Friday, October 31, 2008
U.S. deaths in Iraq on track for record low
By Charles Levinson, USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — October could be the first month of the Iraq war when no U.S. servicemembers will have died in combat in Baghdad.
As of Thursday, the Pentagon had reported 13 U.S. troops killed in combat and non-combat incidents this month in Iraq. If the number holds, it would tie July for the lowest monthly U.S. death toll of the 5½-year-old war.
Security has improved in the Iraqi capital and elsewhere thanks to truces by sectarian militias, more effective U.S. counterinsurgency strategies, and a dramatic increase in the size and effectiveness of Iraqi forces.
Militant groups such as al-Qaeda have shifted their base to Afghanistan, where U.S. fatalities in October were higher than those in Iraq for the second consecutive month.
"What you're seeing is a migration of the extremists from one area to the other," said Navy Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for the U.S. military's Central Command, which is responsible for both Iraq and Afghanistan. "They're not having the success that they had in Iraq and they're looking for other places to go."
Fifteen U.S. troops had died in Afghanistan in October, as of Thursday, all from enemy fire. There are about one-third as many U.S. troops in Afghanistan as in Iraq.
"The main U.S. effort has been in Iraq, and in Afghanistan we've been trying to tread water and buy time until we have the resources to devote there," said Nathan Fick, a retired Marine officer and fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
The U.S. will start shifting resources next month when 2,000 Marines originally set to deploy to Iraq will be sent to Afghanistan. In January, the Army is rerouting 3,700 soldiers to Afghanistan.
Gen. David Petraeus takes over Central Command today, putting the leader of last year's U.S. troop "surge" in Iraq in charge of forces in Afghanistan as well.
Thursday, negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq over a long-term security pact appeared to hit another snag.
Ali al-Adeeb, a close adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, told the Associated Press that Iraq wants a guarantee U.S. forces will leave by 2011 — a condition resisted by the Bush administration.
Failure to reach an agreement before year's end could force a suspension of American military operations.
Contributing: Paul Overberg in McLean, Va.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Guess what? If we had stayed out of Iraq, instead of invading a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, NONE OF OUR BRAVE SOLDIERS WOULD HAVE DIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Right, secretary copy and paste?
anonymous,
Why don't you stop living in the past. We are where we are right now and your temper tantrums do not change that one bit. Your denigration and dismissal of all of the sacrifices of our US troops, coalition troops, the Iraqi security forces and all of their families shows you to be exactly who you are.
Saddam Hussein was not a nice guy nor where his son's. They were murdering brutes who exploited and disregarded all of the sanctions placed by the UN for 10 years. You can white wash it all that you want, but this world is a far better place without Saddam Hussein and his minion in it. But, you can keep talking and making a complete butt of yourself, because my son and daughter, fight so that you can.
Life long republican-
Why won't people like you admit you were wrong? That would be a useful starting point. No matter how you try to rationalize it, it was an invasion, and it was done under false pretenses.
Temper tantrum? So people don't have a right to be angry at Bush, Cheney, and the other neocons that got us into this? How dare you dismiss the feelings of 80% of the country.
And there are plenty of other murdering brutes in the world where we haven't done a damn thing. OIL. OIL. OIL. No matter how they sold it, that's what it came down to.
I am not making a "butt" of myself because you childishly say so. Go back to 3rd grade.
And for you information, I retired from the military after 26 years of service. Stop piggy-backing on your son and daughter's service to give weight to YOUR argument.
You've shown exactly who you are;someone who fails to admit you were lied to so lil' bush could show daddy who the tough guy in the family was while lining the pockets of his oil cronies.
Anonymous,
First, thank you for your service to our country.
I am a democrat, and have never voted republican in my life, so if you want to verbally assault someone with that, you'll have to find someone else.
Looking to the past, and constantly dredging it up, as though it changes the circumstances of the situation at all, is dysfunctional. Meaning, it does not change a thing except make you feel more self righteous and allow you to vent your anger in what is, a totally useless pursuit. It has as much effect on current circumstances as the yahoo's in the South who are still ruminating over the outcome of the civil war. It is just as effective to scream about George Washington being our first president. If you have a way to magically turn back the clock, I'd like to see that, as there are a couple of things I'd like to see undone as well.
I did vote for a couple of politicians who signed off on us going to war in Iraq and those were the Democratic members of congress whom I voted for that approved it along with a lot of others. How did your elected in the house and the senate vote? I did not say where I stood on going into that war at all, but you have obviously decided for me. None of it changes where we are right now. The reality is that we are there and thankfully it is improving.
Looking to the past does not change anything. I still believe this world is better without Saddam and his henchmen. I thought we should have taken him and his out after they invaded Kuwait, (a sovereign country which he invaded for what was that you said? "oil, oil, oil".) when we had sufficient forces present to do the job. I could stand around screaming about that, but again, it does not change a darned thing.
Thank you for denigrating my relationship with my children. I find it presumptuous of you to imply that I should not be concerned and emotionally affected in my relationship with my children and their lives. I am proud that my children have chosen to serve our country and support them in any way that I can. Perhaps you are projecting something about yourself on to me. That is not for me to decide, that is in your head.
By the way, I'm curious. What was your MOS?
OK, let me break your rebuttal down:
First, thank you for your service to our country.
I am a democrat, and have never voted republican in my life, so if you want to verbally assault someone with that, you'll have to find someone else.
>>Verbally assault? Wow, aren't we fragile. I used the word "republican". Oohh, what an assault! Call the police!
Verdict: Debunked
Looking to the past, and constantly dredging it up, as though it changes the circumstances of the situation at all, is dysfunctional.
>>Who said it was going to change anything? Your rebuttal is based on a lie.
Verdict: Debunked
Meaning, it does not change a thing except make you feel more self righteous and allow you to vent your anger in what is, a totally useless pursuit.
>>Have you ever heard of the saying "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it? Bush's lies should go down in history as the mother of all lies. Telling me, or anyone else to forget them, only so you can justify further invasions (Iran, anyone?) is a totally useless pursuit.
Verdict: Debunked
It has as much effect on current circumstances as the yahoo's in the South who are still ruminating over the outcome of the civil war.
>> So you are actually comparing the south's violent attempt at overthrowing the United States of America the same as the US illegally invading a sovereign nation, torturing prisoners, and wasting billions of dollars? Wow. In one case, the US was justified in defeating the South because THEY actually attacked us. In the other, not so much. Southerners who ruminate over their failed invasion have no moral standing to do so. Those who ruminate about the illegal invasion of Iraq have a moral obligation to do so. Anything else is unpatriotic. And the effect is to try to prevent another one (bomb, bomb, bomb; bomb bomb Iran anyone?)
Verdict: False comparison
It is just as effective to scream about George Washington being our first president. If you have a way to magically turn back the clock, I'd like to see that, as there are a couple of things I'd like to see undone as well.
>>Why would anyone scream about GW? What did he do wrong? I'm trying to follow your logic? It's not about turning back the clock, it's about trying to have it strike midnight.
Verdict: WTF?
I did vote for a couple of politicians who signed off on us going to war in Iraq and those were the Democratic members of congress whom I voted for that approved it along with a lot of others. How did your elected in the house and the senate vote? I did not say where I stood on going into that war at all, but you have obviously decided for me. None of it changes where we are right now. The reality is that we are there and thankfully it is improving.
>>The bill that was passed gave bush the authorization to go to war as a last result. bush hijacked the intention of the bill by not using diplomacy to solve a problem that required no immediate INVASION! And where did I say you were for the war?
Verdict: False claim
Looking to the past does not change anything. I still believe this world is better without Saddam and his henchmen. I thought we should have taken him and his out after they invaded Kuwait, (a sovereign country which he invaded for what was that you said? "oil, oil, oil".) when we had sufficient forces present to do the job. I could stand around screaming about that, but again, it does not change a darned thing.
>>Do you really think that would have turned out any better? It's not the initial "mission accomplished", it's the certain insurgency that was ALWAYS going to be the problem. Remember the Soviet invasion?
Verdict: Insanity (you know, doing the same thing and expecting different results?)
Thank you for denigrating my relationship with my children. I find it presumptuous of you to imply that I should not be concerned and emotionally affected in my relationship with my children and their lives. I am proud that my children have chosen to serve our country and support them in any way that I can. Perhaps you are projecting something about yourself on to me. That is not for me to decide, that is in your head.
>>Sorry, I did NOT denigrate your relationship with them. Please read what I actually wrote. Please, stop trying to use Fox News logic in your argument. I said "Stop piggy-backing on your son and daughter's service to give weight to YOUR argument. " What does that have to do with your relationship? You used them to bolster your argument. Their service is irrelevant to your argument. Either going into Iraq was wrong, or it wasn't. The fact that they may be there now has no place in your argument. You are "projecting" your children's service into your apparently weak argument. That says a lot about what is in your head.
By the way, I'm curious. What was your MOS?
2A671A, what's yours?
Well, you have not changed my position at all. You certainly have put a lot of energy into it. You seem a little steamed.
ok, I'll make you feel better, you win. ok? That is what you wanted to hear or feel right?
Thank you for recognizing the effort. I would use the word "passionate", not "steamed". And if you couldn't tell by last night's election results, passion can be very, very, useful.
I'm not here to win. You have a viewpoint as well as I. Mostly I hope for intelligent discussion with people who can make valid points.
Lt Cut and Paste here chooses not to participate. He must get paid by the word by some NEOCON think tank.
Post a Comment