Over 2500 US Troops Dead in Iraq
18,490 Wounded
Time to Leave?
AFP reports that the Iraqi Civil War claimed at least 27 lives on Thursday:
"Three successive roadside bombs targeting Iraqi army patrols killed five soldiers and injured six others in the northern town of Tal Afar on Thursday, police said. Four soldiers were killed when the first roadside bomb hit their vehicle. A second bomb went off as soldiers on foot rushed to the site. The third bomb hit an Iraqi army vehicle nearby. Gunmen stormed a Sunni mosque near Tikrit, killing four people and wounding 15, police said.
At least 18 more people were killed in other violence-related incidents across the country. In Baquba, gunmen killed 10 people, including two brothers, police said. Police found seven bullet-riddled bodies across Baghdad. A policeman was also shot dead by armed men."
According to al-Sharq al-Awsat [Ar.], a joint US-Iraqi force arrested Shaikh `Aqil Fahim al-Zubaidi, head of the governing council for Karbala province, on charges of abetting terrorism. Hundreds of angry protesters rallied in his defense. Al-Zubaidi belongs to the Virtue Party (Fadhila) of Shaikh Muhammad Yaqubi.
The number of US troops killed in Iraq, whether in combat or through incidents such as vehicle collisions (often occuring during the heat of battle), has now passed the 2500 mark. An average of two die each day. Among the 18,490 wounded are thousands with serious injuries that will affect them the rest of their lives. Those suffering post-traumatic stress syndrome, which can lead to alcoholism or mental disease and disability, constitute more thousands.
I agree with Congressman Murtha that the main lesson of the killing of Zarqawi is that we don't need all those ground troops in Iraq, who mainly take casualties when driving around. If we didn't have so many troops there, they would not have to drive around so much. They aren't trained as police, aren't mostly doing counter-insurgency, don't have the language or local cultural skills to track down the guerrillas, and their search and destroy missions probably alienate more Iraqis than they are worth. We'd be ahead of the game with some Jordanian intelligence units coordinating with Iraqi forces,and maybe some US special ops teams who could call down the 500 pound bombs once the terrorist location is identified.
The argument coming from the American military-industrial complex that the US could not have killed Zarqawi if there had been a troop draw-down is simplistic, as with all purely interest-driven arguments. It depends on which troops are withdrawn. The onces in Najaf province are acting really just as an occasional support to the Badr-infiltrated police in their struggle against the Mahdi Army militia. Those troops did not help get Zarqawi. Most of the US troops in Iraq don't have the linguistic or cultural knowledge to do effective counter-insurgency. In fact, my own suspicion is that it was the enlistment of Jordanian agents that was crucial. That, and Zarqawi stupidly alienated the Dulaim by blowing up police recruits in Ramadi. Tribal feuds tend to follow you once you start them.
Most of the ground troops in Iraq are either not needed or are engaged in counter-productive activities. Keep the ones that are really needed for counter-insurgency (they would be few), and stop trying to use them to do routine police work in Baghdad or Karbala.

|
8 Comments:
So you want the Americans to be smarter and more successful imperialists. Then, if their soldiers are not in Iraq, they'll be free to invade others, like Iran or Venezuela.
I know retail killers like az-Zarqawi are bad guys. But how long would they last with the Americans gone, and how do they compare with wholesale mass murderers by sanctions and depleted uranium? Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons won't be killing people and giving 10-year-old girls breast cancer until God makes new heavens and a new earth, like America's uranium oxide dust.
What do the Americans want in Iraq except to set up a puppet regime like the monarchy that was under the British thumb, which will grant them huge permanent bases from which to dominate and terrorize the neighboring states and assist Israel in the slow genocide of the Palestinians?
Without a disastrous defeat of American imperial power, how will the peoples of this region find relief from 50 years of torment under the American yoke, more openly genocidal all the time? Why are they not entitled, after all this time, to such relief?
We'd be ahead of the game with some Jordanian intelligence units coordinating with Iraqi forces,and maybe some US special ops teams who could call down the 500 pound bombs once the terrorist location is identified.
For the life of me I cannot see the difference between what you are prescribing and the US/Israeli occupation of Palestine.
Five hundred pound bombs are terrorist weapons.
The Israelis kill many more utterly innocent people than those they "target". And their targets may or may not be as innocent as the "non-targets" murdered by the Israelis. We'll never know, of course, since the Israelis have laved the streets of Palestine with their life's blood and innards.
That seems exactly what the US occupation of Iraq would turn into if your plan were adopted.
What possible benefit is there for anyone on the earth in such a situation? Any human being that is. The Oil and War Lobbies would continue to benefit. And the far-right wing in Israel would applaud such a scenario. It would legitimize their three decades plus of pursuing exactly the same criminal policy against the Palestinians.
I love the work Cole does--an invaluable resource for staying informed--but I think he needs to come to terms with the US Military as a force that has never had a neutral role in a conflict and probably never a positive one. Case in point: Cole writes, "We'd be ahead of the game with some Jordanian intelligence units coordinating with Iraqi forces,and maybe some US special ops teams who could call down the 500 pound bombs once the terrorist location is identified." And this, "Keep the ones [ground troops] that are really needed for counter-insurgency (they would be few)...."
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but since WW II, all US counter-insurgency I know of has been nothing but state terrorism--death squads, torture chambers, dictatorships, relocation camps, etc...
The death of Al Zarqawi prompted much flag waving and tributes to the troops--for morale purposes. But I did not see any serious strategist or pundit argue this was a validation of the current numbers or use of US troops. Neocons are sorely upset at the under-utilization of US forces to implement a "clear and hold" or "oil spot" approach to rolling back the Sunni insurgency at large. Iraqi forces would play a tandem role, but US presence would be essential to give the Iraqis assurance and fend off reprisals.
AEI's F. Kagan and Gerecht are at one on this. What of there arguments that the Tal Afar and Sadr City pacifications could be implemented progressively across the Sunni Triangle and in Baghdad?
In any case, realists in the Neocon camp are anything but complacent about present trends. They don't imagine that occasional "sweeps" and headline events will quell the insurgency. They fault the current US military leadership for being shallow, timid, and politically pliant.
Would Jordanian intelligence authorities turn in Sunni insurgents to Shiite authorities? Al-Zarqawi was an exception because he came from Jordan, killed people there, and had no real goal other than to promote hatred.
No "made in Iraq only" solution appears likely until groups like the AMS issue communiqués that call for reconciliation of sects, support of the national security forces, and demobilization and disarmament of the militias / insurgents. Any signs?
Juan: very naive to request Bush and this Congress to leave some troops in Iraq. Would you have asked Hitler to remove all but a few SS from Poland or Czechoslovakia? Of course, the analogy is not exact, just pointed! You don't leave pirates in charge of your ports unless you want your citizens robbed and murdered and your women raped.
We'd be ahead of the game with some Jordanian intelligence units coordinating with Iraqi forces,and maybe some US special ops teams who could call down the 500 pound bombs once the terrorist location is identified.
With all due respect, "call down a 500 pound bomb" is for the most part the answer to the question "How do you loose a war to guerillas?"
Supression of insurgencies is IMO generally a police problem, not a military problem. When you have a handful of people in a house, you do not drop a bomb on it. You surround it with an adequate force and have a guy with a bullhorn yell "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, you are under arrest. Come out with your hands up". Any attempt to shortcut that is going to generate about six insurgents for every one you kill.
And you treat your prisoners with courtesy and respect no matter how despicable they may be.
And you give them a fair trial in accordance with the princples set out in the English Common Law, The American Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution as ammended.
Yes, there are times when the scale of the effort may become military -- if you have several thousand fighting men surrounded. Still you do your best to minimize bloodshed.
If we do all those things, we might, and I emphasize might, win eventually. If not, we will lose.
Frankly, American defeat in Bush's War on Terror would be the odds on bet even with the best available strategy. And we are not following the best strategy.
"but I think he needs to come to terms with the US Military as a force that has never had a neutral role in a conflict and probably never a positive one."
snip
"Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but since WW II, all US counter-insurgency I know of has been nothing but state terrorism--death squads, torture chambers, dictatorships, relocation camps, etc..."
1.5 million Albanian Muslims might say otherwise.
Iraqis will not have peace until we get our infidel butts completely out of Iraq. There is no reasonable argument for keeping them there.
Bushco has failed. Totally. How many more mothers will send their children to Iraq so that the Idiot Bushwacker in chief can hide his deadly shortcomings.
It is increasingly difficult for an informed American to support her government in any indeavor.
The world needs to know how deeply ashamed most Americans feel of our congress, our president and our military leaders.
It's too bad there is no Inferno waiting for them. If it existed, they would surely burn.
I have no moderation left in me.
Post a Comment
<< Home