Is security improving in Iraq?

[Firky]

Thing is firky, from my googling I haven't found anyone seriously disputing the claim that the violence has lessened. Which isn't to say everything is fine of course. But less violence is less violence and hopefully an improvement in people's daily life.

Are you going to though? In the places where it is at its worst (the cities) most people are concearned with simply living rather than blogging, telling their stories to the media etc. Coupled with the lack of journos down there not much information is going to come out. The forces that do go down there rarely leave the confines of their heavily armoured Hummer and Abraham tank.

Having said that I am pleased to see that the Americans are now doing what the British had been doing since day one. Walking around with guns down, soft hats on and not tooled up for war. British Generals argued that his was less provocative than rolling around in Hummers with guns raised for action. I guess we're a bit of a dab hand at imperialism now.

My cynicism is born out of the fact that 'they' lied to us about the reasons to go to war, and the media far the best part went along with it (remember the blueprints and mock up plans of these mobile chemical war heads, and hidden missle silos? Or Osmas' nuclear bunker inside a mountain, equipped with an arsenal of deadly weapons and 4,000 virgins?). The fact of the matter is the only reports we are hearing are coming from media sources which are given to them from the MoD or US Army. Both of which are always going to tell a very biased account of events. I am sure the security is improving in areas of Iraq but not the extent that we are told. Plus squaddies on both sides are gagged by their commanders and almost told what to say and or very much restricted in what they do say.

It amazes me how fast the mark of cain that was left on the US and British is forgoten by a few rosie reports. This 'shit' will be going on for a long long time yet, long after we have left. Hopefully global warming will have killed us by then, I fucking hate humanity.

 

[Brainaddict]

Sure sure, but in the face of things like the bbc 'ordinary iraqi' comments page and other stories about increasing stability, I don't feel like I can dismiss the claims iraq is less violent now without solid evidence to back me up. Neither my suspicions nor your suspicions count as evidence.

And now, seeing this thread dying on its arse, it bothers me that all the lefties on here (among which I include myself) have been very keen to discuss the declining security situation in Iraq and all the bad stuff that has gone on but suddenly they've gone all quiet about the latest 'positive' developments. If there's evidence to refute the stories then lets hear it. If there isn't, then surely we've got to at least consider the idea that they are true

 

[Firky]

I'd consider if it I trusted the government in the first place. Most of the left on urban are very much new labour. Quite affluent middle class / lower middle class people with liberal values. Not having a go at those people just pointing out that these are the kinds of people who'd rather not go tear something down to rebuild it again. They'd rather we never went in the first place, so why should they have an interest in what happens after?

 

[Crispy]

Triple car bombs today, by the way. At least 39 dead.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7139974.stm

 

[Jonti]

The use of car bombs is an essentially fascist tactic, and can cause alienate people who might otherwise be supportive to one's cause. It is hard for all but the most swivel-eyed loonie to support the indiscriminate mass killing of civilians for sectarian motives.

Part 1 and part 2 of A History of the Car Bomb are both well worth reading, to understand the limitations of seeking political power by random slaughter.

 

[Fruitloop]

Good article in the Garudnai on the situation for women in Iraq:

"It is getting worse, especially the burnings," says Khanim Rahim Latif, the manager of Asuda, an Iraqi organisation based in Kurdistan that works to combat violence against women. "Just here in Sulaimaniyah, there were 400 cases of the burning of women last year." Lack of electricity means that every house has a plentiful supply of oil, and she accepts that some cases may be accidents. But the nature and scale of the injuries suggest that most were deliberate, she says, handing me the morgue photographs of one young woman after another. Many of the bodies bear the unmistakable signs of having been subjected to intense heat.

Even under Saddam, women in Iraq - including in semi-autonomous Kurdistan - were widely recognised as among the most liberated in the Middle East. They held important positions in business, education and the public sector, and their rights were protected by a statutory family law that was the envy of women's activists in neighbouring countries. But since the 2003 invasion, advances that took 50 years to establish are crumbling away. In much of the country, women can only now move around with a male escort. Rape is committed habitually by all the main armed groups, including those linked to the government. Women are being murdered throughout Iraq in unprecedented numbers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2226600,00.html

 

[trabuquera]

This article rang true to me 'cos of its deeper analysis (i.e. that what dictates security or endless bloodshed in Iraq doesn't have all that much to do with USUK strategy or tactics, what is important is what moves the different Iraqi factions are making...)

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3241904.ece

His conclusion was IIRC that security is indeed getting a tiny bit better, but it might well turn out to be a temporary lull. Because extremist Sunnis (some of whom have in fact been co-opted into the new US-backed 'civilian defence forces' like the Adhamiya Knights etc) have realised they can't fight the USUK and the Shias at once - so better to keep their powder dry for the moment when Sunni/Shia violence kicks off again.

so - of course it is great if the violence is dropping off, even partially, but it may not last and it certainly doesn't imply that "the surge (TM) is working".

 

[free spirit]

I think that Iraq Body Count graph makes it pretty obvious that there has been a dramatic drop in violence over the last few months, and the timing of the drop makes it pretty obvious why.

In August, Al Sadr effectively announced a 6 month seemingly unilateral ceasefire. Between August and September the number of deaths halved.

 

[likesfish]

possibly just running out of juicy targets

 

[Brainaddict]

This article rang true to me 'cos of its deeper analysis (i.e. that what dictates security or endless bloodshed in Iraq doesn't have all that much to do with USUK strategy or tactics, what is important is what moves the different Iraqi factions are making...)

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3241904.ece

His conclusion was IIRC that security is indeed getting a tiny bit better, but it might well turn out to be a temporary lull. Because extremist Sunnis (some of whom have in fact been co-opted into the new US-backed 'civilian defence forces' like the Adhamiya Knights etc) have realised they can't fight the USUK and the Shias at once - so better to keep their powder dry for the moment when Sunni/Shia violence kicks off again.

so - of course it is great if the violence is dropping off, even partially, but it may not last and it certainly doesn't imply that "the surge (TM) is working".

Unfortunately it does seem more likely to me that some groups are just biding their time, rather than having genuinely become less violent.

 

[Barking_Mad]

How can they? Their count is based on bodies, not eye-witness acounts of the actual killing.

Their count isn't based on bodies per se, it is based on reports from newspaper sources, sources that reach a certain criteria as defined by themselves. Not only that the same report of deaths has to be published in at least (if I remember correctly) two of those selected news sources for it to be added to their total.

Of course this means that if you die and nobody reports it, or if you die and a non-IBC paper reports it, it will not be counted in their totals.

Hence the total of deaths from 2003 - 2007 which it claims is 70,000 or so.

IBC are used by most western news organisations when quoting deaths in Iraq. Because, I would wager, that the totals are far lower than many other sources, including the Lancet report which was widely critisised without ever being truly refuted.

This was odd of course given the same methodology was used to count deaths in the Congo, when Bush, BLair and Powell all used the figures.

IBC is nothing more than a very low, grossly underestimated minimum count.

 

[MikeMcc]

Unfortunately it does seem more likely to me that some groups are just biding their time, rather than having genuinely become less violent.

An interesting take on the situation form a journo who is not affiliated to any organisation:

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/one-step-forward.htm

 

[Barking_Mad]

Well, this might explain some of it........

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2007/12/secret-air-war-confirmed.html

 

[kyser_soze]

Hmm, the 2nd graph on that article doesn't place the July and October spikes in Afghanistan within the framework of the ground assualts that took place during those months, does it? Hardly constitutes a 'new air war' when it's combined with a ground war as well...