Time For A Reality Check

[susiedriver]

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/29/reality-check-iraq/


Reality Check on Iraq

On Wednesday, President Bush will deliver an address at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, in which, he is expected to herald the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for pulling out U.S. forces. The speech appears to be an effort by the Bush administration to lay the groundwork for potentially large withdrawals of troops in 2006 and 2007.
While Bush and critics of his Iraq policy may agree that a drawdown could be the proper action to take, they differ in one key respect the rationale for why such a withdrawal is necessary. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) recently argued that pulling out of Iraq is necessary because the war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. Bush, on the other hand, is trying to suggest that a drawdown is the fruits of good progress being made in Iraq.
A review of the situation on the ground in Iraq demonstrates clearly that things are getting worse, not better:
- Approximately 100 Attacks Per Day; All-Time High. Pentagon officials said that in October there were about 100 attacks a day in Iraq compared with 85 to 90 attacks a day in September and about half of all attacks involve homemade bombs. That is the highest recorded level since the Iraq war began. By comparison, in January, nationwide figures hovered around 50 to 70 attacks per day. [CNN, 11/3/05; Boston Globe, 1/21/05; Brookings Iraq Index, p. 20]
- One of the Deadliest Attacks In Iraq Occurred Less Ten Days Ago. Suicide bombers killed nearly 100 people Friday in one of the deadliest days of Iraqs insurgency, bringing houses down on sleeping families in Baghdad and shredding Shiite Muslim worshipers in two mosques in the eastern part of the country just as the victims turned their faces up to the preachers to hear their Friday sermons Nationwide, the attacks were the deadliest since Sept. 14, when at least 14 insurgent bombings in Baghdad killed more than 160 people. [Washington Post, 11/19/05]
- Unemployment Rates At 40 Percent. [Biden speech, 11/21/05]
- Iraq Oil Production Is Below Pre-War Levels. Iraqs oil production has fallen below prewar levels to its lowest point in a decade, depriving the countrys fledgling government of badly needed income and preventing the United States from achieving one of its main reconstruction goals. [USA Today, 10/11/04]
- Water, Electricity, Health Networks Are Below Prewar Levels. Stuart W. Bowen Jr., special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, said administration promises to use $18 billion Congress allocated to rebuild water, electricity, health and oil networks to prewar levels or better are running into cold reality. We are going to provide something less than that, he said. [Washington Post, 10/19/05]
- As of November 28, 2005, at least 2,107 U.S. Troops Had Died In Iraq and Over 15,500 Were Wounded. [AP, 11/28/05; icasualties.org]
- Almost 94 Percent of All U.S. Fatalities Have Occurred Since Mission Accomplished (5/1/03). Over 2,059 U.S. troop fatalities since that date. [icasualties.org]
- Almost 60 percent of All U.S. Fatalities Have Occurred After The Transfer of Sovereignty (6/28/04). At Least 1,246 U.S. troop fatalities since that date. [icasualties.org]
- Insurgents in Iraq Have Kidnapped More Than 225 Foreigners. [Washington Post, 11/28/05]
- Over $250 Billion Spent On Iraq War. [Chicago Tribune, 11/16/05]
- Reconstruction of Iraq Has Been Spotty. As the money runs out on the $30 billion American-financed reconstruction of Iraq, the officials in charge cannot say how many planned projects they will complete, and there is no clear source for the hundreds of millions of dollars a year needed to operate the projects that have been finished, according to a report to the U.S. Congress released Sunday. [NYT, 10/31/05]
- Number of Troops Trained. [A]s it has been for the past two and a half years, it is unclear exactly what measuring sticks [Bush] is using, and whether they present the full picture. [NYT, 11/28/05]
February 2004: Number of Iraqi Troops Reportedly Trained = 210,000 [Rumsfeld, 2/23/04]
September 2004: Number of Iraqi Troops Reportedly Trained = 95,000 [CNN, 9/12/04]
Now: Number of Iraqi Troops Reportedly Trained = 212,000 [AP, 11/28/05]
- Dwindling Coalition.
Peak # of Countries in Coalition: 37
Current # of Countries in Coalition: 27 [Boston Globe, 11/27/05]
- Almost 3 Years Later, More Troops In Iraq.
# of American Troops In Iraq In May 2003: 150,000
# of American Troops In Iraq In February 2005: 155,000 [Reuters, 11/23/05; Brookings Iraq Index, p. 18]

 

[tieguy]

Suzie if reality is truly what we seek shouldn't we also include a listing that shows how many people are alive today that would have died under Sadaams hand in the past three years. How many people would have been maimed or crippled to apease the sick minds of those in power during Sadaams regime. How many women and maybe even men would have been raped or somehow sexually molested by the old regime. How many kurds would have been gassed , tortured or killed under the old regime if left in check? How many jailed for doing what you do on this message board each day. How many afraid to speak out. How many elections would have taken place in which only one candidate could be voted for. How many people would have lost their lives for not showing up on election day and voting for that one choice on the ballots. How much money would have flowed into the hands of terrorists. How many weapons would have been supplied to these terrorists by Sadaam. How many missles would have been fired at their peace loving nieghbors. And how many of these peace loving neighbors of his would have been overrun by him if left unchecked. How many violations of the peace accord that he agreed to would have been recorded. Just which reality are we trying to measure here?

 

[tieguy]

Suzie ,

It appears you missed this one. can we get those figures I asked for and then make the necessary adjustment on your "reality check'?

 

[susiedriver]

Suzie ,

It appears you missed this one. can we get those figures I asked for and then make the necessary adjustment on your "reality check'?

Tie, you are asking for imaginary numbers, but why don't you tell me how many people Saddam killed in the two years leading up to the invasion? You notice my post made no mention of the tens of thousands of innocents who have been killed, or the billions of dollars stolen from us, or the death squads that we support today in Iraq.

Saddam was evil, and the world is better off without him, no argument. But he had been reduced to a shadow of what he was in 1980-1991. He was not a threat to us.

In a nutshell, your world=imaginary.

 

[tieguy]

Tie, you are asking for imaginary numbers, but why don't you tell me how many people Saddam killed in the two years leading up to the invasion? You notice my post made no mention of the tens of thousands of innocents who have been killed, or the billions of dollars stolen from us, or the death squads that we support today in Iraq.
Saddam was evil, and the world is better off without him, no argument. But he had been reduced to a shadow of what he was in 1980-1991. He was not a threat to us.
In a nutshell, your world=imaginary.

Yea thats what I thought , I imagined all those mass graves found in Iraq. I imagined those iraqi troops rolling into Kuwait. I imagined those Al-quiada training camps in northern Iraq. I imagined the war he fought with Iran. Yep Saddaam was no threat to us. Niether was hitler.

 

[dannyboy]

I just wonder what intel was used to explain away the tens of thousands that were killed by using gas on the "undesirables". You know, those Iraqi's that did the diversionary actions while we cleared them out of Kuwait?

Ever think that maybe that is why Americans are so hated by some in other countries? We told them rise up and fight, we will help you take control of your country, and when we got to the border, we stopped, leaving them to fend for themselves against the mad dog. Just like the ones we left behind in Vietnam because we could/would not get the people out. Used them and left them behind. And that includes 10's of thousands ethnic mix children. Lives who's story will never be told.

Bush is one that promised we will go in, and we will not leave until the job is done. And for better or worse, he has kept his promise. No idle threat. Very much unlike others before him.

If for no other reason than this, other countries understand that the USA can and will follow through on promised action. Remember, this whole thing started because of a cat and mouse game Saddam was playing with "inspectors".

So reality is reality. I have spoken with over 100 men and women that have served in Iraq and Pakistan. To a man, the effort is supported by those called to put out the service. Is it perfect? No, but it is a valiant effort to give the idea of self determination to those that have never had it. Freedom. To those that have never had it, an ideal worth dying for. And many more Iraqi's have died in the cause than Americans, but yet you down play their sacrifice. The reality is yes, many, too many, American lives have been lost. And yes, there have been a few, too many, but just a few bad examples of conduct. But the vast majority of the examples of courage, compassion, and love are not the fodder than the news media want to show, so they get overlooked. And it is a shame. The best and brightest of our country are serving beyond what we can expect with honor and dignity, and all we can focus on are the few in AbuGrab?

Shame on us.

d

 

[tieguy]

Could not have said it better myself. With those words Suzie you should let this misbegotten thread die.

 

[susiedriver]

More Reality

I know that many of you believe everything the President says, after all, he wouldn't intentionally mislead us, would he?

In his speech yesterday he said:

The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last years assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army with six Iraqi battalions supporting themThis year in Tal Afar, it was a very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support.

Yesterday this was also said by someone who was there, with the Iraqi troops:

I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them. Green berets who were following an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The Iraqis led nothing.

 

[susiedriver]

Tie,

Still waiting for figures on how many Iraqis lost their lives at the hands of Saddam in the two years prior to the invasion.

 

[over9five]

"Yesterday this was also said by someone who was there, with the Iraqi troops"

So, great Queen of Links, exactly who said this?

 

[susiedriver]

Well, since you asked so politely, and didn't try to provoke a fight, it was Michael Ware, Time Magazine, a highly respected reporter, who was embedded with the Iraqi troops for the entire battle. He said this on CNN yesterday. Sen John Warner (R-VA) rebutted thusly:

WARNER: Well, Ill let the commanders sort that out but I - first I respect those journalists that embed themselves and I accept as a credible description what youve just put forward. But you didnt hear him say they cut and run like they did in Fallujah. You didnt hear him say that the Iraqis dropped the arms. He said they were fighting. Now it may well have been that the battle plan was drawn up by the coalition forces, probably the U.S. leading.

The entire transcript is available on CNN.

 

[tieguy]

I know that many of you believe everything the President says, after all, he wouldn't intentionally mislead us, would he?

Yesterday this was also said by someone who was there, with the Iraqi troops:

I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. green beret special forces with them. Green berets who were following an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The Iraqis led nothing.

I thought this was a terrific point to make. I think it captures suzie at her best.

1) first quote highlight in blue is a slam on us for supposedly believing everything bush tells us.

2) Second part with the highlight in red shows where she shows a willingness to believe an unnamed source known as "someone who was there" over a credible source like the president of the united states.

3) Third part in green; shows the contradiction, her ignorance of the military and her willingness to believe the unnamed source without verifying the accuracy of that sources information. The reference as anyone who is familiar with the military knows is very flawed. One of the green berets missions is to take indigenous personnel and train them on how to fight in combat. They basically recruit and form these battalions, train them and then actually accompany these units as they learn how to fight in actual combat situations. While they do participate in the actual combat they progress to a role as advisors as the trained unit learns to fight on its own. Since these green beret groups work in groups of 10 or 11 troops the idea that they are somehow leading these iraqi troops into combat as if they were a battalion of american troops is laughable.

The point is also made that the Iraqi troops work with american command and control guidance. Again anyone who has a clue knows the option to the Iraqi troops doing so would be to either fight seperately of american command and control or to have more seasoned more experienced american troops work under Iraqi command and control. Either option is not realistic and obviously not as effective. The quote from this "someone who was there" shows that persons ignorance of military tactics. If the number of battalians listed by Bush was accurate which it was then the presidents statement that Iraqi troops led the charge is 100 percent accurate. This point again highlights why our troops in Iraq are not getting a fair shake from the media. This "someone who was there" person either did not understand what they were seeing or deliberately misreported the events knowing gullible bush haters like Suzie would buy it hook, line and sinker.

It is good to see that Suzie is at least consistent in continously biting on the hook that is cast her way.

 

[susiedriver]

Leading implies, to me anyway, that the Iraqi army is developing battle plans, selecting targets, leading the assault with american troops supporting (most likely air power). Thats apparently not the case in Tal Afar. While Iraqi troops participating is a good thing, it seems pretty clear they arent leading anything.

 

[tieguy]

Leading implies, to me anyway, that the Iraqi army is developing battle plans, selecting targets, leading the assault with american troops supporting (most likely air power). Thats apparently not the case in Tal Afar. While Iraqi troops participating is a good thing, it seems pretty clear they arent leading anything.

Like I said I loved the way you were so willing to accept the untrained ignorance of this "somebody" simply because it fit your personal agenda against the president.

 

[susiedriver]

Like I said I loved the way you were so willing to accept the untrained ignorance of this "somebody" simply because it fit your personal agenda against the president.

The only ignorance showing is your own. Mr. Ware has been in Iraq since the beginning of the conflict, his reporting & reputation is above reproach, unlike yours.

Still waiting for just one fact that you've posted.

 

[tieguy]

in fact my reputation was never in question. Your source could have been in Iraq for 100 years but he still is either:

1) Ignorant of the military and their methods. This is an option since many of the liberal press were probably tring to impregnate young females with their gun instead of carying a rifle.

2) Deliberately , willfully and with full malice misrepresented the facts in order to pursue an anti Bush agenda much like you do here.

As such his reputation is highly suspect, Yours is equally highly suspect since you also apparently did use this to pursue your anti bush agenda. In so doing you chose to accept the material presented even though you may have known it was innacurate. Therefore you also deliberately, willfully and with full malice misrepresented the facts.

You often accuse us of believing everything Bush says. Better to be gullible then a Liar miss old lady , ex driver ain't learned a damn thing after all those years.

 

[susiedriver]

in fact my reputation was never in question. Your source could have been in Iraq for 100 years but he still is either:

1) Ignorant of the military and their methods. This is an option since many of the liberal press were probably tring to impregnate young females with their gun instead of carying a rifle.

2) Deliberately , willfully and with full malice misrepresented the facts in order to pursue an anti Bush agenda much like you do here.

As such his reputation is highly suspect, Yours is equally highly suspect since you also apparently did use this to pursue your anti bush agenda. In so doing you chose to accept the material presented even though you may have known it was innacurate. Therefore you also deliberately, willfully and with full malice misrepresented the facts.

You often accuse us of believing everything Bush says. Better to be gullible then a Liar miss old lady , ex driver ain't learned a damn thing after all those years.

Tie, are you for real? Practicing your courtroom speech here? Tell you what, write Time magazine and inform them that their bureau chief in Iraq is a liar.

The facts were presented by a trained observer on the ground, under fire, embedded with the troops, whose reputation is beyond reproach. Sen. Warner even stated that his reporting was a credible description of what took place, is he a liar as well?

Look on the bright side; the Iraqi troops are getting better, a few months ago they would have dropped their weapons and ran. To say that they 'primarily led the assault' is an embellishment of the facts, at the least. With things going as poorly as they are in Iraq, I really don't blame Bush for trying to paint a brighter picture. He lied us into the war, now he's trying to lie us out.

Still waiting for just one fact from you, big fella, just one.

 

[tieguy]

Suzie you cannot moonwalk away from responsibility by telling me to call time magazine as if you have no ownership here.

You presented this persons misleading quote as your rebuttal to the POTUS speech. As such you also assume responsibility for any facts that were misrepresented.

At this point you are floundering badly. May I suggest you conceed the point and save yourself any further embarrasment?

 

[susiedriver]

Tie,

I stand by the post. Of course it all depends on your definition of 'lead', now doesn't it?

No facts were misrepresented. Sen Warner reiterated the point.

Speaking of facts, still waiting for just one fact from you, big fella

 

[ok2bclever]

I have to admit not having to listen to tie ramble on all week was refreshing.

Nothing much changes in his rhetoric.

Same ole, same ole, proclaiming he is winning every argument and everyone in the world that doesn't agree with him is incompetent and doesn't know what they are talking about and whining about the "liberal press".

What a bore.

I think I will treat myself to a no more tie Christmas.

Perhaps I will pop back in in January.

PS - Most of the contract is void and null during this month, but the fact that management understaffs the workforce and under equips it does not give them the right to work so feel free to enforce the contract and collect a little Christmas bonus.

Merry Christmas to ummm, most!