U.S. troop deaths in Iraq at wartime low

[DanS]

Kudos to General Petraeus, his team, and the troops! Let's see if we can't extend this.

U.S. troop deaths in Iraq at wartime low
Sun Jun 1, 2008 6:11am EDT
By Ross Colvin

BAGHDAD, June 1 (Reuters) - Nineteen U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq in May, the U.S. military said on Sunday, the lowest monthly death toll since U.S. forces invaded to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The number of Iraqi civilians killed in the same month plunged to 505 after reaching a seven-month high of 968 in April, figures obtained by Reuters from Iraq's interior, defence and health ministries showed.

The U.S. military says violence in Iraq is at a four-year low following crackdowns by U.S. and Iraqi forces on Shi'ite militias in southern Basra and Baghdad and on al Qaeda in the northern city of Mosul, its last major urban stronghold.

But a suicide bombing in the town of Hit in western Anbar province on Saturday that killed the local police chief underscored the fragility of Iraq's security.

Police said a suicide bomber blew himself up at a checkpoint, killing police chief Lieutenant-Colonel Khalil Ibrahim al-Jazzaa, nine other policemen and three civilians.

"The man, who was wearing a suicide vest, asked to meet the police chief to talk about a problem. When the policemen stopped him to check him, the bomber blew himself up," said Major Uday al-Dulaimi, a police officer in Hit.

In Iraq's more stable south, Australia, one of the United States' staunchest allies, began pulling out 500 combat troops from Dhi Qar province, fulfilling a pledge by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to withdraw all troops this year.

The website icasualties.org, which tracks U.S. fatalities in Iraq, said 19 U.S. soldiers died in May. U.S. troop deaths reached a seven-month high in April when 52 were killed.

A U.S. military spokesman confirmed the figure, which may still rise as it sometimes takes the U.S. Department of Defense a few days to confirm reported deaths. The previous lowest casualty toll was in February 2004, when 21 soldiers died.

[MOBIUS]

Yeah, it's amazing what happens when they finally put someone in charge who knows what he's doing and listens to people...

Maybe they should have asked him whether it was a good idea to invade Iraq in the first place...?

[SlowwHand]

Good news, Dan.

Mobius, **** off.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There was an interesting article in the NY Times Magazine about McCain's belief in staying in the war. His contention is that the reason we lost the Vietnam War is that we didn't have someone who, frankly, "knew what he was doing" until it was too late. And in this war he sees Petraeus as someone who knows what he's doing and realizes he's got a very limited time frame to get some results (or else the American people won't stand for it) and he wants to give him that little bit more time.

[dannubis]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Good news, Dan.

Mobius, **** off.

Why the second one slowwy ?

Feeling the pain of people rubbing your nose in it once too often ?

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There was an interesting article in the NY Times Magazine about McCain's belief in staying in the war. His contention is that the reason we lost the Vietnam War is that we didn't have someone who, frankly, "knew what he was doing" until it was too late. And in this war he sees Petraeus as someone who knows what he's doing and realizes he's got a very limited time frame to get some results (or else the American people won't stand for it) and he wants to give him that little bit more time.

Well, it's not his life on the line. And at his age, not his career either. McCain personally has nothing to lose by continuing the war.

[Wiglaf]

Except his political career, you lunatic.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
There was an interesting article in the NY Times Magazine about McCain's belief in staying in the war. His contention is that the reason we lost the Vietnam War is that we didn't have someone who, frankly, "knew what he was doing" until it was too late. And in this war he sees Petraeus as someone who knows what he's doing and realizes he's got a very limited time frame to get some results (or else the American people won't stand for it) and he wants to give him that little bit more time.

Yes, I've held that opinion for several years now -- Petraeus is GW Bush's US Grant. Unfortunately, our military has poor leadership for this type of war.

There are many reasons why this is so, among which are the military's antipathy toward fighting guerrilla wars due to Vietnam and the fact that ground-pounding has been associated with the most successful wars of the 20th Century (WWI and WWII), at least as far as the US goes.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Except his political career, you lunatic.

I refered to that, you nutjob.

[Dinner]

Dan, you are ignoring that the Pentagon's original plan called for flooding the country with soldiers from day one just to get the kind of control Patraeus is only now getting. Cheney and Rumsfield vetoed the Pentagon's original plan of 500,000 troops (enough to effectively occupy and control the country from day one) because they feared to many casualties. The politicians dumped the sound military plan due to considerations of their own political needs.

I wouldn't say it the military leadership which screwed this up, they were on the right path to begin with, instead it was the incompetence of interfering politicians who screwed everything up. Stop trying to pretend other wise.

The bad news is there still hasn't been any political success and the groups only seem willing to stop fighting as long as they're living in walled ghettos to keep each group separate from each other. This seems extremely similar to the US involvement in Lebanon (with missions in the 50's, 70's, and 80's) where the presence of foreign troops could maintain order but as soon as the troops left the groups all started fighting again. Iraq will likely be the same unless real political progress is made.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by DaShi


I refered to that, you nutjob.

What an obvious edit. I think you are one of those operatives who goes back, and deletes historical documents or accidentally "misplaces" books to throw off the IRS. That was sexy in the 60s but now is more like wearing Bermuda shorts in the lockerroom, it's just gay. I should just stop talking to you since China probably is nuking Taiwan as we speak and I'd be wasting my breath.

[Zkribbler]

BAGHDAD, June 1 (Reuters) - Nineteen U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq in May, the U.S. military said on Sunday, the lowest monthly death toll since U.S. forces invaded in 2003 to prevent Saddam Hussein from giving nuclear weapons to his good friends in al Qaeda.

Fixed

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DaShi
Well, it's not his life on the line. And at his age, not his career either. McCain personally has nothing to lose by continuing the war.

Though his son was over there. I don't know if he going to be back.

edit: to add, you may not know about that because McCain had not made it part of his campaign, even though it would have been of great use in the Republican primaries.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DaShi
Well, it's not his life on the line. And at his age, not his career either. McCain personally has nothing to lose by continuing the war.

I can criticize McCain for many aspects of his Iraq policy, but to try an attribute such cowardly, callous calculation as you suggest is not one of him. The North Vietnamese offered him a Get Out Of Jail Free card because of his dad's position, and McCain refused to take it. He has personal integrity up the ying yang.

[GePap]

Lets hope that this is more than a blip down.