American casualties in Iraq rise sharply

The Washington Post ^ | October 8 2006 | Ann Scott Tyson

[jmc1969]

The number of U.S. troops wounded in Iraq has surged to its highest level in nearly two years as American GIs fight block-by-block in Baghdad to try to check a spiral of sectarian violence that U.S. commanders warn could lead to civil war.

Last month, 776 U.S. troops were wounded in action in Iraq, the highest number since the military assault to retake the insurgent-held city of Fallujah in November 2004, according to Defense Department data. It was the fourth-highest monthly total since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

The sharp increase in American wounded — with nearly 300 more in the first week of October — is a grim measure of the degree to which the U.S. military has been thrust into the lead of the effort to stave off full-scale civil war in Iraq, military officials and experts say. Beyond Baghdad, Marines battling Sunni insurgents in Iraq's western province of Anbar last month also suffered their highest number of wounded in action since late 2004.

"September was horrific" in terms of the toll of wounded, and if the early October trend continues, this month could be "the worst month of the war," said John E. Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Virginia-based Web site that tracks defense issues.

The worsening violence in Baghdad has led some Pentagon officials to criticize decisions by the U.S. military since early 2005 to transfer responsibility for security in large swaths of Baghdad to Iraqi forces while cutting back on American patrols.

"We made decisions to take an indirect approach, which is great if you want low U.S. casualty rates," said the Pentagon official. However, he said: "Passing responsibility to Iraqis does not equal defeating terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency. Period."

[ARE SOLE]

Those hundreds of wounded did not have to be. We should be leveling these places from the air and not losing one single man doing it. But instead President Bush has allowed our troops to become Iraq's police force.

Damn good points. I agree we need a change in tactics. We need to put an old school WWII style Blitz on these mofos.

[ChiMark]

Ditto! The Democrats, MSM and the Iraqi insurgents always
underestimate the will of the conservative patriot.

[nathanbedford]

I am pinging MNjonnie who is up to speed on the casualty measures to see if he has anything to contribute.

It seems to me the point of the article is that policy of "Iraqization" is not working because Iraqi troops and police who should be doing the job are either incompetent or treacherous. This is a serious allegation which should be dealt with here with more than just screams about drive-by media bias.

The casualty numbers are real and not concocted by the media. That a police unit had to be disbanded for treachery is a fact. It is true "In March, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that Iraqi forces — not U.S. troops — would deal with a civil war in Iraq "to the extent one were to occur." Without arguing whether or not we are now in the midst of a civil war or even whether these recent Baghdad operations which produced the spike in casualties constitute a civil war, the facts on the ground are contrary to Rumsfeld's prediction, it is US forces -- not Iraqi troops -- who are dealing with the strife. More, the article asserts that commanders calls for 3000 Iraqi forces have yielded only a few hundred. This even though we have trained up 300,000 Iraqi forces.

Moving from what we know to be absolute fact, that is what is well sourced in the article, to allegations in the article which are unattributed, we find this very chilling observation:

Pentagon officials say aggressive military operations in the Iraqi capital are at best a short-term and partial solution, buying time for political compromise, which they call the only way to arrest Iraq's disintegration.

The anonymous Pentagon officials (note plural) represent a terrible challenge to anyone who thinks we are on course to "victory" in Iraq. Unless you think the reporter is flat lying, officials in the Pentagon believe that Iraq is disintegrating. But the only way to stop the disintegration is by "aggressive military operations." And, inferring from the rest of the article, those aggressive operations must be conducted only by an American troops. Finally, even with American troops aggressively fighting and sustaining near record casualties, our sacrifice can only hope to temporarily delay Iraq's disintegration. That is just what it says by a plain reading.

Now, one does not need to be anti-Bush, a leftist, a hater of America, or even a steenkin' rat to ask, do we have a policy upon which we should have some confidence that we will achieve our war aims in Iraq ? I see nothing that gives me that assurance. The whole policy seems to be to substitute Iranians for Americans in the field, and that approach by all the evidence before us, is simply not working.

This brings us to the question, what are or should be our war aims in Iraq? Are they realistic? Do we have a national consensus to sacrifice the blood and treasure necessary to achieve those war aims? Our original war aims were multiple in nature but it is fair to say that the administration chose to concentrate on an aim which was to deprive Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction which later evolved into an aim of establishing a democracy in Iraq. It seems to me the first was directly connected to America's national interest, but the second, although desirable, is not essential to our national interests. It seems to me that our national interests in Iraq are to prevent it being a petri dish for terrorists and to prevent those terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction with their petrodollars.

Can we have an Iraq which is not controlled by terrorists building bombs but which is something short of a democracy? Given the current deranged state of mind of most of the Muslim world, I am not confident that such a result can be obtained short of a democracy. But, given that same state of mind in the Muslim world, it will probably be even harder to establish a democracy. And, considering our own national mood, I am confident that we do not have a national consensus to spend enough blood and treasure to fashion a Willsonian democracy in Iraq.

We had in Iraq something that we will now be lucky to wind up with, a secular strongman who can prevent Iraq from slipping under the thrall of the fundamentalists and aligning itself along a Shi'ite axis with Iran.

Before the war, I posted a list of reasons, that is to say, war aims, which prompted me to support the war. They included the reasons stated above, although democracy was low on the list, and some added reasons such as controlling the flow of petrodollars away from weapons of mass destruction, the establishment of bases from which to bring security to the region and intimidate Iran away from the bomb. In other words, I saw the map of the Muslim world as a checkerboard where of one could take strategic squares and the rest would come under control. It is now clear that this strategy has backfired. The war on terrorism is not a war for turf. In the end it will be a war, if we are to survive it with our cities intact and our democracy whole, of sane Muslim against crazed, fundamentalist Muslim.

I think the experience in Iraq and the experience of the Israelis in Lebanon demonstrates that we have no strategy if our only strategy is to wage asymmetrical wars of attrition to our disadvantage. We are failing to encourage our allies and intimidate our enemies. Domestically our citizens are beginning to recognize that we need a new approach. George Bush is losing his consensus and, God help us, we're liable to lose the House or the Senate or both within a month and with that loss, our choice of options in Iraq will be lost.

But far worse than all this is the looming threat of Iran. Iraq is a festering sore but it is not immediately life-threatening to the Republic. If Iran gets the bomb we will be in mortal peril. It must be the utter imperative of American foreign policy to prevent Iran getting the bomb.

A short while ago I posted this one in which I try to describe the horns of our dilemma:

"Ultimately, it must be Muslims themselves who exterminate the terrorists in their midst. In this regard, a defeat in Iraq would so distort the the perception of the balances of power that we would be very unlikely to enlists rational Muslims in our crusade against the crazies.

A thousand times more important than the war in Iraq is the struggle to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. If you want the Saudis to stop funding schools for terrorists, if you want the precarious government of Pakistan to root out Al Qaeda in the mountains, if you want the Syrians to cease arming and supporting Hezbollah, you had better not let the Iranians get the bomb.

So we are in a terrible dilemma. We cannot afford to fail in Iraq for that makes us even weaker in the eyes of the Muslim world and makes it virtually impossible to prevent Iran from obtaining the bomb. But the more we fight in Iraq the more attenuated and weakened our ground forces become. We have reached the point now where generals are telling Congress that our matériel and manpower are approaching the breaking point. It is difficult to intimidate Iran when the whole world knows we lack the military muscle, the will, and the support of our allies and world opinion to force a regime change in Iran.

Instead of tipping the balance of power in the Middle East in our favor, Iraq has succeeded in insulating Iran from American power while making us vulnerable to attrition by Iran's proxies "

[Allegra]

You can keep me off your ping list if you're going to take cheap shots like this:

This is a serious allegation which should be dealt with here with more than just screams about drive-by media bias.

Either address me with respect or do not address me at all. I'm not going to let up on your media pals.

Thank you.

[SCPatriot77]

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/images/0743272234/ref=dp_image_0/002-7239211-9215210?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/oip/Images/photo-albums/vietnam/vietnam-flag.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/oip/Programs/Flyers/vietnam_hanoi.html&h=289&w=435&sz=10&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=dD46bvaiIU2avM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvietnam%2Bflag%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26hs%3DC1m%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DX
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/oip/Images/photo-albums/vietnam/vietnam-flag.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/oip/Programs/Flyers/vietnam_hanoi.html&h=289&w=435&sz=10&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=dD46bvaiIU2avM:&tbnh=84&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dvietnam%2Bflag%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26hs%3DC1m%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DX

[RedEyeJack]

Iraqi Army and police casualties are also up. There is an "insurgent" offense" underway since August. They are trying to inflict as many casualties as they can to slow the growth of the Iraqi police force that we are fielding and to influence the election in the US. Al Queda believes that they can break the will of enough of the American decision makers if they can inflict enough casualties. They know from watching the media that they have defeated many Democrat decision makers already... They are trying to reach a tipping point before 1 November. It appears that their efforts may be culminating however. In the complicated stew that is Iraqi politics the Sunnis are realizing that the Al Queda groups are not going to win and they are beginning to support the Government. Al Queda in Iraq's days are numbered if we can stay the course into next year... Civil war in the sense of the American Civil war is not going to happen. Tribal in fighting will occur for some time as they sort out who has political power in the new Iraq in their own way forming, dissolving, and reforming alliances until winners emerge. Presence, patience, persistence, and endurance by the US decision makers and forces will win this conflict.

[Allegra]

Good post.

[nathanbedford]

Done your way, I have no wish to engage anyone who does not want to participate. But for the record, I've committed no "cheap shot." I have merely brought my comments to your attention to respond if you like. There is no reference to you whatsoever in my remarks, I have merely made an observation about a practice on Free Republic to substitute complaints about the media for the substance of the matter. I felt at liberty to ping you because you were not bashful about intervening in my comments about the same topic on this thread: Warner Downbeat After Iraq Trip (U.S. at Risk of Losing Bid to Control Baghdad, Senator Says) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1714729/posts post number 53. I guess I was not aware of the of the etiquette which makes intrusions purely a one-way street.

You were not addressed with disrespect, in fact, you were not addressed at all, merely alerted by way of ping.

Also for the record, you'll note I have pinged a series of of posters who are quite vociferous in stating opinions wholly contrary to mine. I cited them to bring this to their attention so that they would have an opportunity to respond, just as I pinged you. I think it is a matter of intellectual honesty. I do not expect these posters to cringe but to openly express their opinions with a reason and facts. Indeed, I hope, I dearly hope they will prove me wrong.

[Rokke]

When the statement "The anonymous Pentagon officials (note plural) represent a terrible challenge to anyone who thinks we are on course to "victory" in Iraq." (bold print mine) appears in someone's commentary, you know its conclusions aren't worth much more than the worthless article it discusses. A quote from "an anonymous Pentagon official" is the equivalent of a cow turd. Quotes from several anonymous Pentagon officials is just a bigger pile of turds. "Reporters" who build stories around anonymous statements from anonymous officials aren't worth the pile of crap they create. And neither is the opinion of someone who relies on their BS as evidence of anything other than MSM bias.

[nathanbedford]

Do I put you in the camp who believes that the reported is flat lying?

[Allegra]

Exactly.

One of my "causes" here on FR is to refute the media when I see them twisting and distorting the truth. And I have often gone after that "citing anonymous officials" or "anonymous Pentagon/Iraqi/State Department, etc. officials" garbage.

I have a different perspective of these things and I put it out there. Some may not like it because it does not fit with their agenda, but I have been vindicated by many: military personnel here who aren't afraid to put their names to their remarks and that rare creature: reporters who report the truth.

The media is playing a very large part in this war. In fact they have even managed to influence and incite events here with their hyperbolic, irrepsonsible reportage.

I call it as I see it, which is more than I can say for the media.

And that's the way it is. ;-)

[Rokke]

"Do I put you in the camp who believes that the reported is flat lying?"

My anonymous Pentagon sources all confirm that this reporter has no real anonymous Pentagon sources. And my other anonymous Pentagon sources refute everything she's said. And still more of my anonymous Pentagon sources say we are inflicting more damage on the terrorist cells in Iraq than we ever have.

And the beautiful thing is...you can't refute the validity of any of those statements because you don't have any idea of the qualifications of any of those sources. Do you now how many people are employed at the Pentagon? Which one of those employees is not a Pentagon source? Without any names or listed qualifications, you have NO IDEA where or from who this reporter gets her information. Yet you accept it at face value.

I've already told you what it's really worth.

[SoldierDad]

The terrorists are hitting us so hard right now for the same reason the dems are hitting us so hard right now.

I fear my son becoming a casualty from all these demoncRAT's demonizing of this country to our enemies (which drives them to continue fighting us as they believe we will crack).

[Longbow1969]

No more blood for islam.

Agreed.

The entire fantasy that we were gonna march into Iraq and create an actual functioning "Islamic democracy" was an absolute fools errand from minute.

Such a shame President Bush got suckered into believe this was a reasonable and workable course of action.

Oh ya, we could in theory impose our will on the Iraqi's. That would require massive brutal force against any one whom opposed our dictates in any way. It would ivolve razing cities like Falluja, it would involve collective punishment. In short, it would involve DEFEATING the Iraqi poeple - not just scattering the Sunni dominated army. The Iraqi experience will fail, as will the attempts at building "Islamic demcracy" in Afghanistan.

These are not civilized socieites, not civilized people, they do not share common goals. To the exent an Iraqi wants democracy it is only so his or her mullah can win all the power.

Toppling Saddam was just fine, staying in Iraq hoping to produce a miracle was foolishness.

Bush has effectively destoyed his Presidiency with this "Muslim Democrarcy" dream.

It's been sad to watch.

[Allegra]

We need to put an old school WWII style Blitz on these mofos.

Where, specifically?

[Allegra]

We need to put an old school WWII style Blitz on these mofos.

Where, specifically?

[nathanbedford]

But Rokke, you do not have an editor and this reporterette does. Moreover she is reporter for the Washington Post which has a high level of standards about anonymous sources and that which it will print. The reporter must convince her editor and usually, but not always, the editor is aware of the identity of the source. The editor, presumably, unless he is a co-conspirator with a reporter who is flat out lying, will become alert when he reads statements of anonymous sources especially if those statements run counter to his background of knowledge and to what his other reporters are telling him is being said at a Pentagon. eventually flat out lying will be caught and found out. Moreover, this lying reporter must be a member of a vast left-wing conspiracy which has an ironclad blood oath of secrecy, because they are all singing the same song.

No one despises the left-wing media bias more than I do but there comes a time when the overwhelming weight of the reportage sinks the ship.

Finally, I think he will have to concede that I was very careful in my post to distinguish between that which was attributed by the reporter and that which was not attributed. Unfortunately, the attributed portion, the growing casualties, the treachery of the police, the unavailability of the Iraqi army, the growing level of violence, are all established facts and they fit perfectly with the anonymous analysis. Thus the anonymous analysis is reinforced.

But even wholly discounting that analysis, the facts which are not in dispute are very discouraging and call our whole policy into question.

[Southack]

Sad to watch?!

"Destroyed" Presidency?!

Oh please...

We've gone more than 5 years without another 9/11 attack on the U.S.

Our national missile defenses are deployed. Hussein's in jail. Syria's army has retreated from Lebanon. The Taliban hide in remote, rural, Afghan caves, unable to so much as stop little girls from going to school.

Our economy is rocking. Wages are up above inflation. Home ownership is at record highs, as is the stock market. We've got full employment. With a mere 4.6% unemployment, only those transitioning between jobs or who don't want to work are left out of employment.

The annual budget deficit is down to $250 Billion and we just funded 700 miles of border fence that begins construction *this* year.

Moreover, we've killed Zarqawi. A. Khan is under house arrest. International terrorists Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal both met their death in Iraq, too.

For that matter, thousands upon thousands of radical jihadists (4,000 foreign fighters and many times that number local Iraqis) have discovered (too late) that we've transformed Iraq into a giant Roach Motel that lures 'em in and checks 'em out in body bags (if that).

In the meantime, Libya has surrendered its WMD program and Japan is re-militarizing to help us.

Yet you see gloom and doom.

Buck up! Open your eyes.

[Southack]

Nonsense. See post #38.

[Justa]

Great post!