Posted on 10/07/2006 9:24:04 PM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Prez Commission Headed By *James Baker* Advises Cutting Iraq in Three
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1715724/posts
His group has yet to reach a final conclusion, but there is a growing consensus that America can neither pour more soldiers into Iraq nor suffer mounting casualties without any sign of progress. It is thought to support embedding more high-quality American military advisers in the Iraqi security forces rather than maintaining high troop levels in the country indefinitely.
Frustrated by the failure of a recent so-called battle of Baghdad to stem violence in the capital, Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador to Iraq, said last week that the unity government of Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, had only two months left to get a grip. Rumours abound that the much-admired ambassador could depart by Christmas.
Khalilzads warning was reinforced by John Warner, Republican chairman of the Senate armed services committee, on his return from a visit to Baghdad. In two to three months time, if this thing hasnt come to fruition and this government (is not) able to function, I think its a responsibility of our government internally to determine: is there a change of course we should take? Warner said.
Bush and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, have resisted the break-up of Iraq on the grounds that it could lead to more violence, but are thought to be reconsidering. They have finally noticed that the country is being partitioned by civil war and ethnic cleansing is already a daily event, said Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Gelb is the co-author with Senator Joseph Biden, a leading Democrat, of a plan to divide Iraq. There was almost no support for our idea until very recently, when all the other ideas being advocated failed, Gelb said.
It seems that all of these people are reacting to the events on the ground in Iraq much the same way I have posted here. One can only discount so much as being the product of media bias and, evidently, the likes of the people quoted and summarized above, including George Bush himself, know that what we're doing is broke and needs fixin'.
To Southack: much of what you say is true but they are of no relevance whatsoever if 1) they do not make America safer (that means if a terrorist's ability to set off a weapon of mass destruction and an American city), or 2) if Iran gets the bomb. As to 1) the idea that we can attride enough terrorists so that the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world cannot find another 19 suicide murderers is preposterous. We are demonstrating to the world that we cannot inflict enough casualties in this kind of asymmetrical warfare that our domestic consensus will endure. The idea of killing terrorists in Iraq so that another 19 cannot attack America again, is the policy of shoveling flies. As to 2) if Iran gets the bomb everything we have gained and sacrificed for in Iraq and elsewhere will be marginalized into insignificance.
I think James Baker sees that too.
Rubbish.
Our radiation detectors are in place. You can't even drive a truck in from Mexico with Mexican potting soil (less radiation in that than in a common banana peel) without setting off our alarms and drawing in an immediate response.
The whole Free Republic phrase "stunned my beeber" comes from a Freeper going/coming to/from Canada after a cancer radiation treatment was surrounded by the good guys, and that was years ago.
The radiation detection system is in place on land, sea, and air. This is also how we caught Libya's 3 ships with centrifuges on board, as the near-spotless centrifuges had *traces* of radiation still on them, buried deep under shielding in the hold of each ship (some radiation can't be shielded, it turns out).
We're boarding ships at sea that set off these detectors...long before they reach a port.
So there isn't going to be a nuclear attack (OK, maybe a locally-produced dirty bomb or two that the news media will go nuts about) on the U.S.
Nor will we be hit by a rogue ICBM (e.g. from North Korea), as our missile defense system has the sea-born and land-based legs in place, with 9 successful interceptions in a row (last hit-to-kill miss was back in 2001).
And this isn't about killing 1.3 Muslims. It's a multi-pronged strategy of killing the most radical jihadists while winning over their moderates (e.g. getting them voting in their own elections rather than stabbing each other).
So there aren't going to be new 9/11 terror attacks here in the U.S., nor will there be WMD attacks against us here (save for the occasional worthless dirty bomb or some bug or comparitively weak chemical attack).
They'll blow up a few McDonald's with suiciders, of course, and snipe at a few cars, set a few forests on fire...but those aren't civilization-shattering types of attacks.
In the meantime, most of their efforts are concentrated in Iraq, far from our shores, even as our shores grow more protected and safer every day.
I know this to be 180° contrary to the Rudman report which identified ports, for example, and the threat of nuclear weapons in containers to be virtually wide open.
So I googled and came up with a speech by David Obie, yes I know he's a left-wing Democrat out to undermine the administration, but let's read what he has to say in his speech given to the Commonwealth club on June 2 of 2004, and determine if any of it is true:
Last year, the White House reversed themselves and finally requested a portion of the funds that were needed for container security. Their position changed from, we cant afford it to we needed to wait. That is a turnaround and I suppose we should welcome it. But the $126 million that the President has proposed for fiscal year 2005 will not adequately fund the program. It will not even allow us to fully staff the 45 foreign ports where DHS had planned to inspect all manifest documents. It will not permit our current foreign inspection programs to become permanent. We are currently in only 17 ports. We currently have no container security presence in China, the biggest U.S. trading partner in terms of cargo containers. The number of cargo containers arriving to the U.S. from China is more than three times those arriving from Hong Kong.
More troubling than the mere question of resources is the lack of political or bureaucratic clout behind this critical initiative. If having inspection agents working with foreign customs officials is to be a truly effective means of understanding what is in foreign ships before they leave for U.S. ports, it requires developing long term relationships between our agents and those who control the foreign ports we wish to monitor.
This involves a new level of training and expertise for our customs agents. It involves establishing continuity in the relationship we have with host governments in terms of what we expect to get and what incentives we can provide to those who cooperate. Nothing could be more destructive to this effort than to rotate in and out of foreign ports agents with only a few months of experience based on a deliberate system of staffing through temporary assignment. But that is precisely what we have done. In the few foreign ports where we do have a presence, that presence is a U.S. customs officer detailed there on a six-month temporary duty assignment. Those agents dont even know what the problems were between the U.S. and the host government when the program was initiated. They are certainly not people that officials of the host government would want to invest much time in getting to know they will be gone before there is any pay off from developing a relationship.
If the overseas effort to identify the contents of cargo containers is the outer perimeter for protecting our ports, the ability of the Coast Guard to interdict, board and inspect U.S. bound shipping at sea is the next perimeter. Yet the Coast Guards capacity to perform that function has also been restrained by lack of resources. The Administration frequently states that the Coast Guard is now boarding all vessels that are deemed to be high interest. That means 80 percent of all other vessels are not boarded.
Observing, tracking, and controlling ships as they approach and enter into American waters is the next perimeter in securing our ports. Systems have been developed that are very similar to the systems by which air traffic control directs airplanes entering into U.S. airspace and approaching U.S. airports. These systems, however, are available in only nine ports, leaving 45 major ports without such a system. Again, this is penny wise and pound foolish. It is also a bad decision in terms of long-term cost effectiveness. More automated systems permit more rapid detection of ships that are not following control directives; they can be operated by fewer people and are long-term cost savers.
And, inside our ports, there are numerous critical issues. One is preventing unauthorized persons from having access to ships, containers, or port storage areas. A second is protecting hazardous chemicals and materials from attack. The Coast Guard estimated that the 185 commercial seaports in the United States would need about $7 billion to assess vulnerabilities and take necessary action to correct those vulnerabilities. These port authorities do not, in most instances, have the revenue raising authority to pay any significant portion of these costs. This year was the first time the Administration requested any money whatsoever for this purpose, and it only requested $46 million. The Congress has been able to appropriate only $587 million or less than 10 percent of the money needed to do the job
Do you have any citations for your assertions?
What really is "rubbish" is to distort someone's words and so they imply exactly the opposite of what was intended. I don't say we are supposed to kill 1.3 billion Muslims but I do say that you cannot wage asymmetrical war of attrition in places like Iraq and hope thereby to forestall 19 terrorists, recruited out of 1.3 billion Muslims, attacking America.
You have not convinced me that our borders are secure against viruses, chemicals, or even small atomic bombs-and these are civilization shattering attacks, not to mention the catastrophic economic consequences.
I ask again, do you have citations?
Do you have a cite and a figure for that? I'm curious because it doesn't sound quite right to me. Just taking the biggest events of each year, the 1944 Normandy Invasion killed about 29,000 Americans whereas the 1945 Battle of the Bulge killed about 19,000 Americans. A significant part of the latter took place in December 1944 in any event. In Italy as well most of the action was over by the end of 1944.
There, all better now.
//Wipes hands and walks away smiling
For some reason, I don't think Foley was the only Congressman/Staffer who was chasing around little Page boys.
Established by who?
More anonymous sources? Anonymous media sources confirming "as fact" other anonymous media sources? Your logic is circular and flawed -- if it even exists at all.
Your reliance on the integrity and honesty of the Washinton Post editorial staff is a very strong indicator of your overall willingness to be sold a pile of turds.
You lost me right there. Sheesh!
The Times of London. More liberal sources. Look, none of us need to look very hard for liberals smearing their leftis views all over everything. It's everywhere we look.
You forgot this part:
His group will not advise partition, but is believed to favour a division of the country that will devolve power and security to the regions, leaving a skeletal national government in Baghdad in charge of foreign affairs, border protection and the distribution of oil revenue. (Hmmmm....sounds kind of like a republic to me.)
And let's bold some relevant bits here:
They have finally noticed that the country is being partitioned by civil war and ethnic cleansing is already a daily event, (Oh, no hyperbole there! Not at all.) said Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Gelb is the co-author with Senator Joseph Biden, a leading Democrat, of a plan to divide Iraq.
Speaks volumes.
Now they have to report "wounded" because there are fewer and fewer killed. The treason of the drive-bys is unbelievable.
Last stat I saw, the average American wounded soldier is back in action in less than 24 hours.
Nathan
It is incredibly odd how Democrats, via their mouthpieces in the Junk Media, demand a level of perfection in Military operations that NO Journalist or Politician could ever live up to in their own professional spheres. Odd how Americans, who live with a very high level of incompetent in their government, their media, their day to day lives are so surprised and upset to discover war does work on a perfectly flawless time table. They seem to think war should work like their two hour Hollywood action movies told them it did. 2 Hours, bad guys dead, sympathy frag of supporting actor, hero gets girl and lives happily ever after. These absurd expectations explain how it is Americans get "war weary" so very very rapidly. It is one of the biggest Achilles heels of US Foreign Policy. Our foes count on us getting bored with it all and just going home. I guess we could call it the America's Policy Attention Deficit Disorder.
Counter Terrorism (or Counter Insurgency) is as much about politics as it is about war. Conventional Military often find them incredibly frustrating because they are usually a case of 3 steps forward, 2 steps back, pause, repeat. Conventional Military people think in terms of go there, kill them, wreck their stuff, make them stop pissing us off. Counter Insurgency does not work that way. Counter Insurgency works by making the local political structure strong enough to contain or beak the Insurgency. THAT is a slow painful process.
It is made a lot hard in Iraq by the hyper negative Media coverage and excessive nonsense spewed out by Domestic Politicians using the war because they think it will help them politically. I suspect that if we win Nov 7th, the Iraq mission is won. By 2009 the Iraqis political structure will be strong enough to stand on its own with minimal US support. Probably Iraq security forces stiffened with US SOF support teams. However, if the Democrats win November 7th, we can count on the Teting us right into another Vietnam style defeat. Iraq will be another war won militarily lost for domestic political advantage.
Specifically? Sadrs Army and any militia that would challenge us and the fledgling Iraqi government openly. Two timing police and security death squads need to be destroyed not arrested when encountered. Saddams trial needs to finish so he can hang.
The Iraq war has two fronts, one where you are and the other here in the States. I do not pretend to know the situation on the ground as well as those who are there Allegra. But I have seen you post at times when you seem at the end of your rope. That feeling is being exploited every day on this end by the Rats.
Perception is reality and for too many the feeling we are not winning means we are losing. I do not feel we are losing but many do despite all that has been accomplished on the ground by many brave people. We cannot have factions that challenge us openly, we would not tolerate this in any other war we committed ourselves to in the past. It encourages foreigners to travel to Iraq to do jihad. It leaves folks on the sidelines waiting to see who will prevail. It undermines support here at home and I believe that is the biggest threat to a decent outcome in Iraq.
Nice to chat with you instead of just reading your comments.
Regards.
Are you kidding me??? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!? You are either a blithering idiot or a Washington Post editor (which may be redundant). Did you somehow miss the whole Plamegate fiasco in which your worthless Washington Post led the pack in dispensing false rumors stated as "facts" spread by anonymous sources? Where were those editors when photoshopped images from Reuters were making the frontpages of newspapers all over the country. Perhaps those editors were doing the same thing that editors at CBS news were doing when they let Dan Rather push obviously forged documents on the nightly news. You are under the very naive delusion that our MSM exists to report truth and reality. You couldn't be more wrong. The MSM exists to make money. And the way they make money is to be the first to publish a sensational story, and sort out the facts later. It absolutely boggles my mind that people like you still exist in this country and operate under the weird fantasy that our MSM has some sort of moral code that carefully sorts fact from fiction. Your willingness to be duped might be forgivable if this were 40 years ago. When our MSM completely rewrote the facts of the Tet Offensive in 1968, there wasn't an internet that allowed average Americans to gain knowledge from sources other than the nightly news or the NYT's. But with the advent of the internet, people have an almost unlimited ability to research the facts for themselves. And unlike you, they are discovering that more often than not, the media gets it wrong. And sometimes it gets it wrong intentionally. And wonder of wonders, as the average American absorbs this revelation, he learns to ignore the MSM and its "anonymous sources" and its bogus polls, and its fraudulent predictions about everything from the worst hurricane season on record (was there even one?) to $100 dollar a barrel gasoline by November. And down goes the readership and viewership of all those traditionally respected MSM outlets. And with it goes their revenue. So what does the MSM do to fix the problem? They try even harder to create stories to generate income. They lie about their readership numbers to justify advertisement charges. And they continue to sucker the decreasing minority of dupes like you who still put your trust in "anonymous sources" and "honest" editors.
Good grief man. What's it going to take for you to realize that our MSM has an agenda as deep as Teddy Kennedy's, and a moral code as wide as Bill Clinton's? I think you are a lost cause with regard to the MSM, but let me drop a few more bits of reality on you in the off chance that one or two might penetrate...you have greater chance of being struck by lightening than winning the lottery, John Wayne wasn't really a war hero, and Santa Claus is not real.
Read that statement again.
Now read it again.
Now tell me what Baker's group has concluded? The correct answer is...nothing. Just more media BS from more anonymous sources.
You are a blow up doll for our MSM. Do you enjoy it?
Southack, the man is a lost cause.
Southack, the man is a lost cause.
How am I supposed to respond to this? Should I say, "you are a fall down patsy for the Bush bots?"
Should I say, "do you get off on this?"
You are a veteran and a grown man and I respect you for your service and have always respected your posts. Now that I disagree with you, I do not think you are a lesser person or worthy of rebuke.
I will not kill the messenger.
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.