The random, localized remants of the Iraqi resistance have struck again, inflicting more casualties on our hapless U.S. occupation army:
U.S. Soldier Killed, 4 Wounded in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Iraq - An American soldier was killed and four companions wounded Saturday in an attack near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit north of the capital, a military statement said.
It was at least the seventh U.S. soldier killed in attacks in Iraq over the past two weeks.
Gunmen opened fire on the troops using small arms and a rocket-propelled grenade, said the brief statement released by U.S. Central Command.
There was also another mysterious "road accident" yesterday:
One U.S. soldier died and two were wounded Friday in a road accident about 20 miles north of Baghdad.
A military statement said they were providing security escort to Coalition Provisional Authority personnel at the time of the accident. The wounded soldiers were evacuated to a field hospital for treatment.
At a time when people are dying, I don't mean to sound flip. But am I the only one who's starting to feel like this is Groundhog Day remade as a war movie?
Do You Know How to Jihad?
However, something new did happen yesterday: A very prominent Iraqi Sunni cleric pronounced jihad upon the occupation forces. And I don't think he meant it in the spiritual-struggle-for-holiness sense of the word:
BAGHDAD (AFP) - A Sunni prayer leader urged Muslims to wage jihad, or holy war, to recover their usurped rights and called on US forces to speed up their withdrawal from Iraq.
"Muslims are entitled to raise the banner of jihad to restore usurped rights or repel an evil threatening them," Sheikh Muayyed al-Aazami said Friday in his weekly sermon at the Abu Hanifa mosque in Baghdad.
Meanwhile, the Organization for Iraqi Liberation continues its pledge drive., But OIL fundraisers are reporting only mixed results:
NATO OKs Plans to Help Poland in Iraq
MADRID, Spain - NATO allies approved plans Monday to give logistical and intelligence support to a Polish-led force that will help U.S. soldiers police central Iraq, diplomatic sources said.
The NATO support for the multinational force of 7,000 to be assembled by Poland would be the alliance's first involvement in postwar Iraq . . .
Nicholas Burns, the U.S. ambassador to NATO said . . . "The U.S. enthusiastically endorses this new NATO emphasis on confronting ... terrorism and weapons of mass destruction."
I bet. But some of our "democratic" allies in the "multinational" force still need to go through the formalities:
Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma asked parliament Monday to approve sending up to 1,700 troops, a Ukrainian official said.
I realize even superpower beggers can't always be choosers, but go check out Kuchma's human rights wrap sheet.
Still, NATO participation certainly sounds nice, in a diplomatic sort of way. But let's take a closer look at the actual numbers involved:
Poland will provide 2,200 officers and troops and 45 percent of the command staff. Bulgaria has pledged 500 troops, Ukraine up to 1,800; and Romania, 150. Denmark has offered 10 officers, and Norway six officers, a company of engineers and mine-removal experts.
To switch metaphors: If we were talking about a football league, not a war, you'd have to consider this a fairly typical first-year expansion team -- a collection of rookies, free agents and fading veterans, cobbled together just to get a squad out on the field. Which is fine, as long as there are plenty of first-stringers around to back them up.
But in the big Iraq away game, the first stringers already are starting to get a little pooped out:
Iraq Stabilization Impinges on Army Rotation, Rebuilding
The struggling campaign to stabilize postwar Iraq has frustrated U.S. Army plans to reduce troops there and begin replenishing a military force stretched exceedingly thin by war and peacekeeping commitments, a senior Pentagon official said yesterday.
While the stress on the Army can probably be sustained for a few more months, the official said, any delay beyond that could seriously disrupt troop rotation schedules for Afghanistan and South Korea and erode the Army's ability to maintain an adequate reserve for other contingencies.
Let's just hope those "other contigencies" (I'm looking in your direction Kim Jong Il) doesn't read the Post -- or surf the web.
Trouble is, the second-stringers also are feeling a little wobbly in the legs:
Military resists sending more troops to Iraq 'quagmire'
Defence chiefs are resisting calls for British troops to be sent to join American forces in Baghdad because they could be "sucked into a quagmire".
Although the Ministry of Defence's official position is that sending units to the Iraqi capital would risk "overstretch", senior officers are believed to have told Tony Blair such a deployment would inevitably mean British soldiers getting caught up in the rising tide of anti-American violence . . .
. . . Almost 15,000 British and 145,000 Americans remain in Iraq two months after the capture of Baghdad. At the beginning of May, Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, said about 6,500 of the British contingent would be withdrawn. Since then, because of the continuing violence, the promised withdrawal has been delayed.
Thus the need to step up the multi-national recruitment drive. Back to the Post:
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that discussions were underway with 41 countries to contribute forces for peacekeeping duty in Iraq. While he said only a few governments had offered firm commitments, he expressed hope that the number would rise and that allied reinforcements would begin flowing into Iraq by September.
"We're talking substantial numbers," said Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Substantial numbers. Really substantial. We can't tell you how substantial.
Now I'm sure the Poles and the Ukranians and the Rumanians and the Bulgarians are all good soldiers -- and not just a collection of Warsaw Pact retreads in armies that haven't seen combat since they were run over by either the Nazis or the Soviets (or both) in World War II. But expecting an Eastern European scratch team to police a big chunk of an incredibly unstable Middle Eastern country that is quickly boiling over into armed revolt . . . Well, isn't that being just a tad delusional?
Rumsfeld: (bats eyes) I have always depended on the kindness of strangers!
And if the British are worried about the political consquences of being "sucked into a quagmire," how are the voters in Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, etc. going to feel when their boys start coming home in bags -- just like these German boys in Afghanstan?
Might they not reflect on the fact that this is an American war, started by an American president, citing American, um, intelligence?
Or, as Tonto might have put it: "What do you mean "we," paleface?"
correct link
But am I the only one who's starting to feel like this is Groundhog Day remade as a war movie?
Apparently not!
Algeria under the French comes to mind. Courtsey of Kos.
Will this hurt Bushboy? Yes. But it won't take him down. We got a all-vol military as such, most folks don't have a stake in their well being or their dying. Only foreign policy wonks worry about this.
But the mass of Americans don't give a shit. Their concern stops after buying a chinese made american flag for their SUV.
What will do Bushboy in, is the economy. Everybody can his handiwork or lack of it. This is the repugs achilles heel.
'Are things better after four years of Bush or worse?'
Will this hurt Bushboy? Yes. But it won't take him down. We got a all-vol military as such, most folks don't have a stake in their well being or their dying.
Well this is an interesting point. True, the all-volunteer Army somewhat insulates the public (and Bush) from the casualty count.
But the professional military and its dependents (human as well as corporate) are a key part of the conservative coalition. And there are some signs -- including even a few comments left on this board -- that at least some military people are beginning to wonder what the hell we're doing in Iraq.
As you know, the military has never been very keen on the whole nation-building routine in the first place. And here they are bogged down in the Nation Building Project from Hell.
And we're only eight weeks into the occupation!
We all know how much stress Karl Rove (aka Turdblossom) puts on keeping the conservative base happy. So there may come a point where he starts seeing this as a serious political threat -- even if the "general" public is still fairly oblivious.
And again -- we're only eight weeks in. There's plenty of time between now and the election for Iraq to become a potent issue for the voting masses.
" -- just like these German boys in Afghanistan?"
And those 62 Spanish boys on that troop transport that crashed in Turkey on Memorial Day.
As an opponent of Iraq2.0, I feel vindicated, but bearing the weight of America’s new burden. I was right, but must live with conservative wrong. How many American lives will be lost in 2003? In 2004? 2005? How many billions of our dollars? All Bush has done is the easy part, some parts that smarter people probably wouldn’t have done, all parts probably done a lot better. Who else could, as overwhelming #1, pick on #38, damn near lose, and not have an ally that wasn’t purchased? Who, other than Bush, could lose while supposedly winning? He’s a short-sighted partisan who can’t see past the current pocket-packing businessman telling him something beyond his interest, or comprehension. Worse yet, he is led by a bunch of hegemonic mythologists that espouse a false destiny and actually encourages a very dangerous real world.
Regarding Iraq2.0; we’re seeing Shiite domination across the Mid-East, aided by American perturbations. Could I imagine an intelligent conservative discussion of the MidEast if every conjecture of Bush’s don’t pan out perfectly? It’s pretty hard. So far, every step by Bush has been a lie to gain a stupid step, easily accomplished by the world’s best military – God bless them!
There was also another mysterious "road accident" yesterday
A friend of mine is over there and happened be on the scene of this one. Here is his description:
I was coming back from a mission North of Baghdad when the convoy I was with came across what we first thought was an RPG attack against a HUMVEE, its front was wrecked, pieces were all over the place and the wheel was blown off. There were bodies on the street, american bodies...three. We had medics with us in our military escort so we stopped and helped, we also had phones and radios and started calling in medavacs and stuff... The rest of us, all had on our "battle rattle", Kevlar helmet, bulletproof vest, equipment and weapons and we all stood guard as Iraqis streamed by on the street to watch. We spent two hours there, medics came by and did first aid and the tension was very high...we gave soccer balls to some kids to keep them occupied :-) finally helicopters showed up and the wounded were taken away, we found out later that the driver had fallen asleep at the wheel...and the car had wrecked at high speed... we learned today that one of soldiers died of his injuries...
So it seems that the road accidents are for real, but as people have speculated here, the fact that the troops are stretched too thin and aren't getting any relief is indeed a major factor causing them.
So it seems that the road accidents are for real,
Um, OK -- but reflect on this:
the convoy I was with came across what we first thought was an RPG attack against a HUMVEE, its front was wrecked, pieces were all over the place and the wheel was blown off.
and this:
we found out later that the driver had fallen asleep at the wheel...and the car had wrecked at high speed.
Found out from whom -- witnesses? Or from Centcom's announcement?
I don't normally lean towards conspiracy theories, but . . .
Get ready for INRANWAR 1.0 ("This Time We Mean It") just in time to distract the public & shift attention from the inquiries into inexistent WMD. Yi-hoo!
Found out from whom -- witnesses? Or from Centcom's announcement?
I don't normally lean towards conspiracy theories, but . . .
Skepticism is certainly good. I know my friend and I'm familiar with how he writes, so I'm inclined to believe that if the story was "we were told officially that it was an accident," he either would have indicated that or wouldn't have mentioned it at all. (Also, he's a civilian, for what it's worth.) And I didn't see mention of "falling asleep at the wheel" in any of the news accounts. But no one else here knows him, so you can certainly use your own judgment.
I think it's pretty damning that we're exhausting our troops to the point that they're falling asleep at the wheel; if they were really trying to whitewash it, you'd think they'd blame it on bombed-out roads or something.
Redshift --
FWIW, your friend's story sounds plausible enough. And I had the same reaction you did -- these guys shouldn't be stretched so goddamn thin. Didn't I just read that the 3ID is still there, with no plans to head home?
Rodger --
The all-vol army is heavily supplemented by reserves. These are, mostly, middle-class folks with jobs and families; if your son's science teacher, or your dentist, or someone in your office comes home pissed off and disillusioned, that'll make an impact. One of the threads on DKos had a link to a photo of a military vehicle with a hand-written sign across the dash: "One weekend a month, my ass!"
One of the threads on DKos had a link to a photo of a military vehicle with a hand-written sign across the dash: "One weekend a month, my ass!"
Kinda sums it up.
Shhhh! Kim Jong Il surfs the Web!
Here is the link to the "one month a weekend my ass" photo:
http://utterlyboring.com/blog/archives/000704.php
peace
May I quote:
By Chicago standards, Baghdad, along with almost all the rest of Iraq, is a catastrophe. For that matter, conditions are disastrous even by the looser standards of places like Beirut, Bogotá, and Bombay. Reports from the scene are in general agreement on the essentials. Iraq is well rid of the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein. But the blithe assumptions of the Iraq war’s Pentagon architects—that a grateful Iraqi nation, with a little help from American know-how and Iraqi oil cash, would quickly pick itself up, dust itself off, and start all over again—are as shattered as the buildings that used to house Saddam’s favorite restaurants. In Baghdad, and in many other Iraqi cities and towns, civic society has degenerated into a Hobbesian state of nature. Despite the heroic efforts of a scattered minority of midlevel Iraqi civil servants, the services that make urban life viable are functioning, at best, erratically. More often, they do not function at all. “In the most palpable of ways, the American promise of a new Iraq is floundering on the inability of the American occupiers to provide basic services,” the Times’s Neela Banerjee reported a few days ago. (Perhaps with an eye to educating her White House readers, she added that Baghdad is “about the size of metropolitan Houston.”) Telephones are dead. Electricity and running water work, if at all, for only a few hours a day. Because the water pumps are hobbled by power outages, raw sewage is pouring into the Tigris River and is leaking into the fresh-water system, spreading disease and making the city stink. Hospitals that are secure enough to remain open overflow with patients, but they are short of food, medical supplies, and personnel. (Only a fifth of prewar health staffs are showing up for work.) Worst of all is the pervasive, well-founded fear of crime. Armed thugs rule the streets, especially in the pitch-black nights. “Amid such privations,” Banerjee writes, “one of the few things that thrives now in Baghdad, at least, is a deepening distrust and anger toward the United States.”