For the month of September 2007 with 1 day to go in Iraq the following is the good, the bad and the ugly.
The Bad,
Total Coalition troops who died during the month 66
US KIA (Combat) 41
US Killed ( Non-Combat 22
Coalition troops KIA Combat 2
Coalition Troops Killed Non-Combat 1
* 2nd highest only to August 2007 Troops killed in Non-Combat situations, 28 in August and 22 in Sept. The
3rd highest in this category occurred Jan 2006
* Fewest, overall, total coalition Killed since June 2006
* Fewest US Killed Since July 2006
.** The Iraq Killed, including Military Police and Civilian, in September totaled 842. That was –49.7% from Aug, 50.18% from July and 37.45% less than in June 2007.
The official, non-levitated and polluted by Indoctrinated U. leftist Political agendas is 41,180 Police and Civilians with an additional estimated 18,250 Insurgents killed.
YTD, the average monthly dead toll of all Iraqi has been 1,612. September’s figures were 47.9% less than the YTD average.
A little reported and wholly ignored fact is that estimates released thus far of Insurgent Deaths, range from a low of 15,440, to a high of 18,121 since March 2003. That is in average 280 per month on the low end, and, 329 per month on the high end.
Oddly 77 out of every 100 Medical Evac’s from Iraq are listed as being caused by disease, accident and or other than by combat means.
3.21 out of every 100 deaths in Iraq, are from Suicide.
Encompassing all casualties, including both wounded and killed, the following make up 84.29% of all
Casualties and 67.69% of all KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Vietnam KIA total was 82.41%0
64.16% - Weapons, Explosive device ( IED).
----Of all KIA in Category in both wars, – 47.23%. (Vietnam 27.42%)
9.96% by weaponry, gunshot.
----Of all KIA in Category in both wars, – 20.16%. (Vietnam 31.82%)
9.14% weaponry, Art-ry/Motar/Rocket/RPG.
----Of all KIA in Category in both wars, – 4.45%. (Vietnam 8.44%)
1.03% - Transport, A/C Crash – Crew
----Of all KIA in Category in both wars, – 6.81%. (Vietnam 14.73%)
Afghanistan;
In exactly 6 years Oct 2007, Allied forces have lost 701 killed, 26% (182) of those by disease, accident and or other than by combat means.
Oddly 77 out of every 100 Medical Evac’s from Afghanistan are listed as being caused by disease, accident and or other than by combat means.
The US has Averaged 6 per month Killed with 1.5 of that average killed from Non-Combat means.
While NATO troops being there in any significant numbers only since April 05, have average 4 per month with about 2 on average killed by non-combat means.
On the other hand, it is been reported, that just since April 2006, some 9,341 Taliban/Al Queda fighters have been killed in Combat. NATO and US forces have taken out 519 Taliban and Al Queda fighters per month on average, since April 06.
Afghan civilian deaths have been estimates at just over 3,250 since the October 2001 liberation of Afghanistan.
The Official World Trade Center and Pentagon death toll on September 11, 2001 was 2,974 with an additional 24 missing an presumed dead, totaling 2,998.
That is all!!!
Full Version: Iraq and Afghanistan;
ustrader, thanks for all that data (a bit more than I can digest in one scan).
It's hard to believe so many med evacs are not due to trauma. But even in the Korean war, Dr. John Paul Stapp noted that traffic deaths worldwide caused almost as many deaths, or more deaths, than combat in the war, among military personnel.
Your data shows that slightly fewer than 3000 deaths occured from the airline hijackings of 9/11. I got severely attacked here or elsewhere for saying "less than 3,000," but I didn't know for sure. It appears that George W. Bush's commands have resulted in far, far more deaths of Afghans in Afghanistan, Iraqis in Iraq, and Americans in Asia, since then.
How many American troops have died in these two countries, or subsequently died after airlift to other countries?
It's hard to believe so many med evacs are not due to trauma. But even in the Korean war, Dr. John Paul Stapp noted that traffic deaths worldwide caused almost as many deaths, or more deaths, than combat in the war, among military personnel.
Your data shows that slightly fewer than 3000 deaths occured from the airline hijackings of 9/11. I got severely attacked here or elsewhere for saying "less than 3,000," but I didn't know for sure. It appears that George W. Bush's commands have resulted in far, far more deaths of Afghans in Afghanistan, Iraqis in Iraq, and Americans in Asia, since then.
How many American troops have died in these two countries, or subsequently died after airlift to other countries?
QUOTE (Fit2BThaied @ Oct 3 2007, 11:33 AM) 
ustrader, thanks for all that data (a bit more than I can digest in one scan).
It's hard to believe so many med evacs are not due to trauma. But even in the Korean war, Dr. John Paul Stapp noted that traffic deaths worldwide caused almost as many deaths, or more deaths, than combat in the war, among military personnel.
Your data shows that slightly fewer than 3000 deaths occured from the airline hijackings of 9/11. I got severely attacked here or elsewhere for saying "less than 3,000," but I didn't know for sure. It appears that George W. Bush's commands have resulted in far, far more deaths of Afghans in Afghanistan, Iraqis in Iraq, and Americans in Asia, since then.
How many American troops have died in these two countries, or subsequently died after airlift to other countries?
It's hard to believe so many med evacs are not due to trauma. But even in the Korean war, Dr. John Paul Stapp noted that traffic deaths worldwide caused almost as many deaths, or more deaths, than combat in the war, among military personnel.
Your data shows that slightly fewer than 3000 deaths occured from the airline hijackings of 9/11. I got severely attacked here or elsewhere for saying "less than 3,000," but I didn't know for sure. It appears that George W. Bush's commands have resulted in far, far more deaths of Afghans in Afghanistan, Iraqis in Iraq, and Americans in Asia, since then.
How many American troops have died in these two countries, or subsequently died after airlift to other countries?
Fits, the facts are the facts.
In fact, if one would actually look at the numbers, in WWII there were 11.3 million who actually severed in Combat area, of that the ratio of Killed to Wounded was 1 to 2.4. In Vietnam, there were 2.3 Million who served in Combat areas, of that the ratio of Killed to Wounded was 1 to 3.12. While in Current operations, there have been currently to date, 766,066 who served in Combat areas, of that the Killed to Wounded ratio is 1 to 8.4.
As to your statement within a question, which is, in affect, a philosophical rhetorical, seeking an answer in a bottomless pit that does not look for why man kills and does evil to his fellow man, by individual and national means. But instead, seeks to cry out with a voiceless NO IT IS WRONG, leaving unattended just how one gets it all to stop, when it is one of the most pervasive acts men do and have done, since time immortal.
It is not killing that is bad, per se, which we all know it is, it is that no one seems to have any rational, feasible answers in how to stop men from killing one another. That is the most, vile and evil, trick we play on one another, pretending we have an answer, while stepping over the blood soak ground we ignore and deny exists.
Force is not the answer, that is proven true, but neither is denial and hope it will stop, a force, that will make it ago away, in hopes, as if it did not exist!
That is all!!
I'm honestly trying to have a dialogue with you, trader.
I agree with what you plainly seem to be saying: force is not the answer. Denial? I don't know what your next sentence said.
We don't have the answers, you seem to say, and it's a vile trick to tell others we think we know the answers. I am real and practical enough to believe that there is an answer, there is hope. Since it is wrong to use force, then try a little tenderness, give peace a chance, love your enemies, be practical, be real, go out and do something good, overcome evil with goodness/righteousness.
If there were no answers, why are we beating away at our keyboards and flapping our gums?
I agree with what you plainly seem to be saying: force is not the answer. Denial? I don't know what your next sentence said.
We don't have the answers, you seem to say, and it's a vile trick to tell others we think we know the answers. I am real and practical enough to believe that there is an answer, there is hope. Since it is wrong to use force, then try a little tenderness, give peace a chance, love your enemies, be practical, be real, go out and do something good, overcome evil with goodness/righteousness.
If there were no answers, why are we beating away at our keyboards and flapping our gums?
QUOTE (Fit2BThaied @ Oct 4 2007, 12:26 PM)
I'm honestly trying to have a dialogue with you, trader.
What makes you think, no assume, I am unaware of dialogue and that I am not participating?
I agree with what you plainly seem to be saying: force is not the answer. Denial? I don't know what your next sentence said.
You comprehend, in opportune understand, that force is not the answer mostly because it is a sanctified convenient truth, embedded within you.
You do NOT comprehend in opportune understand the second part about hopes reliance on denial, because it is an inconvenient truth, not embedded within you.
Hope is wonderful thing. I love hope and I thrive on hope, where hope is a positive reality of pragmatic possibilities not of unseen realities far from the practical facts self evident all around us in this word.
I know that hope is equally capable in usage as a blinder and a crutch. With the former, it gives great convenience to NOT see but what is not hoped for. As to the latter, it is an enabler of denial and of illusions to both reality and practicality. Where dreams replace the pragmatic and the mystics of miracles possibilities, replaces the accountability of consequences for ones actions and inactions.
Instead of this forgiveness of accountability embedded within the magic of this Judeo/Christian/Islamic model. Where meager acts of repentance of ones own action and any consequences are not held in steadfast accountability. Instead, drifts, as puffs of smoke, into an inner sacrum as if magically erased in a universe that is assumed to be all about now and not a continuum of before and after consequences of what one does, and or, does not do.
I prefer the Buddhist accumulative model where there is, but good and or bad and no gray area of escapist redemption for what one does and or does not do, in total.
Instead, it is tallied in belief as if on a ledger to be faced and accounted for as a comprehensive whole of the being, during a whole live, and, into the next. This accumulation of ones good and bad is a measure of ones holistic inescapable consequences that are all one is now, were all one was in the past and all they will be in the coming morrows of their next existences.
As General Patton once said comprehensively,” I was a warrior who has worn many uniforms, fought many battles and have come to where I am, in total, for what I have done and what I have not done, until, I enter the next uniform to perform in the next battle, to be accountable for what I do, forever more."
To the simple person like me, Life is, us eternal, God is life, and, life is God. It is in him that this spark, which starts as a fire of life begins. It is in him where his breath of renewal, extinguishes the fires of life, in not an end, but a continuum of life, as him, in a universe that never ends but only begins anew.
Our gifts in each renewal are but a measure in the tally of what one does upon the spark and until the extinguishing renewal of yet other measures of one as a whole, in a continuum of god, and, in him, life.
We don't have the answers, you seem to say, and it's a vile trick to tell others we think we know the answers. I am real and practical enough to believe that there is an answer, there is hope. Since it is wrong to use force, then try a little tenderness, give peace a chance, love your enemies, be practical, be real, go out and do something good, overcome evil with goodness/righteousness.
If there were no answers, why are we beating away at our keyboards and flapping our gums?
In your very words of disbelief is an answer, not the answer, but an answer. You use the terms real and practical as a means to know an answer to the ageless question of human violence upon one and the other. Yet, what is real?
What is real, is that thoughts of peace and good will toward man never once stopped violence’s tendencies to continue and perpetuate, now has it?
However, in fact, acts of force, have mediated its tendencies many times though not in an absolute answer for its discontinuance as a human activity, way to abundant, and, way to frequent.
What is practical?
What is practical is force may not be THE answer, but in the practical reality that violence has never been abated, only mediated, delayed and or postponed to varying degrees over the centuries. It is NOT practical to forgo its use unless one is willing to have all he is, and, all his group is, extinguished by those hordes of humanity who use violence as common tool to an end or desire.
I have walked through the valley of death and I seen evil and feared evil. I lay down beside the illusions of still waters, hoping to anoint my head with oil, only to realize it was my blood and or the blood of others that I lay beside and was anointed with, in the hard cold steel of life’s real practicality.
Fits you have NO answer, as I said, hope is NOT an answer, it is merely a question of why, not, of why not.
The world is a violent place in need of much tenderness but equally firmness to mediate the fact that we have and do live in a very violent world. Some use hope as blinders to not see what is plain to be seen, and or, as an enabler of denial and of illusions, to both reality and practicality.
I prefer to prepare for the unseen and the improbable, knowing that I am always to be a likely prey, if unprepared to be the predator before I indeed become the extinct prey.
Now is that not dialogue?
What makes you think, no assume, I am unaware of dialogue and that I am not participating?
I agree with what you plainly seem to be saying: force is not the answer. Denial? I don't know what your next sentence said.
You comprehend, in opportune understand, that force is not the answer mostly because it is a sanctified convenient truth, embedded within you.
You do NOT comprehend in opportune understand the second part about hopes reliance on denial, because it is an inconvenient truth, not embedded within you.
Hope is wonderful thing. I love hope and I thrive on hope, where hope is a positive reality of pragmatic possibilities not of unseen realities far from the practical facts self evident all around us in this word.
I know that hope is equally capable in usage as a blinder and a crutch. With the former, it gives great convenience to NOT see but what is not hoped for. As to the latter, it is an enabler of denial and of illusions to both reality and practicality. Where dreams replace the pragmatic and the mystics of miracles possibilities, replaces the accountability of consequences for ones actions and inactions.
Instead of this forgiveness of accountability embedded within the magic of this Judeo/Christian/Islamic model. Where meager acts of repentance of ones own action and any consequences are not held in steadfast accountability. Instead, drifts, as puffs of smoke, into an inner sacrum as if magically erased in a universe that is assumed to be all about now and not a continuum of before and after consequences of what one does, and or, does not do.
I prefer the Buddhist accumulative model where there is, but good and or bad and no gray area of escapist redemption for what one does and or does not do, in total.
Instead, it is tallied in belief as if on a ledger to be faced and accounted for as a comprehensive whole of the being, during a whole live, and, into the next. This accumulation of ones good and bad is a measure of ones holistic inescapable consequences that are all one is now, were all one was in the past and all they will be in the coming morrows of their next existences.
As General Patton once said comprehensively,” I was a warrior who has worn many uniforms, fought many battles and have come to where I am, in total, for what I have done and what I have not done, until, I enter the next uniform to perform in the next battle, to be accountable for what I do, forever more."
To the simple person like me, Life is, us eternal, God is life, and, life is God. It is in him that this spark, which starts as a fire of life begins. It is in him where his breath of renewal, extinguishes the fires of life, in not an end, but a continuum of life, as him, in a universe that never ends but only begins anew.
Our gifts in each renewal are but a measure in the tally of what one does upon the spark and until the extinguishing renewal of yet other measures of one as a whole, in a continuum of god, and, in him, life.
We don't have the answers, you seem to say, and it's a vile trick to tell others we think we know the answers. I am real and practical enough to believe that there is an answer, there is hope. Since it is wrong to use force, then try a little tenderness, give peace a chance, love your enemies, be practical, be real, go out and do something good, overcome evil with goodness/righteousness.
If there were no answers, why are we beating away at our keyboards and flapping our gums?
In your very words of disbelief is an answer, not the answer, but an answer. You use the terms real and practical as a means to know an answer to the ageless question of human violence upon one and the other. Yet, what is real?
What is real, is that thoughts of peace and good will toward man never once stopped violence’s tendencies to continue and perpetuate, now has it?
However, in fact, acts of force, have mediated its tendencies many times though not in an absolute answer for its discontinuance as a human activity, way to abundant, and, way to frequent.
What is practical?
What is practical is force may not be THE answer, but in the practical reality that violence has never been abated, only mediated, delayed and or postponed to varying degrees over the centuries. It is NOT practical to forgo its use unless one is willing to have all he is, and, all his group is, extinguished by those hordes of humanity who use violence as common tool to an end or desire.
I have walked through the valley of death and I seen evil and feared evil. I lay down beside the illusions of still waters, hoping to anoint my head with oil, only to realize it was my blood and or the blood of others that I lay beside and was anointed with, in the hard cold steel of life’s real practicality.
Fits you have NO answer, as I said, hope is NOT an answer, it is merely a question of why, not, of why not.
The world is a violent place in need of much tenderness but equally firmness to mediate the fact that we have and do live in a very violent world. Some use hope as blinders to not see what is plain to be seen, and or, as an enabler of denial and of illusions, to both reality and practicality.
I prefer to prepare for the unseen and the improbable, knowing that I am always to be a likely prey, if unprepared to be the predator before I indeed become the extinct prey.
Now is that not dialogue?
QUOTE (Fit2BThaied @ Oct 3 2007, 11:33 AM)
ustrader, thanks for all that data (a bit more than I can digest in one scan).
It's hard to believe so many med evacs are not due to trauma. But even in the Korean war, Dr. John Paul Stapp noted that traffic deaths worldwide caused almost as many deaths, or more deaths, than combat in the war, among military personnel.
Your data shows that slightly fewer than 3000 deaths occured from the airline hijackings of 9/11. I got severely attacked here or elsewhere for saying "less than 3,000," but I didn't know for sure. It appears that George W. Bush's commands have resulted in far, far more deaths of Afghans in Afghanistan, Iraqis in Iraq, and Americans in Asia, since then.
How many American troops have died in these two countries, or subsequently died after airlift to other countries?
It's hard to believe so many med evacs are not due to trauma. But even in the Korean war, Dr. John Paul Stapp noted that traffic deaths worldwide caused almost as many deaths, or more deaths, than combat in the war, among military personnel.
Your data shows that slightly fewer than 3000 deaths occured from the airline hijackings of 9/11. I got severely attacked here or elsewhere for saying "less than 3,000," but I didn't know for sure. It appears that George W. Bush's commands have resulted in far, far more deaths of Afghans in Afghanistan, Iraqis in Iraq, and Americans in Asia, since then.
How many American troops have died in these two countries, or subsequently died after airlift to other countries?
FITS your using the Nutroot's Urban mystic myths as if reliable and accurate on the count of wounded and dead in all AO's in this (TWOA) Terrorist War On America.
Fact is, if one is injured in any of these AO's and later dies, even months later, as some have, they are counted in the adjusted total which it is adjusted each month.
For example there was this Air Force "FCAC", or Forward Combat Air Controller, I believe they are now called. He had a heart attack in Afghanistan, he went thought Germany and ended up in an Air Force Hospital here in the States. Where he was released on convalescent outpatient status. 5 months after his return, he suddenly died, his unit reports his death as a Non-Combat death, in a Hostile AO, OEF. * Afghanistan, Area of Operations, Operation Enduring Freedom.
QUOTE
To be bleeding, and or not to bleed others, that is the question? Is it better to bleed a little now in order not to bleed a lot more latter, or is it better, to hope you don't bleed at all and or any more now. Not know if it is likely and or probable you will bleed a whole lot more later that is the other question?
Like so many times and in so many places, the bleeding never really stops, it is just merely denied in hidden views of ones minds eye of illusions, because in some realities it is more much about what they wish not to know, and or, see, than it is about the bleeding reality of the human condition.
Like so many times and in so many places, the bleeding never really stops, it is just merely denied in hidden views of ones minds eye of illusions, because in some realities it is more much about what they wish not to know, and or, see, than it is about the bleeding reality of the human condition.
QUOTE (Fit2BThaied @ Oct 4 2007, 05:26 AM)
I'm honestly trying to have a dialogue with you, trader.
I agree with what you plainly seem to be saying: force is not the answer. Denial? I don't know what your next sentence said.
We don't have the answers, you seem to say, and it's a vile trick to tell others we think we know the answers. I am real and practical enough to believe that there is an answer, there is hope. Since it is wrong to use force, then try a little tenderness, give peace a chance, love your enemies, be practical, be real, go out and do something good, overcome evil with goodness/righteousness.
If there were no answers, why are we beating away at our keyboards and flapping our gums?
I agree with what you plainly seem to be saying: force is not the answer. Denial? I don't know what your next sentence said.
We don't have the answers, you seem to say, and it's a vile trick to tell others we think we know the answers. I am real and practical enough to believe that there is an answer, there is hope. Since it is wrong to use force, then try a little tenderness, give peace a chance, love your enemies, be practical, be real, go out and do something good, overcome evil with goodness/righteousness.
If there were no answers, why are we beating away at our keyboards and flapping our gums?
Fit-
While I and probably everyone on this board, who isn't a sociopathic killer, would agree that an outcome such as yours would be preferable. Your route to reach that destination is glaringly naive. You are concluding under the assumption that compassion wills out. This is only true when your enemy is compassionate. When that enemy shares the same or similar ideological views as the submissive.
Remember the devout masochist says, "hurt me, hurt me"
The devout sadist says, "Nah"
QUOTE (Boh Bpen Yang @ Oct 6 2007, 06:21 PM)
Fit-
While I and probably everyone on this board, who isn't a sociopathic killer, would agree that an outcome such as yours would be preferable. Your route to reach that destination is glaringly naive. You are concluding under the assumption that compassion wills out. This is only true when your enemy is compassionate. When that enemy shares the same or similar ideological views as the submissive.
Remember the devout masochist says, "hurt me, hurt me"
The devout sadist says, "Nah"
Good point.
While I and probably everyone on this board, who isn't a sociopathic killer, would agree that an outcome such as yours would be preferable. Your route to reach that destination is glaringly naive. You are concluding under the assumption that compassion wills out. This is only true when your enemy is compassionate. When that enemy shares the same or similar ideological views as the submissive.
Remember the devout masochist says, "hurt me, hurt me"
The devout sadist says, "Nah"
It's either one of the old anti-war songs or a Christian hymn that says, I'm gonna lay my burden down, down by the riverside, and study war no more. Who among us here has studied both war and peace, seriously and practically, for several decades? You probably haven't even studied war as much as I have!
Do you think the US intervention in VietNam was practical, reasonable, holy, sanctified, and moral? It wasn't. Do you honestly and religiously think that nuclear deterrence has one shred of moral decency, let alone practicality except that it scared the Be-Jesus out of most of the world for the last six decades?
Nah, you folks are the naive ones. I'm informed!
Boh Pben Yang, was Ferdinand Marcos a nice guy? Was Honnaker, the dictator of East Germany, a compassionate person? Were the soldiers who obediently crucified Jesus doing social work?
Do you think the US intervention in VietNam was practical, reasonable, holy, sanctified, and moral? It wasn't. Do you honestly and religiously think that nuclear deterrence has one shred of moral decency, let alone practicality except that it scared the Be-Jesus out of most of the world for the last six decades?
Nah, you folks are the naive ones. I'm informed!
Boh Pben Yang, was Ferdinand Marcos a nice guy? Was Honnaker, the dictator of East Germany, a compassionate person? Were the soldiers who obediently crucified Jesus doing social work?
Oops! Uber-programmed Liberal Doomocracy Panicked!!!
Is Fear and Defeat Doomocrat’s Whine and Complaint meter broken?
What to do, if true?
Iraq fades as a hot political issue
Morass Spewing Negative Bellowing Communalists
Could Keith Uber-Whiney and Jon, I not Jewish” Stewart both be unemployed soon?
A well-placed bomb in Baghdad's Green Zone could change everything but, for the time being, the war in Iraq has ceased to be the US's hot political issue.
The sharp fall in the number of US troops killed over the past three months has brought about a corresponding reduction in the political temperature back home. Rising concerns about Iran's apparently hardening stance over its uranium enrichment programme have supplanted Iraq as the US's chief foreign policy question.
The principal beneficiaries are John McCain, the erstwhile Republican frontrunner, who has loudly supported George W. Bush's Iraq troop surge, and Hillary Clinton, whose vote in favour of the 2002 Senate resolution authorising war had been a bitter point of contention among grassroots liberals on the campaign trail.
"Until recently the conventional wisdom was that the 2008 election would be dominated by the Iraq war," says Philip Gordon, fellow at the Brookings Institution, a research and policy organisation, who is advising Barack Obama's 2008 bid. "But the situation in Iran is moving much more quickly and that is where President Bush's decisions could have consequences for whoever takes over in January 2009."
The fading of Iraq as a lightning rod is most evident on Capitol Hill, where Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, has all but abandoned Democratic attempts to force Mr Bush's hand by attaching conditions to White House war-funding requests.
Mr Bush on Monday asked Congress for another $54bn (€38bn, £26bn) in supplemental war funding - bringing the total for this financial year to $194bn, or roughly $400m a day. Instead of promising new conditions, the Democrats announced they would merely delay Mr Bush's request to authorise the money in coming weeks.
"Because casualties have fallen so far, it is futile to try to persuade moderate Republicans to vote with us to compel a withdrawal of US troops," said a Democratic staffer on Capitol Hill.
The reduction in casualties has also helped bring about a change in the debate among Democratic 2008 candidates who are no longer competing with each other to promise the quickest withdrawal of US troops.
With the exception of Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, who has pledged to withdraw US troops within six months of taking office, the candidates are increasingly hedging their Iraq troop-level commitments - a position that most suits Mrs Clinton's penchant for centrist ambiguity.
In a recent Democratic debate, Mrs Clinton refused to say that all US forces would be gone from Iraq by 2013
- the end of her first term. Her formula was broadly repeated by both Mr Obama and John Edwards. This would have been inconceivable six months ago.
"There has been an effort to change the subject," says Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter's national security adviser. "It is not so much that Iraq has been replaced by Iran as that the Bush administration has successfully broadened the Iraq debate to include Iran."
Mr Bush last week sharpened what could be Mrs Clinton's new policy dilemma when he predicted that Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions could lead to "world war three".
Mr Obama on Tuesday stepped up his attacks on Mrs Clinton's recent vote for a Senate amendment calling for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to be designated as a terrorist organisation - a vote, he said, that implicitly authorises Mr Bush to use force.
So far Mr Obama's attacks have been blunted by the fact that he did not show up for the vote, which was co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat, who says the US is involved in a "fourth world war" with Islamic radicalism. Mrs Clinton has pointed out that it contained no language that would permit Mr Bush to use force against Iran.
"Why is this amendment so dangerous?" Mr Obama asked in a postcard sent yesterday to voters in Iowa, which holds the first presidential caucus on January 3. "Because George Bush and Dick Cheney could use this language . . . to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq."
Mr Obama's attacks have so far gained him little traction in the national polls, where he trails Mrs Clinton by up to 30 percentage points. And both candidates are much closer to each other than their constant feuding might imply: they both support stepping up aggressive diplomacy with Iran but insist that "all options" remain onthe table.
Many argue that the real difference is between Republican and Democratic candidates.
"We are having the same debate over Iran as John Bolton [the former pro-war administration official] and Colin Powell [the former pro-diplomacy secretary of state] had about Iraq in 2002 - with the Democrats as Powell and Republicans as Bolton," says Kurt Campbell, head of the Centre for a New American Security. "That's the dividing line that matters."
Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21440765/
Sharp drop seen in US deaths in Iraq
US Military
* KIA=Combat death ADNC=Accidental Death Non-Combat)
May-07 -KIA-120-ADNC-6 Total-126
Jun-07 -KIA-93-ADNC-8-Total-101
Jul-07 -KIA-66-ADNC-12 Total-78
Aug-07 -KIA-56-ADNC-28 Total-84
Sep-07 -KIA-42-ADNC-23 Total-65
Oct-24 07KIA-20-ADNC-8 Total-28
IRAQI Deaths
* MP military & Police Civ=Civilian
May-07-MP-198-Civ-1782
Jun-07 -MP-197-Civ-1148
Jul-07 -MP-232-Civ-1458
Aug-07 -MP-76-Civ-1598
Sep-07 -MP-96-Civ-752
Oct 24-07-MP-64-Civ-438
http://icasualties.org/
BAGHDAD - October is on course to record the second consecutive decline in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths and Americans commanders say they know why: the U.S. troop increase and an Iraqi groundswell against al-Qaida and Shiite militia extremists.
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch points to what the military calls "Concerned Citizens" — both Shiites and Sunnis who have joined the American fight. He says he's signed up 20,000 of them in the past four months.
"I've never been more optimistic than I am right now with the progress we've made in Iraq. The only people who are going to win this counterinsurgency project are the people of Iraq. We've said that all along. And now they're coming forward in masses," Lynch said in a recent interview at a U.S. base deep in hostile territory south of Baghdad. Outgoing artillery thundered as he spoke.
Lynch, who commands the 3rd Infantry Division and once served as the military spokesman in Baghdad, is a tireless cheerleader of the American effort in Iraq. But the death toll over the past two months appears to reinforce his optimism. The question, of course: Will it last?
As of Tuesday, the Pentagon reported 28 U.S. military deaths in October. That's an average of about 1.2 deaths a day. The toll on U.S troops hasn't been this low since March 2006, when 31 soldiers died — an average of one death a day.
In September, 65 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.
Part of the trend can be seen in a volatile and violent band of lush agricultural land on Baghdad's southern border.
The commander of the battle zone — Lt. Col. Val Keaveny, 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry (Airborne) — said his unit has lost only one soldier in the past four months despite intensified operations against both Shiite and Sunni extremists, including powerful al-Qaida in Iraq cells.
Keaveny attributes the startling decline to a decrease in attacks by militants who are being rounded up in big numbers on information provided by the citizen force — which has literally doubled the number of eyes and ears available to the military.
The efforts to recruit local partners began taking shape earlier this year in the western province of Anbar, which had become the virtual heartland for Sunni insurgents and al-Qaida bands. The early successes in Anbar — coming alongside a boost of 30,000 U.S. forces into the Baghdad area — led to similar alliances in other parts of Iraq.
"People are fed up with fear, intimidation and being brutalized. Once they hit that tipping point, they're fed up, they come to realized we truly do provide them better hope for the future. What we're seeing now is the beginning of a snowball," said Keaveny, whose forces operate out of Forward Operating Base Kalsu, about 35 miles south of Baghdad.
While U.S. death figures appear to be in sharp decline, the number of Iraqi civilians and security forces show a less dramatic drop. And any significant attack — by insurgents or civilians caught in the crossfire — could quickly wipe out the downward trend.
The current pace of civilian deaths would put October at less than 900. The figure last month was 1,023 and for August, 1,956, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.
The AP tally is compiled from hospital, police and military officials, as well as accounts from reporters and photographers. Insurgent deaths are not included. Other counts differ and some have given higher civilian death tolls.
While the decline in deaths is notable, it is only one of many measures of potential progress in Iraq, said Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon analyst now with the private Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Cordesman said a more balanced picture needs to include factors such as wounded civilians and soldiers and the number of people fleeing their homes. The U.N. refugee agency said Tuesday that between 1,000 and 2,000 Iraqis still leave their homes each day for safer havens in the country or in neighboring nations. "It's just been going up slowly," said U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees spokeswoman Astrid van Genderen Stort in Geneva.
"The numbers we're dealing with here are only major acts of violence, the number of times people are killed," said Cordesman. "This is certainly progress ... but it has to be put in perspective."
Lynch's mission also shows the slow pace of reclaiming areas from militants. His troops and their new local allies must work town by town, village by village.
Sunni Sheik Emad Ghurtani is among those helping.
"Honestly, I'm not going to hide this from you," Ghurtani told Lynch as the two stood talking at a newly established tribal check point near Haswa, a village just north of the Kalsu base.
"There is some al-Qaida here in this area. But, God willing, we will get rid of them. ... The citizens are coming out. They're not afraid any more," the tall and handsome tribal leader said. Three scruffy young men watched, AK-47s slung over their shoulders, in the sandbag bunker at the check point.
Lynch, hatless on the balmy autumn day, answered in staccato sentences.
"What we really need is information. You know where al-Qaida is. You know who they are. You have to tell us. We can use all our capabilities to take out the enemy. But you have to tell us where they are, because you know. You've got our total support."
The sheik, who made Lynch promise to return for lunch one day, responded with striking eloquence.
"Because of what the American forces have accomplished, instead of us moving step by step we're going to start running toward the enemy ... Instead of walking, we're going to start running now. We just need the weapons and ammunition," Ghurtani said.
The guard force at the checkpoint changed during the conversation. Three young men barely out of their teens, ancient Kalashnikovs in hand, strolled town the dirt road that led back into Ghurtani territory. Their U.S.-provided uniforms are a vest with a reflective orange band akin to what road crews wear in the United States.
Ghurtani complained they hadn't been paid the $100 a month the Americans had promised.
"If I get some of the money they need I can get them shoes, some vests and some ammunition. If they can find me cheap weapons, we can start getting these men ready. God willing in the next few days," the sheik said.
Most heartening, Lynch said, was the checkpoint just across the road and over an irrigation canal. It was run by Shiites.
Lynch said the checkpoints on opposite sides of the road highlighted a kind of reconciliation by necessity: not fighting each other but protecting themselves from a common enemy.
"They have to be convinced that we're not leaving. That's the issue. If they were to think we're leaving we'd have also sorts of trouble," Lynch said, clambering over a makeshift earthen bridge across the canal.
The local Shiite sheik wasn't at the checkpoint.
He was in a hospital recovering from injuries in a car crash. Two ragtag fellows in their 20s stood up from their sandbag bunker and told Lynch they needed money to buy weapons. "Al-Qaida has all kinds of weapons. We just have these old rifles," one of them said pointing to his dilapidated Kalashnikov.
"OK. We just continue to work together to get you the money so you can buy better weapons, better ammunition, uniforms. Improve your check point. We just have to work together," Lynch said, spinning on his heel and marching back to his nine-Humvee convoy.
On to Haswa, down a road known for Iranian-made roadside bombs, a Kiowa gunship clattered above as protection. Back at division headquarters, public affairs officers were hammering out more press statements about how Concerned Citizens were leading soldiers to militant weapons caches and turning in extremists fighters.
Osama bin Laden urges Iraq fighters to unite
By Graeme Baker
Last Updated: 2:57am BST 23/10/2007
Osama bin Laden has called on insurgent groups in Iraq to avoid "extremism" against each other and unite around common interests, days after US generals declared that al-Qa’eda in Iraq was fatally wounded.
In the message addressed to "my brother fighters in Iraq", bin Laden called on the insurgent groups to fulfil their "duty" to unite "so that they become one, as God wants".
The tape appeared to be a response to moves by some Sunni tribes in Iraq to join US troops in fighting al-Qa’eda.
Other Sunni insurgent groups, while still attacking Americans, have formed coalitions opposed to al-Qa’eda.
The message came days after the Washington Post reported that American generals were considering declaring "mission accomplished" over al-Qa’eda in Iraq, after a significant downturn in terrorist activity since the "surge" of troops policy began earlier this year.
Nearly a year of intensified US military activity has seen a decline in suicide bombings, and the killing and capture of al-Qa’eda leaders as well as more than 1,000 footsoldiers.
Bin Laden said in the audio tape that the "interest of the Islamic nation surpasses that of a group ... the interest of the [Islamic] nation is more important than that of a state. The strength of faith is in the strength of the bond between Muslims and not that of a tribe, nationalism or an organisation.
"Some of you have been lax in one duty, which is to unite your ranks," bin Laden said in the audiotape.
"Beware of division ... Muslims are waiting for you to gather under a single banner to champion righteousness. Be keen to oblige with this duty.
"I advise myself, Muslims in general and brothers in al-Qaeda everywhere to avoid extremism among men and groups."
He said leaders should not build themselves up as the sole authority, and that instead mujahideen should follow "what God and his prophet have said".
"Everybody can make a mistake, but the best of them are those who admit their mistakes," he said.
"Mistakes have been made during holy wars but mujahideen have to correct their mistakes."
It was not clear from the part of the tape aired when the message was recorded.
US authorities were studying the content and authenticity of the tape. However, officials often note that no one has faked a bin Laden recording in the past.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...binladen123.xml
That is all!!
Is Fear and Defeat Doomocrat’s Whine and Complaint meter broken?
What to do, if true?
Iraq fades as a hot political issue
Morass Spewing Negative Bellowing Communalists
Could Keith Uber-Whiney and Jon, I not Jewish” Stewart both be unemployed soon?
A well-placed bomb in Baghdad's Green Zone could change everything but, for the time being, the war in Iraq has ceased to be the US's hot political issue.
The sharp fall in the number of US troops killed over the past three months has brought about a corresponding reduction in the political temperature back home. Rising concerns about Iran's apparently hardening stance over its uranium enrichment programme have supplanted Iraq as the US's chief foreign policy question.
The principal beneficiaries are John McCain, the erstwhile Republican frontrunner, who has loudly supported George W. Bush's Iraq troop surge, and Hillary Clinton, whose vote in favour of the 2002 Senate resolution authorising war had been a bitter point of contention among grassroots liberals on the campaign trail.
"Until recently the conventional wisdom was that the 2008 election would be dominated by the Iraq war," says Philip Gordon, fellow at the Brookings Institution, a research and policy organisation, who is advising Barack Obama's 2008 bid. "But the situation in Iran is moving much more quickly and that is where President Bush's decisions could have consequences for whoever takes over in January 2009."
The fading of Iraq as a lightning rod is most evident on Capitol Hill, where Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House of Representatives, has all but abandoned Democratic attempts to force Mr Bush's hand by attaching conditions to White House war-funding requests.
Mr Bush on Monday asked Congress for another $54bn (€38bn, £26bn) in supplemental war funding - bringing the total for this financial year to $194bn, or roughly $400m a day. Instead of promising new conditions, the Democrats announced they would merely delay Mr Bush's request to authorise the money in coming weeks.
"Because casualties have fallen so far, it is futile to try to persuade moderate Republicans to vote with us to compel a withdrawal of US troops," said a Democratic staffer on Capitol Hill.
The reduction in casualties has also helped bring about a change in the debate among Democratic 2008 candidates who are no longer competing with each other to promise the quickest withdrawal of US troops.
With the exception of Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, who has pledged to withdraw US troops within six months of taking office, the candidates are increasingly hedging their Iraq troop-level commitments - a position that most suits Mrs Clinton's penchant for centrist ambiguity.
In a recent Democratic debate, Mrs Clinton refused to say that all US forces would be gone from Iraq by 2013
- the end of her first term. Her formula was broadly repeated by both Mr Obama and John Edwards. This would have been inconceivable six months ago.
"There has been an effort to change the subject," says Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter's national security adviser. "It is not so much that Iraq has been replaced by Iran as that the Bush administration has successfully broadened the Iraq debate to include Iran."
Mr Bush last week sharpened what could be Mrs Clinton's new policy dilemma when he predicted that Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions could lead to "world war three".
Mr Obama on Tuesday stepped up his attacks on Mrs Clinton's recent vote for a Senate amendment calling for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to be designated as a terrorist organisation - a vote, he said, that implicitly authorises Mr Bush to use force.
So far Mr Obama's attacks have been blunted by the fact that he did not show up for the vote, which was co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat, who says the US is involved in a "fourth world war" with Islamic radicalism. Mrs Clinton has pointed out that it contained no language that would permit Mr Bush to use force against Iran.
"Why is this amendment so dangerous?" Mr Obama asked in a postcard sent yesterday to voters in Iowa, which holds the first presidential caucus on January 3. "Because George Bush and Dick Cheney could use this language . . . to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq."
Mr Obama's attacks have so far gained him little traction in the national polls, where he trails Mrs Clinton by up to 30 percentage points. And both candidates are much closer to each other than their constant feuding might imply: they both support stepping up aggressive diplomacy with Iran but insist that "all options" remain onthe table.
Many argue that the real difference is between Republican and Democratic candidates.
"We are having the same debate over Iran as John Bolton [the former pro-war administration official] and Colin Powell [the former pro-diplomacy secretary of state] had about Iraq in 2002 - with the Democrats as Powell and Republicans as Bolton," says Kurt Campbell, head of the Centre for a New American Security. "That's the dividing line that matters."
Copyright The Financial Times Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21440765/
Sharp drop seen in US deaths in Iraq
US Military
* KIA=Combat death ADNC=Accidental Death Non-Combat)
May-07 -KIA-120-ADNC-6 Total-126
Jun-07 -KIA-93-ADNC-8-Total-101
Jul-07 -KIA-66-ADNC-12 Total-78
Aug-07 -KIA-56-ADNC-28 Total-84
Sep-07 -KIA-42-ADNC-23 Total-65
Oct-24 07KIA-20-ADNC-8 Total-28
IRAQI Deaths
* MP military & Police Civ=Civilian
May-07-MP-198-Civ-1782
Jun-07 -MP-197-Civ-1148
Jul-07 -MP-232-Civ-1458
Aug-07 -MP-76-Civ-1598
Sep-07 -MP-96-Civ-752
Oct 24-07-MP-64-Civ-438
http://icasualties.org/
BAGHDAD - October is on course to record the second consecutive decline in U.S. military and Iraqi civilian deaths and Americans commanders say they know why: the U.S. troop increase and an Iraqi groundswell against al-Qaida and Shiite militia extremists.
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch points to what the military calls "Concerned Citizens" — both Shiites and Sunnis who have joined the American fight. He says he's signed up 20,000 of them in the past four months.
"I've never been more optimistic than I am right now with the progress we've made in Iraq. The only people who are going to win this counterinsurgency project are the people of Iraq. We've said that all along. And now they're coming forward in masses," Lynch said in a recent interview at a U.S. base deep in hostile territory south of Baghdad. Outgoing artillery thundered as he spoke.
Lynch, who commands the 3rd Infantry Division and once served as the military spokesman in Baghdad, is a tireless cheerleader of the American effort in Iraq. But the death toll over the past two months appears to reinforce his optimism. The question, of course: Will it last?
As of Tuesday, the Pentagon reported 28 U.S. military deaths in October. That's an average of about 1.2 deaths a day. The toll on U.S troops hasn't been this low since March 2006, when 31 soldiers died — an average of one death a day.
In September, 65 U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.
Part of the trend can be seen in a volatile and violent band of lush agricultural land on Baghdad's southern border.
The commander of the battle zone — Lt. Col. Val Keaveny, 3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry (Airborne) — said his unit has lost only one soldier in the past four months despite intensified operations against both Shiite and Sunni extremists, including powerful al-Qaida in Iraq cells.
Keaveny attributes the startling decline to a decrease in attacks by militants who are being rounded up in big numbers on information provided by the citizen force — which has literally doubled the number of eyes and ears available to the military.
The efforts to recruit local partners began taking shape earlier this year in the western province of Anbar, which had become the virtual heartland for Sunni insurgents and al-Qaida bands. The early successes in Anbar — coming alongside a boost of 30,000 U.S. forces into the Baghdad area — led to similar alliances in other parts of Iraq.
"People are fed up with fear, intimidation and being brutalized. Once they hit that tipping point, they're fed up, they come to realized we truly do provide them better hope for the future. What we're seeing now is the beginning of a snowball," said Keaveny, whose forces operate out of Forward Operating Base Kalsu, about 35 miles south of Baghdad.
While U.S. death figures appear to be in sharp decline, the number of Iraqi civilians and security forces show a less dramatic drop. And any significant attack — by insurgents or civilians caught in the crossfire — could quickly wipe out the downward trend.
The current pace of civilian deaths would put October at less than 900. The figure last month was 1,023 and for August, 1,956, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.
The AP tally is compiled from hospital, police and military officials, as well as accounts from reporters and photographers. Insurgent deaths are not included. Other counts differ and some have given higher civilian death tolls.
While the decline in deaths is notable, it is only one of many measures of potential progress in Iraq, said Anthony Cordesman, a former Pentagon analyst now with the private Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Cordesman said a more balanced picture needs to include factors such as wounded civilians and soldiers and the number of people fleeing their homes. The U.N. refugee agency said Tuesday that between 1,000 and 2,000 Iraqis still leave their homes each day for safer havens in the country or in neighboring nations. "It's just been going up slowly," said U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees spokeswoman Astrid van Genderen Stort in Geneva.
"The numbers we're dealing with here are only major acts of violence, the number of times people are killed," said Cordesman. "This is certainly progress ... but it has to be put in perspective."
Lynch's mission also shows the slow pace of reclaiming areas from militants. His troops and their new local allies must work town by town, village by village.
Sunni Sheik Emad Ghurtani is among those helping.
"Honestly, I'm not going to hide this from you," Ghurtani told Lynch as the two stood talking at a newly established tribal check point near Haswa, a village just north of the Kalsu base.
"There is some al-Qaida here in this area. But, God willing, we will get rid of them. ... The citizens are coming out. They're not afraid any more," the tall and handsome tribal leader said. Three scruffy young men watched, AK-47s slung over their shoulders, in the sandbag bunker at the check point.
Lynch, hatless on the balmy autumn day, answered in staccato sentences.
"What we really need is information. You know where al-Qaida is. You know who they are. You have to tell us. We can use all our capabilities to take out the enemy. But you have to tell us where they are, because you know. You've got our total support."
The sheik, who made Lynch promise to return for lunch one day, responded with striking eloquence.
"Because of what the American forces have accomplished, instead of us moving step by step we're going to start running toward the enemy ... Instead of walking, we're going to start running now. We just need the weapons and ammunition," Ghurtani said.
The guard force at the checkpoint changed during the conversation. Three young men barely out of their teens, ancient Kalashnikovs in hand, strolled town the dirt road that led back into Ghurtani territory. Their U.S.-provided uniforms are a vest with a reflective orange band akin to what road crews wear in the United States.
Ghurtani complained they hadn't been paid the $100 a month the Americans had promised.
"If I get some of the money they need I can get them shoes, some vests and some ammunition. If they can find me cheap weapons, we can start getting these men ready. God willing in the next few days," the sheik said.
Most heartening, Lynch said, was the checkpoint just across the road and over an irrigation canal. It was run by Shiites.
Lynch said the checkpoints on opposite sides of the road highlighted a kind of reconciliation by necessity: not fighting each other but protecting themselves from a common enemy.
"They have to be convinced that we're not leaving. That's the issue. If they were to think we're leaving we'd have also sorts of trouble," Lynch said, clambering over a makeshift earthen bridge across the canal.
The local Shiite sheik wasn't at the checkpoint.
He was in a hospital recovering from injuries in a car crash. Two ragtag fellows in their 20s stood up from their sandbag bunker and told Lynch they needed money to buy weapons. "Al-Qaida has all kinds of weapons. We just have these old rifles," one of them said pointing to his dilapidated Kalashnikov.
"OK. We just continue to work together to get you the money so you can buy better weapons, better ammunition, uniforms. Improve your check point. We just have to work together," Lynch said, spinning on his heel and marching back to his nine-Humvee convoy.
On to Haswa, down a road known for Iranian-made roadside bombs, a Kiowa gunship clattered above as protection. Back at division headquarters, public affairs officers were hammering out more press statements about how Concerned Citizens were leading soldiers to militant weapons caches and turning in extremists fighters.
Osama bin Laden urges Iraq fighters to unite
By Graeme Baker
Last Updated: 2:57am BST 23/10/2007
Osama bin Laden has called on insurgent groups in Iraq to avoid "extremism" against each other and unite around common interests, days after US generals declared that al-Qa’eda in Iraq was fatally wounded.
In the message addressed to "my brother fighters in Iraq", bin Laden called on the insurgent groups to fulfil their "duty" to unite "so that they become one, as God wants".
The tape appeared to be a response to moves by some Sunni tribes in Iraq to join US troops in fighting al-Qa’eda.
Other Sunni insurgent groups, while still attacking Americans, have formed coalitions opposed to al-Qa’eda.
The message came days after the Washington Post reported that American generals were considering declaring "mission accomplished" over al-Qa’eda in Iraq, after a significant downturn in terrorist activity since the "surge" of troops policy began earlier this year.
Nearly a year of intensified US military activity has seen a decline in suicide bombings, and the killing and capture of al-Qa’eda leaders as well as more than 1,000 footsoldiers.
Bin Laden said in the audio tape that the "interest of the Islamic nation surpasses that of a group ... the interest of the [Islamic] nation is more important than that of a state. The strength of faith is in the strength of the bond between Muslims and not that of a tribe, nationalism or an organisation.
"Some of you have been lax in one duty, which is to unite your ranks," bin Laden said in the audiotape.
"Beware of division ... Muslims are waiting for you to gather under a single banner to champion righteousness. Be keen to oblige with this duty.
"I advise myself, Muslims in general and brothers in al-Qaeda everywhere to avoid extremism among men and groups."
He said leaders should not build themselves up as the sole authority, and that instead mujahideen should follow "what God and his prophet have said".
"Everybody can make a mistake, but the best of them are those who admit their mistakes," he said.
"Mistakes have been made during holy wars but mujahideen have to correct their mistakes."
It was not clear from the part of the tape aired when the message was recorded.
US authorities were studying the content and authenticity of the tape. However, officials often note that no one has faked a bin Laden recording in the past.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...binladen123.xml
That is all!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.