Friends and relatives carry the body of a victim of a massive car bomb in Baghdad in July. The bomb in a parked car ravaged a popular outdoor market in the Shiite slum of Sadr City, killing at least 66 and wounding over 80, authorities said.
It’s the highest monthly death tally since the war started in March 2003. That’s an average of 110 per day, and in Baghdad, the numbers are up 18% over last month.
Also, a respected veteran Baghdad reporter writes of Iraqis’ fears that Bush & Co.‘s “rosy views are preventing the creation of effective strategies against the escalating violence.”
N.Y. Times:
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 15 ? More Iraqi civilians were killed in July than in apparently any other month of the war, according to Iraqi Health Ministry and morgue statistics, despite a security plan begun by the new government in June.
An average of more than 110 Iraqis were killed per day in July, according to figures from the Health Ministry and the Baghdad morgue. At least 3,438 civilians died violently that month, a 9 percent increase over the tally in June and nearly twice as many as in January.
The Baghdad security plan started by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki on June 14 was much praised by top Iraqi and American officials at the time. It relied on setting up more Iraqi-run checkpoints to stymie insurgent movement.
Tom Lasseter of the McClatchy (formerly Knight Ridder) bureau in Baghdad has long been the forefront of both daring and on-the-mark reporting from the war zone. In his latest dispatch, he observes, “As security conditions continue to deteriorate in Iraq, many Iraqi politicians are challenging the optimistic forecasts of governments in Baghdad and Washington, with some worrying that the rosy views are preventing the creation of effective strategies against the escalating violence.
“Their worst fear, one that some American soldiers share, is that top officials don’t really understand what’s happening. Those concerns seem to be supported by statistics that show Iraq’s violence has increased steadily during the past three years.”
Lasseter then quotes an unnamed intelligence office, who has written the reporter (apparently without the military’s permission), “As an intelligence officer ... I have had the chance to move around Baghdad on mounted and dismounted patrols and see the city and violence from the ground. I think that the greatest problem that we deal (besides the insurgents and militia) with is that our leadership has no real comprehension of the ground truth. I wish that I could offer a solution, but I can’t. When I have briefed General Officers, I have given them my perspective and assessment of the situation. Many have been surprised at what I have to say, but I suspect that in the end nothing will or has changed.”
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
By ko, October 19, 2007 at 10:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Although Bush did not crested the underlying cause of Conflicts in Iraq, he must be blamed for his irresponsible acts of starting war withoud sound reasons and making the bllodshed uncontrollable.
By Dusty R, August 16, 2006 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Well, I guess I’ll ‘pursue’ this topic:
We do read about Iraqis being killed. Every death is a pinprick, especially in this situation, of the bubble called Iraq. This isnt’ surprising that Baghdad, a truly mixture of the four main ethnic and religious groups in IRaq, would experience violence towards eachother. Here we go again: the Ak-47 doing its dirty deed.
Anyways, Iraq has always been a compressed state, meaning it has never naturally been this size for a LONG time. Especially with all four groups feeling empowered, especially the Shia and Kurds, the idea of fighting battles is nothing new to the idea of middle-eastern affairs.
More importantly: If this is a civil war, which I believe it may, it may be the best thing FOR Iraq, in which people after a period of time realize they have two real versions of reality: Bleed indefinately, or work together to create a splintered, but operable nation-state.
And don’t say “Bush caused this!” there has always been a civil war in Iraq. Before, however, it was state vs population, thats why you have the Shia, Kurds, and Turkmen being blasted by the Sunni Baathist minority for so many decades.
Before = State oppression of other differing civil groups, using advanced weaponry and chemicals,
Now = four equally empowered groups fighting relatively equally with the same type of weaponry, with two nation-state entities (The coalition and Iraqi forces) trying to seperate the figthing powers.
By rachelle, August 15, 2006 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
And since no one is pursuing this topic, why is it that we never read about the number of Iraqis killed, whether or not they were considered rebels, insurgents, terrorists, or…patriots? I am sick to death of this topic. Who’s the terrorist again?
By rachelle, August 15, 2006 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Why is it that the media never writes about the burned or the maimed? Frankly, I’d rather be dead that crippled for the rest of my life. How about the children who are left homeless or without a parent/parents? What will become of them?
Benghazi: Dissecting Congressional Follies, Media Coverage and ‘Cover-Up’ Charges
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
By ko, October 19, 2007 at 10:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Although Bush did not crested the underlying cause of Conflicts in Iraq, he must be blamed for his irresponsible acts of starting war withoud sound reasons and making the bllodshed uncontrollable.
Report thisBy Dusty R, August 16, 2006 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Well, I guess I’ll ‘pursue’ this topic:
We do read about Iraqis being killed. Every death is a pinprick, especially in this situation, of the bubble called Iraq. This isnt’ surprising that Baghdad, a truly mixture of the four main ethnic and religious groups in IRaq, would experience violence towards eachother. Here we go again: the Ak-47 doing its dirty deed.
Anyways, Iraq has always been a compressed state, meaning it has never naturally been this size for a LONG time. Especially with all four groups feeling empowered, especially the Shia and Kurds, the idea of fighting battles is nothing new to the idea of middle-eastern affairs.
More importantly: If this is a civil war, which I believe it may, it may be the best thing FOR Iraq, in which people after a period of time realize they have two real versions of reality: Bleed indefinately, or work together to create a splintered, but operable nation-state.
And don’t say “Bush caused this!” there has always been a civil war in Iraq. Before, however, it was state vs population, thats why you have the Shia, Kurds, and Turkmen being blasted by the Sunni Baathist minority for so many decades.
Before = State oppression of other differing civil groups, using advanced weaponry and chemicals,
Now = four equally empowered groups fighting relatively equally with the same type of weaponry, with two nation-state entities (The coalition and Iraqi forces) trying to seperate the figthing powers.
Dusty R
Report thisBy rachelle, August 15, 2006 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
And since no one is pursuing this topic, why is it that we never read about the number of Iraqis killed, whether or not they were considered rebels, insurgents, terrorists, or…patriots? I am sick to death of this topic. Who’s the terrorist again?
Report thisBy rachelle, August 15, 2006 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Why is it that the media never writes about the burned or the maimed? Frankly, I’d rather be dead that crippled for the rest of my life. How about the children who are left homeless or without a parent/parents? What will become of them?
Report this