Iraq Deaths Don't Mean Failure, Pace Says

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Washington Post

The recent rise in U.S. troop deaths in Iraq is the "wrong metric" to use in assessing the effectiveness of the new security strategy for Baghdad, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday in a news conference with Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

Despite military reports to Congress that use numbers of attacks and overall levels of violence as an important gauge of Iraq's security status, Gates and Pace told reporters at the Pentagon yesterday that violence is not a useful measure of progress. Setting the stage for mandatory reports to Congress in September, both officials said violence could go up in the summer months as troops try to give the Iraqi government time to set the country on the right track.

"If you had zero violence and people were not feeling good about their future, where are you?" said Pace, emphasizing that the sentiment of the Iraqi people is a much better measurement than the number of attacks. "So it's not about levels of violence. It's about progress being made, in fact, in the minds of the Iraqi people, so that they have confidence in their government in the way forward."

Pace and Gates acknowledged that violence could rise -- as it has in recent days, when at least a dozen U.S. troops have been killed -- but said the number of attacks has gone up largely because there are more U.S. brigades in harm's way. Pace said that the number of attacks per brigade has not increased but that the enemy in Iraq has focused on inflicting greater U.S. casualties because it wants to affect the American public's view of the war.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101204.html?hpid=topnews

[pocoloco]

1. Reminds me of lights and tunnels that I've heard talked about

somewhere a long time ago.

[Kagemusha]

2. So should the fact the public sentiment in Iraq really sucks, worry us?

Perhaps it should?

[la la]

3. what?

WHAT? 'wrong metric' ? What the hell?

calling the lives/deaths of people a 'metric' ? Sickening.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. Shove a pointed metric up his ass.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. Okay, using this "logic"

The people of Iraq are finally seeing progress in the form of increased violence against Americans and less against the people of Iraq.

[aquart]

10. Well, no.

It means more Americans are involved in killing Iraqis, but some Iraqis are shooting back. It definitely does not mean less Iraqis are getting dead or anything.

[kimmylavin]

6. Um...

Um, yes they do, General Pace.

[Stella_Artois]

7. "but said the number of attacks has gone up largely because there are more U.S. brigades in harm's w

So what he is saying here is that America's occupation is the thing that is causing the violence.

Following his logic to its conclusion if America withdrew entirely the violence would also fall away since the crazies would have no occupier to fight.

They'd fight amongst themselves for a year or two before someone is the clear winner and then we'd be more than happy to buy oil from the winner.

This is going to happen eventually so lets just get it done.

[krispos42]

8. He's right

What means failure is the fact that their deaths are not forwarding a cause. We do not have enough of the vaunted "boots on the ground" to pacify Iraq enough for a unified, nationwide, civilian government to take hold and perform the necessary reconcilliation, policing, trials, investigations, reconstruction, resettling, etc., to bring the country together in peace.

We can't destroy the religious factions. We can't destroy the insurgent factions. Troops and policemen we train by day are planting IEDs and performing revenge-killings at night. We've given every indication that we think the Iraqi people are subhuman, their religion is contemptable, and we're going to rape their oil away from them and leave them alone, devestated, and hopeless.

The U.S. body count 'metric' is merely a numerical indication of how stubborn and detatched Bush and the neocons are.

[ShortnFiery]

9. What's GOOD is BAD! What's BAD is GOOD! Bombs Away for Jesus!

:crazy:

[gratuitous]

11. "If you had zero violence and people were not feeling good"

Golly, that would be tragic, Mr. Pace. I mean, as long as you're alive but unhappy, there's not a goddam thing that can be done about that situation. But while people are dying the busload (or the mosqueload, pick your own metric) we can always tout "progress."

Tell me, Mr. Pace: What "metric" are you using for progress? Tell me NOW, in June, what measures we should be looking at so that we can objectively declare in September that progress is being made or not made. Because otherwise, and call me cynical for saying it, I have the distinct feeling that you're going to just declare that progress is being made come September without any way to assess that. You'll point to a new coat of paint on a school or a hospital that didn't get blown to smithereens and claim that's sufficient "progress" to keep failing.

So tell us now, Mr. Pace. What will "progress" look like in September? No hedging. No fum-ferring around. And no changing the rules between now and September.

[cliss]

12. Hm, let's see. Peter Pace

got shoved out of the Pentagon. Seems he wasn't tough enough, or not supportive enough of the Neo Cons. And now he's trying to justify the occupation.

His statements are so outrageous that they're ridiculous:

"If you had zero violence".

Well we wouldn't want THAT now would we????:smoke: