"Iraqi soldiers hold flags during a ceremony marking the handover of security responsibilities to Iraqi forces in the town of Mahmoudiya south of Baghdad, August 14, 2006." REUTERS/Ali Jasim
Posted on 08/27/2006 8:02:20 AM PDT by jdm
Iraq's prime minister said Sunday that violence was decreasing in his country, despite daily reports of bloodshed and fighting. Nouri al-Maliki insisted that his government was making progress in efforts to combat sectarian clashes between Shiites and Sunnis, and terrorism by Sunni Arab insurgents.
"The violence is not increasing. We're not in a civil war. Iraq will never be in a civil war," he said through an interpreter on CNN's Late Edition. "The violence is in decrease and our security ability is increasing."
On Sunday, a series of bomb explosions left at least 15 people dead and dozens wounded. That followed 26 killings in dozens of attacks Saturday. Iraqi officials have said about 3,500 Iraqis died violently last month nationwide — the highest monthly tally of the war.
Al-Maliki refused to set a specific timeline for how much longer U.S. troops would be needed in Iraq. Last week, Republican Rep. Chris Shays, a supporter of the war who previously opposed withdrawal timetables, said the United States should consider setting a timeline for troop withdrawals.
"I don't want to commit to a certain time or a certain period, but I want to have my best efforts to decrease this time to a year or less, or a few months," Al-Maliki said.
"The violence is not increasing. We're not in a civil war. Iraq will never be in a civil war," he said through an interpreter on CNN's Late Edition. "The violence is in decrease and our security ability is increasing." -- Iraqi PM, Nouri al-Maliki
Is the violence decreasing in the USA? Every night we hear reports of gang violence and driveby shootings. How many people die each day in NYC or LA? Also, over 44,000 people die in accidents on highways in the USA everyday.
"Iraqi soldiers hold flags during a ceremony marking the handover of security responsibilities to Iraqi forces in the town of Mahmoudiya south of Baghdad, August 14, 2006." REUTERS/Ali Jasim
John Kerry will be out shortly to p!ss on this PMs statement like he has done so many times.
That’s every “year”. But your over all point is probably correct that a large portion of these “violent deaths” occur with or without political instability.
That's every YEAR. Not a valid comparison.
The difference is the motivation behind the deaths. Accidents versus insurrection.
Yes, there is a civil war going on over there between who will run the country. The Baathists are trying very hard to put the Shiites back in their place.
Smother the terrorist insurgents. Swarm all over them and smother them in their Baghdadian spidey holes!
Leni
Shays is sucking up to his liberal base because he fears losing to Farrell, who is a first class kook.
This lady couldn't even run the crime free bedroom community of Westport effectively.
Shays could show real back bone and say "of course the US has a time table, we're just not going to share it with our enemies".
What you just said is further evidence that ex Army General Shiniskei (spell check please) was correct in his assessment that while we could plan to take out the regime in Iraq, it would take at least several hundred of thousands troops to successfully pacify Iraq.
Not to be an apologist for Shays, because I can't stand him, but I saw his statement and he was clear that the Iraqi government needs a kick in the butt to get off the dime and take control there. He said that he wanted a policy that would make this clear to them.
He is in the NE, so expect him to be a RINO. We still need the numbers for our caucus. I also think public opinion is swinging our way, although slowly and in small increments. So, after the election, if we win, we can go back to blocking the appeasers in the US.
Too much is at stake to risk donk control of anything.
We have all ready won. The question is will we let the Democrats take control of the Congress this November and hand the terrorists and their rouge state sponsors, Iran and Syria, the fruits of that victory? Look at the raw data. Same steady low level violence for three years. That is the sign of an "insurgency" that cannot evolve or grow. They are stuck in stage 1 guerrilla warfare. They can kill people and cause pain, they cannot evolve. Meanwhile the Counter Insurgency political structure is rapidly growing. The terrorists can continue to kill but they cannot win. The raw data below shows the utterly LIE in the DNC directed Junk Media spin lie about "Iraq on the verge of a civil war".
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Forces
Curious why some freepers cling so desperately to this medai manufactured myth. The data does NOT support the "Iraq is falling into a Civil War" claims. Seems some people in the Junk Media would rather keep screaming the lie then admit they have been wrong about Iraq all along Look at the raw data. Same steady low level violence for three years. That is the sign of an "insurgency" that cannot evolve or grow. They are stuck in stage 1 guerrilla warfare. They can kill people and cause pain, they cannot evolve. Meanwhile the Counter Insurgency political structure is rapidly growing. The terrorists can continue to kill but they cannot win. The raw data below shows the utterly LIE in the DNC directed Junk Media spin lie about "Iraq on the verge of a civil war". http://icasualties.org/oif/ http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Forces
Nope because we are succeeding at doing that same mission right now without the 400,000 man occupation force the Know Nothings were scream for. What is shows is Rummy was right from the start.
Trying to pull Vietnam Redux by sending in a 500,000 man occupation force would of been a huge mistake. Would of repeated the SAME error as in Vietnam. A Large occupying force resulted in the Americans simply taking everything over and doing everything themselves instead of developing the South's military and political structures.
Which is absurd nonsense as anyone who actually pays attention to Iraq knows. Wondering if any of the poll watching Chicken Littles want to try and explain why in the latest Gallup poll the Congressional Republicans have suddenly pulled to only 2 points behind the Dems?
I agree with you. Another source that shows steady improvement is the State Department's Weekly Status Report.
It shows electricity production meeting the coalition goals and oil production staying well above prewar levels with revenues, of course, really high.
www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/2006/c18335.htm
GEN Shinseki was correct. Initially we did need 500,000 troops, primarily to occupy the Iraq after the war. The roughest period for the US was the time period after the war when they did not anticipate a full scale insurgency because our intel assessment was incorrect. We did not have enough troops to hold cities or areas after we defeated the insurgents in open battle. These troops were forced to pull out and go to other trouble spots. We underestimated the situation because we relied on Iraqi exiles for prewar info which is like asking a liberal if the GOP will control the House and Senate in 2006. Using the info from the exiles, Rumsfeld thought Iraq would be like Afghanistan. The Iraqi people sick of Saddam would rise up and welcome us. Unfortunately for us only the Kurds truly support us, the Shiites want to use us to kill off the Sunnis, and the Sunnis sensing a loss of power in the new Iraq is fighting us tooth and nail, hoping the violence would cause us to leave and they could retake power in the power vaccuum. The good news is Al Qaida was stupid and brutal, the Sunni insurgents are localized and a minority, giving time for the US to build an Iraqi Army and security force. Today there is 270,000 and by the end of this year there will be 300,000 and growing, adding to the US forces in Iraq and hopefully turn the tide of the war completely in our favor. Unlike the South Vietnamese Army, the Iraqi forces are voluntary and they have no shortage of recruits, and in recent pitched battles they did not drop their weapons and run. That is a good sign.
Yada yada.
You're 100% correct. I also think we've assisted the government in weeding out corrupt police, particulary in Baghdad.
"Look at the raw data. Same steady low level violence for three years" If you draw a trend line on that graph of civiian casua;lties, it is rising, not steady.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.