Marines' killing of Iraqi was 'old-fashioned' murder: prosecutor

[nonconformist]

Remains to be seen? Huh? Ramadi, which was the perported new capital of Al Queda is no...essentially attack free. Attacks and deaths in Al Anbar have more than halved since January. Attacks, deaths, and sectarian violence are way down in Baghdad.

Haha, you're kidding right?

Ramadi is the foreign fighter stronghold in Iraq, and it's in no way American held territory. I mean, Ramadi isn't even for Sunni radicals anymore, there are plenty of Shias and even atheistic Syrians being captured who are there to kill Yankees.

The Green Zone is a joke. It's been breached several times, suicide vests and arms caches have been discoverd, and the Iraqi PArliament and nthe Tigris Bridge were both bmbed.

 

[GoodGame]

I'm forgetting. When in Korea, a US mil tractor vehicle took out some civilian pedestrian(s), was that tried by UCMJ or locally?

 

[Commodore]

Personally I do not think it would do any such thing. If trying and killing Saddam had a minimal effect, what do you think hanging a no-name murderer would have? Answer: None.

It wouldn't be the actual trying and hanging of the murderer that would gain support for the Iraqi government, it would be the US honoring the government's request to extradite the soldier. If that were to happen it might show the Iraqi people that their government has some legitimacy, which could help them to consolidate power and weaken the influence of the insurgency.

With that said, I agree that our government would never honor such a request, as it would cause quite a stir among our population. Americans don't seem to take too well to our citizens being tried and punished by other countries.

 

[Merkinball]

Haha, you're kidding right?

Ramadi is the foreign fighter stronghold in Iraq, and it's in no way American held territory. I mean, Ramadi isn't even for Sunni radicals anymore, there are plenty of Shias and even atheistic Syrians being captured who are there to kill Yankees.

The Green Zone is a joke. It's been breached several times, suicide vests and arms caches have been discoverd, and the Iraqi PArliament and nthe Tigris Bridge were both bmbed.

You're right. The green zone has been breached. That doesn't mean that, for the most part, that it's extremely secure, and really the only place that the Army has concentrated on securing in the past. So far as Ramadi goes, get with the times. Ar-Ramadi and Al Anbar are a far cry from they were just one year ago.

Violence has fallen swiftly throughout Ramadi and its sprawling rural environs, residents and American and Iraqi officials said. Last summer, the American military recorded as many as 25 violent acts a day in the Ramadi region, ranging from shootings and kidnappings to roadside bombs and suicide attacks. In the past several weeks, the average has dropped to four acts of violence a day, American military officials said.

Ramadi IS in American and coalition control, and is certainly American held territory. One of the reason support for the war is so low, is because people like you are kept completely in the dark about places where there is progress and peace. It's too bad the NYT didn't just save this great expose on Ramadi for the intranetz.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/w...a17&ex=1335499200&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

 

[nonconformist]

You're right. The green zone has been breached. That doesn't mean that, for the most part, that it's extremely secure, and really the only place that the Army has concentrated on securing in the past. So far as Ramadi goes, get with the times. Ar-Ramadi and Al Anbar are a far cry from they were just one year ago.

Violence has fallen swiftly throughout Ramadi and its sprawling rural environs, residents and American and Iraqi officials said. Last summer, the American military recorded as many as 25 violent acts a day in the Ramadi region, ranging from shootings and kidnappings to roadside bombs and suicide attacks. In the past several weeks, the average has dropped to four acts of violence a day, American military officials said.

This is correct, but Anbar is the second deadliest Iraqi province after Baghdad still (and you conveniently left out that though attacks have halved, there were over 400 in may), while therte has been a marked increase in violence elsewhere (e.g Diyalah), while dozens of foreigners are sttreaming into Iraq monthly.

Anbar constitutes a whole 24% of all attacks in Iraq alone.

Need I also remind you that the last three months have been amongst the deadliest of the whole campaign?

Membership of the insurgency is also at an all-time high. There's no estimate of how many Shia insurgents therte are, but it's estimated that there are moste than 70,000 Sunni insurgents.

 

[Merkinball]

Okay...so this means we're not making progress? I think you took my comment about the green zone the wrong way. It was an indictment about how we have generally handled the occupation phase of this war. IE: securing the green zone, and only securing the green zone, has illeffected the occupation EVERYWHERE ELSE! Anybody that knows anything about security knows that you can't box yourself in, and this is exactly what the Army did. The reason Marines were seeing improvements in Al Anbar BEFORE the surge happened because of their "take the fight to the enemy" approach to securing Al Anbar, and their approach with the local tribes. And keep in mind too, that the Marines had way less bodies to take control of WAY more area than the Army is responsible for.

You say, consider that 24% of attacks in Iraq are in Al Anbar. Okay, fair enough. Consider that it used to be over 50%. Consider that Al Anbar is by far the largest province and by far the hardest to secure for a number of geographic reasons.

I don't think that I left out that "Diyala has seen violence increase." My first post was:

The key will ultimately be in what happens when the fighting is done in the immediate provinces to the south and north of Baghdad. Will they simply scatter, and regather as they've done in the past? (First Fallujah, then Sadr City, then Fallujah again, then Samarah, then Ramadi, now Diyalla Province).

My concern for years has been our inability to keep insurgents from scattering, regathering, taking over new cities and villages, and resurging. This has been a pandemic cycle for years because we haven't had enough troops on the ground

And no, you need not remind me that the last three months have been the deadliest (towards American servicemembers.) From the outset of the surge Patreus said to expect more deaths. This is what happens when you go from a passive posture to an offensive one. What we were doing before was essentially sitting in little boxes. Insurgents have been setting up shop in suburbs and the outskirts of Baghdad, and then having a hay day in Baghdad. They commit their acts of violence, and then retreat back into the suburbs. Now we're hitting them in their strongholds. How are the civilians of Bagdhad doing? Despite on big surge about a month after the war, violence has tamed down quite a bit.

So far as numbers in the insurgency, do you have anything to back up numbers of 70,000?

 

[nonconformist]

So far as numbers in the insurgency, do you have anything to back up numbers of 70,000?

The Iraq Index by Brookers is your stop for all things Iraq:

http://www.brookings.edu/iraqindex