June was a better month
june is the first month when the surge went fully operational, and the numbers are way better
By Charles Bird Posted in War — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It was still a tough month, but June was the first month when U.S. forces were fully manned and operational, and it marked the beginning of Operation Phantom Thunder, which started June 16th. But first, the numbers. Civilian casualties in Baghdad are down.
Read on...
The killings are down in both categories. The "other killings" include the spectacular suicide bombings that are the trademark of al Qaeda and affiliates.
Civilian casualties elsewhere in Iraq are way down, and this would include the belt provinces surrounding Baghdad, where al Qaeda has been most active.
Suicide bombings are way down.
U.S. military casualties dropped 20% in June (126 in May to 101 in June), although the three-month average is intolerably high. However, this is to be expected under the current strategy, especially with soldiers moved out of forward operating bases and onto the streets.
A hat tip to Engram at Back Talk. David Kilcullen provides a perspective on the current operation, and he adds some words of caution:
It will be a long, hard summer, with much pain and loss to come, and things could still go either way. But the population-centric approach is the beginning of a process that aims to put the overall campaign onto a sustainable long-term footing. The politics of the matter then can be decisive, provided the Iraqis use the time we have bought for them to reach the essential accommodation. The Embassy and MNF-I continue to work on these issues at the highest levels but fundamentally, this is something that only Iraqis can resolve: our role is to provide an environment in which it becomes possible.
All this may change. These are long-term operations: the enemy will adapt and we'll have to adjust what we're doing over time. Baq’ubah, Arab Jabour and the western operations are progressing well, and additional security measures in place in Baghdad have successfully tamped down some of the spill-over of violence from other places. The relatively muted response (so far) to the second Samarra bombing is evidence of this. Time will tell, though....
Iran certainly isn't helping, and there's strong evidence that the Iranian government is responsible for a number of killings, and the U.S. command has noted that 80 to 90 al Qaeda wannabes cross over from Syria every month. Joshua Muravchik lays out a laundry list of undesirable Syrian-Iranian behavior, and it's not restricted to Iraq:
Consider the pell-mell events of recent weeks. Iran imprisons four Americans on absurd charges only weeks after seizing 15 British sailors on the high seas. Iran's Revolutionary Guard is caught delivering weapons to the Taliban and explosives to Iraqi terrorists. A car bomb in Lebanon is used to assassinate parliament member Walid Eido, killing nine others and wounding 11 more.
At the same time, Fatah al-Islam, a shady group linked to Syria, launches an attack on the Lebanese army from within a Palestinian refugee area, beheading several soldiers. Tehran trumpets further progress on nuclear enrichment as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeats his call for annihilating Israel, crowing that "the countdown to the destruction of this regime has begun." Hamas seizes control militarily in Gaza. Katyusha rockets are launched from Lebanon into northern Israel for the first time since the end of last summer's Israel-Hezbollah war.
On the political front, not much is expected on the national level and the oil reform legislation approved by the cabinet has slowed to a crawl in the legislature. Political reform on the local level has been more successful. Looking ahead, General Petraeus has two whole months and part of September to show a Democratic-led Congress that the current operation is worth supporting and funding. I hope the general can report sufficient progress to do so. Whether it'll happen, who knows, but I believe the question is still relevant: Will the RedState Editors lead the charge to victory? We should, because it sure looks like our elected GOP represenatives will not.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | More on the "V-shaped things" — Comments (16) »
June was a better month 42 Comments (0 topical, 42 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
But to make your argument there needs to be at least a full years worth of data preferably two. The military casualty average is interesting but you would certainly expect it to correlate with activity. That graph shouldn't show positive results till post surge.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
with Operation Domestic Turkey*.
Operation Domestic Turkey is the part of the campaign to prove to our real enemies that we are, in fact, making progress in Iraq. It's pretty simple and requires no military personnel, other than some Air Force transport pilots.
1. ODT takes place from August 1 thru October 30.
2. The US Congress is placed in recess in Washington DC on July 30 and reconvened in Baghdad on August 1. Members will be transported to Iraq by the AF.
3. The publishers and editors of the NYT and the WaPo will also be transported to Baghdad with the Congress so we can be assured of fair reporting.
4. CongressCritters and news folk will be provided housing in suburban Baghdad (outside the Green Zone) at no cost. They will provide their own transportation and security. No firearms will be allow, however, since they are working in "almost DC" and firearms are banned there.
5. No military personnel will be allowed contact with Members or news folk. We wouldn't want to color their findings or opinions.
6. CCs and NF will be required to be present each day for business at the Baghdad "DC".
7. Sixty days in-country will give the Congress and news folk a real understanding of the situation on the ground and whether the OPT is really working.
8. A press conference will be called on November 1 by the surviving members of the Congress to discuss their appropriations for the military for next year.
*Named Domestic Turkey because, while a wild turkey is a noble and very intelligent bird, the domestic variety (much like Members of Congress and news folk) is dumber than a small rock. They have been known to stand outside in rain storms, look up, open their beaks and drown. On second thought, I offer apologies to domestic turkeys.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
You're right. Turkeys should be insulted, they've got to be smarter.
Interesting stuff, but where's the important metrics.
Number of Iraqi police officers mission capable.
Number of Iraqi ARMY forces in the field.
Percentage of Iraqi ARMY forces turning up for duty.
Combat effectiveness ratings of the Iraqi ARMY.
The real important thing in my book is to get Iraq standing on it's own two feet, the rest are irrelevant numbers which only prove that given enough American soldiers and lives Iraq can be occupied. Real numbers which measure the actual readiness of the Iraqi government and ARMY are probably not going to be released by this administration because they show a real lack of progress on the part of Iraqis to standup for themselves.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
as are the ones I cited. DJ Elliot has an update on the Iraqi National Police, which is about a year behind the Iraqi Army in terms of progress. Battalions number around 750 per for the Iraqi Army.
The endgame is the critical piece of the puzzle.
I like the metrics you mention and would add the benchmarks the Iraqi government is supposed to meet.
I read today that the oil revenue sharing plan is a lot farther off than it seemed last week & there is little or no movement on some of the other issues we have asked them to resolve.
At the end of the day, victory is defined by Iraqi's standing up - I have no doubts about our ability to hold up our end of the bargain - my big question is whether or not the Iraqi's have the will, solidarity and ability to hold up their end.
sdh
You'll hear little on frank assessments of how the Iraqis are doing, doing so does not fit the pre-determined answer that President Bush's excellent adventure in Iraq demands.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
Perhaps if you dispensed with the 'tude and read some more you would find readily available "frank assessments". When you done, you can entertain us all with an editorial about how they are not "frank".
There is a weekly status report on all goals outlined in DoS Iraq policy, breifing for Congress etc. There are also MNF-Iraq/CENTCOM and numerous other Iraqi Govt. sources/ briefings.
The lack of MSM reporting on these events (unless it is bad news, of course) should not contribute to ignorant propaganda that assessments are not available or "frank". By virtue of that characterization it means someone is lying; something if true, I for one would like pointed out.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Ok so maybe you have a point. Do you have a link to where the public can read these documents which you assert are produced I would assume in copious detail and with great frequency?
As your case seems to be that the MSM only reports bad news, then an informed citizen should inform themselves. Point me to a public source link for the latest report and I will go read it.
Failing a free and open disclosure of facts from on the ground in Iraq to the American people, I will continue to assert that there is no "frank" or other assessment of progress in Iraq available to the American public.
I will check back for those links and set aside some time for some serious reading.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
While I do not have time to provide all the links, start here;
http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/iraqstatus/c20699.htm
Then here;
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/9010-Final-20070608.pdf
There is more, but for that you are on your own.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
At the end of the day, victory is defined by Iraqi's standing up
Why should our victory depend on what the Iraqis do?
Why should the definition of military victory depend on what the Iraqi civilian government does?
The problem is not anything that has been said here, but this points out that President Bush has defined victory improperly, and we need to change it. There's no reason on earth why we should care about the Iraqi oil bill.
And unless they were US citizens, there is no reason at all to care about how many civilians were killed in Baghdad. (Other than the general compassion we have for any civilian deaths.)
"And unless they were US citizens, there is no reason at all to care about how many civilians were killed in Baghdad."
I agree. At least someone had the guts to say it.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
-Ronald Reagan
...because they are an indicator of insurgent-terrorist activity and the ability of coalition-Iraqi forces to provide security in this environment. For years, the number one complaint among Iraqi civilians is the lack of security, from either Shiite-Sunni paramilitant groups, terrorists or common criminals. Without it, it's difficult to even get to political and economic reform.
For years, the number one complaint among Iraqi civilians is the lack of security... Without it, it's difficult to even get to political and economic reform.
So it sounds like a worthy topic for the Iraqi government to discuss, but what does it have to do with us? Sadly, civilians are being killed in civil conflicts in some other countries too. But we aren't intervening militarily.
It is not just the Iraqis' problem to solve, because we helped exacerbate the problem when we removed Saddam. While he was in power the Shiites didn't have any recourse against his brutality and could not fight back. Now they can and sadly they are exacting revenge instead of fighting their common enemy. If we can get both sides to focus on fighting AQ, then this situation will improve. We have to do this. Destroying AQ in Iraq will help us overall. In fighting a world view, body count is all that matters. The fewer living subscribers to that world view, the sooner that world view will go out of circulation...so to speak.
I agree that we should make sure Al Qaeda in Iraq is destroyed, but that doesn't mean we need to be the police force in Iraq or take sides in their civil war.
We helped exacerbate the problem when we removed Saddam.
Yeah, that was four years ago. We've protected Iraq from foreign invaders and given them a democracy. We shed our own blood to stop them from killing each other.
Our responsibility to them ended a long time ago. The only problem with Iraq is the Iraqis. They could have a peace treaty in 10 minutes if they wanted. Then, with the Iraqis uniting against them, every foreign AQ terrorist would be dead or out of Iraq in a couple of months.
We have set a bad precedent here, one of weakness. The attitude seems to be that if we invade a country, then we need to stay a decade, even in the face of terrorism from all groups in the country, then leave the place better than when we came.
That puts us in a situation where invasion costs so much blood, time, and money that we can't afford to do it. So our enemies have tricked us into making us refuse to use our power. We'd be better off liberating the country in a month, then leaving only ruins and Special Forces behind. If an unfriendly group takes over a year later, then we use another one month invasion to turn the country into rubble.
We broke it, we allowed an insurgency to grow, and we let al Qaeda gain an important foothold. We should fix it because it would be irresponsible for us to pass off such a dysfunctional situation to such a fledgling government.
Really, they are relevant? In what context?
For example, does this account for the level of criminal activity and deaths that occurred in Saddam's era (I will even take number absent known instances of genocide). In that respect, I am certainly not familiar with any reliable data.
Futhermore, what represents a "good" number and can we rely on this data to be a credible accounting of deaths purely related to the current war which would not occur otherwise?
I don't mean to be crass and agree with your diary premise and conclusions. But as a point of fact, I often have trouble reconciling the numbers. Accordingly, I am therefore curious as to whether a fair degree of deaths would occur organically, irrespective of current conflict. In other words, what is the normal acceptable soceital mean?
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
"Why should the definition of military victory depend on what the Iraqi civilian government does?"
A joke right...military victory against an ideology, against forces who are fighting a civil war?
Repeat after me...this is not a military campaign against an organized nation state, well maybe Iraq but that's through proxies, Aq is an ideology and a insurgent foe. There is no capital to capture, no infrastructure to destroy, this is not a war where a military victory is the end objective. At best this is a fight to stand the Iraqis on their own two feet so they can govern their own country. It's a battle where we have at best a very weak sick Iraqi government that is probably unable to do what we need them to do.
You must be joking, or something.
_______________________________
Fred...Fred...Fred..!
It's just that so far nobody on the political front wants to identify who those nation states are. Until we do, and begin to confront them consistently and forcefully, we will continue to lose the fight against the real enemy, because we will continue fighting ghosts. Make no mistake, Iraq is a real front in a real war, but by continuing to insist on bombing only half a bridge, we continue to undermine our ability to win.
clear about what, if anything, these things measure?
What is mission capable? Are you comparing them to LAPD or NYPD or are you comparing them to Jordan and Egypt? Or to what they were under Saddam? I say this because you really don't know and whatever yardstick Petraeus takes that is short of the first standard will be unacceptable to you.
The number of Iraqi troops in the field is posted on the Dod website every week. The truth is out there.
Combat effectiveness ratings is a small part of the picture. The real issue with the Army is their ability to privide logistics, medical, and intelligence support for themselves. Again I'd ask what is the "standard" you're looking for because right now a poor Iraqi unit is better than the best the insurgents can field and probably as good as the average unit their neighbors can field. Again this is rhetorical because the lack of thought you've put into this shows you are really just interested in a stick to beat someone with.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
... for the U.S., but one that is difficult to imagine becoming better if we pull out. In fact, it is reasonable to conclude that the long term threat to this country will dramatically increase if we just leave.
I'd like to see Bush and his people to begin again strongly defining what is at stake... to publicize weekly the progress by General Petraeus... and generally go on the offensive PR-wise to match the effort that is being undertaken on the ground in Iraq.
... yes, a mucky situation, but I think our only good choice is to ruthlessly go at it and defeat this enemy and bring some level of lasting security there.
Jack
The World's Ruined
Last July there were numerous stories about civilian casualties in Iraq exceeding 100/day. (google "100 a day Iraq")
Current casualty figures seem to be considerably less than that for Iraq (not Baghdad). But I rarely see the comparison from last July. I would think this would be a very favorable metric for the overall US/Free Iraqi effort there.
This is very encouraging. It is obvious that we have turned an important corner in this fight. The details are less important than the new optimism which I believe we can all feel. We need to have July 4th everyday until this campaign is successfully concluded.
if we can't turn corners in Washington. And that ain't happening any time soon.
If you want to be optimistic, wait for GWB to take on Lugar and Pete. I'm not waiting for him to take on Murtha and Reid.
I have a hard time understanding how you can express any kind of optimism when we have a media and the Majority Party in the Congress fully committed to surrendering to the terrorists and defunding our troops and cutting the legs out from under the Iraqi government.
Think Vietnam reprise. They've been saying "Iraq = Vietnam", it just took them five years to make it happen.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
It's the support from MSM and people who claim to love America,
it's the many posts on Redstate that support surrendering to the terrorists.
Claiming that the Iraqis are not putting the effort in to defending their country; knowing that the Iraqis are not let capable of defending themselves, and that they have been told from day one that America will abandon them. I'm totally amazed that any Iraq would step forward to defend their country, knowing that they are dead the day America abandons them. Just like the millions of Vietnamese the Communists were able to kill because the American left forced America to break their promise to defend them.
I also am not waiting on GWB to lead us further. But it is my experience that just when things seem darkest that they turn around.
On another thread I expressed a wish that John McCain would stop his presidential campaign and devote himself to the task of Victory in Iraq. I believe that this type of selflessness will be necessary and I believe it is coming.
Whether McCain will answer the challenge or someone else, it will come.
And for now, Petraeus is a Godsend.
I'm still working on getting another website together to serve as a point of organization for those of us attempting to revive support for the war.
It sure would be great if the RS Editors decided to participate in the coordination, even if they didn't want to try to run it on a daily basis.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
to take you up on your offer.
My email is joshlevy@yahoo.com.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
As I see it, Iraq has outdistanced the economy as the number one issue, and there is no way the GOP can take this albatross off the political table. Why? Because if the Bush administration fails in Iraq (or is perceived to have failed), the party has lost one of its most important presumptions: that Republicans are better able and more competent and have better ideas at defending this nation than Democrats. Once that presumption is lost, so have our chances for the presidency and for majorities in Congress in 2008. Who knows how long we would be in the minority after that. The only reason we're not doing worse is because of the political incompetence of Pelosi and general idiocy of Harry Reid.
The best answer to me, therefore, is for the Bush administration to commit all available resources to turning Iraq around. Folks like Lugar and Domenici and other lukewarm Republicans aren't helping, but you can't fully blame them. Bush is a failing president and he's lost a huge amount of political capital because of his personnel decisions, his poor ability to communicate, his judgment, his inability to move legislation and his not governing as a conservative. Nevertheless, the success of our party hinges on how Iraq unfolds.
"The best answer to me, therefore, is for the Bush administration to commit all available resources to turning Iraq around."
The worst result to giving up on the war (and thereby LOSING, BEING DEFEATED, SURRENDERING) will be the damage to the nation's security over the next couple decades.
Does anyone really want to relive the 70's, but this time with AQ as the enemy instead of the Soviets?
I will contact you soon about this. If you have suggestions for the plan of action I am putting together, email me at joshlevy@yahoo.com.
Thank you again.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
"Analysis shows that both civilian casualties in Baghdad and suicide bombings in Iraq have risen over the past eight months. Despite President Bush's promised "surge" being in full force in June, both the key figures above have risen vs October 2006 before the surge began. Democratic Presidential candidate (fill in any name) said, 'What more proof do you need that this surge is a total failure, just as the entire ill-advised and mismanaged war has been?'"
at least those made publicly available, are useless and dangerous
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/06/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
A). How do you win a battle when the local government stops the military from doing their jobs? Awhile back the Army started putting up a barrier inside the city. It was a good military tactic, separate your enemy and defeat. Did it work, hell no it didn't because the Iraqi President stopped them! Can the Army pursue terrorist and militants into mosque's, hell no. Our soldiers are accused and convicted of war crimes because he said/she said months afterward.
B). As I precieved the plan in it's inception, we were to unseat Saddam Hussien, put in a new democratic governtment, build a new Iraqi army and security forces, leave. As far as I can see everything has been done except us leaving?????
C). A lot of people are in agreement with me, we've done our job in Iraq and now it's time for Irag to stand on it's own or fall. The problem I have with being against the current action in Iraq is that I'm afraid of the American people turning their wrath on our troops. People tell me that will never happen and I say it's already happening and it disgusts me because those troops didn't loose anything no more then the troops lost in Vietnam. In 1971 I was stationed at Camp Pendleton in California. I was on liberty in Oceanside when I see an old lady crossing a street with a grocery cart. The curb at that point was unusually high, about 12 inches. This little old lady was so frail that she could barely walk let alone lift that heavy cart over that curb so I stopped to help her. After I got the cart up on the sidewalk I expected to at least get a thank you, instead the woman spit in my face and called me a baby killer! I would rather fight until the end of time in a country that we have no further business in then to see that type of hatred be laid on another troop. These people deserve every respect that we can give them! If you disagree with the current action in Iraq as I do then do as I do and lay the blame where it need's to be, with the President of the United States and the President of Iraq, not the troops!
God Bless the United States and our armed forces!
If we're going to leave our boys there with one hand tied behind their backs, afraid to act for fear of breaking a window in a mosque that some Muslim hasn't seen fit to blow up yet or injuring some "civilian" who might be the next suicide bomber, then we might as well get the hell out.
The barriers are working. Al Maliki and others made some noise about, but the coalition used a little quiet persuasion and they are still being put up. As for going into mosques, yes it's frustrating that U.S. forces can't go in. But Iraqi forces can, and a measure of their competence is how well they are doing in that regard.
Yes, we have helped establish a democratic government, but not a sustainable one. Same with Iraqi army and police. Very few battalions are at Level 1 status. On both counts, that's why we need to stay. Also, like with Lugar and virtually all of the Democrats, you completely ignored the influence of al Qaeda, which the U.S. commander recently called public enemy #1 in Iraq.
I dont like seeing further involvement over there but I see the need for it as long as it's not turned into a never ending Vietnam. The military, not Bush, he's lost to much credibility, needs to let the American people know exactly what's going on and what still needs to be done and I dont mean just Congress or the Senate, they have a military channel, advertise and let people know that current goals in Iraq will be discussed at a given time. Ofcourse they could just act like all civilians are beneath understanding and not even try to let people know, I've met a lot of officers like that. At the same time those quiet channels need to persuade the Iraqi government to take the shackles off our military commanders and let us pursue these terrorists into mosque's or wherever they need to go. And, the President really needs to pardon those kids that have been convicted of war crimes, I seriously doubt there is enough convincing evidence that would even stand a chance of holding up in a civilian court but military prosecuters get away with murder in a military court martial, the look for a scapegoat and the slate is cleared.
I'm glad to see those metrics improving. But sincerely, does anyone feel at all...duped...by a strategy that has us celebrating that we're back where we started, five months later? Somebody convince me this isn't pathetic.