Major attacks decline in Iraq

[JaJae]

Major attacks decline in Iraq - USATODAY.com

Major attacks decline in Iraq
By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY
The number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.

The high-profile attacks — generally large bombs hitting markets, mosques or other "soft" targets that produce mass casualties — have dropped to about 70 in July from a high during the past year of about 130 in March, according to the Multi-National Force — Iraq.

Military officers say the decline reflects progress in damaging al-Qaeda's networks in Iraq. The military has launched offensives around Baghdad aimed at al-Qaeda sanctuaries and bases.

"The enemy had the initiative and the momentum in '06," said Jack Keane, a retired general who is a chief architect of the increase in troop levels and mentor to Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. "We've got it now."

Keane spoke from Iraq.

Al-Qaeda militants generally attempt large, headline-grabbing incidents aimed at symbolic targets or mass casualties. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, for example, claimed responsibility for the April suicide bomb attack on parliament.

Successes against al-Qaeda have also been helped by shifting Sunni public opinion and a growing number of insurgent defections, the military says.

"Tribes and people are starting to stand up and fight back," said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, deputy commander of the U.S. division north of Baghdad. "They are turning against al-Qaeda."

Some of the groups have provided intelligence on their former al-Qaeda allies, Lt. Col. Rick Welch, a staff officer who works with tribes, has said.

The increased security in many neighborhoods has also prompted more civilians to come forth with tips, officers said. The U.S. military gets 23,000 tips per month from Iraqis, four times more than last year, said Army Col. Ralph Baker, a former brigade commander in Iraq now assigned to the Pentagon.

Petraeus, who will give his assessment of the boost in troop levels in mid-September, said hundreds of al-Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured in the past month. He cautioned that al-Qaeda still has the "ability to carry out sensational attacks."

Al-Qaeda is generally behind the massive publicity-seeking attacks, but much of the sectarian violence and attacks on coalition forces is the work of Shiite militias, according to the U.S. military.

Violence from Shiite militias remains strong in some areas. In Baghdad, attacks from powerful armor-piercing roadside bombs, called explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs, increased to 35 in July from an average of 23 per month between March and June, said Maj. Steven Lamb, a spokesman for the U.S. division in Baghdad.

The U.S. military says the EFPs are supplied by Iran primarily to Shiite militias. Iran has denied the allegation.

Targeting militias has proved more sensitive than attacking al-Qaeda, since Iraq's Shiite-dominated government draws some of its support from Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric whose followers form one of Iraq's largest militias.

In the past, the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had sometimes blocked or criticized U.S. raids in Shiite strongholds. U.S. officers say that kind of interference has diminished. Petraeus said coalition and Iraqi forces have made inroads against Shiite extremist groups.

Good news coming from Iraq.

Our men and women on the ground are doing great work over there. More good news from the military front, this time by USA Today. This is becoming a growing trend. Militarily we're making great strides, politically we have some issues. Hopefully now that the US has gotten the UN on board between the UN and the US we'll start to make some headway on the political front.

[Thorgrim]

Yeah, AQ is doing less heavy bombing when its 120 degrees outside, as compared to March when it's much cooler...notice no comparison to previous julys...as attacks overall are actually at AN ALL TIME HIGH

And more deadly EFPs, that we have no defense against, are on the rise

so that's actually failure, and the comments about AQ on the run are basically cut and paste from January of 2006, or predictions I made in 2004 in DIAC

It's good that the right-wingers are overplaying the "AQ is being defeated card" because that gives us all the more reason to leave as right now their own rallying call is that AQ is going to take over the whole country if we leave, thats obviously not going to happen so what little support for occupation will vanish

[hsmith]

i really don't know what to believe

[ballz2wallz]

Thorgerm hates the goodness!

Good news indeed!

[WickedLou9]

THe war is a failure no matter what happens. We set out to make america safer. The opposite has resulted. That's a failure. It doesn't matter if Iraq is safe and secure when we leave. The end result is more terrorism and Iran with more influence in the region. Exactly the opposite of what we wanted to happen. The war was a mistake and there is no way to change that fact.
It would be a mistake to look at military victories in Iraq and to then assume that the war was a worthwhile enterprise

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

THe war is a failure no matter what happens. We set out to make america safer. The opposite has resulted. That's a failure. It doesn't matter if Iraq is safe and secure when we leave. The end result is more terrorism and Iran with more influence in the region. Exactly the opposite of what we wanted to happen. The war was a mistake and there is no way to change that fact.

Don't mistake the war in Iraq for the war on terror. To make America safer is the goal of the war on terror. Iraq is only a small piece in that equation. You cannot say the war on terror has failed when it's only begun.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Don't mistake the war in Iraq for the war on terror. To make America safer is the goal of the war on terror. Iraq is only a small piece in that equation. You cannot say the war on terror has failed when it's only begun.

I'm not saying that the greater WOT is a failure. I'm just saying that it would be a mistake to pat our selves on the back if we can restore security to Iraq. the Iraq invasion, in and of itself, was a failure from the outset. The goal that we wanted to achieve was directly counteracted by going to war in Iraq. The military is achieving success, that is true, but those successes do not work towards the ultimate goal of fighting terrorism.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Don't mistake the war in Iraq for the war on terror. To make America safer is the goal of the war on terror. Iraq is only a small piece in that equation. You cannot say the war on terror has failed when it's only begun.

The War on Terror can never be won, it was a failure the day it was announced. A war against terrorism implies it is an enemy that has a very specific locality and/or set of beliefs, such as Nazism. We defeated Nazism only as a physical manifestation of the underlying beliefs ONLY because there was a nation-state that held those beliefs. Notice that Nazism is alive and well as a belief system amongst certain segments of humanity.

And you do realize, I hope, that if the War on Terror were considered a war in terms of definition, it would be very quickly closing in on one of the longest wars in U.S. history, as we're now closing in on 6 years since 9/11. I'd hardly call that just beginning.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by hsmith

i really don't know what to believe

You can probably scratch off the liberal blogosphere as a credible source and listen to the generals on the ground, just about every reporter who has come home from Iraq recently, Senators Durbin and Casey, etc. That's my philosophy anyway. I'll take first hand accounts over people who have never been to Iraq and scourge the internet for negative news articles and blog about those.

[WickedLou9]

I think we really need to recognize our failures if we are to move forward.
This is just my opinion,. but I think going to war in Iraq was a mistake. I don't blame our military, it was just the wrong tool for the job. ( you cant fix a watch with a hammer). The military has done a commendable job at the task given to it, the problem is that the task which it was given does not further the cause of fighting terrorism. If we can't recognize that, if we insist on claiming success where there is in fact failure, how can we ever move forward? We need to recognize what we have done and deal with the reprocussions. We left Afghanastan prematurely, and it's falling back into Taliban hands. we invaded Iraq for the wrong reasons and terrorism has increased as a result. Iran now has more influence in the region, is becoming nuclearly capable and we lack the resources to adequatly address that threat. We have stretched our military to it's ends in the war in Iraq which leaves us vulnerable.
If we can not at least admit where we are now, how can we plan a course to get to our ultimate goal?

[Scrum]

There will never be success in Iraq because invading was a mistake.


If I break a plate and manage to get is somewhat glued back together, should I get a cookie?


This article totally ignores many issues going on. As was already pointed out, attacks are up, the sunni's have split, their leadership is on vacation and our troops aren't coming home yet. Oh and they can't keep water or electricity flowing in the capitol after 4 years of occupation.

Where's the victory?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrum

There will never be success in Iraq because invading was a mistake.

It's a shame that something so loosely based on opinion is what forces you closed-mindedness on the issue. Even if Iraq was a tourism oasis in the ME, you'd still claim it was no victory or success, purely because you think we shouldn't have gone in in the first place.

It's a good thing such opinions are taken with a grain of salt.

[Thorgrim]

all casey and durbin did was praise the US military (as is basically their obligation as their leaders in the sense that they fund them) they both said we needed A NEW WAY not THE SURGE IS WORKING LETS KEEP THIS WAY

and all you have left is a pro-war scholar who flip flops and after one trip has flipped again with no statistics or facts, someone i think motivez has thoroughly discredited

There are NO people who didn't want to go to war in the first place, and who made a firm stance that the surge was a bad idea and then that it wasn't working, who are now saying they were all wrong and the surge/war is working

[Thorgrim]

Glenn Greenwald - Political Blogs and Opinions - Salon

Here they are being shown as frauds

Glenn Greenwald - Political Blogs and Opinions - Salon
again more evidence of how phony this surge spin is...

So I guess that leaves no one except those directly under Bush's command?

[Donkey®]

I guess WWII was a success in the eyes of the Japanese and Germans as well?

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

THe war is a failure no matter what happens. We set out to make america safer. The opposite has resulted.

Have you been the victim of many terrorist attacks since 2003? That must suck.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I guess WWII was a success in the eyes of the Japanese and Germans as well?

Are you seriously claiming that we're in the same position as Germany & Japan in 1945?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Have you been the victim of many terrorist attacks since 2003? That must suck.

There have been nearly 4000 US deaths in Iraq, and they don't even have to travel over here to do it.. their goal is to kill Americans, and now they have an urban training grounds and as has been reported widely, the war in Iraq has been a major source of recruiting for various Islamic groups around the world.. not to mention angering some to the point of becoming Al Qaeda homegrown groups, inspired without direct involvement (ie: The UK).. and of course, there have been attacks elsewhere, like in Spain..

Hate to be the one to break the news, but they have a pretty long view of time, they don't think short term, they are patient and willing to wait..

It was 8 years between attacks on the WTC.. and one can make the argument that our involvement in the middle east over the last 50 some odd years is what has lead to the resentment which ultimately lead to the attacks.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Are you seriously claiming that we're in the same position as Germany & Japan in 1945?

There are people in this thread just as brainwashed as they were.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool