Iraq Attacks Fall 60 Percent, Petraeus Says

[Gunny]

By STEPHEN FARRELL and SOLOMON MOORE
Published: December 30, 2007

BAGHDAD — The top American military commander in Iraq said Saturday that violent attacks in the country had fallen by 60 percent since June, but cautioned that security gains were “tenuous” and “fragile,” requiring political and economic progress to cement them.

The commander, Gen. David H. Petraeus, said the “principal threat” to security remained Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown insurgent group that American intelligence officials say is foreign led.

Speaking to reporters in an end-of-year briefing at the American Embassy in Baghdad, General Petraeus said that coalition-force casualties were down “substantially,” and that civilian casualties had fallen “dramatically.”

“The level of attacks for about the last 11 weeks or so has been one not seen consistently since the late spring and summer of 2005,” he said. “The number of high-profile attacks, that is car bombs, suicide car bombs and suicide vest attacks, is also down, also roughly 60 percent” since their height in March.

During his 100-minute briefing, General Petraeus used a series of charts showing trends in overall weekly and monthly attacks, car and suicide bombs, weapons-cache finds and Iraqi civilian deaths.

Although the data showed a sharp fall in civilian deaths from their peak between mid-2006 and mid-2007, the rate of decline appeared to level off in the past two months.

The figures were based on American military statistics, but included some joint Iraqi-coalition data.

more ... http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/w...079d89dac2ce07&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Couldn't possibly be .....

 

[onedomino]

General Petraeus: man with a message of hope

complete article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/30/nperson130.xml

The critics said it couldn't be done, but the vision and determination of General David Petraeus have brought greater security and cause for optimism to the people of Iraq. He is The Sunday Telegraph's Person of the Year

For a man whose critics say he is far too fond of the television cameras, General David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Iraq, has been rather out of the limelight this Christmas.

The sprightly, media-friendly 55-year-old is not perturbed, however, that his face is no longer number one item on the US networks. As he said last week, where Iraq is concerned, "No news is good news."

Today, we put him in the spotlight again by naming Gen Petraeus as The Sunday Telegraph's Person of the Year, a new annual accolade to recognise outstanding individual achievement.

He has been the man behind the US troop surge over the past 10 months, the last-ditch effort to end Iraq's escalating civil war by putting an extra 28,000 American troops on the ground.

So far, it has achieved what many feared was impossible. Sectarian killings are down. Al-Qaeda is on the run. And the two million Iraqis who fled the country are slowly returning. Progress in Iraq is relative - 538 civilians died last month. But compared with the 3,000 peak of December last year, it offers at least a glimmer of hope.

-

 

[MasterChief]

Have you read his resume? This guy is sharp. If I am remembering correctly, PhD. from Princeton and he was researching counterinsurgency methods when everyone else was still thinking mass infantry maneuvers in central Europe. He is the type of person we need as head of the joint chiefs, secretary of defense or president.

 

[Annie]

Have you read his resume? This guy is sharp. If I am remembering correctly, PhD. from Princeton and he was researching counterinsurgency methods when everyone else was still thinking mass infantry maneuvers in central Europe. He is the type of person we need as head of the joint chiefs, secretary of defense or president.

Yep, here's his official bio:

http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/archives/LTG_Petreaus.pdf

Lieutenant General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth on October 20th, 2005 following deployment in Iraq as the first commander of the Multi-National
Security Transition Command – Iraq, which he led from June 2004 to September 2005, and the NATO Training Mission – Iraq, which he commanded from October 2004 to September 2005.

Prior to that deployment, he commanded the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), leading the “Screaming Eagles” in combat during the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

His command of the 101st followed a year deployed on Operation Joint Forge in Bosnia, where he was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations of the NATO Stabilization Force and the Deputy Commander of the US Joint
Interagency Counter-Terrorism Task Force – Bosnia.

Prior to his tour in Bosnia, he spent two years at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, serving first as the Assistant Division Commander for Operations of the 82nd Airborne Division and then as the Chief of Staff of XVIII Airborne Corps.

Lieutenant General Petraeus was commissioned in the Infantry upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974, (1st in his class). He has held leadership positions in airborne, mechanized, and air assault infantry units in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States, including command of a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division and a brigade
in the 82nd Airborne Division. In addition, he has held a number of staff assignments: Aide to the Chief of Staff of the Army; service as a battalion, brigade, and division operations officer; Military Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe; Chief of Operations of the United Nations Force in Haiti; and Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Lieutenant General Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983. He subsequently earned MPA and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the US Military Academy. He also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.

Awards and decorations earned by Lieutenant General Petraeus include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal with “V” device, the State Department Superior Honor Award, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm. He is a Master Parachutist and Air Assault and Ranger qualified. He has also earned the Combat Action Badge and French, British, and German Jump Wings.
LTG Petraeus and his wife have two children, a son and a daughter.
http://usacac.army.mil/cac/commander.asp (1 of 2)1/18/2006 2:07:09 PM

 

[Psychoblues]

Somehow the numbers just don't jive with reality. But, if it makes you feel better then go for it. I, as a veteran, don't feel a damn bit better.

 

[Gunny]

Somehow the numbers just don't jive with reality. But, if it makes you feel better then go for it. I, as a veteran, don't feel a damn bit better.

Which reality would THAT be? Without some real evidence showing otherwise, those numbers ARE reality.

 

[Meemer]

Can't help but notice that nothing quoted mentions al Sadr. He's almost done with his self-imposed non-involvement in chaos. Very soon now we should be hearing from his militia. They've had time to rebuild.
Yes, it's quiet on the Iraqi front, for now.
Are some of you thinking this calm is a permanent thing? How's the supply of electricity; is gasoline plentiful and cheap; are jobs plentiful; is the infrastructure being rebuilt at a rapid pace?

And do let us praise Gen't Petraeus. He so reminds me of Powell, the go-to guy who swept away some of the more atrocious activities in Nam, the man who went before the UN and knowingly lied to the world. You understand why I can't applaud Petraeus and his politcally inspired dog-and-pony show that he performed at his confirmation hearing.

 

[Annie]

Can't help but notice that nothing quoted mentions al Sadr. He's almost done with his self-imposed non-involvement in chaos. Very soon now we should be hearing from his militia. They've had time to rebuild.
Yes, it's quiet on the Iraqi front, for now.
Are some of you thinking this calm is a permanent thing? How's the supply of electricity; is gasoline plentiful and cheap; are jobs plentiful; is the infrastructure being rebuilt at a rapid pace?

And do let us praise Gen't Petraeus. He so reminds me of Powell, the go-to guy who swept away some of the more atrocious activities in Nam, the man who went before the UN and knowingly lied to the world. You understand why I can't applaud Petraeus and his politcally inspired dog-and-pony show that he performed at his confirmation hearing.

Of course.

 

[Gunny]

Can't help but notice that nothing quoted mentions al Sadr. He's almost done with his self-imposed non-involvement in chaos. Very soon now we should be hearing from his militia. They've had time to rebuild.
Yes, it's quiet on the Iraqi front, for now.
Are some of you thinking this calm is a permanent thing? How's the supply of electricity; is gasoline plentiful and cheap; are jobs plentiful; is the infrastructure being rebuilt at a rapid pace?

And do let us praise Gen't Petraeus. He so reminds me of Powell, the go-to guy who swept away some of the more atrocious activities in Nam, the man who went before the UN and knowingly lied to the world. You understand why I can't applaud Petraeus and his politcally inspired dog-and-pony show that he performed at his confirmation hearing.

How's YOUR electricity? Rolling brown-outs? I YOUR gasoline plentiful and cheap? Are jobs plentiful here? Of the ones still here in the US ... ? How's the inner city or the boondocks look where YOU live?

No, I don't see logically why you cannot applaud Petraeus. Kind of obvious why you do though ....

 

[Warner]

Which reality would THAT be? Without some real evidence showing otherwise, those numbers ARE reality.

You're joking right?

The numbers put out by the military/state department are fantasy by there very nature.

Are you saying the "surge" is working? Sorry to inform you otherwise, but the reduction in violence is far more due to policy changes than to the surge. Policy changes which could have been made 3 and a half years ago.

What pisses me off is we have lost a couple of thousand brave young men (and women) we need not have lost. It was acceptable to refuse to make deals with local tribal/militia leaders on principal, but it is not acceptable to now make those same deals and then attribute the "success" to the surge when in fact it has little or nothing to do with the surge in order to create a political "win" which is in fact a fantasy.

No, I don't see logically why you cannot applaud Petraeus. Kind of obvious why you do though ....

Because he deserves no applause. He is just a willing participant in a sham. He knows the surge is not what has brought about the reduction in losses in Iraq, and if you listen to him he will never make an outright claim that it is. But he will allow the White House to spin it this way and the press to report that spin, knowing full well it is false.

There were good sound arguments against making the deals which have now been made. The idea was to have the Iraqi military provide security in a unilateral manner rather than have what amounts to local Warlords doing so. This would, if successful, have lead to a stability in Iraq not possible under the warlord system. The cost was American lives, and that loss is now wasted.

What is happening now amounts to taking sides. We have in effect taken the Sunni side in the upcoming full scale civil war.

 

[Meemer]

How's YOUR electricity? Rolling brown-outs? I YOUR gasoline plentiful and cheap? Are jobs plentiful here? Of the ones still here in the US ... ? How's the inner city or the boondocks look where YOU live?

No, I don't see logically why you cannot applaud Petraeus. Kind of obvious why you do though ....

No, we don't have rolling black outs; no, gas isn't cheap but it's plentiful if I don't mind paying excessive amounts for it for no really good, valid reason; job market here hasn't changed much since the Reagan recession from which my area never recovered. Fortunately we've been getting many small industrial parks in the area and that keeps our local economy going but not at a masterful clip.
Basically our area is fine considering that no one in another country has chosen it in order to engage in an illegal war based on wannabe assumptions to assuage it's leader's ego by doing something that it's leader's Papa chose not to do. But what would I know about Oneupmanship?

Warner, you said it much better than I. Thanks. Petraeus so reminds me of MacArthur. At the time there was no stopping that politically inspired ego either. The only difference is that Mac only thought he was better and smarter than Truman; Petraeus has to know he is smarter and better than George, the Lesser Bush. Basically, who isn't?

(Back to gas prices, for a moment, if I may. Bush has encouraged the oil corps to build new refineries. Why is that not happening? [Don't bother answering. It's a rhetorical questions.])

 

[Gunny]

You're joking right?

The numbers put out by the military/state department are fantasy by there very nature.

Present your evidence please. Prove they're fantasy.

Are you saying the "surge" is working? Sorry to inform you otherwise, but the reduction in violence is far more due to policy changes than to the surge. Policy changes which could have been made 3 and a half years ago.

But in fact were NOT made 3 and half years ago. You just shot yourself in the foot.

What pisses me off is we have lost a couple of thousand brave young men (and women) we need not have lost. It was acceptable to refuse to make deals with local tribal/militia leaders on principal, but it is not acceptable to now make those same deals and then attribute the "success" to the surge when in fact it has little or nothing to do with the surge in order to create a political "win" which is in fact a fantasy.



Because he deserves no applause. He is just a willing participant in a sham. He knows the surge is not what has brought about the reduction in losses in Iraq, and if you listen to him he will never make an outright claim that it is. But he will allow the White House to spin it this way and the press to report that spin, knowing full well it is false.

There were good sound arguments against making the deals which have now been made. The idea was to have the Iraqi military provide security in a unilateral manner rather than have what amounts to local Warlords doing so. This would, if successful, have lead to a stability in Iraq not possible under the warlord system. The cost was American lives, and that loss is now wasted.

What is happening now amounts to taking sides. We have in effect taken the Sunni side in the upcoming full scale civil war.

You aren't very bright, are you? You just said the policy changes brought about the reduction in violence. The "surge" is part if not all of that policy change; which you say is not working.

Nice.

 

[Warner]

You aren't very bright, are you? You just said the policy changes brought about the reduction in violence. The "surge" is part if not all of that policy change; which you say is not working.

Nice.

Must you degenerate this discussion into one of insults? If I respond in kind will you then utilize your Admin position against me?

You need to go see for yourself what is going on Gunny. Your tune would change quickly if you spent a year in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The policy change I was referring to was the decision to form alliances with (mostly Sunni) warlords, as I stated. The surge was not a policy change, it was a tactical change, just a slight increase in an already failed strategy. As I stated, it has had little to do with the reduction of violence in Iraq.

The deals made with Iraqi warlords could have been made over 3 years ago, and had that been done US losses over this period would have been far lower. My point which you are missing is that by now making these deals we have wasted those losses, as we have surrendered the principal behind taking those losses by making those deals now.

Oh... you wanted a link....

Washington Post Inteview with Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odeirnon - Friday, June 1, 2007; Page A11

Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who oversees daily military operations in Iraq, supported the idea at a news conference in which he also said U.S. military units are trying to reach cease-fire agreements with Iraqi insurgents.

...

Odierno cited some progress in Iraq and said U.S. forces are negotiating cease-fires with local Sunni and Shiite insurgent groups that it considers "reconcilable" in an effort to reduce violence.

Odierno said he recently gave military commanders authority to strike such agreements with insurgent groups that have staged attacks against U.S. and Iraqi forces. He said that he thinks 80 percent of the fighters -- including Sunni insurgents, Shiite militia such as the Mahdi Army, and possibly a small number of al-Qaeda in Iraq members -- are "reconcilable," meaning they could be persuaded to lay down their weapons.

"There are insurgents reaching out to us . . . so we want to reach back to them," Odierno said. "We're talking about cease-fires and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces."

The overtures to insurgent groups, tribes and religious leaders are part of a push by the U.S. military to generate political accommodation at local and eventually national levels, Odierno said.

Odierno also cited progress resulting from the buildup of 28,500 U.S. troops in Iraq, but he appealed for patience and said he may need time beyond September to determine whether the "surge" ordered by Bush in January is working. "The assessment might be . . . 'I need a little more time,' " he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053102430.html

Even though the change in policy regarding Iraqi militia's and warlords was clearly known, the so-called "Liberal" press has failed to shine its light upon this fact, allowing the Administration to carefully craft the impression that the Surge is in fact responsible when anyone who knows what is going on knows this is simply not true.

The thing is, this buys us some reduction in the intensity of violence in Iraq now which plays to election politics. However in the (not-so) long term it clearly destabilizes the situation and creates an even bigger problem for the next administration to deal with.

Your nick implies you are a military man. Surely it must irk you when the lives of soldiers are wasted in purely political manipulations?

 

[finebead]

I would complicate the discussion further. I think GunnyL and Warner both have validity in their arguments. Violence HAS gone down. That's good. I think the surge has helped, and policy changes that could have been made years ago have also helped, with the edge to the policy decisions IMO. In addition, changes in Al Qaeda policy have hurt them. They attempted to exert too much influence over the Sunni's, and killed a Sunni leader when he didn't go along, and all the Sunni's decided maybe they shouldn't play ball with AQ, opening the door to US overtures in the last year. The US is also being pushed by the Saudi's NOT to abandon their Sunni faction in Iraq, also a consideration in the mix.

I think the level of violence is down to the 2005 level, which was unacceptable at the time, but the "media" is supporting the war by not reporting it accurately. I would call it the "conservative media".

 

[Annie]

I would complicate the discussion further. I think GunnyL and Warner both have validity in their arguments. Violence HAS gone down. That's good. I think the surge has helped, and policy changes that could have been made years ago have also helped, with the edge to the policy decisions IMO. In addition, changes in Al Qaeda policy have hurt them. They attempted to exert too much influence over the Sunni's, and killed a Sunni leader when he didn't go along, and all the Sunni's decided maybe they shouldn't play ball with AQ, opening the door to US overtures in the last year. The US is also being pushed by the Saudi's NOT to abandon their Sunni faction in Iraq, also a consideration in the mix.

I think the level of violence is down to the 2005 level, which was unacceptable at the time, but the "media" is supporting the war by not reporting it accurately. I would call it the "conservative media".

and I'm hoping you and Warren are wrong. Note I say 'hoping.' I remember back in late 2003 reading milbloggers that were very upset that the US was not leaving middle range Iraqi military leaders in place and not listening to the higher level Iraqi military leaders being held in encampments. Those on the ground said we were making huge errors. Then after the fall of Saddam, those same milbloggers were bemoaning the loss of opportunities to win the hearts and minds with payments to the leaders on the street, they were right as it really fell apart after Sadr managed to blow the Golden Dome Mosque.

COIN seems to be addressing those issues, but I'm hoping that the situation hasn't changed too much, to have made those issues moot.

 

[trobinett]

Over all the situation in Iraq is better, doesn't matter the negative spin some would put on the picture.

Now that the politicians have put a real terrorist fighter in charge of the operations in that theater you will see further reductions in the sway that terrorist have in that area of the world.

My only worry is that the politicians from this country, and from around the world will not allow the General Commanding to do his job.

If the naysayers feel it necessary to lay blame, and bemoan the lives lost, go talk to YOUR representatives.

Otherwise, piss up a wall!

 

[Annie]

Over all the situation in Iraq is better, doesn't matter the negative spin some would put on the picture.

Now that the politicians have put a real terrorist fighter in charge of the operations in that theater you will see further reductions in the sway that terrorist have in that area of the world.

My only worry is that the politicians from this country, and from around the world will not allow the General Commanding to do his job.

If the naysayers feel it necessary to lay blame, and bemoan the lives lost, go talk to YOUR representatives.

Otherwise, piss up a wall!

And that's my take. Today when I read the milbloggers it's all praise for Petreaus and the Iraqi people in general. They still respect the enemy, just know now that in most cases they'll be ratted out.

 

[Psychoblues]

Petreaus, betray us? Just who do you want to believe? Personally, I would love to believe Petraeus. On the other hand, he is just a General and an employee of gwb.

 

[trobinett]

Petreaus, betray us? Just who do you want to believe? Personally, I would love to believe Petraeus. On the other hand, he is just a General and an employee of gwb.

Wrong again Psycho, he's an employee of the people of this great nation.

 

[mattskramer]

Wrong again Psycho, he's an employee of the people of this great nation.

Doesn’t a general answer to the commander in chief? If the general were planning to give a negative report then, technically, couldn’t Bush have fired him? Just wondering.