The insurgency is dead -- the best $400 million per annum ever spent

[DanS]

The last two months have been the most peaceful pair of months, at least as far as Coalition goes, since the invasion.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Basically, this is a buyoff of the insurgents against "the terrorists." Apparently, it is being replicated successfully from Anbar Province.

What do you think about this? All hail Petraeus?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/22259.html

[Arrian]

I like the results of the buy-off so far (saw a good report on it on BBC News America last night), but I'm still wary as hell - the whole thing could go right back into the ****ter in a blink. Anyway, in the short term, it's been good. In the long term?

I do think the Shiites/Kurds are right to be worried about large bands of armed, officially sanctioned Sunnis (just like Sunnis are right to worry about Shiite-dominated police/death squads).

-Arrian

[DanS]

I take that back. May and June, 2003 were slightly more peaceful. But I think it reasonably could be said that this was pre-insurgency.

[Zkribbler]

Good so far...but here's the problem:

The Sunni who've switched sides (because they realize that al Qaeda is for more evil than the U.S.) HATE the central Shia-dominated government.

We are now arming and training both the Shia and the Sunni, neither of which wants national reconciliation. Sooner or later, that place is going to go BOOM with the Mother of all Civil Wars.

[GePap]

As has already been said, the lack of political reconciliation is the main problem left, and nothing appears to be going on, at least no large signs.

The AQ types lost popular support due to their fanaticism (No duh) and the nationalist Sunni types got the clue that the US is their best bet to keep the Shiites (Persian agents in their eyes) from taking completely over. The Shiites have been able to reign in the more violent groups now that most of the cleasing of neighborhoods in Baghdad is complete, and because their constituncie wanted some peace and quiet. But no one has done much to have a real Iraq, and they still haven't had the referrendum about Kirkuk yet, and as last month showed, an independent minded Kurdish region is going to disquiet the Turks for some time.

Basically, even if we accept the premise that the insurgency is complete, we are finished with problem #2 (#1 was Saddam) in Iraq. That has taken some time. Now how long until #3 (having an Iraq stable enough not to collapse into a full blow civil war) is complete?

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
I take that back. May and June, 2003 were slightly more peaceful. But I think it reasonably could be said that this was pre-insurgency.

The insurgency began immidiately after the fall of the Saddam Regime, since it was at that point that the US assumes control. Any time after April 2003 is during the insurgency.

[MRT144]

DanS, edit the title so you don't look like an idiot if things get worse.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by GePap
As has already been said, the lack of political reconciliation is the main problem left, and nothing appears to be going on, at least no large signs.

Does this mean we have to stay there indefinitely?

The AQ types lost popular support due to their fanaticism (No duh) and the nationalist Sunni types got the clue that the US is their best bet to keep the Shiites (Persian agents in their eyes) from taking completely over.

Does this mean we have to stay there indefinitely?

The Shiites have been able to reign in the more violent groups now that most of the cleasing of neighborhoods in Baghdad is complete, and because their constituncie wanted some peace and quiet. But no one has done much to have a real Iraq, and they still haven't had the referrendum about Kirkuk yet, and as last month showed, an independent minded Kurdish region is going to disquiet the Turks for some time.

Does this mean we have to stay there indefinitely?

Basically, even if we accept the premise that the insurgency is complete, we are finished with problem #2 (#1 was Saddam) in Iraq. That has taken some time. Now how long until #3 (having an Iraq stable enough not to collapse into a full blow civil war) is complete?

If it means staying there indefinitely does that mean that "mission" wasn't accomplished?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
If it means staying there indefinitely does that mean that "mission" wasn't accomplished?

Why are you asking me?

If the supporters of the war ever get to defining success, only then will we know how long US troops need to be there.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by GePap


Why are you asking me?

If the supporters of the war ever get to defining success, only then will we know how long US troops need to be there.

You have it backwards, GePap. Supporters of the war are excellent at defining success, probably because of all the practice they've had; there's a new definition every few weeks.

This week: forget that the success of the surge was supposed to be about political reconcilliation and the preparedness of the Iraqi security forces; success is now about declining violence.

Surge Success^tm! - Now with a new, tastier metric!

[Dinner]

Re: The insurgency is dead -- the best $400 million per annum ever spent

Originally posted by DanS
The last two months have been the most peaceful pair of months, at least as far as Coalition goes, since the invasion.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Basically, this is a buyoff of the insurgents against "the terrorists." Apparently, it is being replicated successfully from Anbar Province.

What do you think about this? All hail Petraeus?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/22259.html

I notice they don't post the number of Iraqi service members killed nor the number of any military wounded. It's also interesting that the UK dramatically down sized its forces in the last couple months but deaths have climber.

Lastly by your own figures the total allied/coalition death rate (not including Iraqis) is now at 2.81 deaths per day which is the highest death rate since Jan 2005. Yet your fanboying this?!

[DanS]

That site has all of those statistics. And the coalition deathrate is running 1.3 per day, not 2.81.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
That site has all of those statistics. And the coalition deathrate is running 1.3 per day, not 2.81.

What do you think I was quoting it from?

Period six is the 12 month period started 02/01/07 and the 2.81 figure covers the whole period up to today. Comparing equal spans of time is how we make valid comparisions over time. It is also the time break down offered by your very own source.

[DanS]

Scroll down to "Military Fatalities by Month," genius. For the Iraqi soldiers, scroll down to "Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths," which also are by month.

[Patroklos]

Lastly by your own figures the total allied/coalition death rate (not including Iraqis) is now at 2.81 deaths per day which is the highest death rate since Jan 2005. Yet your fanboying this?!

Oerdin, hack extrodinare