Posted on 11/29/2006 5:40:07 AM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
The violence in Iraq since 2003 has been unusual in several respects. For example;
@ The death rate has been increasing as Shia Arabs undertake more revenge attacks on Sunni Arabs. The government does not release data on the religion of victims, but reports from Iraqis indicates that over the last year, an increasing portion of the deaths are Sunni. Two thirds or more of the dead now appear to be Sunni Arabs.
@ The violence has been concentrated in central and western Iraq, areas where the Sunni Arabs live, and often mixed together with Kurds or Shia Arabs. Death rates in the Kurdish north and Shia south have been at peacetime levels.
@ Only about ten percent of the deaths have been caused by U.S. troops. All the rest have been the result of terrorists, common criminals or Iraqi security forces. The number of civilians killed by U.S. troops is at a historical low. This is largely due to more accurate weapons, better trained and disciplined troops and strictly enforced rules of engagement. Thus for the Iraq war so far, the civilian death rate has been about 150 per 100,000 people per year. A century ago, during the four year Philippine Insurrection, civilians died at the rate of about 600 per 100,000 population per year. As in Iraq, many of those deaths were the result of local factions fighting each other. During the Vietnam war, the civilian death rate from military operations was about 400 per 100,000 per year, and, again, a lot of these were due to Vietnamese fighting each other.
Up through the Summer of 2005, the death rate was running at about 45 dead per 100,000 population per year. This is far higher than the usual rate in Middle Eastern countries (under 10 per 100,000). Well, most of the time. During civil wars and insurrections, the rate has spiked to over a hundred per 100,000, sometimes for several years in a row. During Saddam's long reign, the Iraqi death rate from democide (the government killing its own people) averaged over 100 per 100,000 a year. This does not include the several hundred thousand killed during the war with Iran in the 1980s.
There are other parts of the world that are more violent than Iraq. Africa, for example, especially Congo, Sudan and South Africa. Only South Africa has a sufficiently effective government to actually keep track of the death rate, mostly from crime, but it's over 50 per 100,000. It's worse in places like Congo and Sudan, but the numbers there are only estimates by peacekeepers and relief workers. In southern Thailand, a terror campaign by Islamic radicals has caused a death rate of over 80 per 100,000.
Iraq is getting better control of its vital statistics (births, deaths and the like), and felt confident to release those numbers. During Saddam's long reign, these numbers were kept haphazardly, largely because of the large number of Iraqis being killed by Saddams secret police and political enforcers. These deaths were often not recorded, or not recorded as murder. During his three decades of rule, Saddam killed half a million Kurds, and several hundred thousand Shia Arabs (and several thousand Sunni Arabs and Christian Arabs). During the 1990s, Saddam used access to food and medical care as a way to keep the Shia Arabs under control, but this process caused at least twenty thousand or more excess deaths a year (from disease and malnutrition). Foreign media, especially in Sunni Moslem nations, played down Saddam's homicides, just as they play up the current death toll in Iraq (which is still largely the result of violence by Sunni Arabs.)
In the last year, the death rate has gone up, and on a national level, it's about 150 per 100,000 per year. Since most of this is concentrated in central Iraq, where half the population lives, the rate there is about 300 per 100,000. Most of it is directed at the few million Sunni Arabs left in the country, which is why they are fleeing the country in increasing numbers. It's 1990s Yugoslavia all over again, except nearly all the refugees are Sunni Arabs. But, until about a year ago, most of the violence was from Sunni Arabs, whose numerous terror organizations (including foreign Sunnis working for al Qaeda) were doing most of the killing. The Kurds and Shia want revenge for that, as well as all the murders committed during Saddam's rule.
But to some people, as long as Sadr is still above ground, or as long as Saddam's WMD's aren't found, or whatever their excuse is for witholding support, this war is all just a big mistake and we should pick up our marbles and go home.
Snatching defeat from out of the jaws of victory.
Frankly the Sunnis seem to have brought this murder and mayhem onto themselves. They ruled Iraq and oppressed the Kurds and Shia then turned to urban terrorism when Saddam was booted out. Of course the Shia were going to get revenge and it is no wonder that Sadr has grown so strong. He was willing to match blood with blood and that's something the people in the Arab world understand.
And, of course, Philadelphia, Detroit and Washington, D.C.
Al Qaeda's Last Stand in Anbar
Strategypage ^ | 11/24/06
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1743621/posts
Posted on 11/24/2006 6:30:07 PM CST by Valin
November 24, 2006: Earlier this year, al Qaeda declared western Iraq (Anbar province) to be their new base of operations. Shortly thereafter, a coalition of Sunni Arab tribes agreed to work with the government to destroy al Qaeda forces in the area. This brought to a head two years of violence in western Iraq. While many of the tribal chiefs out here had been allies of Saddam Hussein, and his Baath Party, this was mainly because Saddam was generous with the tribes, and pointed out that, in the wake of the 1991 Shia Arab revolt (which the Sunni tribes helped put down), if the Sunni Arabs did not stick together, the more numerous Shia would destroy them. The Kurds, who already had a sanctuary (protected by American and British warplanes) in the north, would join in slaughtering the Sunni Arabs, if given a chance. Then, after Saddam was overthrown, and al Qaeda offered to help the Sunni Arabs eject the Americans, and regain control of the country, the Sunni tribes kept fighting. But the alliance with al Qaeda soon unraveled. By 2004, Sunni Arab tribesmen were fighting with al Qaeda. The problem was that al Qaeda did not believe the tribes were aggressive enough, or religious enough. First threats, then the murder of Sunni Arab tribal chiefs, brought al Qaeda into open warfare with the tribes. At first, the anti-al Qaeda tribes were not the majority, and they were outgunned by the Baath Party terrorist organizations and pro-Saddam tribes. But month-by-month, more tribes turned against al Qaeda and Baath. For the last year, as more American and Iraqi troops moved into western Iraq, the fighting became more intense.
Over a dozen tribes are now pro-government, with tribemen joining the police force, and serving in their own neighborhoods. Recruiting was slow at first, even with the approval of the chiefs. Only 30 stepped forward last June, but now there are 1,300 tribesmen in the police force. During that same period, some 750 al Qaeda and Baath terrorists have been killed in Ramadi, the center of al Qaeda power in Anbar. There are only a few hundred of them left, and the government controls two-thirds of the city. During that same period, the number of terrorist attacks, including roadside bombs, has also fallen by two-thirds.
This has brought about a civil war in western Iraq, with Sunni tribes fighting each other. Even with al Qaeda and the Baath Party terrorists, the anti-government tribes are on the defensive. Ramadi, which was to be the capital of the new al Qaeda sanctuary, is in ruins, and the scene of daily fighting, and defeats for the terrorists.
(snip)
____________________________________________
Sunni tribes turn against jihadis
To fight foreign terrorists, US and Iraqi forces are looking to the Sunni Arab resistance.
By Charles Levinson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0206/p01s01-woiq.html
BAGHDAD – Sheikh Osama al-Jadaan, head of the influential Karabila tribe in Sunni Arab-dominated western Iraq, is more politician than traditional sheikh these days. He's given up his dishdasha and Arab headdress for a pinstripe suit with a silk handkerchief in his breast pocket.
He's also turned away from supporting Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi and other foreign fighters in Iraq. "We realized that these foreign terrorists were hiding behind the veil of the noble Iraqi resistance," says Mr. Jadaan. "They claim to be striking at the US occupation, but the reality is they are killing innocent Iraqis in the markets, in mosques, in churches, and in our schools."
In Anbar Province, an insurgent hotbed that borders Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, US and Iraqi officials say they have a new ally against the Al Qaeda-inspired terrorists: local tribal leaders like Jadaan and home-grown Iraqi insurgents.
"The local insurgents have become part of the solution and not part of the problem," US Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch told reporters at a press conference last week.
Until recently, many of the Sunni Arab tribes in Anbar and local insurgent leaders collaborated with Islamic extremist groups whose funding and manpower is thought to come largely from abroad. They had a common goal: drive out the Americans.
But Mr. Zarqawi's indiscriminate killing of innocent Iraqis has alienated many of his erstwhile Iraqi allies. His shadowy militant group, known as Al Qaeda in Iraq, is believed to have assassinated four prominent Anbar sheikhs. And in January when hundreds of Anbar men turned up at an Iraqi Army recruiting depot in Ramadi, the provincial capital, a suicide bomber killed 70 would-be soldiers.
(snip)
My point is (as always) things are more complicated than just US V Them (who ever US or Them are)
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.