Meanwhile in Iraq...

Nick Gillespie | January 19, 2006

As Iraqi officials get set to announce election results--possibly as early as tomorrow--violence has been increasing. Along with a suicide bombing and a car bomb that killed at least 23 people early today, there's this recent carnage:

Thirty people were dragged from their cars at crude checkpoints erected on unpaved roads and shot dead execution-style in farming areas in Nibaei, a town near Dujail, about 50 miles north of Baghdad, said police Lt. Qahtan al-Hashmawi.

Insurgents also opened fire on a convoy of the mobile telephone company Iraqna, killing six security guards and three drivers in western Baghdad. Two engineers, believed to be Kenyans, were missing and feared kidnapped.

Two American civilians were killed in a roadside bombing in the southern city of Basra. They worked for the Irving, Texas-based security company DynCorp and were training Iraqi police. A third American was seriously wounded in the attack, the U.S. Embassy said.

That the surge in violence was predicted by Iraqi and U.S. officials doesn't make it any less disturbing. Or effective at driving out Western allies, it seems. The same story quoted above notes that Italy has announced plans to withdraw its 2,600 troops by year's end, replacing them with a "civilian" mission, whatever that means. More here.

Comments

|1.19.06 @ 10:50AM|#

Year to year the Iraqi deaths are decreasing, no?

According to OP's analysis of the numbers

2004: 10,000 Iraqi deaths

2005: 7,500 Iraqi deaths

http://www.opinionatedbastard.com/archives/000710.html#more

Of course, US wounded is down too by about 26% according to the news although total number of deaths only decreased by 1.

So that would argue that the deaths/injuries are going down despite the current up-tick. Possible the terrorists are getting better at manipulating the media. Or that really they have just been saving up for a year or so to really attack this year (see Drudge new Bin Laden tape link asking for a truce or else we will really get it now!)

This&That

|1.19.06 @ 10:54AM|#

The "civilian mission" by Italy means they'll exclusively use private companies like DynCorp, which the media will identify as civilian companies with civilian employees.

|1.19.06 @ 11:19AM|#

Once we consider the additional logistical difficulty of coordinating our efforts with allies, does it really "help" us to have 2600 Italians running around? Wouldn't we rather have them just write a check if they wanted to make sure we help them in WWIII?

Obviously the Brits are well integrated in our communications structure, and a useful fighting force. The Australians as well, I guess, but Italy? [Insert Italian military joke here.]

|1.19.06 @ 11:32AM|#

2600 Italians weren't "running around," except to an ignorant racist appropriately called Bubba. They were coalition partners who managed a sector of Iraq, and managed it well. The fact that Italian troops -- US allies -- have fought side-by-side with Americans, been tested in battle, and acquitted themselves well can only be beneficial to Iraqis, Italians, and the United States.

|1.19.06 @ 11:51AM|#

"Based on what I have said, it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land," he said. "We do not mind offering you a truce that is fair and long-term. ... So we can build Iraq and Afghanistan ... there is no shame in this solution because it prevents wasting of billions of dollars ... to merchants of war."


The latest alleged OBL statement. I guess he hasn't gotten the memo from Howard Dean that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on Al-Quada.

|1.19.06 @ 12:00PM|#

John-I didn't until we invaded and created a playground for OBL and every other jihadist whackaloon on the planet.

|1.19.06 @ 12:02PM|#

It didn't.

|1.19.06 @ 12:28PM|#

Right, Number 6, Iraq would still be a happy, peaceful place if it wasn't for those big bad Americans invading and inviting all the Islamofascist nutters to come play with them. Except that Saddam Insane was himself a big fat Isalmofascist nutter in the first place, but we don't want to talk about that, do we? Sort of interrupts the Bushitler chanting.

R C Dean|1.19.06 @ 12:28PM|#

Based on what I have said, it is better not to fight the Muslims on their land

Better for who?

|1.19.06 @ 12:53PM|#

Hey Scott I'm guessing you would rather live oppressed than die free.

|1.19.06 @ 12:59PM|#

Right, Number 6, Iraq would still be a happy, peaceful place if it wasn't for those big bad Americans invading and inviting all the Islamofascist nutters to come play with them. Except that Saddam Insane was himself a big fat Isalmofascist nutter in the first place

Saddam was indeed a fascist, perhaps even an Islamofascist(what is the technical definition of this term?), but he was not in league with Al Qaeda. The point typically made against the war is that, since Saddam and Al Qaeda were not collaborating, deposing the former did not help win our conflict with the latter.

|1.19.06 @ 1:00PM|#

patriot,

perhaps that is a question more appropriate to be asked of the iraqi civilians that scott was addressing - as they are the ones who are dying freely.

|1.19.06 @ 1:16PM|#

The majority of Iraqi civilians being killed aren't "in the crossfire," they are being murdered by the same Islamic fascists who used to kill them in mass graves around Iraq in their hundreds of thousands under Saddam Insane. The difference is that Americans and Iraqis are fighting back. And winning.

And BG, read Hayes: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Saddam trained thousands of Islamic fascists in his camps. Saddam and AQ _were_ collaborating.

|1.19.06 @ 1:39PM|#

used to kill them in mass graves around Iraq in their hundreds of thousands under Saddam Insane.

Was this before, during, or after Rumsfeld, et al were supporting Saddam?

|1.19.06 @ 1:43PM|#

Yeah, I wish that the battelfield was America too. Much better for everyone than seeing muslims forced to kill muslims.

|1.19.06 @ 1:44PM|#

Well Scott, if what you are saying is true (which it is not, but for sake of argument let's say it is), then didn't the United States owe the Iraqi people the moral obligation to get rid of Saddam, since as you say we supported him while he was killing all of those people?

|1.19.06 @ 1:55PM|#

didn't the United States owe the Iraqi people the moral obligation to get rid of Saddam, since as you say we supported him while he was killing all of those people?

Govt power is justified by the negative consequences of previous govt action? Would you accept that line of argument from someone wanting new social spending instead of new military spending?

|1.19.06 @ 2:00PM|#

Except that Saddam Insane was himself a big fat Isalmofascist nutter in the first place, but we don't want to talk about that, do we? Sort of interrupts the Bushitler chanting.

"Saddam Insane"? "Bushitler"? The only person here trying to argue via the use of non-clever name distortions is you.

R C Dean|1.19.06 @ 2:20PM|#

I'm with Jennifer on this one. "Bushitler"? Please. If you want to go with the namecalling, throw down something good.

Chimpeachment W. Pretzelchoker, Smirkler W. Bushiburton. - now THAT'S some namecalling.

|1.19.06 @ 2:29PM|#

Govt power is justified by the negative consequences of previous govt action? Would you accept that line of argument from someone wanting new social spending instead of new military spending?


In some cases yes. I think you would have to be a real George Wallace racist not to admit that the government needed to do something to help the black community overcome slavery and Jim Crow. I certainly wouldn't object to helping the people of Cambodia to try to make some ammends' for our abadoning them to the Khmer Rouge.

|1.19.06 @ 2:34PM|#

Right, Number 6, Iraq would still be a happy, peaceful place if it wasn't for those big bad Americans invading and inviting all the Islamofascist nutters to come play with them.

Yawn. No one is saying that Iraq would be a wonderful place if we hadn't invaded, so that's just a straw man. Number 6's point was, I think, that the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq now doesn't justify the war as connected to the struggle against Al Qaeda because the presence of Al Qaeda resulted from the war. We brought terrorism to Iraq.

|1.19.06 @ 3:01PM|#

Ethan - No AQ in Iraq before US invasion; Saddam unconnected to Islamic fascist war on West? Wrong. Obsolete justification to slag Bush. Read Hayes: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

Next.

|1.19.06 @ 3:04PM|#

Read Hayes:

If this 'evidence' is worthwhile, Bush can go public with it and let the world examine it.

|1.19.06 @ 3:39PM|#

A Bush-exonerating document that can only be found in the Weekly Standard is about as credible as a Clinton-exonerating document that can only be found in the Democratic Underground. "Stop saying he committed adultery. Obsolete justification to slag Clinton. Read the Democratic Underground."

|1.19.06 @ 3:45PM|#

Well put Jennifer.

The Weekly Standard report is nonsense. At best, the "links" between Al Qaeda and Saddam were tenuous. Notice that Levi did not say "Saddam" but rather "Iraq." This is because the Al Qaeda elements in Iraq were in the extreme northern part of Iraq, which Saddam doesn't control, AND they were anti-Saddam.

|1.19.06 @ 4:23PM|#

No, Ethan, I am not talking about AQ in northern Iraq, who were there because Saddam wanted them there. I am talking about the thousands of Islamic fascists Saddam ran through his training camps in the middle of Iraq. Their presence was not "tenuous." Denial of their presence is tenuous. And necessary to continue the specious argument that we went into Iraq for no good reason.

And Jennifer, the fact that it's in the Weekly Standard doesn't disqualify it either. The truth is the truth no matter who reports it.

|1.19.06 @ 4:25PM|#

Ethan,
So what you are saying is that we should have looked closer to the Turkish/Kurdish/Syrian AlQuiada link. I agree! Istanbul and Damascus here we come!!

|1.19.06 @ 4:40PM|#

And Jennifer, the fact that it's in the Weekly Standard doesn't disqualify it either. The truth is the truth no matter who reports it.

I think her point was that it's ONLY there. Certainly that would, if true, cast doubt on its accuracy.

|1.19.06 @ 5:45PM|#

Yo, Levi,

stop quoting the Weekly Standard. It is disinformation for the easily led.

It's also silly to suggest that the complete and utter nightmare that is Bush's personal war is somehow justified because our longtime ally, Saddam Hussein, was a bad guy. There are plenty of countries and plenty of bad guys and plenty of ways to deal with them. You provide a false choice.

R C Dean|1.19.06 @ 5:47PM|#

A Bush-exonerating document that can only be found in the Weekly Standard is about as credible as a Clinton-exonerating document that can only be found in the Democratic Underground.

For hard-core credibility, I rely on CBS News because of all the outlets that pick up their stories.

|1.19.06 @ 6:11PM|#

Justpete - Bush's "personal" war? As in the war authorized by the US Congress?

Saddam "our longtime ally?" Would that be "longtime" as in since the First Gulf War (against Saddam) 15 years ago?

Better update your A.N.S.W.E.R. talking points.

And yes, there are plenty of "bad guys" and plenty of "ways" of dealing with them. But now that we are in Iraq, there's one less bad guy who has used chemical weapons against his own people. And his neighbors.

|1.19.06 @ 6:54PM|#

But now that we are in Iraq, there's one less bad guy who has used chemical weapons against his own people

That's because we're using chemical weapons instead.

|1.19.06 @ 7:44PM|#

We're using chemical weapons in Iraq? Link please, and not to Michael Moore, if you please.

|1.20.06 @ 7:35AM|#

Levi is a paid troll.
Levi is a paid troll.
The homework's there (provided in handouts) but we've seen it all before (verbatim... makes one wonder). No one's buying anymore.
If anyone�s is still sincerely debating what we've brought to Iraq, read the opinion of bloggers from Baghdad. Try
http://twentyfourstepstoliberty.blogspot.com/
http://baghdadtreasure.blogspot.com/
Consensus? The players have changed, but daily life is just as brutal today as under Saddam.

|1.20.06 @ 10:03AM|#

For hard-core credibility, I rely on CBS News because of all the outlets that pick up their stories.

I assume you are being sarcastic, but the fact is that the Weekly Standard is a mouthpiece for the Republican Party (the neocon wing anyway). If it helps Bush, it'll be in there, whether or not it's true. CBS News is far from perfect, I think we all know that, but they are far more objective than the WS.

|1.20.06 @ 2:54PM|#

But now that we are in Iraq, there's one less bad guy who has used chemical weapons against his own people. And his neighbors.

If only we didn't have hypocrites in charge here who opposed sanctions on Hussein after he used those chemical weapons. I guess it's okay to gas your own people when you're an ally.