Bush is still trying to pull the wool over Americans' eyes on Iraq. Can he succeed?

[ProSense]

The U.S. military has increased its bombing campaigns, despite the high-level of civilian casualties that result.

They're claiming victory over AQI. From a recent WaPo article:

"I think it would be premature at this point," a senior intelligence official said of a victory declaration over AQI, as the group is known. Despite recent U.S. gains, he said, AQI retains "the ability for surprise and for catastrophic attacks." Earlier periods of optimism, such as immediately following the June 2006 death of AQI founder Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. air raid, not only proved unfounded but were followed by expanded operations by the militant organization.

There is widespread agreement that AQI has suffered major blows over the past three months. Among the indicators cited is a sharp drop in suicide bombings, the group's signature attack, from more than 60 in January to around 30 a month since July. Captures and interrogations of AQI leaders over the summer had what a senior military intelligence official called a "cascade effect," leading to other killings and captures. The flow of foreign fighters through Syria into Iraq has also diminished, although officials are unsure of the reason and are concerned that the broader al-Qaeda network may be diverting new recruits to Afghanistan and elsewhere.

So why are they bombing the hell out of Iraq?

Bombing the hell out of a country doesn't work.

"in the Middle East, the Bush administration knows only two approaches...blow them up or bribe them"

Iraq

Airstrikes first nine months of 2007: 1,140

Airstrikes all of 2006: 229


Afghanistan

Airstrikes since the start of 2007: 2,764

Airstrikes all of 2006: 1,770

Afghan family killed in Western raid, official says


As the Bush admin does everything to create the perception of success, Republicans are still not willing to set a deadline for withdrawal: McCain: ‘Seven Or Eight Months’ More Until We Can Start Iraq Withdrawal

If it's going so well, why pay for propaganda: Pentagon Co-opted Independent Military Newspaper For PR Campaign Pushing Bush’s War Policies.

[atreides1]

1. Yes He Can

Especially with the help of the Congress, and believe me they are more then willing to lend him a hand!

[NightWatcher]

2. He HAS, and Iran is next

too bad congress wont do anything about it

[BobRossi]

3. Already has.

The public loves the naked chimp's clothes.

[ProSense]

4. Iraqis weigh limits on U.S. military

Iraqis weigh limits on U.S. military

Leaders of parliament may seek to restrict American operations in response to a rash of civilian casualties.

By Christian Berthelsen, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 23, 2007

BAGHDAD -- Leaders in the Iraqi parliament said Monday that they were taking steps to examine the U.S. military presence in Iraq with an eye toward possibly restricting the force's activities, in a continuing backlash over an American raid that Iraqi officials say killed 13 civilians.

Before the end of the year, the United Nations is expected to take up its annual reauthorization of a Security Council resolution that allows the presence of U.S. troops here. Iraqi leaders have complained that the U.S. military has used too much force in responding to attacks, leading to the deaths of civilians, and that the Americans have not coordinated enough with Iraqi forces.

The U.S. military maintained that it killed 49 "criminals" in the raid Sunday on Sadr City, a mostly Shiite Muslim neighborhood in the Iraqi capital, and was unaware of any civilian casualties. But journalists for Western news organizations, including The Times, saw the bodies of two children at the Imam Ali hospital who were killed in the attack and interviewed other children who were wounded.

The parliament speaker's office, which includes representatives from all three of Iraq's major ethnic groups, issued a statement Monday saying: "The Iraqi parliament condemns these violations that are against the basics of military work and human rights. . . . The Iraqi parliament is taking these negative violations seriously as it touches the life and dignity of Iraqis."

more

[msongs]

5. Congressional democrats doing their best to help bush succeed nt

[ProSense]

6. A Decline in Bloodshed

IRAQ

A Decline in Bloodshed

By Mark Hosenball | NEWSWEEK
Oct 29, 2007 Issue

The Bush administration is starving for good news out of Iraq, and it may finally have some: new U.S. government statistics showing that violent attacks of all kinds are down to levels not seen since 2005. But until recently, the administration appears to have resisted acknowledging a key element of the new data, because it flies in the face of President George W. Bush's ongoing rhetorical confrontation with Iran's clerical regime. According to three senior U.S. officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, the decline in Iraq violence also includes a decrease in the number of attacks attributable to insurgents backed or armed by Iran. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell confirmed to NEWSWEEK that "there has indeed been a drop" in such attacks, but he added that "it's not entirely clear what the reason for that is."

Overall trends show a significant drop in violence over the last several months, according to previously unpublished military statistics obtained by NEWSWEEK. During a single week in mid-September, attacks in Iraq totaled about 900—down from about 1,700 a week in June. The number of attacks increased slightly in late September and early October during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. But according to the statistics, the just-ended Ramadan holiday was significantly less violent this year than in the previous two years.

The crucial question is, why? Administration spokesmen have publicly attributed the decline in violence to the success of the administration's troop "surge" policies as well as military operations against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Other factors include improvements to Iraqi security forces and growing revulsion among Sunni tribal leaders over jihadi attacks on their communities. The decline in Iranian-backed violence is harder to explain—and despite the new data, some officers on the ground in Baghdad still aren't buying it. But officials back in Washington cite numerous possible reasons for the turnaround. Multiple sources suggest that U.S. operations against Iranian influence—which have included rounding up alleged Iranian operatives and Iranian-backed insurgents—have taken "quite a bite" out of insurgent cells and supply networks, one official says. Another factor could be that the insurgents have decided to wage fewer attacks. Multiple officials note that radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who has close ties with Iran, recently ordered his militia to settle down. It's also possible, two U.S. officials say, that Iranian leaders are responding to diplomatic lobbying from the Iraqi government and scaling back some of their support for the insurgency.

No one in Washington believes that Iran-fomented violence has ceased to be a problem. A senior official noted that a recent arms convoy seized in Herat, Afghanistan, and destined for Taliban rebels, contained IED components similar to those seized earlier in Baghdad and southern Iraq. U.S. officials believe that the Herat consignment originated with elements from Iran's Revolutionary Guard. They concede, however, that they do not know how high up in the Iranian government authorization for the shipment came from or whether it was part of a high-level Iranian strategy to bleed U.S. forces in the region.