Drop in U.S. casualties accompanies increase in attacks on Iraqis

[Rose Siding]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq has plummeted recently and attacks on American troops have dropped significantly, prompting U.S. military officials to wonder whether to hail the drop-off as a sign of success or brace for renewed attacks later.

At the same time, many Iraqis are alarmed by a rise in attacks on Iraqi civilians and security personnel. They fear that the war is turning inward, toward more intense sectarian violence that could lead to civil war.
If the trend continues, March - with 22 U.S. soldiers killed by hostile fire so far - will be the least deadly month since February 2004, when the figure was 14, according to icasualties.org, a Web site that tracks coalition military deaths in Iraq. By way of contrast, 54 American soldiers were killed by hostile fire in January and 125 last November.
...
Insurgents "may have come to the realization that hitting the (U.S.) military targets isn't particularly effective. We're still here," said a top American military spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Steven Boylan, who pointed to the elections, the growing competence of Iraqi security forces and several decisive U.S. military offenses during the past year as factors.
...
"This is the start of dividing the country; this is the start of a bigger civil war. The election in Iraq emphasized the sectarian divide of the Iraqi people," said Ghassan al Atiyyah, a lecturer at Baghdad University and a secular Shiite politician. "It is a time of militias."

One illegal arms dealer said he was selling more weapons to Shiites looking to protect themselves from Sunnis.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11203191.htm

[FlemingsGhost]

1. Mmmmmmmmmmmm ... a steaming pile of propaganda.

Yummy!

:puke:

[Teaser]

4. Not entirely propaganda

Attacks on US soldiers have decreased and it is in part due to a strategic shift by the insurgents. It is a wise strategic maneuver, considering things. First off, setting off an Iraqi civil war is brilliant strategy. Our forces would not be able to cope with the chaos such a war would create. Secondly, an ongoing civil war would prevent the Shi'ah majority from consolidating their power over the countrysie and force them to rely on the the American occupation for greater security, painting the Shi'ah as collaborators in an occupation that they do not particularly enjoy. Furthermore a nation in the midst of chaos and sectarian strife is not a nation that the Kurdish north woul want any part of. They would assuredly withdraw from any federalism in that case, which would pressure Turkey to take some kind of military measures against them, covert or overt, widening the conflict and increasing the pressure on the United States to leave.

Furthermore, the increase in American casualties over the past few months was an artificial bump. Americans had increased the number of patrols and security operations in order to establish an environment conducive to holding elections. This increased security presence also increased the exposure of American troops to rebel mischief. Now that the elections are done, the Americans have abandoned large swaths of the countryside to the insurgents again, and only those rare American patrols see insurgent attacks.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

5. We get told a lot of things by the US mainstream media....

...that doesn't mean that we have to believe it.

I don't believe for a minute that US troops are being attacked less...I think that the attacks are not being reported, just like the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan.

And I have NEVER believed that we're getting the correct casualty count from either country.

They lied to get us into those countries, and they will lie to keep us there.

[Teaser]

7. I don't use the "mainstream media"

I read arabic. I use the arabic media to assess these things.

[leftchick]

13. you really do read Arabic Teaser?

please post some news that we can't get if you ever have the time. :)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

14. And you believe what you're reading in those sources as well?....

You do understand that we plant stories in the foreign media, don't you?

[FlemingsGhost]

6. Somewhere between this "report" and the following link, lays truth.

"Attacks on US soldiers have decreased ..."

Really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1326565&mesg_id=1326565

[Teaser]

8. Insurgency is certainly worse.

We just have to remember that we aren't the insurgencies primary targets. The primary target is the Shi'ah establishment. It always has been. And sectarian tensions are only increasing. Consider the following excerpt from a New York Times story:

link

In Baghdad, several dozen leaders of Iraq's Sunni Arabs gathered on Saturday to discuss their participation in the government and the writing of a constitution. The Sunnis, a powerful minority who formed Iraq's ruling class under Mr. Hussein, largely boycotted the elections.

The conference was organized by Sharif Ali bin al-Hussein, the leader of the Constitutional Monarchy Party. In his opening address, he urged Iraq's Sunnis - who form the core of the insurgency here - to become part of the new government.

But as the conference went on, it became a virtual rally for the insurgency, with tribal sheiks and clerics alike speaking scornfully about the government and constitution. Again and again, the speakers praised the resistance, and drew loud applause from the audience gathered in the auditorium of the Babylon Hotel.

That's right. In a popular hotel in Baghdad, there was a "rally for the insurgency" among Sunni muslims. Civil war is where this is going, whether we're there or not. We can either choose to play the role of the UK in Northern Ireland and take hit after hit as both sides fight it out, or we can leave, and both sides will fight it out.

[FlemingsGhost]

9. Who's to say Negroponte isn't working his "magic."

You make good points, but in the end we are two stiffs pecking on keyboards. I simply am not relying on the U.S. media to form a perspective.

[Teaser]

10. True. Al-Jazeera is actually pretty good.

It's better in arabic, but it's a little more strident in arabic as well. The english site isn't bad, but it tends to recycle wire service stories a little too mucb for my taste.

[lebkuchen]

11. I met a Landstuhl medical tech last week

who told me the number of wounded coming into Landstuhl has NOT dropped off, not even since Fallujah--and I was at Landstuhl when those busloads arrived. The tech said most are headed straight to ICU when they arrive, and said that the PreZ should have visited Landstuhl when he had the chance, to see firsthand the result of his foreign policy. Tech also said CNNI isn't covering any of these wounded, leaving the public with the impression that thing are improving. They aren't.

Guess that's one reason why the Army is increasing its age limit for Guard/Reserve to 39. We're not only not making recruitment quotas; we're losing troops to the battlefield, and there is no one to replace them.

[dArKeR]

2. Could it be the US soldiers are NOT leaving their bases?

[Hard Attack]

3. You hit the nail on the head.

Our Forces have pulled back, and are watching 'Democracy' florish, (sarcasim) -

[daleo]

12. This has been the pattern for a while, it seems.

When U.S. forces remain drawn in, collaborationist forces (by the reasoning of the resistance, at least) are hit. When the U.S. forces eventually come out in significant numbers to respond, they are hit. At least that is how it has seemed to me.

The other part of the pattern is for Bush to choose an Iraqi city to destroy in retaliation.

[okieinpain]

15. what trips me out is I didn't think more than 10 soldiers had died

but low and behold it's 22. that's still 1 a day. and what's really scary is the military is happy about it.