Spiral downward, that is, with record lows for both Iraqi and U.S. deaths in October.
The unofficial icasualties.org site records 13 U.S casualties for the month, matching July’s record low, while Iraqi casualties have fallen to a mere 278 (including both ISF and civilian deaths), the lowest total recorded and likely the lowest number Iraq has experienced in the decades since Saddam’s goons created a brutal police state where free expression was often punished with death and torture.Â
For comparison, Venezuela, a country of similar size generally not considered to be at war, recorded about 1,000 violent deaths per month last year – more than three times as many as Iraq experienced this month.
UPDATE:Â Peter Wehner reminds us what pundits said about the surge when it was first announced:
Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post mocked Bush’s “fantasy-based escalation . . . which could only make sense in some parallel universe where pigs fly and fish commute on bicycles.†At Time, Joe Klein ridiculed “Bush’s futile pipe dream.†Jonathan Chait, writing in the Los Angeles Times, found “something genuinely bizarre†about those Americans who actually supported the new strategy. “It is not just that they are wrong. . . . It’s that they are completely detached from reality.†The New Republic’s Peter Beinart predicted that, by 2008, American soldiers would “still be dying, and the catastrophe will still be deepening.†In sending more troops to Baghdad, Beinart wrote, “Bush is showing his commitment to win—except that the United States has already lost.â€
Uh huh.
UPDATE: Remember the “Triangle of Death?” Now it’s the Triangle of Poultry.
{ 12 comments }
All part of Al Sadr’s cunning plan, no doubt.
What for the most part brought about the change in the Iraq situation was the excellent political work of the army among both the Sunnis and the Shiites; certainly not the infusion of 8 or 10 thousand of additional soldiers in Baghdad. And the procees is still undergoing. The last chapter is not written yet. If the Shiite majority shifts toward Iran, the invasion of Iraq will be recorded in history as a geopolitical blunder only parallel to the invasion of the USSR by Germany in 1941 whose final result was delivering all Eastern Europe to Stalin
What? Is there some sort of military activity occuring in some country called Irak?
Surely the news would be covering it if so. ESPECIALLY if the action was proving to be beneficial to US interests.
I can’t put any credibility on this since I don’t see any such stories on CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS…
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Presidential pumpkins on CNN
And if they don’t? Want to paint that picture for us too and you’ve been kind enough to paint the pessimistic picture?
We just got back
I’ll try KD:
Iraq was created around 1920 by the UK and France. The UK occupied it and made it a monarchy under British protectorate. The country is made up of 2 main racial groups: Kurds and Arabs. the Arabs are divided between the sects of Islam: Shiite and Sunni.
The British left after WWII and the pro-UK monarchy was overthrown by the military and the BAAS party in 1958. Sometime after that, Saddam Hussein took power in another coup. He established a secular, semi-socialist dictatorship.
Because the country is so young, there are powerful centrifugal forces in it; all three groups will divide Iraq if they don’t find a formula to remain together. That’s why Biden proposed just that at one point – better to split in cold than amid a civil war. They have a history of violence against one another.
What kept them together until we put our foot in there was the Turkish occupation ( some 300 years), British protectorate (40 years or so) and Saddam Hussein.
The good news: after we leave (and we’ll have to, sooner rather than later) the Kurds may be afraid to separate because Turkey will attack them, The Sunnis may want stay for otherwise they would be landlocked in the center of the country – the poorest part. The Shiites, may also decide to stay united because they know Saudi Arabia (also Sunni) will support the Iraqi Sunnis against them. Also, although the Iraqi Shiites have the commonality of religion with the Iranians, Iraq and Iran were at war in the 80′s,
Besides, their ethnicity differs – Arab/Persian -Â and their languages are also different – Arabic/Farsi – so the miracle may happen. There is also a strong possibility that a strong man from the army we created may take over "to save the unity of Iraq"
But if they divide, I am certain that the Shiite state in southern and eastern Iraq will be under Iranian influence at the very least. Iran is a regional power now for we eliminated its main rival: Saddam Hussein
To claim that Iraq was created by the UK and France is, well, simplistic. In reality it’s very difficult to locate a nation anywhere in the world–including Europe–that was not at one point or another "created" by warring factions and external parties, usually multiple times. One of the faux bits of "wisdom" on Iraq has long been that it is somehow an artificial country and not a real one because its last borders were settled by the French and the British–as if having your borders arranged by white Europeans is somehow less legitimate than having it arranged by external Persian or Arab or Kurdish or other forces.
This has always been nonsense–and rather racist to boot. Not only do MOST of the world’s countries have a history of having their borders and identities strongly affected by external parties, but, much more to the point, the empirical fact is that we KNOW that the vast majority of Iraqis really do view their nation as one nation and not an artificial construct. Most hate the idea (and I mean really HATE the idea) of having their country ripped asunder by well-meaning people like Senator Biden. So while I credit Biden for at least offering suggestions (unlike the constant wave of pessimistic negativity and defeatism that’s been so typical of his party), it was still a bad idea. More to the point, that should be up to the Iraqis to decide, not us.
Much of the rest of what you’re saying, Andrea, is just out of date. The whole idea that Iraq’s Shia population would be Iranian loyalist has already proven to be false. This is something that certain "experts" were predicting for years, so I’m not surprised you think it, but I hate to break the bad news for you: we already know that the vast majority of Shia Iraqis don’t like Iran at all and don’t have any urge whatsoever to be loyal to that nation or its despotic theocrat rulers. That would be like saying that because I’m Catholic and Joe Biden is Catholic, this means I will vote for Joe Biden. But no, it would be worse, because there are multiple FORMS of Shiism, many of them with very little in common.
Furthermore, Iran is not an Arab nation, it is a Persian nation. Its language is not Arabic, it’s Farsi (basically, modern Persian). So, given that Iran’s Shiism is not the same as the different types of Shiism in Iraq, that the Iranians are ethnically different, that they speak a completely different language, and oh yeah, by the way, they had a decade-long war not very long ago in which millions on both sides died and from which millions of survivors still hold a grudge, why on Earth would any intelligent person suggest that Iraqis are gonna turn into Iranian loyalists?
All of that is almost beside the point, however: the empmirical fact is that it HAS NOT HAPPENED. Even if you believe that it should be "Shia Uber Alles" and that if you’re Shia you should automatically follow Iran, the fact is that the Iraqi people have shown repeatedly and consistently that they aren’t. They just don’t.
Simply put, my friend, you’ve been given a lot of bad information from "experts" who made a lot of very bad assumptions. The racism is mostly unconscious obviously,b ut the rest was just sloppy of them. Iraq is not, and never has been, an "Islamic Republic in the orbit of Iran." Most Iraqis, including most of Iraq’s Shia, don’t give much of a damn about Iran and would prefer that Iran just go away.
I mean really now, Andrea: France is a majority Catholic country, and so is Poland, and so is Italy. Does that mean Poland and France and Italy are natural allies? Does your average Pole hang on every pronouncement from the government of Italy? If the Poles today went to war with Lithuania, would France rush to her fellow Catholic nation’s aid against the wicked Lithuanians?
The problem with this discussion is it’s either the shia in Iraq are against Iran or totally in bed with them.
The truth is in the middle. Given the reality that iraqi shiites have a long history of being persecuted by the wider arab world, they will naturally want to establish good relation with their non-arab but co-religionist neighbour to the east. If Iraq is to be a successful state, it will need to have friendly relations with Iran.
And Kurds generally do not view themselves as Iraqis and will be perfectly happy if and when their de facto state becomes officially independent.
Dean: I am going to start by the end: Poland was the natural ally of France in eastern Europe since the War of Austrian Succession until WWII. It was so much so that Napoleon I restored Poland in 1806 (had been partitioned by Prussia, Russia, and Austria in mid-late 1700′s) under the name Duchy of Warsaw (in the process he also took a Polish lover, Countess Waleska)
Persian is not not an ethnicity but simply the name Greeks and Arabs gave to the Iranians (which the Iranians dislike) Iranians probably descend from one of the Arian tribes that originated in central Asia and then moved in different directions. The Hittite empire (of biblical times) was in that region. Alexander conquered Persia. The Romans called Iran Parthia. The Arabs also conquered them after the death of Mohammed and introduced Islam. The Mongols conquered Persia around the XIII century AD. Since Iran has been the crossroads of so many civilizations, they are probably a racial mixture.
My initial entry here was presented as a big IF. I never said the future is certain. I do hope things work out the way we expect. But since the Muslim world is full of religious effervescence and shows very few nationalistic impulses, I tend to think their commonness as Shiites will predominate over their differences in ethnic origin and language.
Finally the accusation of racism is preposterous. I love the British and absolutely adore the French. Your attitude is "don’t let the facts get in the way of my ideology". Two British civil servants drew the map of the Modern Near East (as they called it) over lunch in London in 1920.
Andrea: Like many European countries, the French and the Poles have a history of positive relationships, negative relationships, and indifferent relationships. Although it’s a point of pride for Poles that Napoleon was a big supporter of their nation, it has not always been the case that the French loved the Poles and vice-versa–and the real point is that just because both nations share a common religion, this does not automatically make them friends, let alone close allies.
As for Persian being an ethnicity: I’m sorry, but multiple sources disagree with you. "Persian" is listed here (and other places I can find for you) as the largest ethnic group in Iran. Here is a good Wikipedia article on the Persian people, who are found not just in Iran although most would recognize that Iran is basically where they originated from. Iran has a number of other ethnic groups, but the Persians dominate, followed by the Azeri, and the rest are pretty small in number. Arabs are very small in number; there are more Kurds in Iran than Arabs, and there aren’t all that many Kurds there.
Iran is a Persian nation, and modern Persian (known as Farsi) is the primary language. Iraq is an Arab nation with a very sizeable Kurdish minority; neither Arabs nor Kurds view themselves as being of the same ethnicity as Persians.
You may adore the French and the Brits as much as you want; it remains that the very common analysis that Iraq isn’t really a true nation because the French and the Brits drew up its current borders is rooted ultimately in racism and/or ethnic bigotry; as I said, I think it’s mostly unconscious and unintentional, but that’s still what it pretty obviously is. MOST nations of the world had their borders drawn up or influenced by foreign powers, there is NO great significance to this fact. The simple fact is–and it is a fact, not an opinion–that most Iraqis fiercely believe in one united Iraq. The Kurds are the only part of the population who do not see it that way, and even they are committed to a united Iraq if that is in their best interests. We know all this based on numerous objective sources, including surveys of the Iraqi people, their voting patterns, and numerous on-the-ground interviews. They don’t want us coming in and splitting up their country, thank you very much. So while I credit Senator Biden for at least offering a suggestion (as opposed to non-stop negativity), it’s a very bad, not to mention breathtakingly arrogant, proposal.
The fact that their current borders were drawn up 90 years ago does not change the fact that it’s their nation, and one they’re very proud of.
Finally, as for the Shiism business: as I’ve said, we already know that Shiism is not the dominant political force in Iraq. Yes, the majority there are Shia. Yes, religion in general is a very important part of people’s identity in that part of the world, even moreso than it is here. But "Shia" is not a monolith; there are multiple types of Shia, many of them very different from each other. Just as you might notice that Baptists and Lutherans are both Protestant groups who are very different from each other and do not automatically line up together just because they’re both Protestant. Indeed, Baptists and Lutherans have a long history of mutual antagonism; the multiple varieties of Shiism are no different in that regard.
And, again, all this is rendered moot by the simple fact that, despite years of suggestions that it would happen, Iraq’s Shia have never turned en masse to Persia for leadership. It simply hasn’t happened. Pro-Iranian parties have done very poorly in elections there, and we already know the majority of Iraqis hate the Iranian attempts to meddle in their nation and hate the terrorists that the Iranian government supports.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but you’ve been fed a stream of bad information by anti-war critics. All of your arguments on this are very familiar to me, and they’re just plain wrong. Indeed, they’ve been debunked many times by knowledgeable observers. With the exception of the Kurds (who are, by the way, also majority Shia and also have no great love for the Iranians), the vast majority of Iraqis love their country, and very very few of them have a positive view of the mad Mullahs of Iran. Why the hell would they? Just because the hated Mullahs are Shia? Please.
I have to throw my arms in the air here… I you want to think that everything is ducky and the invasion of Iraq was a brilliant move of the genial president Bush (aww dear what am I writing here!!??) hey be my guest…
Actually, you are beginning to sound like him
Time will tell. gotta go. have a nice day
Andrea: We aren’t talking about Bush or the invasion of Iraq. We are talking about false, counter-factual assertions about Shiism, Arabs, Kurds, Persians, and Iraq itself. You made a number of factually false assertions. So let’s recap on the facts:
1) "Persian" is indeed an ethnicity, just like "Kurd" and "Arab."
2) Iran is a Persian nation. Iraq is not.
3) The vast majority of Iraqis want one united Iraq.
4) Most nations have had their borders altered by foreign powers throughout history. Iraq is not peculiar in this regard.
5) Despite years of predictions to the contrary, Iraqis have consistently refused to support Iranian meddling in their affairs and have not looked to Iran’s rulers for leadership, and there are no great signs that this will change any time soon.
6) "Shiism" is not a monolithic bloc and Shia do not automatically support or like each other just because they’re Shia.
All of those are facts, independent of whoever is President of the United States at the moment. Fair enough?
Not only do MOST of the world’s countries have a history of having their borders and identities strongly affected by external parties
Just ask Poland or Germany.
6) “Shiism” is not a monolithic bloc and Shia do not automatically support or like each other just because they’re Shia.
No kidding. Most Americans don’t realize the Kurds are actually Sunni. They are not exactly fans of the Arab Sunni, though. Genocidal nerve gas attacks tend to strain relations.
As do 8-year wars, which is one reason Shia Arabs generally aren’t big fans of the Iranians.
Comments on this entry are closed.