PDA

View Full Version : U.S. in danger of losing the war




zimv20
Jan 22, 2005, 05:30 PM
link (http://www.freep.com/news/nw/iraq22e_20050122.htm)


BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Unless something dramatic changes, the United States is heading toward losing the war in Iraq.

A Knight Ridder Newspapers analysis of U.S. government statistics shows the U.S. military steadily losing ground to the predominately Sunni Muslim insurgency in Iraq.

The analysis suggests that, short of a newfound will by Iraqis to reject the insurgency or a large escalation of U.S. troop strength, the United States won't win the war.

Military thinkers say insurgencies are especially hard to defeat because the insurgents' goal isn't to win in a conventional sense but to survive until the will of the occupying power is sapped. Recent polls suggest an erosion of support among Americans for the war.

The unfavorable trends are clear:

Combat deaths: U.S. military fatalities from hostile acts have risen from an average of about 17 per month just after President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations on May 1, 2003, to an average of 82 per month.

WOUNDED: The average number of U.S. soldiers wounded by hostile acts per month has spiraled from 142 to 808 during the same period. Iraqi civilians have suffered even more deaths and injuries, although reliable statistics aren't available.

INSURGENT ATTACKS: Attacks on the U.S.-led coalition since November 2003, when statistics were first available, rose from 735 a month to 2,400 in October. Air Force Brig. Gen. Erv Lessel, deputy operations director of the multinational forces, said Friday that attacks were currently running at 75 a day, about 2,300 a month, well below a spike in November during the assault on Fallujah but nearly as high as October's total.

BOMBINGS: The average number of mass-casualty bombings has grown from zero in the first few months of the U.S.-led occupation to an average of 13 per month.

ELECTRICITY: Electricity production has been below prewar levels since October, largely because of sabotage by insurgents, with just 6.7 hours of power daily in Baghdad in early January, according to the State Department.

OIL: Iraq is pumping about 500,000 barrels of oil a day fewer than its prewar peak of 2.5 million barrels per day as a result of attacks, according to the State Department.

"All the trend lines we can identify are all in the wrong direction," said Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, a Washington policy research organization. "We are not winning, and the security trend lines could almost lead you to believe that we are losing."


There are some additional bright spots.

Millions of dollars are pouring into reconstruction efforts in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad and the southern town of Najaf, the scene of intense fighting last year with Shi'ite rebels. Both places are now relatively peaceful, and the danger of a spreading insurgency backed by Iraq's Shi'ite majority has been largely thwarted.

About 14 million Iraqis, mostly Shi'ites, are registered to vote in the elections for an interim 275-seat National Assembly.

About 1,500 U.S.-funded reconstruction projects are employing more than 100,000 Iraqis, and the insurgents' campaign of attacks and threats has failed to deter sign-ups for Iraq's new security forces.

Despite these developments, however, the insurgency is getting larger. Through all the major turning points that raised hopes of peace in Iraq, from the capture of Saddam Hussein to the handover of sovereignty seven months ago, the country's insurgency has become deadlier and more effective.


At the close of 2003, U.S. commanders put the number of insurgents at 5,000. Earlier this month, Gen. Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani, the director of the Iraqi intelligence service, said there are 200,000 insurgents, including at least 40,000 hard-core fighters. The rest, he said, are part-time fighters and supporters who provide food, shelter, money and intelligence.

"Many Iraqis respect these gunmen because they are fighting the invaders," said Nabil Mohammed, a Baghdad University political science professor.

The resistance has grown despite suffering huge casualties to overwhelming U.S. firepower. Exact statistics aren't available.

The insurgents "are getting smarter all the time. We've seen a lot of changes in their tactics that say, one, they're getting help from outside, and two, they're learning," said Sgt. 1st Class Glenn Aldrich, 35, of Houston, a 16-year Army veteran, after spending an hour recently greeting Iraqis on a foot patrol through a Baghdad neighborhood.

Insurgent attacks have shifted from small groups of men shooting at tanks with AK47s to powerful car bombs and roadside explosives and well-planned assaults, kidnappings and assassinations.

U.S. soldiers have subdued Sunni hotbeds such as Fallujah and Samarra. Yet these military victories have failed to achieve the broader goal of weakening the resistance.



skunk
Jan 22, 2005, 06:20 PM
Why is this not surprising?

SuperChuck
Jan 22, 2005, 06:38 PM
I remember a time when journalists did more than state the obvious. They actually investigated things so that disasters could be avoided, rather than just observed in progress.

Gosh, I really miss the Clinton years.

Thomas Veil
Jan 22, 2005, 08:00 PM
Jeez, I knew we weren't doing well, but I thought we were at least "treading water" there. This is distressing news.

Talk about lousy options, if this is true: [1] institute a draft; [2] invade with heavy equipment (again, as we did at the beginning of the war); [3] withdraw and (assuming the new government is crushed by insurgents) leave them a new fundamentalist, terrorist state.

Almost any way you look at it, if this is true, it's a crushing defeat for Bush. God knows I can't stand the man and wouldn't mind seeing him fail, but not this way, at the cost of so many thousands of lives...and not this big.

Xtremehkr
Jan 22, 2005, 08:08 PM
I thought the war was over. Do they mean losing the occupation? How empowered are terrorists going to feel if they kick us out of Iraq. I think Iraq will only become more of a problem in years to come. Long after Bush has gone to work for Halliburton as an advisor.

jefhatfield
Jan 22, 2005, 09:18 PM
as far as taking out saddam and capturing him and bringing him to justice, the usa has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams

but occupying iraq and controlling the violence has been a different matter...while not as bad and ugly as vietnam, the usa has greatly underestimated the insurgents and we may never get the situation totally under control

the lingering war in iraq will erode at president's popularity and eventually, long time supporters of bush will eventually speak out against his policies in iraq

at a certain point, we have to leave iraq to the iraqis and it just isn't possible to bring the county to any level of democracy up to our satisfaction

diamond geezer
Jan 23, 2005, 03:29 AM
I remember a time when journalists did more than state the obvious.

It would appear that going out and investigating stories in Iraq is rather dangerous."Hotel journalism" is the only phrase for it. More and more Western reporters in Baghdad are reporting from their hotels rather than the streets of Iraq's towns and cities. Some are accompanied everywhere by hired, heavily armed Western mercenaries. A few live in local offices from which their editors refuse them permission to leave. Most use Iraqi stringers, part-time correspondents who risk their lives to conduct interviews for American or British journalists, and none can contemplate a journey outside the capital without days of preparation unless they "embed" themselves with American or British forces.

Rarely, if ever, has a war been covered by reporters in so distant and restricted a way. The New York Times correspondents live in Baghdad behind a massive stockade with four watchtowers, protected by locally hired, rifle-toting security men, complete with NYT T-shirts. America's NBC television chain are holed up in a hotel with an iron grille over their door, forbidden by their security advisers to visit the swimming pool or the restaurant "let alone the rest of Baghdad" lest they be attacked. Several Western journalists do not leave their rooms while on station in Baghdad.

And, much more seriously from an ethical point of view, why do not more journalists report on the restrictions under which they operate? During the 2003 Anglo-American invasion, editors often insisted on prefacing journalists' dispatches from Saddam's Iraq by talking about the restrictions under which they were operating. But today, when our movements are much more circumscribed, no such "health warning" accompanies their reports. In many cases, viewers and readers are left with the impression that the journalist is free to travel around Iraq to check out the stories which he or she confidently files each day. Not so.


"The United States military couldn't be happier with this situation," a long-time American correspondent in Baghdad says. "They know that if they bomb a house of innocent people, they can claim it was a 'terrorist' base and get away with it. They don't want us roaming around Iraq and so the 'terrorist' threat is great news for them.


"They can claim they've shot 600 or 1,000 insurgents and we have no way of checking because we can't go to the cemetery or visit the hospitals because we don't want to get kidnapped and have our throats cut."


Thus, many reporters are now reduced to telephoning the American military or the Iraqi "interim" government for information from their hotel rooms, receiving "facts" from men and women who are even more isolated from Iraq in the Baghdad Green Zone around Saddam Hussein's former republican palace than are the journalists.
link (http://counterpunch.org/fisk01172005.html)

SuperChuck
Jan 23, 2005, 12:43 PM
It would appear that going out and investigating stories in Iraq is rather dangerous.

Point taken. I suppose I was referring more to the fact that mainstream journalists are just now getting around to the discovery that we are "losing" the war, when that has been fairly obvious for months now.

It was certainly obvious during the election, and that was a time in which we could have actually done something about it.

The worst part is that the media seemed to eat up the rhetoric that we would be met with roses and flowers in Baghdad during the run-up to the war, when any enterprising journalist could have exposed the faulty logic at play there. Iraqis hated Saddam - but there was one thing they hated more, and that was the U.S.

Iraq is now a breeding ground for terrorists. We made great strides at eliminating this situation in Afghanistan, only to leave our work there unfinished and create a new terrorist haven where none existed. Not to mention the fact that we have justified every Muslim's worst fear of the U.S. - that we are bent on changing their way of life and making them more like us, especially if there's a new source of oil to be gained in the process.

I did not mean to suggest in my post that the media is lazy. Many have offered this explanation. I think they're just scared. Anyone who speaks the truth under the watchful eye of this administration is subjected to an organized smear campaign that results in public humiliation and a pink slip. They knew what we would face in Iraq, but they would have been painted as left-wing zealots if they had come out and said it.

The GOP has made tremendous progress in their effort to cast the media as a vast, left-wing conspiracy machine. Now, the Democrats are building organizations to do the same thing from the other side. If something is not done, we will have nothing but carefully orchestrated talking points in place of actual journalism. And to those who will suggest that we are already there, I assure you that the worst is yet to come.

We are coasting toward the vision presented in Apple's infamous 1984 ad, and our best hope for salvation is exactly what the spot suggested. With our computers, we can use the internet to break through the spin machine and awaken this sleeping nation to the disastrous path it has taken.

blackfox
Jan 23, 2005, 12:54 PM
I tend to look at this somewhat like Vietnam. Sure, the US would've liked to have won, but the real point might just have been to convince the leaders of various countries that the US is sufficiently irrational and vicious if it wants to be and you better watch your step.

Nixon/Kissinger supposedly impressed/influenced China and USSR by their erratic behavior late in the Vietnam War with the bombing of Cambodia etc, which allowed for the US to open relations with China.

This war, even though we are losing, may have the same effect. After all, we did manage to dispose of the reigning regime, desroy the military and infrastructure of a country. Any world leader would probably be a little unnerved of the US's willingness to fight in wars, win or lose, if pissed off.

Is this worth the lives of Iraqis and US soldiers, not to mention the billions of dollars we've spent? Probably not, but that wasn't the question.

skunk
Jan 23, 2005, 01:12 PM
Is this worth the lives of Iraqis and US soldiers, not to mention the billions of dollars we've spent? Probably not, but that wasn't the question.
What exactly was the question, then? :confused:

blackfox
Jan 23, 2005, 01:26 PM
What exactly was the question, then? :confused:
I'll answer that in two ways:

1) From the POV of me contributing to this thread, it is not a question of whether we should have fought in the first place, but of the situation we are now in. I attempted to divine ulterior motives from this whole mess, but my opinion on the validity of such a course of action is not relevant to their opinion on such matters.

2) And that the Administration probably never thought of phrasing the question in such a way either, or indeed of even asking it. Whether their motives were calculated or ideological, they were both probably abstracted to such a degree to make such points irrelevant.

skunk
Jan 23, 2005, 01:37 PM
I'm none the wiser.
But I agree that part of the Administration's motivation for this war may have been a crude demonstration of mental instability. Always a good ploy for psychopaths.

takao
Jan 23, 2005, 02:54 PM
was i the only one who thought "what war ? i thought the US/coalition never officially declared war ?" ;) (that or either "i thought it was already over..."

seriously this isn't surprising at all...

mactastic
Jan 24, 2005, 10:56 AM
So Bush has himself in a position from which he can neither raise troop levels significantly, not can he reduce them by much yet all signs point toward a radical rethinking of the military's role in Iraq. If Bush's strategy is to keep on doing what he's doing until such time as a withdrawl is forced upon him, then I want no part of it.

Raising troop levels significantly for any length of time over a year would probably require a draft. Doubtful the GOP wants to see this happen, even though Bush doesn't have to run for reelection, many others do. With public support near or below the 50% threshhold, and with the potential for a draft to drive support down fast, I think many would view that as political suicide.

Lowering troop levels is the only option, and that only happens if we can get a well trained Iraqi force capable of providing nationwide security. It also means the government will be friendly to US interests, and therefore probably not exactly representative of the will of the Iraqi people.

It all boils down to more of the same, coming to a station near you. I wonder if it will take another soldier having to stand up and ask how you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake.

Thanatoast
Jan 24, 2005, 11:11 AM
was i the only one who thought "what war ? i thought the US/coalition never officially declared war ?"
You can thank our brave, take-no-prisoners Congress for that little oversight.

Here's an idea put forth by Heinlen (the sci-fi author):

An amendment to the constitution, the "war referendum" amendment. Major points thus:

1. Except in cases of invasion of the US, the power to declare war is taken from the congress and given to the people.

2. If the administration believes war, invasion or major military operations are necessary, it must have a referendum to be voted on by the people for approval of the use of the military.

3. Only those people eligible for military service may vote in the referendum

4. If the referndum passes, those who voted "yes" are automatically conscripted to serve in the combat zone.

5. If this number of soldiers is not sufficient, those people eligible for military service who did not vote are in the second round of conscriptions.

6. If needed, those who voted "no" are conscripted in a third round.

Who thinks we'd've gone to Iraq had this system been in place? Who thinks we'd still be there, if yes?

SiliconAddict
Jan 24, 2005, 11:40 AM
What? Didn’t you know? We don’t lose wars. We “institute a strategic withdraw to reassess our military options”

All I can say is good. Let this and every death be on the head of everyone who voted for that ***hat. And if anyone thinks the next 4 are going to be any better.. I mean for the love of god...Condoleezza Rice as Sec of State? Isn't that like putting Bam-Bam from the Flintstones in charge of a china shop.