Iraq: Moving forward after the 'Three Week's War'.

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Red-Seven, Apr 24, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DarthArsenal6 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 16, 2001
    star 5
    OK with you on that one :)

    technical support - well that depends on the men who manned them :p
  2. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    This CBS poll has some interesting numbers


    Support for leaving Iraq ("ending involvement") = 50%

    How is the war going:
    Well Badly
    - Dec 2005 - 46% 52%
    - Oct 2006 - 67% 30%
    - Dec 2006 - 71% 25%

    52% believe the situation in Iraq is getting worse.

    -Only 9% believe the U.S. will likely succeed in Iraq, with 34% considering the prospect somewhat likely -- 53% doubt we will succeed.

    -35% of Americans think the war in Iraq is the most important problem facing the nation -- second highest issue is the economy with only 9%

    -60% believe that Iraq will never become a stable democracy

    -75% disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq


    And check this out - "Approve of Bush's job handling Iraq" breakdown:

    Now 11/14/2006
    Republicans 47% 70%
    Democrats 5% 3%
    Independents 17% 23%

    Conservatives 34% 60%

    70% are uneasy about Bush's ability to make decisions about Iraq.


    53% believe the Democrats in Congress will make the right decisions about the war -- only 27% believe the same about Bush

    Bush's approval rating is 31% -- 63% disapprove


    62% believe sending troops to Iraq was a mistake

    79% believe that Democrats will try to decrease or bring home all troops from Iraq.


    Support for the war is comparable to support for the Vietnam war in 1971.



    That looks to me like a pretty complete collapse of public faith (especially among Republicans in the last month) in the President and in the War.



  3. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    I'm sure that reflects at least in part the view that Iraq cost the Republicans the election. Knowing that you're on the losing side of an issue can be a real test of that belief.
  4. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    JF, I think it looks like the formats are kinda screwed up on you there. I heard about the CBS poll but the way you have the small tables laid out kinda looks like its saying the opposite.
  5. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    JF, I think it looks like the formats are kinda screwed up on you there. I heard about the CBS poll but the way you have the small tables laid out kinda looks like its saying the opposite.

    I tried reformatting. The board just has horrible formatting abilities.

    "Approve of Bush's job handling Iraq" breakdown:

    Now
    Republicans 47%
    Democrats 5%
    Independents 17%

    Conservatives 34%


    11/14/2006
    Republicans 70%
    Democrats 3%
    Independents 23%

    Conservatives 60%



    How is the war going:

    Well Badly
    46% 52% - Dec 2005
    30% 67% - Oct 2006
    25% 71% - Dec 2006



  6. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    It should be 71% of Americans believe the war is going badly in December 2006?
  7. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    Oops!

    Okay, now its fixed.

  8. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    On the subject of whether the civil war has reduced attacks on U.S. forces, it appears not. This news article notes a report detailing attacks for the last few months was just released. The actual report can be found in PDF form here. Although it does not have the actual number of attacks, here is the relevant section from page 3 of the report:

    In the past three months, the total number ofattacks increased 22%. Some of this increase is attributable to a seasonal spike in violence during Ramadan. Coalition forces remained the target of the majority of attacks (68%), but the overwhelming majority of casualties were suffered by Iraqis. Total civilian casualties increased by 2% over the previous reporting period. Fiftyfour percent of all attacks occurred in only 2 of Iraq?s 18 provinces (Baghdad and Anbar). Violence in Iraq was divided along ethnic, religious, and tribal lines, and political factions within these groups, and was often localized to specific communities. Outside of the Sunni Triangle, more than 90% of Iraqis reported feeling very safe in their neighborhoods. Still, concern regarding civil war ran high among the Iraqi populace.

    Other interesting notes:

    Attack levels?both overall and in all specific
    measurable categories?were the highest on
    record during this reporting period, due in
    part to what has become an annual cycle of
    increased violence during the Islamic holy
    month of Ramadan. The most significant
    development in the Iraqi security environment
    was the growing role of Shi?a militants.
    It is likely that Shi?a militants were responsible
    for more civilian casualties than those
    associated with terrorist organizations. Shi?a
    militants were the most significant threat to
    the Coalition presence in Baghdad and
    southern Iraq.
    (page 17)

    The violence and intimidation have led to an
    increase in the number of internally displaced
    persons in Iraq. According to the Iraqi Ministry
    of Displacement and Migration, about
    460,000 people have been displaced since
    February 2006.
    (page 18)

    Interesting Charts:

    Attacks by Province
    [image=http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a182/Jediflyer/AttacksbyProvinceAug12toNov102006.gif]

    Average Weekly Attacks by Target
    [image=http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a182/Jediflyer/AverageWeeklyAttacks.gif]


    Average Daily Attacks by Casualties
    [image=http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a182/Jediflyer/BreakdownofAverageDailycasualties.gif]

    Electrical Power Production and Demand
    [image=http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a182/Jediflyer/ElectricalPowerProductionandDemand.gif]

    Number of Hours of Electricity by Province
    [image=http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a182/Jediflyer/ElectricalPower.gif]



    There is a lot more information in the report. However, one problem that I noticed is that attacks were never defined and it was not indicated how they were being kept track of.

  9. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    On the subject of whether the civil war has reduced attacks on U.S. forces, it appears not

    There is a lot more information in the report. However, one problem that I noticed is that attacks were never defined and it was not indicated how they were being kept track of.


    Well, the actual defenselink .pdf details how the attacks were recorded. I actually stopped posting the official reports in the forum because people were saying I was relaying too much on the hard information and forgetting the larger picture. I think the reports are important though.

    If your first setence was in response to me, I never said that the number of attacks were reduced, but rather the focus. If colation forces (basically US troops) are tasked with providing protection for officials in the Iraqi government, then an attack that is focused against that official will be reported as an attack against coalition forces. The success rate of such attacks has steadily dimished while attacks against civilians have become more successful.

    The DOD still reports that the Mahdi Party, (JAM) otherwise known as "Sadr's militia" is the single destablizing force in Iraq, and their goal is to destabilize the political process.
  10. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5

    Well, the actual defenselink .pdf details how the attacks were recorded.


    I didn't see that. Could you either direct me to the page or copy and paste it here?

  11. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5

    The DOD still reports that the Mahdi Party, (JAM) otherwise known as "Sadr's militia" is the single destablizing force in Iraq, and their goal is to destabilize the political process.


    So if they recognize that the terrorism is caused by Iraqi political conditions, why are we trying to fight the terrorists when the solution is clearly not military but political?

  12. dizfactor Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2002
    star 5
    Because we don't know how to do anything else.
  13. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    You have to be careful about the terms you are using here, because both represent an extension of each other. The Mahdi party was given official recognition as a legitimate political party within Iraq. Instead of remaining within the strict political realm though, Sadr has directed that elements of the party engage in military action. Elements of both are appropriate for a response.
  14. dizfactor Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2002
    star 5
    The problem is that without their support and participation, the Iraqi government would collapse. However, they're not strong enough to control Iraq by themmselves.

    Events are heading towards an equilibrium point of sustainable multidirectional open conflict with no particular resolution possible. It is likely that the civil war will continue for years if not decades like this without resolution.
  15. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Iraq| How Dare You

    It seems quaintly amusing and decidedly imperialist that America - that great anti-empire - would not even consider what the Iraqis thought when this report was authored.

    But, if no quarter was given towards what Iraqis wanted with the invasion..?

    Interesting piece.

    ES
  16. Souderwan Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 6
    *chuckle* I've read articles (please don't make me look them up) that suggest that the US didn't even consider what Iraqi's on the whole might think about us "liberating" them but rather just presupposed that they would be overjoyed. I tried to pry some old reports out of a friend of mine in the Pentagon's hands, but he wouldn't have it. All he would tell me was that we didn't do due diligence in that regard.

    So to me, it's not at all surprising that we'd put out a report that completely ignored the Iraqis and what they might have to say on the matter.

    Good article, though. I liked this barb at the end:

    I don't know why, but that just struck me as funny.

  17. dizfactor Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2002
    star 5
    Moved from the US elections thread:

    The government ministers that are in place now are only in place because the actual dominant players threw the US a bone and made a conscious decision to allow candidates that were acceptable to the US and represented a token effort at national unity. They are, essentially, frontmen and puppet rulers for the US, who only have office because the Shi'a parties have allowed them to, because they wanted to try playing with the Americans instead of confronting them. The ministers you listed don't actually have any power, and basically spend all their time cowering in the Green Zone wondering when they're going to be sacked and who's going to replace them.

    The party with a plurality in the Iraqi Parliament is the United Iraqi Alliance, which is basically the union of two deeply pro-Iranian parties (the Islamic Al-Da'wa Party, and SCIRI, which was originally a splinter group of the other) which basically came together at al-Sistani's prompting. Together with the Kurdish party*, they form a sizeable majority, and if the alliance of the two parties decides they want to stop playing nice with the US and drop the charade of giving a toss about Iraqi unity or the fate of the Sunni Arabs, they can sack the government and begin effectively partioning the country on their own terms.

    Even without the Kurds as coalition partners, they represent the largest single bloc in the country, the most unified force in the country, and the segment of the population that happens to be living on top of most of the oil. Nothing is going to go anywhere in Iraq without their say-so. At the very least, they can function as spoilers and there is no counter to them being able to do so.

    The fact that they continue to allow the current government to exist reflects an excessive amount of arm-twisting, brow-beating, and downright pleading that the US has engaged in to keep them at the table, and even with those efforts it's a half-hearted success, because they're also engaging in militia activity at the same time that they're ostensibly participating in government, and no one has either the political or military power to stop them from doing so. They are basically thumbing their noses at the American occupiers, and the Americans have to just sit there and take it because if the Shi'ite parties decide to take their ball and go h
  18. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    I saw this on the Web recently, and thought E_S might get a kick out of reading this, then finding as many copies of this book that he can find and flushing them down a series of toilets:

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20952737-5003900,00.html
  19. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Oh, I read about that int he Economist a little while back. They rubbished it too.

    E+S
  20. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Please, don't. Think of the effects on the fish! They simply can't handle that sort of pollution.

    Kimball Kinnison
  21. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
  22. DarthArsenal6 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 16, 2001
    star 5
    ^ and thats make you happy is it ?
    when bath sepratist has pledge that will make things worst for Iraq if Saddam dies.

    You really do look out for the Iraqi poeple don't you [face_plain]

    I thought common sense was used - i guess not ! [face_plain]


    EDIT I got friends over there, having Saddam killed won't united the country but put the contry into further frenzy - HOW is it you can't understand that !!!!
  23. Gonk Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 6
    Arsenal, he didn't say one thing or the other about it, just posted the fact to the board. It's been some time since DMhas said anything about Hussein's fate uniting Iraq.

    Oh, and BTW, on Christmas Day the death toll of Iraq surpassed the death toll for 9/11.
  24. DarthArsenal6 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 16, 2001
    star 5

    Hmmmmmmmm remind me why we went to War against Iraq initially ? [face_plain]



    EDIT I Admires DM enthusiasm of Saddams death , and who doesn't want to see him die !

    Even from the hardcore Muslims would also want him dead for killing other fellow Muslims in Iraq regardless if they were Kurdish, Shi'ite and Sunni (He also killed them as well) and mocking it. But I fear the backlash

    Iraqi people suffered enough as you knw

    so could everyone on this forum pray that there won't be a continue killings when Saddam dies.
    I'm sick of it and sick of discussing when we can't do a thing about it

    I'm sorry if I'm acting a bit strange sorry if i was a bit abrupt.
  25. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Oh, and BTW, on Christmas Day the death toll of Iraq surpassed the death toll for 9/11.

    As of this Christmas, about 18,000 people were killed in alcohol related crashes for the year, 15,000 more than were killed in the WTC.

    The connection? I'm not sure there is any.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.