Posted on 09/16/2006 7:06:18 PM PDT by blam
US casualties cut by half as Baghdad tears itself apart
By Aqeel Hussein and Gethin Chamberlain
(Filed: 17/09/2006)
The sectarian violence that has brought Iraq to the verge of civil war has had one unexpected benefit: a marked fall in the number of United States military casualties in Baghdad.
American combat deaths in the capital are down 50 per cent on this time last year and some terrorists say the US has succeeded in deflecting attention from its own troops.
American deaths are down 50pc
"Now we are fighting each other," said one insurgent. "That is what the Americans wanted and now they are winning."
From July to September last year, 44 US personnel were killed in Baghdad. In the corresponding period this year, the figure fell to 24, a reflection, according to militia leaders, of the changing priorities of the insurgents.
Although the number of attacks on American forces in Baghdad has dropped, sectarian violence in the capital has snowballed in recent months as Sunni and Shia gunmen trade attacks.
Dozens of bodies turn up around the city each day, many the victims of summary execution, as Iraq edges closer to civil war.
Yesterday, another 35 bodies were found around Baghdad, bringing the total since Wednesday to more than 150. Many of the victims had been bound, tortured and shot.
The number of civilian casualties has risen by almost a fifth this year, with an average of 36 deaths a day.
But with Sunnis and Shia concentrating on attacking each other, they admit that they are struggling to find the time and resources to target the Americans.
Hanza al Nasawi, a spokesman for Muqtada al Sadr's Mehdi army, said it was not possible to keep fighting on two fronts.
"We stopped the fight against the Americans and now we are fighting against the terrorists because they are killing the Shia," he said. "We want to defend the Shia."
Nahid al Gertani, a former officer in the Republican Guard and one of the leaders of the Sunni fighters in southern Baghdad, said his forces were defending the Sunnis against the Shia militias. "Our first target is the Shia militia," he said. "We made an agreement with the American army four months ago to stop the fight."
Mr al Gertani said the insurgents had decided to stop fighting against the Americans so that they could concentrate on tackling the Shia militias, but emphasised that this did not reflect any thaw in relations between the two sides. "They are not our friends and we will fight another day," he said.
Iraqi civilians say they had recently been surprised to see American troops in parts of the city where they would previously have been attacked had they ventured out. US forces are also reported to have intervened to keep the warring parties apart, placing guards on the Alkubasey mosque — a known base for Sunni fighters — to protect it from Shia militia attack.
Abu Tayseer, a Baghdad councillor, said he was very angry that the militias were fighting each other instead of the Americans.
"That is what the Americans wanted and now they are winning," he said. The US Department of Defence confirmed that there had been a reduction in attacks in Baghdad.
A US defence spokesman, Lt Col Todd Vician, said: "Under Iraqi leadership, Operation Together Forward is continuing its advances toward reducing sectarian violence and terrorist attacks.
"We are cautiously optimistic that the cycle of retaliatory violence has slowed in targeted areas, but we also recognise that the real measurement of this progress must be seen over time."
A US military spokesman in Baghdad said that there had been no formal announcements of ceasefires, but it was realistic to believe that local agreements could have been reached between US forces and Sunni or Shia militias.
Gosh, I saw the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq at the Pentagon the other day and he said there wasn't a civil war. I guess some hack reporter knows better...
The Iraqi internal political conversation is heating up. They really can't fathom doing things differently.
It is supposedly a conservative newspaper and always a newspaper of the big C Conservative Party. But there has been a change of guard at the Telegraph and more importantly, the Conservative Party of Britain is now very anti- of American-conservatism. So it turns left from the US perspective and it now crossposts New York Times articles.
It's a right-leaning paper with a great opinion page.
How long will it be before the region is literally bled dry of males wanting to kill?
Let them tear each other apart... while we work to keep our troops safe. I have no problem with that, especially in light of this Pope BS.
This is old news. According to the New York Times, the Iraqi Civil War is already a little over one year old...
I ask because I just spent a great deal of time reading the comment section of quite a few articles by a variety of authors. It was very disheartening and after awhile I became very angry at the over the top anti-Americanism from many of the letter writers. I thought I had mistaken it for another newspaper. I guess not. Thank you both for your input.
Good question, but not very soon. Militant Sunni's and Shia's enjoy combat. They like killing and the thrill of it. Personally, I think that if we know who these groups are and who their leaders are we should let them duke it out until they run low on resources, then wipe both of them out ourselves. We should have done so 2 years ago.
Dozens of bodies found in Baghdad
************************AN EXCERPT ********************************
The BBC's James Shaw, in Baghdad, says it is not clear if there has been a sharp increase in killings by death squads or whether the police are taking more care to record such deaths.
Who cares? Piles of dead muzzies is a good thing. I hope they keep it up until they're all gone.
A hysteria clause in this sentence. It's wrong.
From the very beginning, the rightful people of Iraq have needed to go from a horribly abused situation (under Saddam) to learning HOW TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, and BUILD THEIR COUNTRY.
I suppose, the author of this article would also write:
Homeowner in self-defense kills invader -- CIVIL WAR LOOMS!
The insurgent and the intruder are one and the same. And the author refers to this as a "civil war".
Oh hhhhhh yeah... "Sexual Intercourse equals Rape" squeeks another feminist article writer.
This stage of rebuilding Iraq has to happen and because nearby countries keep harboring and allowing INSURGENTs into Iraq.
So, staving off an insurgent means... A civil war? Hardly. It means thugs are invading the homes and lives of a peacable people. That's not civil war. And because the insurgents and their fascist puppetmaster refuse to call it a war.
So, how can it be a "civil war"? According to the liberal left -- there's NO war. And the insurgents are the good guys, the liberal left continues in the same breath. Obviously, loving witnessing the bloodshed. Do they lament it isn't US troops deaths? The article implies as much.
Let them keep killing each other. At some point they've got to tire of it or....let them keep killing each other.
THis sounds like good news to me!
How long until the've killed each other off completely?
Right wing in the George the Third vein.
My goodness. What's a busy mother to do?
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.