REPORTS from Iraq continue to be good. Quick! Someone tell congressional Democrats.
Advertisement
U.S. military officials say the level of violence is at its lowest point since January 2006, and the number of attacks keeps dropping. Not since just before the Shiite shrine at Samarra was bombed, igniting full-blown sectarian bloodshed, has there been such relative calm in Iraq.
Data released Sunday, tallying car and roadside bombs, rockets and other types of attacks showed about 575 such incidents in the previous week across the country. That's still a lot. But it's lower than the 700 attacks recorded the week of the Samarra bombing in February 2006 and just a little more than a third of the 1,600 attacks that were occurring each week in June.
Military officials told The New York Times that Iraqi civilian deaths also are down, by 60 percent since June. "These trends are stunning in military terms and beyond the predictions of most proponents of the surge last winter,” Michael O'Hanlon, military analyst for the Brookings Institution, told The Times.
They are and argue that critics of President Bush's troop surge strategy should acknowledge the change in course he ordered in January was the right move.
Of course, the key to the future is Iraqi political reconciliation. The window is open. No one knows how long the trend lines will point downward or what will happen as U.S. troops begin leaving — as Bush already has ordered before the end of the year. Iraq's political leaders need to seize the opportunity.
Full credit for the changing nature of Iraq goes to the U.S. military and brave State Department professionals who've worked in tandem to secure Baghdad, neighborhood by neighborhood, and grow democratic institutions from the ground up. If Iraq has turned the corner, as latest reports suggest, it's due to their efforts.
Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on crime or fatality stories.
Leave a comment.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
Julie, I'd agree with you IF I thought that most of the money that is supposed to support the troops ("FUND THEIR NEEDS") was actually getting to the troops. But I don't believe it is. John, I agree with you, but you may be a little hard on Jack, because he's a regular contributor. Most regular contributors have a lot of time on their hands. Most of us are either retired (and often set in our ways), are out of work (and chapped about it), are teenagers not in school (and either naive or obnoxious) or are mental patients (and caught in a loop). Trying to correct any of these is usually a futile effort. David, your opinion is thorough and logical, and I mostly agre. but I think managing the relationship between the Middle East countries and the governments of Central Asia is more essential to managing conflict over there than resolving specific political problems in Iraq. Happy Thanksgiving.
All of the troops currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan either joined up or reenlisted AFTER these wars began. It is an all volunteer military. The vast majority of our troops BELIEVE in this mission. They are there every day seeing the failure or success of our foreign policy in person. The troops know they are succeeding in Iraq and Afghanistan and it is time for the Democrats to stop playing politics with the troops' sacrifices and FUND THEIR NEEDS so they can complete their mission with honor and success... whether that takes 12 more months or 12 more years.
As a veteran of the US marine Corp and life long Democrat, you Jack, are a true Jackass. Why is it that the majority of Iraq veterans that sekk national office are registered Democrats? While there is a reduction in Bagdad violence the so called surge has still failed to meet the majority of goals that the administration sighned off on.
Jack, you've got be kidding about Democrats being sad that more troops aren't being killed. You really have missed the whole point why many are against this war. It is because troops are being "maimed and killed" that most people in this country want our troops home. Some of us see no reason to sacrifice our sons and daughters blood in wars we should never have been involved in. Most of us are thrilled the surge is reducing violence because that has been our goal all along. However, the bigger question is will the political issues be resolved that need to occur for us to succeed in Iraq? The surge as I understand it from the President is taking place to buy time for the Iraqi's to resolve their political issues. From what I also understand there is no progress happening there. How long will we keep all these troops in Iraq to give them time to make this work...a year, two years, five or ten years. I know what you're saying, "as long as it takes". Who really cares about how many of our troops are killed or maimed? Think about it.
5
Thank you for joining our conversations on NewsOK.com. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Leave a comment. Log in below or sign up (it's free).Editor's note: It is not our intent to offer comments on crime or fatality stories.