom

Rove is reputed to be a genius at spin.
Who dreamed up the scenario where the U.S.A. asks Iran and Syria for diplomatic assistance dealing with the dilemma which is Iraq and shortly thereafter makes two armed snatch-and-grab operations on Iranians in Iraq at the locals' request ?
And this looks like what to the world ?
No U.S. respect for Iraq's government or diplomatic immunity.

Cheney did it.

Tom

avatar

On January 15, 2007 - 5:41pm Bronto1 said:
"Just what is this unspoken rationale for opposing the war?
Why help Iraqis with freedom when we could have universal health care instead? Or better schools? Or better highways?

And then raises another point about ones ideology

"However, I would venture that this sentiment is not simply contained to Big Government Liberals, or as they are more commonly referred, communists and socialists."

MY REPLY
It’s not a question of either or. America runs around the world flexing it’s muscle on every nation on the Earth. Like some spoiled brat who wants every toy in the pre school and he’s not about to share . He wants to control all the worlds oil, he wants all the worlds minerals. He wants to control everything. If a nation wants to decide it’s future, it better seek permission first from the US
First he’ll play nice, and if his overtures are not accepted he’ll grab them anyway. Convincing the subjugated Americans that it is in their best interest to sacrifice their blood and treasure to get another nation under control for our benefit, it boasts of it being the only nation to bring world peace and security to the nations as it States

“Who is like us” or “who will stand against us” Revelation 13:14,15

If CONQUEST AND CONTROL ARE THE OBJECTIVE why mistreat the people of the conquering nation.?

When it comes time to share the booty of this eventual conquest. To fund such things as Healthcare, Highways and God forbid a rapid response of caring for the needs of those who suffer when disaster strikes (Katrina) We find that the blood spilled was not worthy of further consideration.

The working class becomes a burden instead. The Government (The ruling class) will say "We can't afford Social Security we can't afford Universal Healthcare, we can only afford War"

The Commercial interests were what was meant when the battle cry was made about being in Americas interest.

Rome had a similar plan, they would send all those pesky laborers and slave class to do the fighting while the upper class enjoys the fruit of conquest.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs

Quotes of Debs still relevant today

· Wars throughout history have been waged for conquest and plunder. In the Middle Ages when the feudal lords who inhabited the castles whose towers may still be seen along the Rhine concluded to enlarge their domains, to increase their power, their prestige and their wealth they declared war upon one another. But they themselves did not go to war any more than the modern feudal lords, the barons of Wall Street go to war. The feudal barons of the Middle Ages, the economic predecessors of the capitalists of our day, declared all wars. And their miserable serfs fought all the battles. The poor, ignorant serfs had been taught to revere their masters; to believe that when their masters declared war upon one another, it was their patriotic duty to fall upon one another and to cut one another's throats for the profit and glory of the lords and barons who held them in contempt. And that is war in a nutshell. The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose — especially their lives.
They have always taught and trained you to believe it to be your patriotic duty to go to war and to have yourselves slaughtered at their command. But in all the history of the world you, the people, have never had a voice in declaring war, and strange as it certainly appears, no war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people.
And here let me emphasize the fact — and it cannot be repeated too often — that the working class who fight all the battles, the working class who make the supreme sacrifices, the working class who freely shed their blood and furnish the corpses, have never yet had a voice in either declaring war or making peace. It is the ruling class that invariably does both. They alone declare war and they alone make peace.
Yours not to reason why;
Yours but to do and die.
That is their motto and we object on the part of the awakening workers of this nation.
· If war is right let it be declared by the people. You who have your lives to lose, you certainly above all others have the right to decide the momentous issue of war or peace.” --- Debs

As to his questioning the intellect or acceptance of an alternative form of governance ie socialism or Christ like love.

“Wherever capitalism appears, in pursuit of its mission of exploitation, there will Socialism, fertilized by misery, watered by tears, and vitalized by agitation be also found, unfurling its class-struggle banner and proclaiming its mission of emancipation.—Debs
No one really believes it’s about Democracy do they? Do the Iraqi’s? I believe the Iraqi’s are fighting American Capitialism.. American blood and treasure are being invested to further capitists goals.


I AM OPPOSING a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence. --- Debs
· In this country — the most favored beneath the bending skies — we have vast areas of the richest and most fertile soil, material resources in inexhaustible abundance, the most marvelous productive machinery on earth, and millions of eager workers ready to apply their labor to that machinery to produce in abundance for every man, woman, and child — and if there are still vast numbers of our people who are the victims of poverty and whose lives are an unceasing struggle all the way from youth to old age, until at last death comes to their rescue and lulls these hapless victims to dreamless sleep, it is not the fault of the Almighty: it cannot be charged to nature, but it is due entirely to the outgrown social system in which we live that ought to be abolished not only in the interest of the toiling masses but in the higher interest of all humanity…--- Debs

Lets rid ourselves of the notion that all in America can compete and all of us will live the good life.

· Competition was natural enough at one time, but do you think you are competing today? Many of you think you are. Against whom? Against Rockefeller? About as I would if I had a wheelbarrow and competed with the Santa Fe from here to Kansas City --- Debs

· When we are in partnership and have stopped clutching each other's throats, when we have stopped enslaving each other, we will stand together, hands clasped, and be friends. we will be comrades, we will be brothers, and we will begin the march to the grandest civilization the human race has ever known. --- Debs

avatar

Tom, I don't think political expediency has much to do with it on either side of the aisle. Both sides can count up to 34, and they know that there are at least that many Wingnuts, Loyalists, and Superpatriots who would vote against impeachment. End of issue.

But this is not to say that serious critics of this diabolically incompetent administration are powerless. They can investigate, subpoena, publicize, appropriate, and legislate for two full years. If they do it well, it will be almost as effective as impeachment, just not as satisfying.

avatar

Do you have a link or cite for this information?

avatar

Yes. The Nation magazine, Jan. 22, '07 issue an article by Chuck Collins titled "Ten Blockbuster Hearings." Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, where he directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good. He is co-author of the forthcoming book, "The Moral Measure of the Economy."

avatar

"Just what is this unspoken rationale for opposing the war? Why help Iraqis with freedom when we could have universal health care instead? Or better schools? Or better highways? And then raises another point about ones ideology "However, I would venture that this sentiment is not simply contained to Big Government Liberals, or as they are more commonly referred, communists and socialists."

Chuckie-the above was from Seixon's blog, which he has a link to, I was just showing what a wingnut he is- agree with you! Bronto1

Ah Ha!

Mommy and Daddy allowing someone to have computer privileges again?

~OGD~

As I said up thread back on the the 14th...

...things will get worse before they get worse.

And now 3 5 days later...

01/14/07 Reuters: Gunmen kill 3 workers in Iskandariya Gunmen attacked a private factory and killed three workers and wounded another on Saturday night in the town of Iskandariya, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

01/14/07 Reuters: Mortar fire wounds 5 in Mosul
Several mortar rounds landed on a residential district, wounding five people on Saturday in Mosul, police said.

01/14/07 Reuters: 9 bodies found in Mosul
The bodies of nine people, with gunshot wounds, were brought to the morgue in the northern city of Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad, a source in the morgue said.

01/14/07 Reuters: Gunmen kill five in Mosul
Gunmen opened fire at a gathering of people, killing three and wounded three in Mosul, police said...Gunmen killed two men in two different incidents in Mosul, police said

01/14/07 Reuters: PUK member survives roadside bomb, body found in Kirkuk
Police found the body of a man shot in the head, in Kirkuk, police said.

01/14/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb kills one, wounds six in Baghdad
A roadside bomb killed a person and wounded six near al-Tayaran Square in central Baghdad, an Interior Ministry source said.

01/14/07 dpa: Morta fire kills 1, wounds 3 in Baghdad's al-Fadl district
Another Iraqi was killed and three wounded when mortar shells fell on al-Fadl district, close to the site of the first attack. According to eyewitnesses, nearby houses suffered damages.


01/14/07 Reuters: Baghdad morgue took 16,000 bodies in 2006
The Baghdad morgue took in about 16,000 unidentified bodies last year, the bulk of them victims of death squads and other sectarian violence, a source at the morgue told Reuters on Sunday.


01/14/07 MNF: One Task Force Lightning Soldier Dies, One Wounded
A Task Force Lightning Soldier assigned to the 105th Engineer Group, died of wounds Saturday as a result of an explosion while conducting operations in northern Iraq.

01/14/07 kuna: Gunmen kill senior official in Iraq''s Sunni endowments dept
Unknown gunmen killed on Sunday a senior official in Iraq's Sunni awqaf (endowments) department. According to a press release by the department, the official, Khaled Abdul-Hadi Al-Ghawas, was killed by some militia members in one of Baghdad's suburbs.

01/14/07 MNF: US soldier killed Sunday in Baghdad by a roadside bomb.
An improvised explosive device detonated on a Multi-National Division – Baghdad patrol, killing one Soldier near the center of the Iraqi capital Jan. 14

01/14/07 Reuters: Gunmen kidnap two Iraqi army officers and a soldier in Balad
Gunmen kidnapped two Iraqi army officers and a soldier at a fake checkpoint in Balad, 80 km (50 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

01/14/07 Reuters: Police find severed head in Baiji
Police found a severed head in Baiji, 180 km (112 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

01/14/07 Reuters: 40 Bodies found in Baghdad
Police in Baghdad found 40 bodies, many tortured and shot dead, in different parts of the capital in the past 24 hours, an interior ministry source said.

01/14/07 Reuters: Four Iraqi policeman killed in Madaen
Four Iraqi policemen were killed in clashes with gunmen in Madaen, just south of Baghdad, an interior ministry source said.

01/14/07 MOD: Kingsman Alexander William Green killed in Iraq
Kingsman Alex Green, aged 21, from 2nd Battalion The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, died as a result of injuries sustained earlier in the morning when shot by small arms fire whilst on a task in the Hayy Al Muhandisn District of Basra City.

01/15/07 AP: Roadside Bomb Kills 3 Iraqi Police
Three policemen were killed by a roadside bomb that targeted a police car in southeastern Baghdad. A police official said two others were wounded. The attack occurred during morning rush hour on Monday near a gas station in the capital.

01/15/07 MNF: 89th Military Police Brigade Soldier unit hit by IED
An 89th Military Police Brigade Soldier died Jan. 14 of wounds suffered after an improvised explosive device exploded next to his vehicle north of Baghdad.

01/15/07 Reuters: Eleven bodies- bound and gagged - found in Baquba
The bodies of 11 people were found shot in the head, bound and gagged in Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad, police said. Nine of the victims were found in the west of the town and the other two in the city centre.

01/15/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb wounds 2 in Baghdad
A bomb planted under a car wounded two people in al-Nidhal street in central Baghdad, an Interior Ministry source said.

01/15/07 Reuters: Katyusha rocket hit house in Kirkuk wounding two people
A Katyusha rocket landed in a house wounding two people in Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

01/15/07 Reuters: Gunmen wound one person in Iskandariya,
Gunmen opened fire at shops, wounding one person in the town of Iskandariya, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

01/15/07 Reuters: Motar fire kills 2 in Yusufiya
Three mortar rounds hit residents, killing two people and wounding four, in the town of Yusufiya, 15 km (9 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

01/15/07 Reuters: Gunmen kill translator and garbage contractor in Kut
Gunmen killed a man who worked with the U.S. forces as a garbage contractor in Kut, 170 km (105 miles) south of Baghdad, police said. In a separate attack, a translator working with U.S. forces was shot dead by gunmen near Kut, police said.

01/15/07 Reuters: Gunmen kill 2 people in Mosul
Gunmen killed a man in Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) police said...Gunmen wounded a former army colonel in Mosul, police said.

01/15/07 Reuters: Car bomb wounds 3 in Kirkuk
A car bomb exploded near the house of the owner of a car showroom, wounding 11 people, police said. Three days ago a car bomb exploded near his shop. His house was empty at the time of the explosion.

01/15/07 Reuters: Car bomb kills 2, wounds 5 near the Turkman Front Party in Kirkuk
Two people were killed and five wounded when a car bomb exploded near the Turkman Front Party in Kirkuk, police said.

01/15/07 Reuters: Suicide car bomber kills 4 Iraqi soldiers in western Baghdad
A suicide car bomber blew himself up near an Iraqi army check point, killing four soldiers and wounding three others in Jamiaa district in western Baghdad, police said.

01/15/07 Reuters: Car bomb kills five at Kurd party office in Iraq
A suicide car bomber killed at least five people and wounded 28 more in an attack on an office of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) in the northern city of Mosul on Monday, police and a Kurdish official said.

01/15/07 telegraph: Iran 'taking control of Basra by stealth'
Iranian intelligence is preparing for complete dominance of southern Iraq when the British withdraw by penetrating Basra's security network and political parties, it can be revealed.

01/16/07 AP: 35,000 Iraq civilians died in 2006, UN says
The UN today said almost 35,000 civilians were killed in Iraq last year - a sharp increase on the numbers previously reported by the Iraqi government.

01/16/07 AP: 2 Blasts Kill 15 People in Baghdad
Two bombs were detonated five minutes apart Tuesday in a used motorcycle marketplace in central Baghdad, killing at least 15 people and wounding 74 others, police said. The first bomb was attached to a motorcycle in the market...

01/16/07 Reuters: Gunmen kill three people im Mosul
Gunmen killed three people in a drive by shooting in Mosul, police said.

01/16/07 Reuters: Gunmen kill bus driver south of Baghdad
Gunmen entered a bus terminal and killed a driver on Monday in the town of Jibila, about 50 km (35 miles) south of Baghdad, police said

01/16/07 Reuters: Iraqi guard killed by sniper in Baghdad
A sniper killed a guard of al-Sabah, a state run newspaper, in northern Baghdad, police said.

01/16/07 Reuters: Nine bodies found in Mosul
A total of nine bodies, including a policewoman, were found shot dead on Monday in different districts of the northern city of Mosul, police said.

01/16/07 Reuters: University bombing kills 60 in Baghdad (Update)
A car bomb and a suicide bomber killed 60 people and wounded 110, including many students blown up as they waited at the entrance to a university in Baghdad on Tuesday...Other bombings and a mass shooting brought to at least 95...

01/16/07 MNF: Four Task Force Lightning Soldiers killed
Four Task Force Lightning Soldiers assigned to the 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division were killed Monday as a result of an improvised explosive device while conducting operations in Ninewa province, Iraq.

01/16/07 MCT: 25 bodies found in Baghdad
Today 25 bodies were found in Baghdad. 8 were found in AUAREEJ area southern Baghdad near al mahmodiyah, 2 abu atsheer, 3 dora, 2 saidiyah, 2 bayaa, 2 amil, 1 furat, 1 kadhemiyah, 2 hurriyah and 2 yarmouk.

01/16/07 MCT: Gunmen kill 12 civilians in eastern Baghdad
At 4:45 this evening unknown gunmen opened [fire on]...civilians at the main local market in al BINOG area eastern Baghdad killing 12 civilians and injuring another 17

01/16/07 guardian: UN warns of looming crisis in Kirkuk
The deteriorating human rights situation in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in northern Iraq could be a prelude to a looming crisis in the Kurdish region, the UN warned today.

01/16/07 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Spc. James D. Riekena, 22, of Redmond, Wash., died Jan. 14 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. Riekena was assigned to the 145th Brigade Support Battalion, Post Falls, Idaho.

01/16/07 koat: New Mexico Soldier Injured In Baghdad
Army Sgt. Kenny Gibson, 26, was severely injured in an explosion just south of Baghdad...Gibson's father said his son was heavily medicated but told him that he had been hit by a bomb, was full of shrapnel, but...still had all of his arms and legs.

01/16/07 channel3000: Family Of Injured Soldier Frustrated By Army's Delay
Spc. Niles Lavey, of Richland Center, is in stable condition but in intensive care after being shot in the neck while serving in Fallujah. The incident happened on Sunday, WISC-TV reported.

01/16/07 BeaconJournal: Wounded Navy Seabee will head back to work
Chief Petty Officer William B. Bell, 34...suffered injuries to his left leg, left arm and face as well as shrapnel wounds in his back and buttocks in a Dec. 4 attack that killed one Navy corpsman and injured another in Al Anbar Province.

01/16/07 abc27: Franklin County Soldier Wounded in Iraq
A Franklin County soldier has been severely wounded during an attack in Iraq. On Saturday, 20-year-old Corey O'Connor of Waynesboro became the victim of a roadside bomb. He was riding in a humvee north of Baghdad when he was hit by shrapnel

01/16/07 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Sgt. Paul T. Sanchez, 32, of Irving, Texas, died Jan. 14 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle. Sanchez was assigned to the 543rd Military Police Company, 91st Military Police Battalion...

01/17/07 Reuters: Mortar fire kills 2, wounds 10 in Iskandariya
Several mortar rounds landed on a residential district on Tuesday killing a woman along with her son, and wounding 10 others in Iskandariya, police said.

01/17/07 Reuters: Policeman's body found in Iskandariya
Police found the body of a policeman strangled on Tuesday in the town of Iskandariya, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

01/17/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb kills policeman,in Baghdad
A roadside bomb targeting a police patrol killed a policeman and wounded three others in the busy area of Bab al- Sharji in central Baghdad, police said.

01/17/07 Reuters: Two brothers killed in Mahaweel
Gunmen killed two brothers on Tuesday in a drive- by shooting in the town of Mahaweel, 75 km (50 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

01/17/07 Reuters: Suicide truck bomb hits police in Iraq's Kirkuk
A suicide bomber driving a truck packed with explosives hit a police station in central Kirkuk on Wednesday and residents reported many casualties, though police had no immediate details on the dead and wounded.

01/17/07 Reuters: Roadside bomb wounds two coalition force soldiers in Basra
A roadside bomb wounded two coalition force soldiers in the southern city of Basra, a British Military spokeswomen said. She declined to confirm the nationality of the wounded but most of the foreign forces in Basra are British

01/17/07 AP: Suicide bomber hits market in Baghdad's Sadr City area; 17 killed
A suicide car bomb struck a market Wednesday in the Shiite district of Sadr City, killing 17 people and wounding 33, a day after a blast targeting university students killed 70 in what appeared to be a renewed campaign of Sunni insurgent...

01/17/07 MNF: 2 Soldiers killed in Al Anbar
One Soldier assigned to Regimental Combat Team 5 died Monday and one Soldier assigned to 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division died today from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in Al Anbar Province.

01/17/07 DoD Identifies Army Casualties (part 1)
2nd Lt. Mark J. Daily, 23, of Irvine, Calif...died Jan 15 in Mosul, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle during combat operations. The soldiers were assigned to the 2nd Squadron...

01/17/07 DoD Identifies Army Casualties (part 2)
Sgt. Ian C. Anderson, 22, of Prairie Village, Kan...died Jan 15 in Mosul, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle during combat operations. The soldiers were assigned to the 2nd Squadron...

01/17/07 DoD Identifies Army Casualties (part 3)
Sgt. John E. Cooper, 29, of Ewing, Ky...died Jan 15 in Mosul, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle during combat operations. The soldiers were assigned to the 2nd Squadron...

01/17/07 DoD Identifies Army Casualties (part 4)
Spc. Matthew T. Grimm, 21, of Wisconsin Rapids, Wis...died Jan 15 in Mosul, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near their vehicle during combat operations. The soldiers were assigned to the 2nd Squadron...

01/17/07 AP: U.S. Woman Killed in Roadside Ambush Near Baghdad
...in Baghdad, a convoy carrying members of a U.S. democracy group was ambushed by gunmen, and four of the workers...among the dead was an American, a Hungarian, a Croatian and an Iraqi, said Les Campbell, the group's Middle East director.

01/17/07 ABC: Guards from Aust security firm killed in Iraq
An Australian security company operating in Baghdad says it is investigating an attack on a convoy that has reportedly left three crew members dead and several injured. Unity Resources Group says the convoy was staffed by international security guards...

01/17/07 Reuters: 30 Bodies found in Bagdad
Police retrieved 30 bodies around Baghdad in the 24 hours to Wednesday evening, a police source said. Most had been tortured and shot.

01/17/07 Reuters: 10 bodies found in Mosul
Ten unidentified bodies of victims of violence were delivered to the morgue in the northern city of Mosul, a hospital source said.

01/17/07 Reuters: Iraqi soldier killed in Baghdad
An Iraqi soldier was killed and four civilians wounded in a clash between the Iraqi army and gunmen in the mainly Sunni Yarmuk district of western Baghdad, a police source said.

01/17/07 Reuters: Academic shot dead at Baghdad University
Majed Nasser Hussein, a lecturer in veterinary medicine at Baghdad University, was shot dead in the Amriya district of western Baghdad, a police source said. Academics have been frequent targets of Islamic extremists, the United Nations says...

01/18/07 MNF: Sailor dies in non-combat related incident
A Sailor assigned to 16th Military Police Brigade, Camp Bucca, Iraq, died Jan. 17 in a non-combat related incident. The name and home unit of the deceased Sailor are being withheld pending next-of-kin notification.

01/18/07 Xinhua: At least five people killed in triple car bomb attack in Baghdad
Three car bombs detonated in a market in southern Baghdad on Thursday, killing at least five people and wounding 15 others...

01/18/07 Reuters: Gunmen kill civilian in Kifil
Gunmen attacked a civilian car and wounded its driver on Wednesday night in the town of Kifil, near Najaf, 160 km (100 miles) south of Baghdad, police said.

01/18/07 Reuters: Policeman killed at Mosul checkpoint
A policeman was killed and another wounded when insurgents threw a bomb at a police checkpoint in Mosul, police said.

01/18/07 Reuters: Body found in Iskandariya
Police said they found a body of a man, bound and shot dead, in Iskandariya, 40 km (25 miles) south of Baghdad.

01/18/07 Reuters: Car bomb kills 4 in central Baghdad
A car bomb targeting a police patrol killed four people and wounded 10 others in Saadoun Street in central Baghdad, police said.

01/18/07 kvoa: Sierra Vista native dies in Iraq
The family of 19-year-old Private First Class Collin Schockmel tells News 4 that military officials visited their home Wednesday with the news of his death.

01/18/07 AP: Marine Pleads Guilty to Iraqi Killing
A Marine corporal pleaded guilty Thursday to kidnapping and murdering an unarmed Iraqi civilian last year, and said he and other servicemen went after him because they were ``sick and tired of getting bombed.''

01/18/07 AP: Insurgents in Iraq claim convoy attack
An al-Qaida-linked coalition of Iraqi Sunni insurgents claimed responsibility Thursday for an attack in Baghdad on a convoy of a Western democracy institute that killed a 28-year-old Ohio woman and three security contractors.

01/18/07 Reuters: 26 bodies found in Baghdad, 9 found in Mosul
Police recovered the bodies of 26 people tortured and shot dead in different districts of Baghdad in the past 24 hours...Police found the bodies of nine people including that of a policeman in various districts of Mosul

01/19/07 MNF: Roadside bomb strikes MND-B convoy
A Multi-National Division - Baghdad Soldier died when an improvised explosive device detonated on a patrol in a northwest section of the Iraqi capital Jan. 18.

01/19/07 Reuters: Suspected leader of al Qaeda cells captured in Samarra
Iraqi police with U.S. advisers captured the suspected leader of several al Qaeda cells on Thursday in Samarra, 100 km (62 miles) north of Baghdad, the U.S. military said

01/19/07 Reuters: Sunni preacher killed in Kirkuk
The preacher of a Sunni mosque in a mainly Shi'ite district of Kirkuk, an ethnically tense oil-rich city 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, was shot dead in his home, police said.

01/19/07 Reuters: Iraqi police kill suicide bomber in Ramadi
Iraqi police shot and killed a suicide bomber after his explosive vest failed to detonate near a checkpoint in Ramadi on Wednesday, the U.S. military said.

01/19/07 Reuters: Bomb in butcher shop kills 1 in Hilla
A bomb blew up a butcher's shop in Hilla, 100 km (62 miles) south of Baghdad, killing the butcher, police said...Gunmen opened fire on a minibus in Hilla, badly wounding two people, police said.

01/19/07 scotsman: Six British soldiers hurt after Basra camp comes under attack
SIX British soldiers were wounded in attacks on their base in southern Iraq, the Ministry of Defence said today. The Basra Palace camp in Basra city came under fire from a mixture of mortars, rockets and small arms three times last night.

01/19/07 UPI: Gunmen attack Baghdad mosque
Gunmen opened fire on a Shiite mosque in south Baghdad Friday, killing two guards and wounding a third, the Kuwaiti News Agency reported. The shootings were followed by several explosions that damaged the Al-Sadreen holy site, KUNA said.

01/19/07 UPI: Gunmen kill Iraqi tourism official and truck driver
In other violence, gunmen killed a top Iraqi tourism official outside his Baghdad home and a truck driver ferrying supplies to U.S. troops was kidnapped in north Baghdad.

01/19/07 Reuters: Policeman's body found in Ramadi
A traffic policeman who was kidnapped on Thursday was found dead in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, police said

01/19/07 Reuters: Iraqi soldier killed by sniper in Falluja
An Iraqi soldier was shot dead by a sniper in Falluja, police said...Two former policemen were shot dead in front of their homes in Falluja, west of Baghdad, police said.

01/19/07 MNF: AIF attack Armor Group convoy, 29 rescued
Anti-Iraqi forces attacked a civilian convoy with small-arms fire in Baqubah, Iraq Jan. 19. The 15-vehicle convoy sustained damage to several vehicles. Twenty-nine civilians were rescued after Soldiers from 3rd Brigade Combat Team...

01/19/07 AP: 770 civilian contractors have been killed in Iraq
According to insurance claims on file at the Department of Labor, 770 civilian contractors have been killed in Iraq...through Dec. 31 and 7,761 civilian contractors have been injured. The contractors include foreign workers.

01/19/07 TheBostonChannel: Boston Soldier Killed In Iraq
Sgt. Gregroy A. Wright, 28, died on Saturday in Muqdadiyah, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle during combat operations, according to the Department of Defense.

01/19/07 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Sgt. Gregroy A. Wright, 28, of Boston, died Jan. 13 in Muqdadiyah, Iraq, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle during combat operations. Wright was assigned to the 1st Engineer Battalion...

01/19/07 DoD Identifies Army Casualty
Spc. Collin R. Schockmel, 19, of Richwood, Texas, died Jan. 16 in Ar Ramadi, Iraq, of wounds suffered when his unit came in contact with enemy forces using grenades during security and observation operations...

01/19/07 MCT: Kurdish Iraqi soldiers are deserting to avoid the conflict in Baghdad
As the Iraqi government attempts to secure a capital city ravaged by conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslim Arabs, its decision to bring a third party into the mix may cause more problems than peace.

Link... Select Week #203

~OGD~

Post a Comment