Iraq at Peace?

[toblerone3]

The Iraq Body Count showed its lowest level of people killed since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 last month (November 2008). Has the surge "worked"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IBC_Nov08.gif

 

[Andy the Don]

Depends on your definition of peacefully, you still getting terror bombings of Iraqis in the major cities which kill many and injures scores more at least twice a week.
A double bombing, with the second bomb detonating as Iraqis were fleeing in panic from the first killed at least 18 today.

 

[toblerone3]

Depends on your definition of peacefully, you still getting terror bombings of Iraqis in the major cities which kill many and injures scores more at least twice a week.
A double bombing, with the second bomb detonating as Iraqis were fleeing in panic from the first killed at least 18 today.

Well obviously its relative peace and I'm sure there's stuff going on every day that we don't necessarily hear about. But what I'm talking about is the overall level of violence seems to be at a low at the moment lower than at any point in the past five years. Thats what the statistics show at least.

A year or two ago there seemed to be a real possibility of the US being driven from Iraq in a similar way to the flight from Saigon. There was talk on this forum (not entirely joking) of helicopters evacuating from the top of the new US Embassy in Baghdad.

Iraq just looked like a total disaster for the US. Over the past 18 months things have got quieter and it seems that the US can claim a military victory in Iraq now.

At lot of people who opposed the war felt that Britain and the US were getting their comeuppance in the ever-rising casualty figures. The war was wrong. But has the war been won?

 

[Citizen66]

The war was wrong. But has the war been won?

No.

 

[toblerone3]

No.

So are the insurgents just biding their time then, waiting for the expected drawdown of US troop numbers in 2009. What's going on?

 

[two sheds]

Well obviously its relative peace and I'm sure there's stuff going on every day that we don't necessarily hear about. But what I'm talking about is the overall level of violence seems to be at a low at the moment lower than at any point in the past five years. Thats what the statistics show at least.

A year or two ago there seemed to be a real possibility of the US being driven from Iraq in a similar way to the flight from Saigon. There was talk on this forum (not entirely joking) of helicopters evacuating from the top of the new US Embassy in Baghdad.

Iraq just looked like a total disaster for the US. Over the past 18 months things have got quieter and it seems that the US can claim a military victory in Iraq now.

At lot of people who opposed the war felt that Britain and the US were getting their comeuppance in the ever-rising casualty figures. The war was wrong. But has the war been won?

By this measure, though, things were incredibly peaceful in Saddam's time - a haven by comparison. There were none of these terrorist attacks when he was in power.

When we're back to that level there could be talk of a victory. If we had those levels of violence in the US or UK it would be classed as all-out-war.

 

[Citizen66]

So are the insurgents just biding their time then, waiting for the expected drawdown of US troop numbers in 2009. What's going on?

My answer was straight but ambiguous. What makes you think I meant that...?

 

[toblerone3]

By this measure, though, things were incredibly peaceful in Saddam's time - a haven by comparison. There were none of these terrorist attacks when he was in power.

When we're back to that level there could be talk of a victory. If we had those levels of violence in the US or UK it would be classed as all-out-war.

At the height of The Troubles in Northern Ireland in 1972 there were an average of 40 killings a month. But Northern Ireland then had a population of about 1.5m Iraq has a population of about 29m. and about 250 deaths last month.

Scaling it up proportionately Northern Ireland 1972 had three times as many killings! Was that all out war?

 

[Citizen66]

War is measured on scale of death rather than it existing anyway...?

Wow.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

You do realise how IBC's statistics are compiled?

 

[toblerone3]

You do realise how IBC's statistics are compiled?

I'm not an expert, but I just had a quick look and IBC seems to be based on deaths reported in English Language media and it has been criticised for underreporting deaths. But my impression was (through following the English language media) that there had been much less about Iraq this year than there was in 2006 and 2007 and I just used IBC to check this impression. If both my impressions and their stats are based on media reports well then I could be completely wrong.

Are you suggesting that hasn't been any quieting down in Iraq and its just that bombings are no longer making it into the news. Surely that can't be true. A lot of Iraqi language media reports get routinely translated into English through the BBCs Summary of World Broadcasts.

 

[MikeMcc]

By this measure, though, things were incredibly peaceful in Saddam's time - a haven by comparison. There were none of these terrorist attacks when he was in power.

When we're back to that level there could be talk of a victory. If we had those levels of violence in the US or UK it would be classed as all-out-war.

There were certainly bombings and ethnic violence during Saddam's time as well as the atrocities perpetrated by his own blokes.

I think that the the main reason that the Surge worked was that it finally started to address some of the issues of exclusion that alot of the tribal leaders felt. Once the others saw some benefit of working for or with the Americans it caused most of them to reject the AQ-in-Iraq. It also coincided with alot of Iraqi Army units completing their formation and hand-backs of territory.

It was probably more luck than judgement that it has turned around (it was certainly a lot of lack of judgement hat screwed things up in the first place!). It could equally have gone the other way and alienated the Iraqis even further.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I'm not an expert, but I just had a quick look and IBC seems to be based on deaths reported in English Language media and it has been criticised for underreporting deaths. But my impression was (through following the English language media) that there had been much less about Iraq this year than there was in 2006 and 2007 and I just used IBC to check this impression. If both my impressions and their stats are based on media reports well then I could be completely wrong.

If your impression is based on English language media, and so are IBC's, and the two agree, then fine, likely your impression is correct as to the number of deaths reported in English language media. What neither necessarily correspond to at all is what is happening in Iraq.

 

[toblerone3]

War is measured on scale of death rather than it existing anyway...?

Wow.

So what landmark would you look for to say the war in Iraq had (effectively) ended? Its difficult to see how any negotiated peace settlement could occur partly because there are about three different violent struggles going on at the same time.

 

[butchersapron]

Todays peace total:

http://antiwar.com/updates/

At least 32 Iraqis were killed and 66 more were wounded during a bloody day that also saw a visit from British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. No Coalition deaths were reported. At the same time, the health of the journalist shoe-lobber remains in question as his brother presses for more information.

Shall we check back tommmorow?

 

[two sheds]

as well as the atrocities perpetrated by his own blokes.

I think you will find they were seen by us at the time as necessary security actions by our loyal ally trying to exert control over unruly elements trying to destabilise the state but point taken.

@ toblerone - we may or may not have described it as all-out-war against the IRA, but we would hardly have considered this level of deaths as a sign that the fight against them had been 'won'.

 

[toblerone3]

Todays peace total:

http://antiwar.com/updates/



Shall we check back tommmorow?

Yes its all tragic and we will have to keep checking back. But you are quoting what happened on one day. I was quoting what IBC said about a whole month. Its perfectly possible that the December totals will be lower than the 250 (or so) recorded for November.

If President Obama's planned scaledown in Iraq goes well next year. What we are seeing now could be seen in historical context as the beginnings of peace.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

yeah, it'll all be grand now - thank you, President Obama

 

[toblerone3]

@ toblerone - we may or may not have described it as all-out-war against the IRA, but we would hardly have considered this level of deaths as a sign that the fight against them had been 'won'.

True. But when the number of reported deaths has fallen from 2-3,000 a month in 2006-7 to 2-300 a month by late 2008 something significant has shifted. I'm not really arguing about the semantics of the definition of the word war.

 

[toblerone3]

yeah, it'll all be grand now - thank you, President Obama

On the other hand. The US withdrawal could go all pear-shaped leaving the Republicans to claim that the war that they won was messed up by Obama.

 

[two sheds]

True. But when the number of reported deaths has fallen from 2-3,000 a month in 2006-7 to 2-300 a month by late 2008 something significant has shifted. I'm not really arguing about the semantics of the definition of the word war.

The largest reduction in deaths came when we stopped bombing them. But yes, if those are the figures then hopefully the iraqis will eventually get peace. I don't think it can ever be described as being 'won', though. We killed more iraqis than saddam did in 20 years I read - we 'lost' as soon as we invaded in the way we did.

 

[mauvais]

Christmas rampdown innit. All the terroristicals are packed full of mince pies and wine. You get up fresh in the morning and it's all 'MARG BAR AMRIKAAAA' and blowing up a market and shit, but by 2 o'clock you're a turkey filled balloon and can barely get off your arse. If it's a choice between staying on the sofa watching Eldorado, or traipsing around Basra Debenhams with a load of explosives, you're going to take the path of least resistance.

Add that to the credit crunch - there's some bargains on used car bombs but lenders are rightly worried about unrepayable debt - and it's no surprise that people are staying at home instead of spending their money on martydom. With any luck come January, the sales on equipment will lend a hand but I suspect there won't be anywhere near enough consumer casualties for quite a while.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

On the other hand. The US withdrawal could go all pear-shaped leaving the Republicans to claim that the war that they won was messed up by Obama.

I'm quite sure this will happen. You only have to start thinking through how the withdrawal is likely to go. Iraq's government is a very uneasy coalition of people who are likely to get tortured and shot by fellow citizens as collaborators the moment the US leaves, and people who are effectively Iranian agents with heavily armed militias that in some cases used to be actual formations of the Pasdaran (Iranian Revolutionary Guards)

On the sidelines you've got the Sadr movement, again heavily armed, who are certainly going to be keen to create the appearance of having driven the US out the moment that it's opportune to do so and who will then want to take power, at gunpoint if necessary. Plus you have a whole bunch of mostly Sunni tribal groups who are also heavily armed, and don't really have any real stake in the largely Shia Quisling government, who the US has been buying off since the surge with local autonomy, big bags of money and lots of shiny new weapons (nominally so they can shoot 'Al Quaeda' on the US's behalf).

What the US has done since the 'surge' is achieved a temporary convergence of interests between a bunch of people who know they can't take on the US military in any serious way and not die, but would certainly fancy their chances against each other if the US military weren't around to interfere and hate each others guts. This isn't even a remotely stable situation if the occupation ever actually does pack its bags and bugger off back to Potatohoe.

 

[lostexpectation]

if only obama were withdrawing

 

[Badgers]

Iraq will never have peace while it has religionz

 

[toblerone3]

I'm quite sure this will happen. You only have to start thinking through how the withdrawal is likely to go. Iraq's government is a very uneasy coalition of people who are likely to get tortured and shot by fellow citizens as collaborators the moment the US leaves, and people who are effectively Iranian agents with heavily armed militias that in some cases used to be actual formations of the Pasdaran (Iranian Revolutionary Guards)

On the sidelines you've got the Sadr movement, again heavily armed, who are certainly going to be keen to create the appearance of having driven the US out the moment that it's opportune to do so and who will then want to take power, at gunpoint if necessary. Plus you have a whole bunch of mostly Sunni tribal groups who are also heavily armed, and don't really have any real stake in the largely Shia Quisling government, who the US has been buying off since the surge with local autonomy, big bags of money and lots of shiny new weapons (nominally so they can shoot 'Al Quaeda' on the US's behalf).

What the US has done since the 'surge' is achieved a temporary convergence of interests between a bunch of people who know they can't take on the US military in any serious way and not die, but would certainly fancy their chances against each other if the US military weren't around to interfere and hate each others guts. This isn't even a remotely stable situation if the occupation ever actually does pack its bags and bugger off back to Potatohoe.

This is a view that the current quietening down in Iraq is merely a hiatus of rearmament among groups in Iraq preparing for the beginnings of a US withdrawal.....and then civil war in Iraq really kicks off probably this time with greater involvement of Iran. Then Obama has the difficult choice of whether to leave the whole area to sort itself out in a regional war or recommit troops to the area and escalate and go nuclear and extend the war into Iran. Pretty much a nightmare scenario for everyone.

I think that its possible that this might happen but a much better trajectory is possible also. Depends on how and if Obama talks to Iran.

 

[Badgers]

There is now 100% peace in Ireland so I guess the system works

 

[ovaltina]

Interesting piece in Yesterday's Torygraph about this:

We can probably leave with our heads held level but not high. The much touted British expertise at counter insurgency never really happened in Basra and it was down to the American military to show us how it was done properly.

The Army was handicapped from the start by the dubious legality of the 2003 invasion and the appalling error of not swamping the area with troops rather than the mere 450 bayonets they had in Basra at the start of the insurgency.

Without the numbers there was little the Army could do but hold their own ground, defend their bases and try not to become part of the problem.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...how-Army-was-handicapped-by-early-errors.html

Sounds about right to me.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Couple of bombings in Iraq the last couple of days. About 30 dead I think. No one really gives a shit. Doesnt fit the narrative.

 

[toblerone3]

Couple of bombings in Iraq the last couple of days. About 30 dead I think. No one really gives a shit. Doesnt fit the narrative.

Number killed in Iraq in December 2008 in terms of monthly totals since March 2003.

2nd lowest out of 70 months

Number killed in Iraq in November 2008

Lowest out out of 70 months

December 2008 completely fitted the "narrative" as you put it.

Source: Iraq Body Count (Yeh I know it might be on the low side but it should at least be internally consistent)