The latest to die were four soldiers whose patrol vehicle was blown up by a bomb in southern Baghdad on Sunday.
The deaths bring the total to 4,000, according to the US military and independent monitoring groups.
In other violence, Baghdad's Green Zone came under fire, and a suicide bomber killed 13 Iraqi soldiers in Mosul.
In Baghdad, the heavily-fortified Green Zone suffered sustained mortar and rocket fire, which killed at least 15 civilians.
The US military said it killed 12 militants preparing suicide attacks in a house east of Baquba.
The bloodshed comes despite an overall reduction in violence since last June.
That was when the US deployed an extra 30,000 troops in violence-hit areas - the so-called "troop surge".
But Sunday's violence underlines the fragile, reversible nature of the apparent improvements in security, say correspondents.
Huge blast
At least 40 people were injured in Sunday's early-morning suicide strike in Mosul.
The suicide attacker ploughed an explosives-laden tanker into the army base, causing a massive blast.
Iraqi and US soldiers have been engaged in a major offensive in Mosul, which US commanders say is al-Qaeda's last urban stronghold in Iraq.
In another deadly attack, at least seven shoppers in a Baghdad market were killed when gunmen travelling in three cars opened fire.
Our correspondent says previous rocket attacks on the Green Zone have been blamed on rogue elements of Moqtada Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, which is supposed to be observing a ceasefire.
Also on Sunday, the US military said it had killed 12 men in a raid east of Baquba city, in Diyala province.
Spokesman Major Winfield Danielson claimed six of the men killed were found to have shaved their bodies, which he said was "consistent with final preparation for suicide operations".
He added that a cache of weapons and ammunition had also been found in the raid and destroyed.
7 comments:
Ugh.
Speaking as someone who originally supported the war: Considering we were originally told that the entire operation would last months, probably even just weeks, all over weapons that it turns out just didn't exist and resulting in a tremendous loss of life and treasure, I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the Iraq War has been anything less than a huge strategic blunder that will have ill repercussions for a long, long time. I cannot and will not argue against that. And in private, most conservatives I know feel the same way.
But what is the best course of action now, after the fact? American forces are like a finger plugging an arterial wound. And as far as I'm concerned, we have a responsibility and a moral obligation to hold the finger there as long as it takes, since we're the ones that caused the wound in the first place. But how long can we possible stay there? McCain, I love ya, but 100 years? That's just not realistic unless the security situation completely stabilizes.
But after seeing what has happened in Basra after the British withdrawal, I just can't commit to the idea that a speedy withdrawal of American forces is the best option, either. That would be absolutely disastrous, and a complete waste of every single life lost up to this point.
So to summate my arguments:
We can't leave, and we can't stay.
*sigh*
Operation: Tar Baby
In every war ever fought the people were told the troops would be "home by Christmas" or that the war would last a few months. In the days leading up to war intelligence is almost always manipulated, flags unfurled, patriotism bandied about, and truth trampled underfoot. No one should be surprised that this happened--hey, it's not like hundreds of thousands of people in the US (and even more around the globe) protested it and brought up all of these issues beforehand.
Still...we are there, and what to do? It's not as simple as pull out or stay in. The critical element is to provide some guarantee to Iraqis and other Arab states that the US is not an occupier and plans to leave as soon as humanly possible. The problem is we are not doing that at all. All of our actions suggest we are there to stay. Sure, we won't keep 100000 troops there for ever, but even after (if) the security situation is stabilized it looks like we will plan to maintain military bases, control much of the oil production (albeit indirectly through US and British oil companies) and exert significant political pressure and control on the government. To most Iraqis that looks like perpetual occupation, and I can see why.
True, but there were plenty of outspoken, public objections to our involvement in Europe during WWI (Monroe doctrine) or WWII ("it was the Japanese who attacked us, not the Germans/Italians"), our involvement in Korea ("not our war!"), Operation Just Cause ("more imperialist meddling in central american affairs!"), even the first Gulf War ("no blood for oil!").
Yet in hind sight, I don't think anyone could formulate a convincing agument that the world or the respective regions would have been better off if hadn't committed ourselves to military action.
The "we told you so" assertion only goes so far when these very same objections arise every single time the United States commits itself to an armed conflict. Sometimes the objectors are right, sometimes they are wrong.
Anyway: Speaking of Basra, it seems to have suddenly bounced into the limelight again, as the Iraqi government tries to assert itself and regain control of the city from the mobs of gangs and militias that rose to prominence when the British left. All with minimal assistance from U.S. forces. Basra, it seems, is a bit of a microcosm of the entire security situation in Iraqi as a whole, and we should keep an eye on the situation with some level of interest.
If the government can re-establish some semblence of law and order there, then we potentially have the makings of a eventual, viable U.S. withdrawal.
I disagree whole heartedly on the whether or not the world would be better off in some of those. In Central America, definitely better! Hmmm...Iraq-Kuwait. Would 1 million Iraqis still be alive (sanctions)? most likely. Is the Middle East more stable for involvement (since it led us to the second offensive)? No. So what has been gained. Maybe in the longterm, but saying better or worse off is like comparing apples and Volkswagens.
But the argument is moot in many ways because you are neglecting the larger political issues surrounding involvement. We make the case that war is to benefit people, but most often it is to secure US power and has nothing to do with benevolence. The US didn't attack Iraq in 1991 because it cared about Kuwaiti sovereignty or human right, it was about oil. Plus, you forget that the US gave Hussein a tacit nod of approval to annex Kuwaiti oil fields in 1989 and 1990--he only invaded because the US said it didn't care.
Besides, I am not claiming we are always wrong to go to war. War is necessary in some very limited cases. The problem is that people are sold a steaming pile of shit for reasons and always told they are helping fight the good fight when the fact is most of the conflicts you mentioned (and most throughout history) have been fought to keep the rich and powerful rich and powerful. WWII is an exception, and there are likely others. But the record is pretty fucking clear who wins and who loses--just ask the Bushes, that family made millions off dealing with the Nazis before and during the war.
Regardless of the larger political issues involved in our involvement in the first Gulf War, it's hard to deny that Iraq was clearly in the wrong, and that Desert Storm was carried out with an international consensus and spirit of cooperation that's rarely ever seen. What would have been a better response? To simply let Iraq swallow up Kuwait and rob its people blind?
Did we have a vested interest in Kuwait's oil? Absolutely. So did a LOT of people. But if oil were really our primary, foremost concern, why didn't we just let Iraq have Kuwait, and just buy the oil from Iraq? Why not just let him have the Saudi fields, too? That would, after all, make Iraq the predominant (and potentially friendly) power in the region, completely overshadowing Iran.
That would have been a cheaper, more economical route than immediately dumping billions and billions of dollars into fighting a war and maintaining a troop presence.
And how many South Koreans would have preferred that the U.S. stay home, and have the entire peninsula swallowed up by the communist North? And if you had to live your lifetime in one of the two, which would you choose?
Whenever we commit military power to achieve goals that are in our national interest, it's important psychologically that we wrap that cold reality in something that people can feel good about.
Is it necessary that we protect our energy resources from marauding dictatorships? Yes.
But it's a lot easier for the average American citizen (not to mention the servicemen and women who actually put their asses on the line) to commit their support when those matters of national security coincide with other, more altruistic (if tangential) ends. In fact, this would almost have to be the case.
In the end, there's almost never any one reason why we commit ourselves to a military conflict. And their may very well be a different from person to person, from senator to congressman to president.
Post a Comment