Gail's comment on CNN

[gailkate]

Most of you have full lives and don't watch as much cable TV as I do. In the late afternoon a rabble-rouser named Jack Cafferty (with whom I usually agree, though he can be really dense) poses questions and then in the next hour features a few answers. Here was today's at 4 pm:
FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

John McCain is tying his future to what happens in Iraq. He says he will lose the race for the White House if he can’t convince Americans that our policy in Iraq is succeeding. He may be onto something.

Not long after the words came out of his mouth, McCain tried to put them back in, which hardly ever works. McCain said he wanted to retract the “I’ll lose” comment, but added that how the American people judge Iraq will have a direct relation on how they judge him.

It’s not an unreasonable proposition that McCain sees his future so closely entwined with the war in Iraq. Last summer, when a lot of U.S. troops were dying there and McCain was supporting the surge, his campaign was losing staff, short on money and close to collapse.

McCain claims both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were both wrong about the “surge” and points to recent political progress in Iraq. What he doesn’t mention is that Obama was opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the outset, while Clinton voted for it. Both Democratic candidates insist that if elected, McCain would only continue President Bush’s “failed” policies. And they highlight his remark that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for 100 years at every opportunity.

McCain has his work cut out for him. Despite the decrease in violence in Iraq and some political progress, five years after the invasion, about 60% of Americans still think the war was a mistake.

Here’s my question to you: John McCain says he could lose the election over the Iraq war issue. Is he right?

I got the last word! Yay!
Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Jeff from Boston writes:
The Iraq war was sold to us as part of the war on terror. It wasn’t, and it has only created a new generation of Islamic extremists who hate us. The fact that both Senators McCain and Clinton failed to understand and articulate the difference between the Iraq war and the war on terror suggests either a failing of the head or the backbone. Either way, neither would make a good president.

Robert writes:
Yes, I think that McCain’s presidential chances are dead on arrival! His unwavering support of the Iraq travesty has secured the presidency for the Democrats. He is in the dark; poll after poll has stated that the American public does not like this war and yet he, just like the current buffoon in the White House, continues to support this war. Time for a change.

Will writes:
Jack, You do not give McCain enough credit for bravely defying public opinion in order to support the troop surge, which is showing results. We have been in Japan for over 60 years and similarly, in this conflict, we will have to keep troops in the region permanently. Those are just the facts, and John McCain is just telling the honest truth.

Gail from St. Paul, Minnesota writes:
McCain, and anyone else who’s tied his future to the Bush/Cheney disaster in Iraq, will be blown away as soon as you guys in the media stop letting them say “the surge is working.” Yes, it’s helped. But why don’t you hammer on the truth that radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called for a cease-fire 6 months ago? That he recently threatened to end the cease-fire and could do so anytime he chooses? Then we’ll see just what our continued occupation of Iraq will mean for our soldiers. McCain doesn’t get it.

[slb2]

Books exaltations might not be functioning, but mine are. Here ya go, gk! And it's not even Friday!

[joew]

Congrats on getting through gailkate.

Six months ago was post-surge. Perhaps the cease-fire should be regarded as one of the ways in which the surge is working. Muqtada al-Sadr doesn't take his decisions in a vacuum.

[gailkate]

Well, of course, we all remember things a bit differently, depending on our focus. My point was that the marked decrease in deaths cannot be attributed solely to the surge. Sen. McCain never mentions the ceasefire. He states categorically that the surge is working and takes credit for having supported it. Failure to take the ceasefire into our reckoning blurs our thinking and, I believe, is irresponsible.

US says Iraq troop surge complete
15 Jun 2007 12:54:57 GMT
Source: Reuters
www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BUL522174.htm

Background
Iraq in turmoil
More (Updates with Maliki condeming Basra mosque attack; curfew)

By Alister Bull

BAGHDAD, June 15 (Reuters) - All U.S. troop reinforcements heading to Iraq to help restore security have now arrived, but it could take several more months before their weight is fully felt, the U.S. military said on Friday.

The United States has sent around 28,000 extra troops to Iraq for a fresh security push, launched in mid-February, aimed at curbing sectarian killing and winning the government of Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki time for political reform.

"Everyone is here on the ground now. But obviously the troops that have just got here are going to take some time to integrate into their battle space and get to know their counterparts," U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver said.

It will take 30 to 60 days for the new arrivals, who have taken total U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 160,000, to win the confidence of residents and start getting the intelligence needed to counter insurgent and militant attacks, Garver said.

That means troops might not be operating at full capacity until August. The top U.S. military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker are due to report on the success of the security build-up in September.

Below is the breakdown published by Iraq Coalition Casualties. Sorry they don't copy well; I've tried to fix the spacing but the columns just go back to the original. You might want to go to the web site. The Reuters article above states that the surge build-up was complete in June. Casusalties began to drop immediately, but were halved in August with the beginning of the ceasefire. icasualties.org/oif/

Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths Details Period Total
Feb-08 648
Jan-08 554
Dec-07 548
Nov-07 560
Oct-07 679
Sep-07 848
Aug-07 1,674
Jul-07 1,690
Jun-07 1,345
May-07 1,980
Apr-07 1,821
Mar-07 2,977
Feb-07 3,014
Jan-07 1,802
Dec-06 1,752
Nov-06 1,864
Oct-06 1,539
Sep-06 3,539
Aug-06 2,966
Jul-06 1,280
Jun-06 870
May-06 1,119
Apr-06 1,009
Mar-06 1,092
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 779
Note: Iraqi deaths based on news reports.
This is not a definitive count.

Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are higher than the numbers
recorded on this site.

This chart is even worse, but you can look at the numbers from 2007 to get a sense of our own casualties before and after the full deployment.

U.S. Deaths By Month/Year:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2003 0 0 65 74 37 30 48 35 31 44 82 40
2004 47 20 52 135 80 42 54 66 80 64 137 72
2005 107 58 35 52 80 78 54 85 49 96 84 68
2006 62 55 31 76 69 61 43 65 72 106 70 112
2007 83 81 81 104 126 101 78 84 65 38 37 23
2008 40 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


493 U.S. service men and women have died since the surge began working. What will we consider an acceptable number of coffins to send home over the hundred years McCain says we might be there? And if we'll only be there as a presence such as we have in S. Korea, at what time will there be zero coffins?

[joew]

Looks like good progress to me.

In March, April, and May of last year, U.S. deaths were 311. In the past three months, they were 92.
In March, April, and May of last year, Iraqi reported deaths were 5,778. In the past three months, they were 1,750.

If you want to insist that the surge isn't causing this improvement (which I would consider to be grasping at straws to avoid admitting the likeliest explanation of the observed reality), the improvement itself is undeniable. Pessimism is unwarranted.

[gailkate]

My point was that the marked decrease in deaths cannot be attributed solely to the surge.

Don't you read what I write? That makes any exchange pointless. I'm sorry I went to all that trouble.

[michael]

gailkate said:

My point was that the marked decrease in deaths cannot be attributed solely to the surge.

Don't you read what I write? That makes any exchange pointless. I'm sorry I went to all that trouble.

gk, it was not pointless and it was not a waste of time. Many people read what you write with great interest; they just don't respond with comment.

Mike

[brutus]

Now, Gail, settle those ruffled feathers of yours. I read your comments to CNN, and I can't say that they are, or are not accurate. I continue to follow my own gut instinct that those in charge of our national security, and those in charge of this "war" if you will, have a more accurate picture of Iraq than we are even capable of contemplating. You have to realize that we citizens of this nation simply cannot be privy to every piece of information. If we were, enemy sympathizers in our midst would be able to pass it along to our opponents. I have to wonder if we did see this "Big Picture", that we might be more apt to agree with Bush. I know, I can see the horror on your face, but you must admit that it is entirely possible. On the surface, he does, indeed, appear to be Bungler in Chief. Throwing lives into a mill that will produce nothing does seem to be the order of the day. The thing that p*sses me off is that we are fed information by a media that can slant words and numbers in any way it chooses, thus forming our opinions for us. This is not confined to Iraq, it was also pertinent to WWII, Korea, Vietnam, all the little skirmishes up to Gulf War I, and now Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, for a little kindly advice from a friend; Stop being so thin skinned. Mike is right, some folks read what others post, only choose not to respond, and there ain't nuttin' personal about it. Such is the case of the ~B~Man.
~B~

[joew]

Okay, gail, let me "review the bidding." You posted your comment to CNN in which suggested that the media should stop saying that "the surge is working," because Muqtada al-Sadr declared a cease fire (on the part of his militia) six months ago which he could call off if he chooses. You acknowledged that the surge has "helped" (which differs from "is working" how?). I attempted to engage you in discussion by pointing out that the cease-fire came after the surge and could reasonably be regarded as influenced by — if not caused by — the surge. You totally ignored my point and turned from the media to Sen. McCain. Now he is the one who should acknowledge the role of the cease fire in reducing deaths. And you posted some statistics. I responded to the statistics by attempting to broaden the discussion. In doing so I misstated your position as being "that the surge isn't causing this improvement." It would be more accurate, I think, to say that you say that the surge isn't the only factor in this improvement. But my basic point was that, whatever the cause of the improvement, there has been an improvement; and that there is no reason for anyone to be sure that it will not continue. You did not engage in any discussion of that point, but repeated your original point. And despite my two replies which discussed what you had said, you stated your original point for the third time. I am the one who should be writing, "Don't you read what I write? That makes any exchange pointless. I'm sorry I went to all that trouble." I responded with substantive comments to what you posted; you have not engaged the substance of my responses.

Do you think that the surge could possibly be a factor in Muqtada al-Sadr's cease fire?
Do you think the the progress, whatever factors have contributed to it, favors continuation of what we are doing rather than an abrupt cessation of our efforts?

[gailkate]

I'm off to see the tax man. will respond later. Quoting my own words was intended to asy that you, Joe, were arguing points I had already accepted as given. But I must not have been clear.

[gailkate]

OK, #1. I was not scolding others for not reading my posts. Heck, that is our Chatter-given right. I don't even look at some threads because I just can't keep up. I was speaking directly to Joe, who I thought was the only other person in the discussion.

#2. Brutus, although your tone is a tad condescending, I don't think you meant it to be. I grew up as a totally (neurotically?) obedient child. Moreover, it was the 50s, when everyone believed our government could do no wrong. You're right that even then our news was being limited and controlled in ways most people never dreamed of. We didn't know what some of our policies - particularly supporting repressive regimes for our own gain - were doing to our reputation around the world.
But now we're more savvy about the misinformation we're given. I believe we do respect the need for security secrets, but we won't give government a blank check. When Bush said we had to invade Iraq, most people believed we had no choice. Even some of the most wildly liberal members of the old CB thought we must be on the ropes or we'd never do something that our nation had never ever done - invade before attacked - in all our history.
But we did invade, and nothing we'd been told turned out to be true. Over and over the President supported Rumsfeld - even though one general after another publicly or privately objected to his strategy and execution. www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1181629,00.html
Shinseki, Franks, Zitti, Pace, I can't remember them all. And Sen. McCain, too, rightly said the approach was dead wrong.

So I believe in citizens questioning government. Our founders didn't encourage a passive electorate who would let another King George tell them he knew best. We have to work hard reading and listening in order to be informed. It's a huge burden, which is why the letter I wrote to the Cafferty file was directed not just at McCain but at the media who don't examine assumptions. CNN has reporters throughout the Middle East, but they haven't been heard from in months. Instead, we get a protracted presidential campaign fed by the media, who even conduct debates for their own ratings.

So, #3 will be a return to the fray with Joe. I apologize to all of you who thought I was being cranky or thin-skinned or whiny. (BTW, I think this is a lesson for me. If I hadn't gotten so excited about my 10 seconds of fame, this thread wouldn't exist. I'd erase it, but I don't think I have that power.)

[gailkate]

joew said:

Okay, gail, let me "review the bidding." You posted your comment to CNN in which suggested that the media should stop saying that "the surge is working," because Muqtada al-Sadr declared a cease fire (on the part of his militia) six months ago which he could call off if he chooses. You acknowledged that the surge has "helped" (which differs from "is working" how?). I attempted to engage you in discussion by pointing out that the cease-fire came after the surge and could reasonably be regarded as influenced by — if not caused by — the surge. You totally ignored my point and turned from the media to Sen. McCain.That was the question I was responding to, as posed by Jack Cafferty. I didn't ignore your point, I was trying to demonstrate - with a report from an objective source - that the timing didn't coincide with the arrival of troops but that the dramatic decreases began in August with the ceasefire. You're right, I didn't respond directly to your notion that the surge caused al-Sadr to call a ceasefire. Since I have no knowledge of any hint that the ceasefire was a result of the surge, I might have been tempted to accuse you of grasping at straws, but I'm too polite for that. Now he is the one who should acknowledge the role of the cease fire in reducing deaths.Yes, as I said, the question related to McCain's having tied his election to Bush's war. And you posted some statistics. I responded to the statistics by attempting to broaden the discussion.I don't see the broadening. I did a lot of homework for you and you focused on one tiny aspect, offering the sunny observation that thisngs were improving. I'd already said that. Then I said the toll was still too high. In doing so I misstated your position as being "that the surge isn't causing this improvement." It would be more accurate, I think, to say that you say that the surge isn't the only factor in this improvement.Darn betcha that was what I said. But my basic point was that, whatever the cause of the improvement, there has been an improvement; and that there is no reason for anyone to be sure that it will not continue. You did not engage in any discussion of that point, but repeated your original point.As I said, the improvement is a given. The statistics which I so laboriously copied demonstrate that improvement unequivocably. Did that not communicate my acceptance that improvement has indeed occurred? (Which, of course, I thought was already made clear by the phrase "marked decrease in deaths," but I'll grant that you might have missed that.) And despite my two replies which discussed what you had said, you stated your original point for the third time. I'm getting mixed up about how many times I made the same boring old point, which was the number of dead Americans we are willing to accept.I am the one who should be writing, "Don't you read what I write? That makes any exchange pointless. I'm sorry I went to all that trouble." I responded with substantive comments to what you posted; you have not engaged the substance of my responses.

Do you think that the surge could possibly be a factor in Muqtada al-Sadr's cease fire? It is possible, though I can't comprehend why he should have called a halt to the slaughter in response to the invader's increased presence. What are you suggesting, that al-Maliki and al-Sadr got together - perhaps even with the facilitation of Petraeus and Crocker - to pitch in with a ceasefire? Why hadn't they done this earlier? Why did al-Sadr and the predominantly Shiite government countenance and perhaps encourage unspeakable bloodshed? It makes no sense to me and I'm not being sarcastic. al-Sadr is a ruthless fanatic. Do you think the the progress, whatever factors have contributed to it, favors continuation of what we are doing rather than an abrupt cessation of our efforts?

No one has proposed an abrupt cessation. NO ONE but Ron Paul has made such a suggestion. By the time the next president takes office, the surge will already have been extended well beyond its proposed term. Sen. Clinton has said that withing 60 days she would begin withdrawing one or two brigades at a time with the advice of her military staff. I'm not aware of Sen. Obama's having said anything like the 60 days, but he has clearly said a withdrawal would be gradual, with attention to the safety of our troops, our embassy and our friends in Iraq. What these promises mean is that a Democratic president will begin a withdrawal no earlier than March 31, 2009. If that seems abrupt, well, yes, I support an "abrupt cessation."

None of this discussion matters, though, since today Sen. McCain has said the war will be over "soon." Sounds kind of abrupt.

[brutus]

Gail,
I apologize for any condescending tones I may have sent across, it was unintentional as you guessed.
Though I, too, sometimes question Bush's sanity, I actually think he may be the dupe here. I envision the Haliburton's hand-holding Cheney to be the "evil twin", if you will. Rumsfeld continually twisting information added to the fray until George felt it was absolutely necessary to go barging into Iraq. I am not holding him totally without guilt, but I have to wonder about the influences from his cabinet.
A sudden and complete drawdown from Iraq would be a bad move, in my opinion. At best there's a lot left to do, at worst, there's a lot left to do. We're in it, now, I guess.
~B~

[joew]

Okay, the major decline in deaths occurred in September. That follows more closely on the Mehdi Army's cease fire than on the completion of the surge deployment. But the cease fire and the surge are close enough in time that I think it is reasonable to suppose that the surge is what changed the situation enough to induce al-Sadr to initiate the cease-fire.

I don't know of any objective standard by which one can say that a given toll in deaths or casualties is too high. One has to think about the consequences of not engaging in the action which leads to the toll, bith in casualties to others and in evils other than casualties and deaths. Would it have been worth 10 lives to save the Russian people from the brutalities of Stalin and the subsequent communist dictatorship and Eastern Europe from Stalinist and Soviet domination? Would it have been worth 1,000? 1,000,000? Suppose continued American military action in Southeast Asia could have prevented the killing fields of Cambodia. How many lives would it have been worth? To my mind there are no right or wrong answers to these questions. The more so when it comes to situations where the consequences of current action will have consequences which cannot be known with certainty. Each of us can have an opinion as to how much is too much, but nobody can prove that they are right.

Your point seems to be that there has been improvement, but not enough. I am suggesting that things can continue to improve, and indeed that gradual progress can reasonably be expected. I also think that when a President comes into office pledging a complete withdrawal which will begin at a time certain (and I thought I heard or read that Obama had also promised to complete it within a specified period), the message that gives to the insurgents is that all they have to do is wait the coalition out, and they can win. I believe that any promise of withdrawal amounts to throwing away the progress which has been made up to now.

al-Sadr could well have agreed to the cease fire because he realized that his forces would have become one of the targets of the American forces if he had not declared it. Until the surge, they could get away with slaughtering Sunnis. The surge made it much more dangerous to do so.

[gailkate]

We're singing from the same songbook, ~B~. And I don't think anyone seriously thinks we should just order all the trucks packed and everybody transported by some arbitrary check-out time. Iraq isn't a Super-8.

[gailkate]

joew said:

Okay, the major decline in deaths occurred in September. That follows more closely on the Mehdi Army's cease fire than on the completion of the surge deployment. But the cease fire and the surge are close enough in time that I think it is reasonable to suppose that the surge is what changed the situation enough to induce al-Sadr to initiate the cease-fire.You could be right. I don't know how to search for in-depth analysis of how that came about, but I might try. He is baffling. Why the recent threat to end it if he had called for it with good intentions and progress was being made? To this suspicious liberal the threat coincided with Bush asking for an extension of the surge troop level.

I don't know of any objective standard by which one can say that a given toll in deaths or casualties is too high. One has to think about the consequences of not engaging in the action which leads to the toll, bith in casualties to others and in evils other than casualties and deaths....Each of us can have an opinion as to how much is too much, but nobody can prove that they are right. Again, we agree. A more recent example is our intervention in the Balkans. Clinton was roundly criticized for that, though it was a legal international effort, entered into with NATO. My pacifist preference is for peace and negotiations, but diplomatic resolution is difficult with sociopaths.

More important, diplomacy assumes governments with which to negotiate. From the very beginning Bush et. al were asked when we would know we had "won," when the Iraq war would end. I think the frustration of the people opposed to the war (no longer just Dems) is that there is always aanother goal just beyond the horizon, another huge budget request for one last urgent need.

Your point seems to be that there has been improvement, but not enough. I am suggesting that things can continue to improve, and indeed that gradual progress can reasonably be expected. I also think that when a President comes into office pledging a complete withdrawal which will begin at a time certain (and I thought I heard or read that Obama had also promised to complete it within a specified period), the message that gives to the insurgents is that all they have to do is wait the coalition out, and they can win. I believe that any promise of withdrawal amounts to throwing away the progress which has been made up to now. We see through the lens of whatever we've been reading and hearing. As I said, there has been no discussion of "complete" withdrawal with a published timetable - even Kerry wasn't saying that 4 years ago. Still it's true both sides exaggerate. McCain hasn't said he expects to keep the full troop strength in Iraq for 100 years, but that's how the left refers to his statement. I can't feel too much sympathy for him, though, because he has repeatedly said - inexcusably - that the Dems want to "wave the white flag." What a stupid appeal to jingoistic drum-beating. That's what leads people on your side to say we'll have lost all we accomplished. If that's true after 6 years, we had better learn from it instead of plowing on forever. Maybe we don't have the mindset required of a super power today. We think in terms of armies, winning and losing, defeat, capitulation, all those words that make testosterone boil. A better model might be the Cold War, wary and prolonged, with minimal confrontation.


al-Sadr could well have agreed to the cease fire because he realized that his forces would have become one of the targets of the American forces if he had not declared it. Until the surge, they could get away with slaughtering Sunnis. The surge made it much more dangerous to do so. Good point. And what does the recent failure to agree on October elections say about the progress being made with Sunnis? Did the Shiites get even more breathing room from us so they let this critical agreement fall apart?

[joew]

Maybe we don't have the mindset required of a super power today. We think in terms of armies, winning and losing, defeat, capitulation, all those words that make testosterone boil. A better model might be the Cold War, wary and prolonged, with minimal confrontation.

This reminds me of a recent column in the Boston Globe, where the writer suggested that after the end of the Soviet Union we wrongly assumed that as the only remaining superpower, we could rule the world. But in fact, when nobody needed us for security any more, they didn't have to do what we told them either. When you're the only superpower, you have to persuade others.

Our armed forces were designed for limited action, with most of the work being handled by nuclear deterrence. We could flatten Iraq, Iran, or North Korea, but they are not afraid that we will. Meanwhile, the attempt to pacify Iraq and Afghanistan taxes our fighting forces to their limit. Radical anti-Western Islamism will not field an army for us to defeat, so we can't win the "War on Terror" the way we won WWII. The best we can hope for is a Cold War.

And what does the recent failure to agree on October elections say about the progress being made with Sunnis? Did the Shiites get even more breathing room from us so they let this critical agreement fall apart?

I hope it isn't that, but just one of these occasional setbacks which are commonplace in negotiations. But I don't know. Time will tell.

I'll comment that if the Shiites understand what could happen after the next election, they would consider it in their interest to keep making visible progress toward an agreement with the Sunnis and Kurds to establish a stable and effective government.

From the very beginning Bush et. al were asked when we would know we had "won," when the Iraq war would end. I think the frustration of the people opposed to the war (no longer just Dems) is that there is always aanother goal just beyond the horizon, another huge budget request for one last urgent need.

I see the point. But if this is going to simmer down into a Cold War stalemate, victory will be as elusive as it was in CW#1. The point will not be exactly for us to win but to keep them from winning. And that's pretty open ended.

[gailkate]

I'm not posting this in order to raise more argument. As so often happens, we have talked ourselves into far more agreement than disagreement, which is a very good thing.
This is another piece from Reuters, which I respect for objectivity as I do the other wire services - not totally, but far more than any of our major media. I'm posting it simply as recent information. Again, the ceasefire gets only a postscript.Iraq casualties rise again after Qaeda bombs
Sat Mar 1, 2008 3:26pm EST
By Paul Tait

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violent civilian deaths in Iraq rose 36 percent in February from the previous month after a series of large-scale bombings blamed on al Qaeda, Iraqi government figures showed on Saturday.

A total of 633 civilians died violently in February, compared with 466 in January, according to figures released by Iraq's interior, defense and health ministries. It was the first increase after six consecutive months of falling casualty tolls.

Despite its sharp rise, the February 2008 figure was still dramatically lower than the 1,645 civilians who died violently in the same month a year ago. A total of 701 civilians were wounded, compared with 2,700 a year ago.

Declining civilian casualties have been hailed by Iraqi and U.S. military officials as proof that new counter-insurgency tactics adopted last year have been working and Iraq is safer.

February's casualty figures spiked after female bombers killed 99 people at two pet markets in Baghdad on February 2 and a suicide bomber killed 63 people returning from a Shi'ite religious ritual south of Baghdad on February 24.

Both attacks were blamed on al Qaeda, which U.S. commanders says has been resorted to new tactics, particularly the increased use of women in suicide attacks.

U.S. military officials said the suspected leader of a group that planned suicide bomb attacks had been detained in an operation on Friday near Khan Bani Saad, north of Baghdad. They said he was suspected of trying to recruit women, including his wife, to carry out bombings.

Officials say attacks across Iraq have fallen 60 percent since last June, when an extra 30,000 U.S. troops became fully deployed as part of the new counter-insurgency strategy, which included moving troops out of large bases and into smaller combat outposts.

ABDUCTED AT GUNPOINT

However U.S. commanders say al Qaeda and other insurgents remain dangerous enemies especially in Iraq's north where they have regrouped after crackdowns on former strongholds in western Anbar province and around Baghdad last year.

In northern Mosul, police were searching for Paulos Faraj Rahho, the Chaldean Catholic archbishop snatched at gunpoint after he left a church on Friday. His driver and two guards were killed in the attack.

Police and representatives of the Chaldean church, a branch of the Roman Catholic Church which practices an ancient Eastern rite, said nothing had been heard about Rahho's fate.

Christians make up about 3 percent of Iraq's 27 million mainly Muslim population and have been targeted several times in recent years. A Catholic priest and three assistants were killed in ethnically and religiously mixed Mosul last June.

"The situation for Christians is like that for other people in Iraq. We live in the same society and we are sharing the same suffering," Andraws Abuna, an assistant to the Chaldean patriarch of Baghdad, told Reuters.

U.S. military deaths fell after a spike in January. So far 29 U.S. soldiers have been reported killed in February, compared with 40 in January.

Both figures are much lower than a year ago, when 81 and 83 were killed in February and January 2007 as Iraq teetered on the brink of all-out sectarian civil war between majority Shi'ites and minority Sunni Arabs.

A total of 3,973 U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Britain's Ministry of Defense said a British airman had been killed late on Friday in a rocket attack on its military base in the southern city of Basra. The victim was the 175th British serviceman to be killed in Iraq since 2003.

The latest Iraqi data showed 65 policemen and 20 Iraqi soldiers were killed, compared with 132 and 28 respectively in January, and that 235 insurgents had been killed and 1,340 detained.

Another factor in improved security has been the six-month ceasefire announced in August of the Mehdi Army militia of anti-U.S. Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. That ceasefire was extended by another six months last month.

(Additional reporting by Michael Holden in Baghdad; Editing by Richard Balmforth)


© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.

[joew]

Thanks for the update. Obviously things can change significantly (for better or worse)at any time.

[gailkate]

Yes, and the love-fest between Ahmadinejad and the Iraqi president looks like worse and then some. Makes me want to spit.

BAGHDAD, March 2 (Reuters) - Pomp and ceremony greeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his arrival in Iraq on Sunday, the fanfare a stark contrast to the rushed and secretive visits of his bitter rival U.S. President George W. Bush.

Ahmadinejad held hands with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani as they walked down a red carpet to the tune of their countries' national anthems, his visit the first by an Iranian president since the two neighbours fought a ruinous war in the 1980s.

His warm reception, in which he was hugged and kissed by Iraqi officials and presented with flowers by children, was Iraq's first full state welcome for any leader since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

His visit not only marks the cementing in ties between the neighbours, both run by Shi'ite majorities, but is seen as a show of support for the Iraqi government and an act of defiance against Iran's longtime enemy, the United States, which has over 150,000 troops Iraq.


Here's the link if you can stomach the rest of it. www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL02355657

[slb2]

Popping in to say that I'm reading (sometimes too quickly) this thread, but I honestly don't keep up on this issue with the same intensity as gk or joew. There's NO pride about that fact. I appreciate learning from those of you who have your eyes open and minds alert.

ty

[doctork]

I note with - chagrin, irony, disgust? I'm not sure - the full circle.

Our hostages were held in Tehran back in 1979, so Iran was our enemy. We built up and armed Saddam to help him fight Iraq's war with their enemy, Iran. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?

Then Saddam became our enemy, still not quite sure why. Yes, he invaded Kuwait back in 1991, and we needed to defend Kuwait. And then there were those long-range missiles, and then there was the WMD, and then there were all the other things the current administration has mentioned as justifying our current presence in Iraq.

But now our "ally" President Jalabani and Prime Minister al-Nuriki of Iraq are now buddy-buddy with their former enemy Iran and Achmadinejad, apparently in retaliation/reaction to our continued presence in Iraq.

I don't think we as a nation have a very good understanding of the Middle East, Arabs, or Muslims. We seem to keep arming our "allies" and then turning them into enemies.

Once again, I'm not surprised we shoot ourselves in the foot. Just how quickly we reload.

[michael]

Petroleum, the crude product that is distilled and refined to produce a whole lot of problems in the world.

[joew]

Yes. Well…

Of course, a lot changed when the Sunni, Saddam Hussein was removed and the new head of govenment was a Shiite, since the rulers of Iran are Shiite.

[Trusty]

doctork said:

I don't think we as a nation have a very good understanding of the Middle East, Arabs, or Muslims. We seem to keep arming our "allies" and then turning them into enemies.

Just swap a few words ("selling" for "arming", "customers" for "allies", "debtors" for "enemies"). The only problem is: it's working in reverse.