home

Defining 'Success' in Iraq

by TChris

Is the military preparing to declare victory in Iraq? Based on body counts, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch assures us that the military has achieved "great successes" against insurgents.

But by many standards, including increasingly high death tolls in insurgent strikes, Zarqawi's group, al Qaeda in Iraq, could claim to be the side that's gaining after 2 1/2 years of war. August was the third-deadliest month of the war for U.S. troops.

Zarqawi's guerrillas this spring and summer showed themselves to be capable of mounting waves of suicide bombings and car bombings that could kill scores at a time and paralyze the Iraqi capital. Insurgents have also launched scores of attacks every day in other parts of Iraq and laid open claim this summer to cities and towns in the critical far west, despite hit-and-run offensives by U.S. forces.

The military's enemy body count numbers were inflated during the Vietnam War, making them suspect in this unpopular war, as well. But body counts don't wholly tell the story of victory or defeat. "Success" is difficult to define in Iraq.

"The problem is, I have seen no meaningful" goal posts, said Anthony Cordesman, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, "and a great many conflicting points" on U.S. claims to be winning against the insurgency.

While the U.S. military seems to have made some progress in parts of the west and parts of Baghdad, Cordesman said, "it isn't clear in doing so that it has really crippled any part of the insurgency."

The military has detained large numbers of Iraqis, but it isn't clear that doing so has had an impact on the insurgency.

Since 2003, U.S. forces have detained 40,000 people, twice U.S. generals' highest public estimate of the number of fighters in the insurgency. On Saturday, the Iraqi government said it had released for lack of evidence more than 500 of the 757 suspects detained in ongoing operations in the northern city of Mosul.

Many of the men detained in Tall Afar last week were rounded up on the advice of local teenagers who had stepped forward as informants, at times for what American soldiers said they suspected amounted to no more than settling local scores.

"The question is, what does victory mean? It certainly isn't the number of people we kill or detain," Cordesman said.

Struggling to regain some semblance of public approval, and fearing that members of his own party may view him as an albatross when elections roll around next year, the president may be tempted to declare victory and start bringing the troops home. A declaration of victory would be dishonest, but the return of troops is long overdue.

< PorkBusting | Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather at the Emmys >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    It's certainly a good thing TChris wasn't around in 1945. He'd have sued for peace after Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    The title of the article is U.S. Claims Success in Iraq Despite Onslaught That and this bit below are the only two positive statements in the whole piece. WAPO is being ironic and this is the best anti-war piece I have seen in the MSM. The Green Zone is still kind of safe.
    Last week, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, declared "great successes" against insurgents. But Baghdad's fortified Green Zone, where Lynch briefed reporters, was under stepped-up security screening and U.S. guard for fear of suicide bombings.
    This is the worst bit from one of Zarqawi's group:
    "I can say that the legend of the undefeated U.S. Army is gone, owing to our rockets and mines, which are separating them from it day after day," Dulaimi said in a telephone interview. "If they bet that time will be the way to end the resistance, they are wrong, because we are stronger since a year ago or maybe more."
    I guess they don't know what is going on outside the Green Zone, of decided not to mention this from an observer in Iraq writing to: Juan Cole
    The situation has deteriorated in Baghdad dramatically today. Five neighborhoods (hay) in Baghdad are controlled by insurgents, and they are Amiraya, Ghazilya, Shurta, Yarmouk and Doura. It is very bad....Masked gunmen with AKs and other weapons are roaming these areas, announcing that people should stay home....and even those who need food or provisions are warned not to go out.... In the meantime, the embassy people act as if nothing in Baghdad is wrong.


    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#3)
    by Pete Guither on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    It's certainly a good thing TChris wasn't around in 1945. He'd have sued for peace after Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
    Because of course World War II and the War in Iraq are so similar.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    Here are a few other views for a little balance: First, Al-Qaeda avenging Talafar:
    Today [9/14]Al-Qaeda carried out their threat and launched their "final battle" that has no apparent goal other than killing the largest possible number of Iraqis . . . The Al-Qaeda called it the "battle for avenging Talafar" . . . Obviously the continuous American-Iraqi armies' operations in western Iraq have pushed Al-Qaeda to announce this "final battle"
    Then, Samarra learning from Talafar:
    Yesterday [9/14], the minister of defense met delegates from Samarra in his office. The visit, arranged for by the head of the Sunni mortmain department sheikh Ahmed Al-Samarrai, came after the minister declared that that the government is going to send troops to other cities including Samarra . . . the minister said that one month will be given to allow the city to take positive steps before power is used . . . The delegates said they're going to use this chance to protect their city from military operations . . . Obviously the massive Iraqi-American operation in Talafar is encouraging other cities to seek peaceful solutions with the government
    Finally, A tough test for Iraqis:
    You have probably heard that Zarqawi has recently declared war on the Sheat in Iraq, that's 50-60 % of the people in a country of 27 millions, i.e. more than 13 million people are considered enemies by Zarqawi and they deserve to die! . . . Iraqi militant groups like the Islamic army and the army of Mohammed and a few other groups were more direct in their statements reported by Azzaman (for the Arabic speaking):
    The goal of the resistance is striking the occupiers and their agents and collaborators and the calls for killing every Sheat is a fire that will burn the whole country with its Sunni and Sheat people . . . The resistance doesn't target any Iraqi depending on his sect or race
    The resistance may not be done; but Al-Qaeda is showing that kind of desperation.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#6)
    by Rick B on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    If the report Billmon just discussed that the six marine snipers who were killed in early August were killed by the Iraqi troops they were accompanying is true, then there is almost no possibility of any successful outcome for America in Iraq.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    If this is anything like Vietnam, as it certainly appears given the military press reports, then things are actually much worse off than the worst reports you see in the media.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#8)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    It's certainly a good thing TChris wasn't around in 1945. He'd have sued for peace after Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
    It's a good thing he wasn't around at Gettysburg, he'd have called off Pickett's charge! Yeah, and it's a good thing he wasn't there when they launched the Titanic, he'd have told them they'd hit an iceberg! Good lord. You know what's really a good thing? That you aren't in charge over in Iraq, JR. By your logic, the more lives lost, the more successful the endeavour. Everything else is just details.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    Actually, James, the comparison is more accurate to the Spanish-American War, and specifically the Phillipines genocide part. This 'transition' from Spanish foreign rule to American foreign rule didn't involve the DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS of the people who lived there -- WHO HAD NOT ATTACKED US, AT ALL. The illegal Iraq invasion is nothing like the Pacific war against the imperialist Japanese, but the facts are that those Japanese were only doing what the US did in the Phillipines war -- albeit on a much smaller scale. A lot of your perspective is designed to obscure the relativism of your leader's lies. Japanese imperialists are evil because they killed civilians in order to conquer their cities and countries. And Bush is doing the exact same thing, for the same reason. A reason which has nothing to do with peace, and nothing to do with the freedom of the native peoples.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#10)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    It was Republican Senator Aiken who suggested that the US should simply declare victory in Vietnam and leave. Of course this would be a lie in Iraq, but, what the heck, Bush lied in order to invade and he lies in order to sustain the occupation. At least it would be consistent (this part is sarcastic), and it would save some American lives besides this part not). For those who think that victory is right around the corner, I suggest they read Squeaky's post and her link to Juan Cole. Also, ask yourself this. The American military estimates that the number of insurgents are 20,000 (of these Zarqawi only has about 1,000). As the article notes there are 40,000 Iraqis being detained. When you count the number of Iraqis who have been killed (and the Pentagon assures us that most of these are insurgents), the war has already been won because mathematically there are no insurgents left. Maybe George Aiken was right.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    It's easier for the left to keep saying that it's worse in Iraq, without regard to actual evidence to the contrary. The only conclusion I can draw is that TL wants the enemy to win in Iraq.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    PIL writes:
    A lot of your perspective is designed to obscure the relativism of your leader's lies. Japanese imperialists are evil because they killed civilians in order to conquer their cities and countries.
    What you fail to understand is this. First, Japan's war against China in Southeast Asia was unprovoked. Secondly, Japan attacked the US very directly on 12/7. Now, let us compare: The terrorists' attacks against various western, and ME, countries were unprovoked. Secondly, the terrorists attacked the US very directly on 9/11. Read some history, PIL. Read some history.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    We are hearing the smae crap now that we heard during Vietnam. Body counts and isolated briefings from higher ups claiming everything is fine. And this is always followed by a charge that we love the enemy. JR and his ilk must be desperate to resort to such old and well known tactics. The US cannot protect the road to the airport. 2 years later there is no improvement in basic services. The operations in Tel Afar are being carried out by Kurd Militia which is sure to inflame problems between the Kurds and Turkmen. So the best tactic that the US can come up with is to promote civil war? Apparently so. But as Cheney told us months ago before the record US casulaties, the insurgency is in its last throes. Saying it doesn't make it so. So take your personal attacks and go crawl back under your rock.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    Define success....Halliburton stock price increased, treasury empty. Mission accomplished.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#15)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    Conditions of victory in Iraq have never been clearly set forth. US casualties (dead and wounded)in Iraq now number around 20,000. Constant and annoying Wacko comparisons to WWII and/or Viet Nam are patently irrelevent and slanted.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#16)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    WTF does WWII have to do with Iraq, other than for blind patriots to flag wave? The Japanese were imperialists so that makes us right today? Wha?

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#17)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    JR, You REALLY tempt me to violate the comments policy. How dare you question anyone's patriotism? I seriously doubt your sanity

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    Che - I assume your nasty comment was for PIL who wrote:
    The illegal Iraq invasion is nothing like the Pacific war against the imperialist Japanese, but the facts are that those Japanese were only doing what the US did in the Phillipines war -- albeit on a much smaller scale.
    What do the lawyers always say during at least one courtroom scene.. "Your Honor, the other side has opened the door...."

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    Roger - I think JR overstated his position, but if you will read his link, one of the key points is that the terrorists have ran out of well trained and effective fighters, and are now using mostly untrained suicide attacksers to terrify the populace, not the US. He also makes the point that the populace is turning these people in, a clear indication that the terror isn't working. So while body count may not be a totally effective measurement, it certainly is an important one. And what the the link tells me that is that the terrorist leadership is desperate, and increasingly willing to gamble on trying to win fire fights with the military, while trying to regain the fear factor with the populace. Thank God Uncle Walter has retired and Ted Turner invented cable news... .... and Algore the Internet...;-)

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    Posted by James Robertson: "The only conclusion I can draw is that TL wants the enemy to win in Iraq." The 'enemy' was allowed to escape in Tora Bora. *Please make a note of it.*

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    Posted by JimakaPPJ: "First, Japan's war against China in Southeast Asia was unprovoked." Using US supplied weapons. "Secondly, Japan attacked the US very directly on 12/7." Iraq and Iraqis did NOT attack the US. "Secondly, the terrorists attacked the US very directly on 9/11." You are a racist.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#23)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    What is victory in a war? We accomplish objectives and get things done. We follow orders and carry them out to the best of our abilities. The Iraqi new govt was set up by the US b/c when Sadaam heard we were coming he crawled off in a hole and didnt come out till one of our guys pulled him out by the beard. Insurgents will persist, but it is our duty to help the Iraqi citizens form a govt that is strong enough to resist the insurgents. As of right now, they're not. If other Americans that dont know that a timeline is impossible to have need one, it's going to take a while. Many Iraqis are so unmodernized that they cant defend themselves even against a little small arms fire, much less rpg's, pipe bombs, car bombs, suicide bombers, etc. I contend that the war is over and the reconstruction has begun.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    Posted by peacrevo: "What is victory in a war?" Not applicable to an illegal, immoral, lied-about invasion to install airbases. "We accomplish objectives and get things done." You abet Bush transfering huge amounts of cash to his political backers. " The Iraqi new govt was set up by the US b/c when Sadaam heard we were coming he crawled off in a hole and didnt come out" That makes no sense at all. "till one of our guys pulled him out by the beard." And that never happened. Another lie, thanks for playing. Look up the rest of the response to your nonsense in the dictionary under RACISM.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#25)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    Once again, the insurgents are down to their "final battle". Victory is around the corner, just like it was during the Iraqi elections, the attack on Fallujah, the capture of Saddam, and after Bush's "major combat operations are over" speech. Reminds me of the cartoon where no matter how many times Lucy swipes the football away from Charlie Brown, Charlie Brown has faith that this time he will be able to finally be successful. And so it goes. For the apologists of this invasion and occupation, this is truly a faith-based war from the reasons for invading and occupying Iraq to the latest pronouncements of a light at the end of the tunnel. My guess is that a year from now, hundreds of casualties, and billions of dollars later, we will hear them talking about how the insurgents are once again down to their "final battle".

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    The old axiom: War will stop when it is no longer profitable for those starting them. The only hope of this one winding down is if rebuilding New Orleans can be the new teat that the Bush cronies can suck dry instead.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    PIL - Since you have a long history of making up the meanings of words, I gotta laugh after reading your totally inept comeback. What I find truly amusing about you is when you make a statement like:
    "Iraq and Iraqis did NOT attack the US." De nial aint a river in Africa, Pil.
    No one said they were in the attack party, but we have ample evidence that Iraq was a willing helper to al-Qaida, including this:
    ....in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists. The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
    Link

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    ppj-story discredited over and over. Your favorite paper The Moonie Wash Times is no better than your favorite NY Post. Your sources tell all. Rowan Scarborough, moonie writer, licks Rummy all over in his Biography of the great generalissimo.
    WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell reversed a year of administration policy, acknowledging Thursday that he had seen no “smoking gun [or] concrete evidence” of ties between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.
    link

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    Dark Avenger
    If there are Sunni men in Iraq who don't feel that the goverment there is giving them a fair shake, who are they gonna call?
    There are basically Sunni based resistance groups - who have strongly condemned Al-Qaeda for transferring the war from the US and the Iraqi government; to the Shia. The Muslim Scholars Association also (less strongly) condemned Al-Qaeda. The only Sunni likely to join Al-Qaeda are those willing to wage war against the Shia instead of the US and Iraqi governments. Al-Qaeda has marginalized itself.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    Jim, [name calling deleted] "No one said they were in the attack party," Actually, NONE of the 130,000+ dead Iraqis were involved in any way. Installing airbases by violent invasion is a war crime, a violation of the UN charterf, a violation of the Geneva Conventions, a violation of the Convention on Mercenaries, and a host of other laws, including MALFEASANCE to the US Constitution (lying to Congress), and TREASON (outing Valerie Plame and the other spies who worked for the same worldwide front company). [Ed. commenter is warned to avoid name-calling]

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    The story was that two british plainclothed men were arrested
    The men, said to have been under cover, reportedly exchanged fire with police after failing to stop at a checkpoint. Two British tanks, sent to the police station where the soldiers are being held, were set alight in clashes. An MoD spokeswoman in London would only say: "We can confirm that the Iraqi authorities are holding two UK service personnel and we are liaising with the Iraqi authorities on this matter." But another report said British forces had phoned the ministry in Baghdad to say the two detained soldiers were involved in "an intelligence mission". BBC world affairs correspondent Richard Galpin said tension had been growing in Basra since the arrest on Sunday of a senior figure in the Shia Mehdi Army militia, suspected by the British military of being behind a series of attacks on troops. His arrest drew crowds onto the streets of Basra demanding his release.
    BBC The other version:
    Statement of the Office of Muqtada al-Sadr "Two soldiers from the British occupation forces opened fire on passers-by in the vicinity of a religious center where the people of Basra use to go, after which police patrols have a white car and arrested two persons riding it. It was found that they are British, and British occupation forces intervened to try to set them free. The people of Basra demonstrated to prevent this from occurring, and occupation forces reacted by opening fire on the demonstrators killing and wounding many of them. In retaliation the inhabitants burned two British tanks. The two Britons that were arrested had in their possession explosives and remote-control devices, as well as light and medium weapons and other accessories. Late this night, British forces raided the police headquarters of the Basra province, set free the two Britons as well as close to 150 terrorists, and burned the police vehicles."
    Juan Cole Could the occupation be involved in terror activities? Does it serve them to inflame the sunni shia hostilities?

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    Daring rescue or barbaric act of agression? The BBC updated the story:
    Official Iraqi sources say British tanks stormed the city's jail in what Basra governor Mohammed al-Waili called a "barbaric act of aggression".
    However, sources in the Iraqi Interior Ministry said six tanks were used to smash down the wall in a daring rescue operation of the two men, who are accused of firing at local police.
    BBC

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#35)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    Paul, do you know anything at all about the daily life of most Iraqis? Have you been over there? I mean it's easy to shout racism if you have never seen what goes on over there. Many citizens dont even have running water. These are the people we were there to help b/c they cant help themselves. And if by
    "till one of our guys pulled him out by the beard." And that never happened.
    you are refuting the fact that we found him, then you must have been gone a few years link And no they probably didnt pull him out by his beard, I was being facetious. Lighten up.
    " The Iraqi new govt was set up by the US b/c when Sadaam heard we were coming he crawled off in a hole and didnt come out" That makes no sense at all.
    Hussein crawled off in a whole to leave his army to fight without him. We would have slaughtered them anyways, but we overtook his army quite easily and then we helped them set up their own government. How does that not make sense? I again ask, do you know anything about Iraq?

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#36)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    I'm just going to stop responding to you if you're just going to call me a liar and not make any valid defendable points. Anybody can just scream liar liar pants on fire.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    dark avenger We will see. It is clear the Sunni establishment and resistance is going to participate in the October referrendum; and the December elections for either a permanent legislature, or a new interim one. They have all made it clear that January's boycott was a mistake and a Sunni's religious duty is to vote now Al-Qaeda has made it clear that they will kill anyone trying to participate in any way in democracy in Iraq. They have killed Sunni's for organizing voter registration. You really think this 1000ish member body, in opposition to the Sunni religious leadership and the primarily Sunni resistance organizations, can declare war on all Shia and any Sunni that tries to vote and ultimately survive? I think Ho Chi Minh might think they were narrowing the communities that they could hide in and operate from. Bad bet but reality will show the truth eventually. BTW: Darwin never said the stupidest or the most aggressive would survive - and in fact they haven't in history.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:06 PM EST
    BTW: You can say they can recruit Iraqi's; but in what numbers. There are gangs in Los Angeles with more members than them.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    Posted by peacrevol: "Many citizens dont even have running water. These are the people we were there to help b/c they cant help themselves." They don't have running water because the US blew up their facilities -- a war crime. "They can't help themselves" is RACISM. "you are refuting the fact that we found him" There was no spider hole. That was a US Military LIE, as outed by a soldier who participated in his actual capture. Don't respond? I couldn't care less. You are only here to spread lies anyhow.

    Re: Defining 'Success' in Iraq (none / 0) (#41)
    by peacrevol on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:11 PM EST
    They don't have running water because the US blew up their facilities -- a war crime.
    Wow...once again showing your ignorance. A lot of the small town iraqis never had water. They pump it from a well that the whole neighborhood or town uses.
    There was no spider hole. That was a US Military LIE, as outed by a soldier who participated in his actual capture.
    What? are you serious? What ever made you think that? Give me some credible links. Blogsites and "The National Inquirer" type magazines dont count. Oh that's right, you cant, because there was a spider hole. And you accuse me of spreading lies? may not be able to get to this but more pics of hussein's capture. It makes you look foolish to call others liars and then make rediculous false claims.