2007 Iraqi civilian deaths, the "surge", the motives, the meaning of it all...
kenny olav
Posts: 3,319
Not a lot of talk about the war in Iraq lately. Not in the media, not in public daily discussion, not even so much on the internet.
Maybe it's that people have already made up their minds one way or the other. Maybe it's just that we know Bush isn't going to change his mind about it, and there really seems to be no way to stop him since Pelosi and Reid aren't trying to. But I suspect this issue will become big again once the Democratic and Republican parties select their nominees, and therefore we have two candidates that will have at least some notable differences on this issue. The Republican will want to stay the course (unless, something unreal happens and it's Ron Paul) and the Democrat will want to start withdrawing troops to some degree. So the nation will have to start asking itself, is the occupation of Iraq really accomplishing anything? Is the violence worth it? Is the sacrifice of live being done for the right reasons? Who is benefiting? What will happen if we leave? What will happen if we stay, and for how long will we stay? And to answer these questions... we need the fullest, most detailed picture of what is going on there. We need documentaries by people with any possible varying agenda they might have. With need documentarians with no agenda as well. We need all of this information public. Very public. We need to talk about it.
So here's a few things I've found in my research:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2007/
Here you can see the numbers of Iraqi civilians killed as a result of violence intended to maintain public security. The surge, officially known as Operation Law and Order, started in February and lasted until November. More U.S. troops died in 2007 than in any other year of the war. It was the 2nd deadliest year for Iraqi civilians, just behind 2006, and not much better. Although it has been much better in the last few months, this has always been the trend for winter months. And while it is definitely true that Baghdad is more secure, the violence is now moving outside of Baghdad... look at this (from the site above):
# Per-capita,3 the five most violent governorates in Iraq during 2007 were:
1. Diyala, at 255 violent civilian deaths per 100,000 inhabitants (up 29% from 197/100k in 2006)
2. Baghdad, at 164/100k (down 39% from 267/100k)
3. Anbar, at 122/100k (up 61% from 76/100k) 4
4. Salah al-Din, at 120/100k (up 26% from 95/100k)
5. Ninewa, at 100/100k (up 143% from 41/100k)
So what we have in Iraq is a fairly secure Baghdad and a very secure Basra. Basra is where the oil is. Baghdad is where the government is. What more do they need, right? So by that standard, yes, the surge has worked. The question should be: who is it working for?
And that's my little editorial. I'd like to invite people discuss that, or anything else related to the situation in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007
Maybe it's that people have already made up their minds one way or the other. Maybe it's just that we know Bush isn't going to change his mind about it, and there really seems to be no way to stop him since Pelosi and Reid aren't trying to. But I suspect this issue will become big again once the Democratic and Republican parties select their nominees, and therefore we have two candidates that will have at least some notable differences on this issue. The Republican will want to stay the course (unless, something unreal happens and it's Ron Paul) and the Democrat will want to start withdrawing troops to some degree. So the nation will have to start asking itself, is the occupation of Iraq really accomplishing anything? Is the violence worth it? Is the sacrifice of live being done for the right reasons? Who is benefiting? What will happen if we leave? What will happen if we stay, and for how long will we stay? And to answer these questions... we need the fullest, most detailed picture of what is going on there. We need documentaries by people with any possible varying agenda they might have. With need documentarians with no agenda as well. We need all of this information public. Very public. We need to talk about it.
So here's a few things I've found in my research:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2007/
Here you can see the numbers of Iraqi civilians killed as a result of violence intended to maintain public security. The surge, officially known as Operation Law and Order, started in February and lasted until November. More U.S. troops died in 2007 than in any other year of the war. It was the 2nd deadliest year for Iraqi civilians, just behind 2006, and not much better. Although it has been much better in the last few months, this has always been the trend for winter months. And while it is definitely true that Baghdad is more secure, the violence is now moving outside of Baghdad... look at this (from the site above):
# Per-capita,3 the five most violent governorates in Iraq during 2007 were:
1. Diyala, at 255 violent civilian deaths per 100,000 inhabitants (up 29% from 197/100k in 2006)
2. Baghdad, at 164/100k (down 39% from 267/100k)
3. Anbar, at 122/100k (up 61% from 76/100k) 4
4. Salah al-Din, at 120/100k (up 26% from 95/100k)
5. Ninewa, at 100/100k (up 143% from 41/100k)
So what we have in Iraq is a fairly secure Baghdad and a very secure Basra. Basra is where the oil is. Baghdad is where the government is. What more do they need, right? So by that standard, yes, the surge has worked. The question should be: who is it working for?
And that's my little editorial. I'd like to invite people discuss that, or anything else related to the situation in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
That is quite true. people don't want to talk about it anymore. You know people lose interest in things quickly in this country. The time for questions and details has gone. It may sound sad or strange, but I think it's true.
Even in these debates on TV, the candidates don't even seem to be talking that much about it iraq, not as much as they should when the country they want to lead is in that war.
I think the politicians against the war don't want to bring attention to it because there isn't a lot of bad news (relatively) coming out to help their cause right now, and those for it don't want to come out and say its working because the situation can change quickly and they dont want another "mission Accomplished" debacle.
If the media was all over talking about Iraq now that violence is down people would be saying they are just supporting the gov't. they cant win either way. But then they should be on it all day every day until its over.
But yeah, people are pretty much jaded about it at this point. from my own perspective, honestly, in the years this war has been going on my life and my friends and relative's lives hasn't been affected at all really so its hard to care at all on an emotional level. Its hard to stay focused on things that dont affect us. thats just human nature. Its not that people have "short attention spans".
Personally, i was against the war but im pretty happy with the improvements. It seems to me that it has little to do with this "surge" and more to do with intelligent military leaders in command (instead of political shitheads) and more importantly Iraqiis are tired of the killing and prefer US occupation to a second Taliban regime. We are the lesser evil i guess heheh.
Leaving should be first on the list. We cant use a war to settle a 1000 year old religious war/civil war, nor can we afford to continue spending $10B a month and 300,000 barrels of oil a month just to be there.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com
even if progress is being made in that 1000 year war you speak of? you make it sound as if peace is 100% impossible among sunnis/shiits. personally I dont really kow for sure, I've never been there, but I'd like to think people would rather peace then war (with each other)
but you are right about the financial cost. even the wealthiest country in the world has its limits.
And that is honestly my biggest probelm with this whole thing...especially when you add in the fact that this country allows 25% of our veterans who serve in wars like this to become destitute and homeless, there is NO excuse to continue spending this money. One month of the cost of this war could give food, shelter and clothing to every homeless vet in this country, its f*&ing sad that we are only creating more future homeless vets that we wont get proper medical attention and care for.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com
its horrible
Dude, this is #45 for me...Im comin' up on you.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com
That says it all, really. We need to keep this issue at the forefront of everyone's minds. We need to remind people every day that people are dying over there for business interests, and nothing else.
Organized public pressure is what ends wars. I'd love for that to be in the form of an election of a radical new candidate, but I still don't think that's going to happen this year. So we have to use other forms (whatever they may be).
BTW, when I say "we" I mean those of us who think the war is fundamentally wrong (not a "mistake" or "quagmire").