Army is planning to maintain current U.S. troop levels in Iraq until 2010

[edward]

I hope they have a plan to get our troops out of there if necessary. They are asking too much from too few for too long.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220816/

 

[BobG]

Soldiers from the post here in town are leaving this week - it will be the third tour for some of these folks.

Better news the next week when some others from the post get back. Except that you usually seem to have two or three that wind up facing a trial for their conduct over there.

I wonder what kind of reception the report from Baker's Iraq Study Group will get from Bush. Both options, talking to Syria and Iran about a regional solution to Iraq or 'Deploy and Contain', sound pretty far away from Bush's 'Stay the Course'.

 

[Astronuc]

Why would the army even consider putting a date on their plans - why not say the US will occupy Iraq indefinitely. Does anyone think that on Dec 31, 2010, the violence will magically stop and Iraq will be a peaceful democratic society? Regardless of the merits, the US will be held responsible for the deaths of 10's or 100's of thousands of Iraqis, and not only the Iraqis, but many people outside the US will hold the US responsible. In the long run, the security of the US has been compromised simply by the act of one man and his ambition to go to war.

 

[Office_Shredder]

astronuc: I do!

 

[Astronuc]

I very much want and hope that Iraq becomes a peaceful democracy. However, it is difficult to see that as an outcome given the current situation. I would like to see democracy happen without the carnage.

 

[Astronuc]

I do not know what to say. The other day the N.Y. times reported that the death toll in Iraq as an overall consequence of the war was 600,000.

That story has been mentioned in other threads - e.g. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=50169&page=3 , post#39.

The number of 655,000 is based on a statistical sampling method, and its accuracy is not known. Other estimates are about an order of magnitude lower, ~60,000 or less, which is still a lot IMO. Certainly the Bush administration rejects such a high number. I wonder if we will ever know.

Huge gaps in Iraq death estimates - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6045112.stm
Analysis
By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

Those who had faith in an earlier report from 2004 - also published in the medical journal The Lancet - are now able to say that this larger survey proves their point that Iraqi deaths have been far greater than publicly reported, and have now reached what the report calls "a humanitarian emergency".

Those who thought that the 2004 survey was exaggerated - it estimated 98,000 additional deaths up until September 2004 - think this one is even more wide of the mark. . . .

However -

On the other hand, Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, which tracks statistics in its Iraq Index, said: "I do not believe the new numbers. I think they're way off."

The Brooking Index, relying on the UN (which gets figures from the Iraqi health ministry) and the Iraq Body Count (IBC), estimates the civilian death toll at about 62,000.

The IBC, which counts the number of reported civilian deaths, puts them between 43,850 and 48,693, though it adds that "our maximum refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."

The IBC reaction to the Lancet report is awaited.

US President George W Bush rejected the estimate.

. . . .

 

[edward]

There are a number of reasons why the count from the Iraqi Health ministry may be in question.

The bi-monthly UN report on Iraq is almost the only neutral and objective survey of conditions in the country. The real number of civilians killed in Iraq is probably much higher because, outside Baghdad, deaths are not recorded. The Health Ministry claims, for instance, that in July nobody died violently in al-Anbar province in western Iraq, traditionally the most violent region, but this probably means the violence was so intense that casualty figures could not be collected from the hospitals.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0922-02.htm

And earlier on in the war:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — Iraq's Health Ministry has ordered a halt to a count of civilians killed during the war and told its statistics department not to release figures compiled so far, the official who oversaw the count told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
The health minister, Dr. Khodeir Abbas, denied in an email that he had anything to do with the order, saying he didn't even know about the study.

Dr. Nagham Mohsen, the head of the ministry's statistics department, said the order was relayed to her by the ministry's director of planning, Dr. Nazar Shabandar, who said it came on behalf of Abbas. She said the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which oversees the ministry, also wanted the counting to stop.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-iraq-civilians_x.htm

It appears that we are using the WAG (wild Arse guess) system used in Vietnam to inflate the body count, to come up with the current numbers.

In the meantime with heavily fortified permanent military bases still being built in Iraq, it is obvious that the Bush administration is aiming at using those bases as turf for keeping a military ground force in Iraq indefinitely.

I would imagine that one way or the other, a permanent and significant military presence in the Middle East was the goal all along.

 

[devil-fire]

I would imagine that one way or the other, a permanent and significant military presence in the Middle East was the goal all along.

this would explain the way things have paned out much better then a mission of stopping a WMD program or toppling an evil dictator.

 

[edward]

this would explain the way things have paned out much better then a mission of stopping a WMD program or toppling an evil dictator.

? What WMD program would that be? How things panned out would have been the same regardless.

 

[devil-fire]

? What WMD program would that be? How things panned out would have been the same regardless.

if the main objective of going in iraq was to stop a WMD program, there would not be close to as much resistance in leaving after the program was concluded to be non-existent. if the idea was just to have a large force in the middle east, it would explain why the objective in iraq has changed from MWDs, to capturing saddam to fighting terrorism to a humanitarian cause of stabilizing the region with such ease.

im not saying the us army should 'cut and run', I am just saying that if WMDs were the goal, there would have been some plan to withdraw after completing that goal...or at least some change in action after that objective resolved

 

[Astronuc]

a humanitarian cause of stabilizing the region

If that isn't the worst euphemism I've ever seen. Humantiarian cause . . . at the point of a gun.

I have no doubt that Bush et al see their actions that way. Perhaps in some bizarre way that was the intent, and for the most part, the troops who are not engaged in combat do seem to helping the Iraqi people. However, the net effect of the invasion/occupation in Iraq, has been to distablize the area and turn it into a major war zone with a great loss of life (collateral damage to Rumsfeld).

One cannot effectively promote democracy at the point of a gun.

 

[Futobingoro]

Democracy at the point of a gun.

 

[edward]

Democracy at the point of a gun.

Oranges and Apples, Iraq didn't attack the USA.

edit: Come to think of it, too bad the results in Iraq didn't turn out the way they did in Japan. We weren't trying to give Japan anything except a crushing defeat.

 

[russ_watters]

Oranges and Apples, Iraq didn't attack the USA.

Nevertheless, we did impose democracy at the point of a gun. We've also done similar things (if not democracy, imposing freedom or food or peace itself) in a number of other places - not to mention being lambasted for not doing it in others. Heck, this is America - have people forgotten how our country got started?

The point being - it may sound like an oxymoron, but it is often both a valid and viable solution to problems. Whatever the circumstances, it is a fact that the US has successfully promoted democracy at the point of a gun in several circumstances.

I really hate argument-by-one-liner. Life isn't that simple and pointing out things that are oxymorons at face value is never as clever as it first seems.

edit: Come to think of it, too bad the results in Iraq didn't turn out the way they did in Japan. We weren't trying to give Japan anything except a crushing defeat.

We most certanly did have specific demands and place specific constraints on how their country was reconstituted.

 

[Astronuc]

Heck, this is America - have people forgotten how our country got started?

Umm . . . genocide and ethnic cleansing of the native population. BTW, they were not invited to be part of the American democracy, nor were African Slaves and their decendants, nor were women, nor were poor whites. Basic rights and participation in the political process came as a result of struggle against the establishment (often considered the conservative establishment), e.g. abolition movement, women's suffrage, the civil rights struggle in the 1950's and 1960's.

The point being - it may sound like an oxymoron, but it is often both a valid and viable solution to problems. Whatever the circumstances, it is a fact that the US has successfully promoted democracy at the point of a gun in several circumstances.

And many more failures. Also, it would appear that the US has supported many more dictatorships than democracies, e.g. Iran (Shah), Cuba (Batista, then Castro), Philippines (Marcos), Vietnam, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Chile (Pinochet), Argentina . . . .

The armed forces took power through a junta in charge of the self-appointed National Reorganization Process until 1983. The military government repressed opposition and terrorist leftist groups using harsh illegal measures (the "Dirty War"); thousands of dissidents "disappeared", while the SIDE cooperated with DINA and other South American intelligence agencies, and with the CIA in Operation Condor. Many of the military leaders that took part in the Dirty War were trained in the U.S.-financed School of the Americas, among them Argentine dictators Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010306/
http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/condor.html

Operation Condor was founded in secret and remained a mystery until after democracy had returned to South America.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3720724.stm

 

[Office_Shredder]

The reason it worked so much better in japan is because... wait for it...

Japan actually surrendered. Iraq clearly hasn't, either formally or in spirit.

 

[edward]

The reason it worked so much better in japan is because... wait for it...

Japan actually surrendered. Iraq clearly hasn't, either formally or in spirit.

That was kinda my point before someone went of on a tangent about one liners.

We totally crushed Japan and that is what we will have to do to bring Democracy to Iraq. Let's face it ,at this point we don't care what kind of govenment Iraq has as long as we can maintain a military presence there.

 

[Astronuc]

As for democracy in Iraq, I seem to remember that the US government had to approve of candidates. Now if the US government is deciding who can and cannot run for political office, that doesn't seem like democracy, which is something more than having the opportunity to vote.

An indefinitely military presence and more or less control of government seems to preclude democracy and instead seems to indicate an Imperial occupation.

 

[edward]

Marine combat reserves are preparing for a second deployment to Iraq. This supposedly will happen in 2008. Just when we realized that things were really bad, they got really worse.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/18/iraq/main2104338.shtml

several recent videos are in this link