Scores Killed, At Least 500 Wounded in Bomb Attacks in Baghdad

[I'mNotDedalus]

Twin car bombs targeted two government buildings in downtown Baghdad Sunday, wrecking pillars of the state's authority and cutting like a scythe through snarled traffic during the morning rush hour. The government said at least 132 people were killed and 520 wounded in one of the worst attacks in Baghdad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...102500811.html

[Malruhn]

Yup, pulling troops out was a brilliant idea.
[/dripping sarcasm]

[wanderwoman]

Originally Posted by Malruhn

Yup, pulling troops out was a brilliant idea.
[/dripping sarcasm]

Except we have 141,000 troops in Iraq, which is still more than were there before the surge.

ETA: My bad, I found a newer source. About 124,000 still left in Iraq, which is the lowest we've been as far as I can see. What would have to happen in Iraq before you think we could leave? Do we have to stay there forever because the Iraqi government can't get a handle on things?

I do have a strong opinion about where the mistake was made. We did the wrong thing about 6 1/2 years ago, IMO. We'll be paying for it forever.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Malruhn

Yup, pulling troops out was a brilliant idea.
[/dripping sarcasm]

The Iraqi people want us gone; to remain would be to occupy them against their will.

If we had remained in country in visible charge of security, it would have been our soldiers dying in bomb blasts like these.

Silas

[Eddylizard]

Does it matter who's citizens are getting killed? It is an attrocity however you spin it. Yeah lucky that; a hundred and something ragheads got killed but no US troops thank God.

Yes I cannot really see an escape rope from this conflict. I would like to think that in the medium term, something will be worked out. I doubt that will happen without further bloodshed.

[I'mNotDedalus]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Does it matter who's citizens are getting killed? It is an attrocity however you spin it. Yeah lucky that; a hundred and something ragheads got killed but no US troops thank God.

Ulysses, Gabler Edition, 482.4469-74:

STEPHEN

(nervous, friendly, pulls himself up) I understand your point of view
though I have no king myself for the moment. This is the age of patent
medicines. A discussion is difficult down here. But this is the point. You die
for your country. Suppose. (he places his arm on Private Carr's sleeve)
Not that I wish it for you. But I say: Let my country die for me. Up to the
present it has done so. I didn't want it to die. Damn death. Long live life!

Non serviam! Non serviam! Non serviam! Non serviam! Non serviam!

[I'mNotDedalus]

The Iraqi Defense and Interior Ministries began an investigation of security breaches that allowed the bombings to occur, according to a statement by the defense minister, Abdul Qader Mohammed Jasim. The bombs were in a minivan and a water tanker truck and had to pass multiple security checkpoints to reach their targets. Trucks are banned from Baghdad’s streets during daylight hours unless they have special permits issued by the military, and those are checked at every roadblock.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/wo...st/27iraq.html

[Malruhn]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

If we had remained in country in visible charge of security, it would have been our soldiers dying in bomb blasts like these.

Silas

Silas, that is more of an assumption than my assertion that higher troop levels were helping the situation. With higher troop levels, there WEREN'T such successful attacks against such prime targets.

This is standard, "Macho Man" sex... we are claiming "job completed" and withdrawing prior to the job actually being completed. They aren't READY to be left on their own yet, and yet we leave.

What we've done thus far with their police/military, is basically handed them a knife and tell them, "Pokey end goes that way," and leaving them to their own devices! Whether they want us or not, we have an obligation to at least leave them in a situation where they can govern and defend themselves. As of right now, they can't. We shouldn't be going yet.

[I'mNotDedalus]

Originally Posted by Malruhn

With higher troop levels, there WEREN'T such successful attacks against such prime targets.

2007, the year of the surge, witnessed some of the most frequently successful suicide attacks against government, residential, and religious sites in Iraq. How were you defining "prime targets"?

This is standard, "Macho Man" sex... we are claiming "job completed" and withdrawing prior to the job actually being completed. They aren't READY to be left on their own yet, and yet we leave.

That hardly takes into consideration if the Iraqis actually want us there (which they don't), whether the "job is completed" or not.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by Malruhn

Silas, that is more of an assumption than my assertion that higher troop levels were helping the situation. With higher troop levels, there WEREN'T such successful attacks against such prime targets.

There were mortar attacks, which can't be protected against by checkpoints.

. . . What we've done thus far with their police/military, is basically handed them a knife and tell them, "Pokey end goes that way," and leaving them to their own devices! Whether they want us or not, we have an obligation to at least leave them in a situation where they can govern and defend themselves. As of right now, they can't. We shouldn't be going yet.

But...it's their country. If they tell us to scram, well, we pretty much have to. I agree that we could do a better job of protecting them than they seem to be of protecting themselves, but how long do we have to stay -- against their own express wishes?

I've always admired the Murtha plan: withdraw from the cities, but maintain a response force in-country to prevent anyone like Iran from getting ideas. Defend Iraq's borders, but allow it, as a nation, to govern itself internally.

Silas

[I'mNotDedalus]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

I've always admired the Murtha plan: withdraw from the cities, but maintain a response force in-country to prevent anyone like Iran from getting ideas. Defend Iraq's borders, but allow it, as a nation, to govern itself internally.

This idea has never made much sense to me. By what moral position do we determine an Iranian invasion to be a bad idea? As opposed to our good idea of illegally invading Iraq, unleashing hellish death and devastation upon the country? Who's to say Iranian forces wouldn't be the benevolent invaders, saving the Iraqi population from us (which is surely how they would advertise the campaign)? I'm by no means arguing for an Iranian invasion of Iraq. Just that, if it's a bad idea for them, it's a bad idea for any foreign uninvited force, righto?

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by I'mNotDedalus

This idea has never made much sense to me. By what moral position do we determine an Iranian invasion to be a bad idea? As opposed to our good idea of illegally invading Iraq, unleashing hellish death and devastation upon the country? Who's to say Iranian forces wouldn't be the benevolent invaders, saving the Iraqi population from us (which is surely how they would advertise the campaign)? I'm by no means arguing for an Iranian invasion of Iraq. Just that, if it's a bad idea for them, it's a bad idea for any foreign uninvited force, righto?

Um...no, that doesn't follow.

For example, the allied WWII invasion of "Vichy France" was not the same (morally) as the German invasion of France. The NATO involvement in Yugoslavia is another possible example, and also the invasion of Iraq to free Kuwait.

All invasions aren't equal.

(That said, I think the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was, in fact, bad.)

Silas

[I'mNotDedalus]

Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer

(That said, I think the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 was, in fact, bad.)

That was the only invasion I was talking about.

[DesertRat]

Murtha's plan, at the time it was proposed, was completely the wrong solution. The idea sounds logical on paper, but centures of practical COIN experience indicate that what sounds logical on paper can be counterintuitive and just wrong in reality. The manner in which Generals Petraeus and Odierno shifted the campaign focus to classic COIN (embed with and protect the population, deny the enemy their "human cover and concealment") has proven historically effect, and in the 2007-2009 timeframe has proven effective in Iraq. Murtha was wrong, wrong, wrong... at the time.

That being said, I have to disagree with Malruhn and argue that our COIN campaign has gone as far as it can go. The Iraqi military is "ready enough"--some units are superb, some units are lacking, but for the most part, they are good enough. Local government in most provinces is actually quite strong. Provincial and national gov't... well, those remain a disappointment, especially the latter.

But the point is, we have achieved everything that our military presence is capable of achieving. For better or for worse, it is time to pull away entrust the Iraqis to salvage their country. Should we maintain a large, nearby QRF for the "just in case" scenarios? Of course. But at this point, remaining deeply and directly embedded with the Iraqi population has reached the point of diminishing returns, and if continued, may start to cause more discord than stability.

We saved Iraq from the brink of disaster (albeit a brink we brought them to), and our servicemembers and their leadership should be very proud of that. Now it's time to go; Iraq, as a nation, is the Iraqis' to save or destroy.

[CannonFodder]

Originally Posted by DesertRat

We saved Iraq from the brink of disaster (albeit a brink we brought them to), and are servicemembers and their leadership should be very proud of that. Now it's time to go; Iraq, as a nation, is the Iraqi's to save or destroy.

I know we're not supposed to do 'me too' posts, but in this case having given years of my life, some of my mental health and two good friends to the effort, I would just like to publicly state my concurrence with DR's statement. We went in and broke it, we put it back together as best we could, time to go.