no news-good news?

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Appears that way--been an absence of reporting on war at NYT-A.P. ect

Wonder why most missed this one--
http://www.reuters.com/article/topN...?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Violence in Iraq drops sharply: Ministry
Mon Oct 22, 2007

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent since the end of June, when U.S. forces completed their build-up of 30,000 extra troops to stabilize the war-torn country, the Interior Ministry said on Monday.

appears UBL is concerned also--
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071022/ts_nm/iraq_binladen_dc;_ylt=AliR3Ko1MJRkUQ7vcIA6vQBZ.3QA

Bin Laden urges Iraq rebel unity, admits wrongs Mon Oct 22, 6:17 PM ET
DUBAI (Reuters) - Osama bin Laden urged insurgents in Iraq to unite with his al Qaeda followers, admitting that wrongs had been committed because of fanaticism, according to an audio recording aired on Monday
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Got a break from the 24/7 fire coverage yesterday when Fox went live to Medal of Honor ceremonies at White House for 1st recipient of award in Afgan.

Was a member of 4man Navy Seal team. Ended up only one survived to tell story--They encountered goat herders on mission and decided to let them go--the goat herders reported them to Taliban and they were surrounded on mountain. The team could not get call through for reinforcements because of terrain--The Medal of Honor winner took radio out in open to make call to save his team knowing he'd be riddled with bullets- but not before completing call.

I switched to CNN and others during telecast to see if they carried it--and saw only the CA fire coverage.

NYT did carry story on in section C--only way it would have probably made front page is if team had not let goat herders go and were brought up on killing civilian charges.

 

[Chadman]

Too bad those soldiers in Afghanistan didn't have more soldiers there hunting for terrorists, which probably would help in situations like these...

But, those other soldiers are busy with other "more important" things, I guess...

:shrug:

 

[Chadman]

Guess it depends on what numbers and areas you look at, and what can be hoped to occur in this situation moving forward. From the story you posted link to:

"However, in the northern province of Nineveh, where many al Qaeda and other Sunni Arab militants fled to escape the crackdown in Baghdad and surrounding region, there had been a 129 percent rise in car bombings and a corresponding 114 percent increase in the number of people killed in violence.

While the figures confirm U.S. data showing a positive trend in combating al Qaeda bombers, there is growing instability in southern Iraq, where rival Shi'ite factions are fighting for political dominance.

Police said six gunmen were killed in police raids in Kerbala, 110 km (70 miles) southwest of Baghdad.

Some 50 people were killed in Kerbala in August in fierce clashes between fighters loyal to Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and local police, who are seen as aligned to the rival Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council's armed wing, the Badr Organization.

After the clashes, Sadr said he was imposing a six-month freeze on the activities of the Mehdi Army, increasingly seen as beyond his control, so that he could reorganize it.

In Baghdad, three roadside bombs killed four people, including three policemen, while in Mosul one policeman was killed when a blast hit a police patrol."

And the underlying situation there, which seems to have no improvement or hopes of changing:

"Washington began dispatching reinforcements to Iraq in February to try to buy Iraq's feuding political leaders time to reach a political accommodation to end violence between majority Shi'ites and minority Sunni Arabs that has killed tens of thousands and forced millions from their homes.

While the leaders have failed to agree on key laws aimed at reconciling the country's warring sects, the troop buildup has succeeded in quelling violence."

So, nothing really is changing, and I guess it's a positive outlook if we simply want to keep troops in Iraq forever, just to quell violence. Does ANYONE deny that that probably would be the case? I think most people think we can control violence in Iraq if we commit enough soldiers, cash, and firepower there and keep them there.

The real question is, is it worth it to you to quell violence indefinitely? Everyone has to make their own call on that.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I think things have imroved considerably especially in light of generally escalated activity in Ramadan (spl) and the many more targets (excess troops) in the triangle. However am sure things could turn around just as fast.

brings me to another issue--how on earth could the Dems even think about bring up genocide issue with Turkey after over 100 years when all allies are needed.

Granted they have placed themselves in a very unusual/precarious position--the better the war goes the worse it is on them--How and why would a party want to be in that position-scary, isn't it.

back to the soilder--it was 4 man Seal recon team --the reason for only 4 is moving around without being noticed is essential.

Here is interview Oreilly had with the lone survivor in case your interested.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304278,00.html