Newshoggers Comments
I see the Brookings Institute report is from, in part, war pimp Michael O'Hanlon.
Lo and behold, he cheers a decrease in extra-judicial killings without the caveat that since last October transparency and verification of such numbers was systematically removed by Al Maliki.
In short, we really don't know if this is true. But O'Hanlon, and just about everyone in the media, is ready to accept as reality whatever number the PM's office will dish out to him (and it's not like the PM doesn't have a bias in reducing that number). Once the UN is allowed to do independent counts is when I'll start believing the numbers again.
I have to remain anonymous do to the fact that I am a member of the U.S. Army National Guard and everything that comes out of my mouth is not a reflection of the views of the National Guard, and the fact that I do not want to be punished for voicing my view. Being a fresh out of Basic training/A.I.T. Soldier sent to a combat zone my views might not mean a whole lot to anyone. I have been in Iraq now for about 71/2 months and my first comment will be that being here I have noticed a lot of things. First thing, since the American troops have been here the number of attacks anywhere in Iraq have increased significantly, and will continue to rise as long as we are here. And as more and more troops keep coming the number of attack will steadily increase. My mission here along with the majority of units over here, is convoy security. From the things that I have seen, a lot of I.E.D. attacks are coming from poor farmers and poor Iraqi civilians in general, who are being paid (Twice as much if not more of what they make usually) to place I.E.D.s and show proof that they blew up something American, whether the proof be pictures or video, and are not so much Insurgents. And as the Iraqi people are catching wind of the easy money made they are taking the opportunity to keep their families fed and provided for. Now the bigger attacks where chlorine or mustard gas are used, those attacks are the actual insurgents. The smaller I.E.D.s and such are as I described earlier(people trying to provide for their families). So from my perspective the number of attacks across Iraq will continue to rise as long as we are here. The base that I am currently stationed at here in Iraq gets hit with mortar attacks several times a day. And our missions consist of taking supplies to the other bases across Iraq, and on those mission I have noticed that we, as well as a lot of other units, are getting hit on a more frequent basis. So I guess what I am trying to say is that someone needs to get the ball rolling on getting the troops out of here. The Prime Minister said himself that the American Troops can leave anytime they want. And as we start leaving the number of attacks will decrease because the number of targets will decrease. So if they think that we cant leave here until the attack numbers drop, to me that means we will be here for a very long time.
The story about the Anbar leader hasn't shown up on any news wires, so I'm not quite sure how it's "probable". A random news source in Arabic isn't any more definitive than a random news source in English.
The report on Anbar you reference is over a month old, and recent news points to things being even better now. The "bleating" you talk about references attack levels in the single-digits in what used to be the single most violent place in Iraq.
The 'baseline' effect is well worth keeping in mind. Violence was unacceptably high in 2004-2005, and after the Golden Mosque bombing it got worse by an order of magnitude. Just getting things back to where they were before last year's spike still leaves a hell of a long way to go.
Good analysis. It's sad that your conclusion isn't more widespread in the terms you use. Of course something like a 90% would be necessary.
(As a side note, I think "warbloggers" gives them far too much respect. Milboggers who are serving or reporters might be called warbloggers, but the neocons are chickenhawks, moving miniatures around on a board playing general. If they knew much about war, they wouldn't think it was exciting or glamorous, and wouldn't keep pushing for it. These are dangerous, pugnacious, ignorant people who do not learn, and rarely suffer for their almost unfailingly incorrect and disastrous positions.)
"But, there's gotta be a pony in here, somewhere!!!"
Commenting by HaloScan
