38 killed in Baghdad clashes

Monday 28th April, 12:00 PM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

13 Comments

rjd_jr at 09:43 AM JST - 28th April

Looks like the surge is working as usual
jambon at 09:46 AM JST - 28th April

"Militants," is it? No matter the head line of this article, these freedom fighters of the MSM are getting their butts handed to them. Feast your eyes:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=49699
rjd_jr at 11:19 AM JST - 28th April

Actually, not to sound too negative or anything, but that defense link article lists nothing but action by 'coaltion forces' (read: American troops). The fact that coalition force after coalition force are the ones that are still doing the bulk of the fighting after 5 years is nothing to celebrate. It's their country, let the Iraqi's fight and die for it.
curlygene at 11:57 AM JST - 28th April

Anybody read Frank Herbert's Dune? The same strategy was employed in it, and also by a group of religious fanatics against an empire. This story's quite eerie in the parallels that can be drawn to that novel
adaydream at 02:02 PM JST - 28th April

KWESTION:

Are all munitions used by U. S. military combat troops made in the U. S.?
redacted at 07:08 PM JST - 28th April

"Fierce clashes between Shiite militiamen and U.S. and Iraqi forces in eastern Baghdad killed at least 38 people, including 22 who died when a U.S. tank fired on attackers, the American military said Monday."

Brave holy warrior goat fanciers all dead and gone to paradise for an eternity of dark-eyed virgins - or raisins; translators aren't sure on this point.

Gots to admire their faith!
SuperLib at 12:50 AM JST - 29th April

Hey, progressives taught us that the surge and violence cannot be compared. When deaths fell considerably over the 6-month period in 2007 they told us that the surge was about establishing the government and that was the only way it could be measured.

So, violence could spike tenfold and you'd be unable to claim that the surge was a failure since those two things aren't related.

Hey, just playing by their rules...
adaydream at 02:09 AM JST - 29th April

No the surge was a wonderful success.

How long should the troop levels continue at the surge levels to keep down the violence?

Who should serve to keep these levels up? Upper level citizens that refuse to serve or criminals that have a felony record?

How long should the citizens of the United States continue to pay $Billions to pay this expense?

Do you agree with John McCain that he'd be happy to see troops there for a very long time?
Betzee at 04:49 AM JST - 29th April

progressives... told us that the surge was about establishing the government and that was the only way it could be measured.

In fact it was GWB who said this when he announced plans for a troop surge in January 2007. Progressives are simply measuring results against stated objectives, a common method of determining success. It was clear the Iraqi army was unable to stand up and take responsibility for security and the only way to improve security was by augmenting the number of US troops. This was to provide the "breathing room" (GWB's words) for political reconciliation to occur.

In March 2008 General Petreaus told Congress "our gains are fragile and reversible." As the war entered its sixth year, this was hardly heartening news. The best means to ensure sustainability would be political reconciliation, enabling the Iraqis to duke it out in the legislature not on the streets. Yet little discernable headway has been made in that direction.
Taka313 at 06:42 AM JST - 29th April

Hey, just playing by their rules...

And therefore we can expect that you won't be passing judgement on "progressives" for doing the same thing you are now doing, right?

Taka
rjd_jr at 08:02 AM JST - 29th April

As Betzee's post points out, there has been absolutely little progress either politically or militarily. 44 American troops have been killed this month, one of the deadliest since last September I believe. The Green Zone has become one of the more unsafe areas in Baghdad with its constant shelling. The Iraqi politicians are fiddling their thumbs while precious American lives are being killed. The Iraq Army continue to unimpress. It's clear, with no progress in the immediate future, why continue to risk American lives. This is the thing that just blows my mind, Americans continue to risk their lives year in and year out in Iraq, with little to no progress militarily or politically. How much longer do we have to put them at risk like this. At least WW2 had a clear objective, this current fiasco has no objective, or an unclear objective that seems to drag on and on and on. It's very clear that the very presence of American forces in Iraq has been VERY taken for granted. It's like supporting a deadbeat dad or something. Withdraw the troops and let the Iraqi's fight and die for their country
Madverts at 12:54 AM JST - 30th April

Superlib,

The surge succeeded in reducing the daily, horrific casualites caused by this invasion an subsequent occupation. Temporarily.

America neither has the resolve, nor the wads of cash needed to maintain it. And as Bush Co nears it´s ejection from the Whitehouse - something I can only compare to the final moment of persistent piles leaving the body fro good - interest in this conflict has waned.

I´ve maintained for a while now the US should un-clutch the booty and go home. Things couldn´t get much worse, so what the hell?
Madverts at 12:56 AM JST - 30th April

Also, I maintain that the few hoarse voices still croaking support for an invasion that now equates to mass-murder on a genocidal scale, need a medical term for their condition.