Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.

 

The ministry released the new figures as bomb blasts in Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul killed five people and six gunmen died in clashes with police in the holy Shi'ite city of Kerbala south of the Iraqi capital.

 

Washington began dispatching reinforcements to Iraq in February to try to buy Iraq's feuding political leaders time to reach a political accommodation to end violence between majority Shi'ites and minority Sunni Arabs that has killed tens of thousands and forced millions from their homes.

 

While the leaders have failed to agree on key laws aimed at reconciling the country's warring sects, the troop buildup has succeeded in quelling violence.

 

Under the plan, U.S. troops left their large bases and set up combat outposts in neighborhoods while launching a series of summer offensives against Sunni Islamist al Qaeda, other Sunni Arab militants and Shi'ite militias in the Baghdad beltway.

 

Interior Ministry spokesman Major-General Abdul-Karim Khalaf told reporters that there had been a 70 percent decrease in violence countrywide in the three months from July to September over the previous quarter.

 

GRADUAL IMPROVEMENT

 

In Baghdad, considered the epicenter of the violence because of its mix of Shi'ites and Sunni Arabs, car bombs had decreased by 67 percent and roadside bombs by 40 percent, he said. There had also been a 28 percent decline in the number of bodies found dumped in the capital's streets.

 

In Anbar, a former insurgent hotbed where Sunni Arab tribes have joined U.S. forces against al Qaeda, there has been an 82 percent drop in violent deaths.

 

"These figures show a gradual improvement in controlling the security situation," Khalaf said.

 

However, in the northern province of Nineveh, where many al Qaeda and other Sunni Arab militants fled to escape the crackdown in Baghdad and surrounding region, there had been a 129 percent rise in car bombings and a corresponding 114 percent increase in the number of people killed in violence.

 

While the figures confirm U.S. data showing a positive trend in combating al Qaeda bombers, there is growing instability in southern Iraq, where rival Shi'ite factions are fighting for political dominance.

 

Police said six gunmen were killed in police raids in Kerbala, 110 km (70 miles) southwest of Baghdad.

 

Some 50 people were killed in Kerbala in August in fierce clashes between fighters loyal to Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and local police, who are seen as aligned to the rival Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council's armed wing, the Badr Organization.

 

After the clashes, Sadr said he was imposing a six-month freeze on the activities of the Mehdi Army, increasingly seen as beyond his control, so that he could reorganize it.

 

In Baghdad, three roadside bombs killed four people, including three policemen, while in Mosul one policeman was killed when a blast hit a police patrol.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idU...=22&sp=true

So the troops can come home?

Hooray, mission accomplished!!!

Hooray, mission accomplished!!!

I dont care what your position on the war is, lowering violence in a place where we have Americans in harms way is a good thing.

 

What an asbolute asanine post.

Hooray, mission accomplished!!!

I dont care what your position on the war is, lowering violence in a place where we have Americans in harms way is a good thing.

 

What an asbolute asanine post.

Yeah, real asinine. The only asinine thing here is you making this post in a way to try and leverage your side of the war. You can come back and claim you weren't, but based on your previous post, the intent is pretty obvious.

I'd put your chances of knowing 'my side (whatever the hell that means) of the war' at 0%.

 

My only stance on the war right now is not a straight withdrawl.

 

But you got me, its a big scheme I have to 'leverage' 'my side' of the war to people on a message board I don't know and don't care about. Or it could be I like hearing good news for Americans who are fighting everyday and for those people and former classmates of mine at A&M who are over there right now.

I'd put your chances of knowing 'my side (whatever the hell that means) of the war' at 0%.

 

My only stance on the war right now is not a straight withdrawl.

 

But you got me, its a big scheme I have to 'levrage' 'my side' of the war to people on a message board I don't know and don't care about. Or it could be I like hearing good news for Americans who are fighting everyday and for those people and former classmates of mine at A&M who are over there right now.

:lol :lol :lol

 

Your post(s) are comical. Yeah, very hard to see your stance on the war based on previous posts you've made. Do I doubt you like hearing good news for the Americans fighting over there? Not at all. However, do I think you also had another motive for posting this? Sure do.

 

Whatever, I could care less if you think my original post was asinine. This is a topic not even remotely worth debating. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how misguided it may be.

Support the troops!

 

The secret ulterior motive hypothesis is absolutely hysterical. I'm sure Reuters has the same diabolical plan.

Lowering violence was always something we could do. But our goal goes well beyond just lowering violence. We could send a surge of cops into the worst neighborhood in America, but that by itself doesn't resolve crime unless we are willing to sustain that forever.

 

Can we trust the Iraqis to sustain this themselves? Can we trust that a civil war will not happen? How long are we going to stay there? We are not the Iraqi police and security department, are we?

Would you not agree that you need to get violence down to an 'acceptable' level before what you describe can take place?

Would you not agree that you need to get violence down to an 'acceptable' level before what you describe can take place?

 

Yes. But would you agree that if we continue to keep the violence down and there is no indication with due time that what I describe will actually take place, that withdrawal becomes the option and not just keeping our troops there as a police force? But if that does happen, then troop withdrawal also becomes the primary option?

 

Therein lies the problem for the past 2-3 years. Bush has been telling us to keep the troops there over and over and over again, sustainability from the government is just around the corner. He tells us that once sustainability happens, the troops come home. Suffice it to say, we have effectively become a police force. At what point does someone say enough is enough?

 

Isn't this sort of like military welfare? What incentive does the Iraqi government have for actually taking responsbility and creating sustainability if they are told we will stay there until they become self-sustaining?

Would you not agree that you need to get violence down to an 'acceptable' level before what you describe can take place?

 

Yes. But would you agree that if we continue to keep the violence down and there is no indication with due time that what I describe will actually take place, that withdrawal becomes the option and not just keeping our troops there as a police force? But if that does happen, then troop withdrawal also becomes the primary option?

 

Therein lies the problem for the past 2-3 years. Bush has been telling us to keep the troops there over and over and over again, progress from the government is just around the corner. Suffice it to say, we have effectively become a police force. At what point does someone say enough is enough?

 

The fact that we should not have gone over there in the first place is not a sufficient reason for leaving to soon. That being said I do not believe that Bush has implemented enough strategies for peace in Iraq. He is on the right track by refusing to withdraw til the job is done, but the man doesn't have a clue how to get "the job" done.

 

And hey, I am not saying I do either, but I'm not the President.

Would you not agree that you need to get violence down to an 'acceptable' level before what you describe can take place?

 

Yes. But would you agree that if we continue to keep the violence down and there is no indication with due time that what I describe will actually take place, that withdrawal becomes the option and not just keeping our troops there as a police force? But if that does happen, then troop withdrawal also becomes the primary option?

 

Therein lies the problem for the past 2-3 years. Bush has been telling us to keep the troops there over and over and over again, progress from the government is just around the corner. Suffice it to say, we have effectively become a police force. At what point does someone say enough is enough?

 

The fact that we should not have gone over there in the first place is not a sufficient reason for leaving to soon. That being said I do not believe that Bush has implemented enough strategies for peace in Iraq. He is on the right track by refusing to withdraw til the job is done, but the man doesn't have a clue how to get "the job" done.

 

And hey, I am not saying I do either, but I'm not the President.

 

The question to be asked is, how long are you willing to stay?

Would you not agree that you need to get violence down to an 'acceptable' level before what you describe can take place?

 

Yes. But would you agree that if we continue to keep the violence down and there is no indication with due time that what I describe will actually take place, that withdrawal becomes the option and not just keeping our troops there as a police force? But if that does happen, then troop withdrawal also becomes the primary option?

 

Therein lies the problem for the past 2-3 years. Bush has been telling us to keep the troops there over and over and over again, progress from the government is just around the corner. Suffice it to say, we have effectively become a police force. At what point does someone say enough is enough?

 

The fact that we should not have gone over there in the first place is not a sufficient reason for leaving to soon. That being said I do not believe that Bush has implemented enough strategies for peace in Iraq. He is on the right track by refusing to withdraw til the job is done, but the man doesn't have a clue how to get "the job" done.

 

And hey, I am not saying I do either, but I'm not the President.

 

The question to be asked is, how long are you willing to stay?

 

As long as it takes to get the job done, if the expected result is reasonably possible. My point is that Bush has the willpower to get the job done but not the expertise. His strategy of 'let's hang out and do our best to stop violence' is not the answer.

 

Personally, if I were satisfied with Bush's effort to quell Iraq's problems, I would expect that we would be gone by now. That's how long I am willing to stay. However, I am not satisfied with the dynamics of our presence in Iraq and thus I would not be satisfied with a pure withdrawal at this time.

Would you not agree that you need to get violence down to an 'acceptable' level before what you describe can take place?

 

Yes. But would you agree that if we continue to keep the violence down and there is no indication with due time that what I describe will actually take place, that withdrawal becomes the option and not just keeping our troops there as a police force? But if that does happen, then troop withdrawal also becomes the primary option?

 

Therein lies the problem for the past 2-3 years. Bush has been telling us to keep the troops there over and over and over again, progress from the government is just around the corner. Suffice it to say, we have effectively become a police force. At what point does someone say enough is enough?

 

The fact that we should not have gone over there in the first place is not a sufficient reason for leaving to soon. That being said I do not believe that Bush has implemented enough strategies for peace in Iraq. He is on the right track by refusing to withdraw til the job is done, but the man doesn't have a clue how to get "the job" done.

 

And hey, I am not saying I do either, but I'm not the President.

 

The question to be asked is, how long are you willing to stay?

 

As long as it takes to get the job done, if the expected result is reasonably possible. My point is that Bush has the willpower to get the job done but not the expertise. His strategy of 'let's hang out and do our best to stop violence' is not the answer.

 

Personally, if I were satisfied with Bush's effort to quell Iraq's problems, I would expect that we would be gone by now. That's how long I am willing to stay. However, I am not satisfied with the dynamics of our presence in Iraq and thus I would not be satisfied with a pure withdrawal at this time.

 

I disagree. I think strategy is done by military and military has told Bush that full sustainability will not happen in this country without our presence, and only military policing will create some form of stability, thereby explaining Bush's stubborness. He doesn't want to be the one that pulls his finger out of the damn so to speak. He wants the next president to either keep his/her finger in there or be responsible for pulling it out.

Would you not agree that you need to get violence down to an 'acceptable' level before what you describe can take place?

 

Yes. But would you agree that if we continue to keep the violence down and there is no indication with due time that what I describe will actually take place, that withdrawal becomes the option and not just keeping our troops there as a police force? But if that does happen, then troop withdrawal also becomes the primary option?

 

Therein lies the problem for the past 2-3 years. Bush has been telling us to keep the troops there over and over and over again, progress from the government is just around the corner. Suffice it to say, we have effectively become a police force. At what point does someone say enough is enough?

 

The fact that we should not have gone over there in the first place is not a sufficient reason for leaving to soon. That being said I do not believe that Bush has implemented enough strategies for peace in Iraq. He is on the right track by refusing to withdraw til the job is done, but the man doesn't have a clue how to get "the job" done.

 

And hey, I am not saying I do either, but I'm not the President.

 

The question to be asked is, how long are you willing to stay?

 

As long as it takes to get the job done, if the expected result is reasonably possible. My point is that Bush has the willpower to get the job done but not the expertise. His strategy of 'let's hang out and do our best to stop violence' is not the answer.

 

Personally, if I were satisfied with Bush's effort to quell Iraq's problems, I would expect that we would be gone by now. That's how long I am willing to stay. However, I am not satisfied with the dynamics of our presence in Iraq and thus I would not be satisfied with a pure withdrawal at this time.

 

I disagree. I think strategy is done by military and military has told Bush that full sustainability will not happen in this country without our presence, and only military policing will create some form of stability, thereby explaining Bush's stubborness. He doesn't want to be the one that pulls his finger out of the damn so to speak. He wants the next president to either keep his/her finger in there or be responsible for pulling it out.

 

That I believe you are correct about.

 

But I do not agree that sustainability in Iraq is depended on our military presence, in fact I believe it's quite the opposite. I'm not saying you believe that but the powers that be do.

Would you not agree that you need to get violence down to an 'acceptable' level before what you describe can take place?

 

Yes. But would you agree that if we continue to keep the violence down and there is no indication with due time that what I describe will actually take place, that withdrawal becomes the option and not just keeping our troops there as a police force? But if that does happen, then troop withdrawal also becomes the primary option?

 

Therein lies the problem for the past 2-3 years. Bush has been telling us to keep the troops there over and over and over again, sustainability from the government is just around the corner. He tells us that once sustainability happens, the troops come home. Suffice it to say, we have effectively become a police force. At what point does someone say enough is enough?

 

Isn't this sort of like military welfare? What incentive does the Iraqi government have for actually taking responsbility and creating sustainability if they are told we will stay there until they become self-sustaining?

I agree with this.

 

If it were up to me, I'd absolutely be turning the screws to Iraq in getting them to be doing it themselves as soon as they can.

Would you not agree that you need to get violence down to an 'acceptable' level before what you describe can take place?

 

Yes. But would you agree that if we continue to keep the violence down and there is no indication with due time that what I describe will actually take place, that withdrawal becomes the option and not just keeping our troops there as a police force? But if that does happen, then troop withdrawal also becomes the primary option?

 

Therein lies the problem for the past 2-3 years. Bush has been telling us to keep the troops there over and over and over again, sustainability from the government is just around the corner. He tells us that once sustainability happens, the troops come home. Suffice it to say, we have effectively become a police force. At what point does someone say enough is enough?

 

Isn't this sort of like military welfare? What incentive does the Iraqi government have for actually taking responsbility and creating sustainability if they are told we will stay there until they become self-sustaining?

I agree with this.

 

If it were up to me, I'd absolutely be turning the screws to Iraq in getting them to be doing it themselves as soon as they can.

 

Yes, it's easy to say that, and true, but the question is how do we do that? Do we set a timetable for withdrawal? It seems like that is a taboo for Republicans because Democrats came up with the idea. But would saying "hey, uhh, we're outta here in a year. get your sh*t straight" not be what is needed to "turn the screws" as you say?

 

I think it could be, and I personally wouldn't mind feigning an upcoming withdrawal to see the reaction in Iraq. But hey that's all conjecture on my part.

I'd like to see violence get to an acceptable level (what that level is, I'll admit I don't know and I don't know if we are there either). Once we have done that, I think the troops and this country have done all we can.

 

We got rid of their dictator and now we've cleaned up the fallout from that, now it is your job to preserve democracy and some semblance of peace in the country.

True, I can go with you on that.

OK, two problems with this.

 

1. We have already seen how the government, or the Iraqi government, has cherry-picked what they consider violence in Iraq, so that it appears to those not paying enough attention that things are getting 'better'.

 

2. The Iraqis are still under no pressure to get going on their end, because we are still giving them billions of dollars with no strings attached. If it wasn't for the members of Congress insistent on leaving things status quo in Iraq right now, we might actually have set mandatory benchmarks for the Iraqis to meet if they are to keep getting funding. If we continue down this current path, where we are throwing all of the troops that we can at the situation, and they are dying regularly, but the Iraqis are not really required to do anything, we will be here forever. No one in the White House, DoD, or State Department seems willing to demand that the Iraqis get moving on anything anymore, let alone back it up with threats. If we are going to get out of Iraq before I retire, we have to motivate them to get moving now.

True, I can go with you on that.

My secret plan worked!

 

:lol

when it comes to liberal or conservative issues in the newspapers of late I always think back to this quote:

 

Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper. - George Orwell

 

 

that said is they are calculating it correctly this is indeed good news. In my opinion every american life lost over there is too many and I merely pray and hope they men and women there come home soon and safely and the people in the middle east find peace no matter the race or religion of the individual.

 

Of course I do realize the last has less a chance happening then me winning the lottery 7 times in a row