US News
Violence in Iraq rises dramatically: Pentagon report
Dec 19, 2006, 0:27 GMT
Washington - Attacks in Iraq have risen sharply during the last three months, with most of the attacks coming against US troops, the Pentagon said in a report issued Monday.
The US military's quarterly report to Congress said violence was up 22 per cent and 68 per cent of the attacks were directed at US forces, but Iraqis suffered the 'overwhelming majority' of casualties.
Nearly 3,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion and the US military has been unable to defeat the insurgency or stop sectarian violence that has brought the country to the verge of all-out civil war.
The deteriorating situation in Iraq contributed to the defeat of US President George Bush's Republican Party in congressional elections November 7 and resulted in the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as defence secretary. Bush has faced mounting calls to withdraw the 140,000 US soldiers in Iraq, something he has flatly rejected.
Rumsfeld's replacement, Robert Gates, was sworn into office on Monday and declared that the Iraq crisis was 'at the top of the list.'
'Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come,' Gates, 63, said in a ceremony at the Pentagon.
US President George W Bush dismissed Rumsfeld, 74, one day after his party was soundly defeated in the congressional elections and began exploring a new policy for Iraq.
Bush intends to outline his new strategy in early January, when his administration completes its review of the current policy and plots a fresh approach.
Gates served on a congressionally appointed bipartisan commission assessing the situation in Iraq until Bush tapped him to replace Rumsfeld.
The panel, co-led by former secretary of state James Baker III, urged Bush to broaden his administration's diplomacy in the Middle East and begin pulling troops out of Iraq in early 2008 if the security environment improves. It also calls for direct dialogue with Iran and Syria to enlist their help in quelling the violence - an option Bush has already rejected.
Gates, the director of the CIA from 1991 to 1993, spoke bluntly about the war in Iraq during his Senate confirmation hearing on December 5, warning that sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis could spill into the rest of the Middle East and that he did not believe the United States was winning.
The congressionally required Pentagon report said 45,000 Iraqi security forces were trained during the last three months, bring the total to more than 322,000, but warned that little progress was being made on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's effort to reconcile the grudge between Sunnis and Shiites.
© 2006 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
'Failure in Iraq at this juncture would be a calamity that would haunt our nation, impair our credibility and endanger Americans for decades to come'
True. The failure has already occurred - back in 2003. What these Republicans are trying to avoid is recognition of failure.
The majority of people in the US seem to be in agreement that we have created a quagmire with no reasonable plan, let alone a viable exit strategy. The question has become, 'How do we end the debacle with the least catastrophe?' I don't have the answers, but think that's what we should be talking about.
The result of not having respect to other nations and acting unilateral.
I hope those poor soldiers return home and safe and Iraqi live in peace in a free country with the ruling of USA or UK.
Before the war, Rumsfield told the Generals in meetings that he would fire the next one that brought up again planning for Iraq's security after the war. There is no room in this administration for doing the grown-up tasks that require breaks from idealism. Look at the president's resume - a series of failures in the real world. As president, the most powerful position in the world, the amount of resources for him to squander to avoid distasteful tasks, like dealing with Iran or Syria and disappoint his political base - is vast. He can and will use men and money continue to avoid responsibility. He is not like most people with regard to when we find our bottom - as alcoholics say - when we become willing to change at any costs. Do you remember this man mimicing a mother pleading for him to spare her son's life on Texas Death Row. He has his whole life accepted the vast buffer of his privileged life from the hell on earth that one's actions can cause to themselves and loved ones. If you want to try to understand him, go to a third world country. You will feel as distinguished from the drudgery there as your president feels from the problems that he sees his fellow Americans have to deal with. He has lived his whole life above it.
The only thing he understands is to stay on the right side of power- he will do as his most powerful backers dictate.
As an American who worked with Arabs from different countries, I feel that a common man who has associated 'with' these people I have a better insight into their inner personalities. It is my perception from talking with these people that they will continue fighting each other. However because the American troops occupy Arab lands, they will come together as one and fight outside intruders. There is little doubt in 'my' mind that our continued presence in Iraq is exascerbating the conflict. We need to start 'now' removing our troops, and at the same time put out the message if the attacks don't lessen, we will put them back. However if things settle down, we will continue to remove our troops. There needs to be a quiet dialog with insurgents to this effect. If they know we are decreasing our troops predicated on the violence subsiding, it is my belief that things will settle down somewhat, but not entirely because of the differences in the different religious factions. As it was before we went there! It will 'save' lives!
We need a 21st Century Patton, Where is General Honore from Katrina? He we be willing to defeat the enemy and then set the terms for our getting out! The government of Iraq is obviously not in control- we should have taken down Sadr 2 years ago!
We are stuck on stupid if we think we can win like this!
It is almost impossible to win a war on strange turf in the best of times. Trying to commit 'Victory' without the support of the people is a worthless endeavor. Trying to change the minds of stubborn people in power is an useless actvity. It looks like we will stay in the game no matter what cards are dealt and no matter the number of chips on the table. This 'Texas Hold 'Em' game will continue to the detriment of this country and the world, in general. Sad state of affairs.
I agree with the above comment. Bush is willing to make others pay for him, so as to liberate himself from the injustice of American public servant accountability. It's okay with him that others pay the ultimate price in his oil conquest, and as far as that goes, he'd rather kill everyone in the US than face Nuremberg himself.
And I'll add that every time the US Government runs up a deficit, it's just another matter of the rich robbing the poor. The rich do not pay taxes, the poor do. The many poor don't receive the government favors, the few rich do. So as long as you are one of the many to pay the taxes, you bear the ever-increasing burden of corruption of the government to distance the rich (taxexempt) from the poor (taxliable), via bribes by the rich (taxbeneficiaries) to introduce legislation that benefits the rich constituents of the bribees at the long-term expense of the poor (taxsufferers), costs that the rich (taxperpetrators) don't suffer from because they aren't paying the same price of survival as the poor (taxvictims) through the mechanisms provided by the US Government (scum).
You guys need to get over your dislike for the President and desire for his demise and focus on what is best for the long term security of the country and the world. A US military defeated again due to a lack of political will, is not a good thing for the country or the world. We again will be hamstrung and unable to prevent the expansion of radical Islam. Like I said, we a military leader the People can rally too. American love a Winner and will not tolerate a looser. We need some old school in your face leadership.
'won't talk to Syria or Iran'? Aren't those Israel's worst enemies? (which somehow means that they must be *our* worst enemies) The tail wags the dog when all of the U.S. foreign policy coincides with the interests of Israel. And how does all this get sold to intellectually soft and unaware Americans? The answer is no further than looking at who runs the U.S. media (mainstream as well as the progressive/protest media outlets--even they won't ask any tough questions about the yearly billions of $$ military aid to Israel or how many Arabs became displaced as a result of the creation of that state on Arab land)
Thank God for President Bush, who is willing to do the right thing no matter how much his reputation suffers! If JFK were living, he'd add a chapter to Profiles in Courage. I have two sons in this war, and I worry for them, but I have no doubt that this war will be fought somewhere, whatever we do. I'd far rather have it fought over there, and I pray that Iraq will someday enjoy the blessings of liberty instead of suffering violence and evil as it does today.
If we win, the world will be better and we will be safer.
Thank God for President Bush, who is willing to do the right thing no matter how much his reputation suffers! If JFK were living, he'd add a chapter to Profiles in Courage. I have two sons in this war, and I worry for them, but I have no doubt that this war will be fought somewhere, whatever we do. I'd far rather have it fought over there, and I pray that through our efforts Iraq will someday enjoy the blessings of liberty instead of suffering violence and evil as it does today.
If we win, the world will be better and we will be safer.
How do you win a war when you are fighting a nation that is actively involved in their own civil war? Is there some precedent in history that people can cite that says such a policy has ever succeeded? Either we support one side so that they can crush the other, or we get the hell out, wait for the winner, and then go back in under the guise of 'keeping the peace'. We had our own civil war in this country. What do you think would have been the chances for someone like Britain if they tried to occupy the USA during that time?
Vietnam.
page: 1
david gladstonedDec 19th, 2006 - 01:21:04
It is very clear to most observers that President Bush will do all he can to forstall the withdrawal of troops so that he can complete his term in office without having to admit defeat. The President will increase the number of troops in Iraq so as to buy time, not victory, which he realizes now is beyond his grasp. It will be for the next president to withdraw the troops. President Bush will always be able to claim, that if we had stayed the course, we might well have won.
The lives of the soldiers and the cost to the taxpayer are, in his opinion, a price he is willing to pay to protect his place in history.
Report this comment