Last week, the Department of Defense released the obituaries of 26 military personnel killed in Iraq, ranging in age from 19 to 34, and one 21-year-old soldier killed in Afghanistan. Improvised explosive devices caused the deaths of 16 of the fallen heroes.
The website www.icasualties.org reports that U.S. military deaths in Iraq now total 3,346, including 10 whose next-of-kin are being notified today. Total U.S. deaths in Afghanistan were 317 as of April 21, according to the Pentagon.
So far this year, 343 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq. This represents a 53% increase over the first four months of last year. April, with 99 fatalities, was the sixth most deadly month since the invasion in March, 2003.
One of the more interesting stories this week is that of a soldier who is demanding a court martial.
According to the Army Times, Spc. Paul Thurman, 24, of Huntington Beach, California claims that the misconduct he is charged with was the result of brain damage he suffered while undergoing Special Forces training at Fort Bragg, N.C.
Consequently, he rejected an Article 15 non-judicial punishment on Friday that would have involved a possible reduction in grade, loss of pay and extra duty. Penalties under a court martial could be much more severe, depending on what the Army determines the charges to be.
Thurman was deployed to Iraq, but was returned after a short tour. He claims that he has since been subjected to harassment.
Thurman’s commanding officer during training, confirmed his belief that Thurman did indeed sustain a traumatic brain injury when a log weighing several hundred pounds fell on his head. Medical records also are reported to show that brain damage was sustained at that time.
Meanwhile, conditions in Iraq remain relatively unchanged. The death toll from yesterday’s explosion near a Shiite mosque in Karbala has now risen to 68, with at least 170 injured. It was not reported whether this latest bombing was related to the fact that yesterday would have been Saddam Hussein’s 70th birthday.
Additional violence this weekend was revealed by the discovery of 17 bodies in Baghdad, 27 in Baquba, 40 miles to the north, and 16 in Mosul, 240 miles to the north. Many were killed execution style, with their hands tied behind their backs.
MSNBC and NBC News also reported on the situation relating to a senior Al Qaeda commander who was captured late last year in either Afghanistan or Pakistan. Al-Hadi is believed to have functioned just below bin Laden’s deputy, al-Zawahiri in the organization. According to the reports, Al-Hadi has provided the CIA with hundreds of leads as a result of interrogations conducted in an undisclosed third country.
Last week, he was handed over to the U.S. military in Iraq, and the very next day, U.S. forces captured 17 suspected militants during a series of overnight raids targeting al Qaeda members across Iraq.
Today, in an unrelated event, the U.S. military stormed the north Baghdad offices of Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr, according to Reuters, and, after an hour long gun battle, a number of people were arrested. Loud speakers announced the attack at local mosques and several armed clashes were breaking out in the district.
To the south, the British were confronting mounting violence in the Basra area, as they proceeded to disengage from Iraq, according to today’s edition of the LA Times. The situation there may be indicative of the problems that might be incurred should the U.S. decide to pull out.
On that subject, Saturday’s LA Times reported on the concern that many Iraqis have over the possibility of the American troops leaving. Some believe that such a withdrawal would have catastrophic results that could end up delivering control of the nation to al Qaeda, according to the Times.
If this fear is legitimate, then diplomacy would seem to be the only viable alternative to a military victory.
And, interestingly, the prospects for diplomacy experienced both a setback and a boost today.
The Washington Post reported that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has refused to receive Iraqi Prime MinisterNouri al-Maliki on the eve of the critical Egyptian summit. This was described as a “serious rebuff to U.S. diplomacy,” especially since it follows on the heels of the king’s recent statement that the U.S. was pursuing an “illegitimate war.”
According to the Post’s sources, “The Saudi leader's decision reflects the growing tensions between the oil-rich regional giants, the deepening skepticism among Sunni leaders in the Middle East about Iraq's Shiite-dominated government, and Arab concern about the prospects of U.S. success in Iraq.”
On a positive note for diplomacy, Reuters just reported that “Iran has confirmed it will attend a meeting of major powers this week in Egypt that will seek ways to end the violence in Iraq, Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said on Sunday.”
There has, however, been no independent confirmation from Iran, as of this moment.
The State Department has previously said that Condoleezza Rice will attend the summit, which is scheduled for May 3rd and May 4th, and is open to direct talks with Iran regarding Iraq.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
Of course the "surge" is over -it was over before it began as another selfish legacy-saving act of Bush.
In the end, some responsible adult will have to implement the recommendations of the Iraqi Study Commission and negotiate the best of the bad choices we face there.
Louis, the king and the other fat cats (and they are) in Arabia do not like the Shiites, of course, being Sunnis. Also, they are deathly afraid of the terrorists, since they, the annointed few, soak up just about all the money that comes into the kingdom. They spend lavishly, living in ornate palaces and driving, or at least owning, expensive autos made of sterling silver. They have every reason to be afraid of the wrath of the masses and that is what lies behind the 172 arrests they announced on Friday. It has nothing to do with GWB's war on terror, in my opinion, and everything to do with their own personal survival.
>> I still can't fathom why any of you think diplomacy
>> will work with these savages. If I believed that
>> they'd just stay over there and kill each other,
>> and leave us alone, I'd agree with all of you to
>> yank our troops out.
I agree with your assessment. We are fighting a
system that is poison to the rest of the world, and
since we are the strongest in the world we confront
it first and hardest. The oil producing states are run
without responsibility by small family groups that are
corrupt and unfathomably rich, so rich that they cannot
NOT see in grandiose terms. They intend to continue
their rule and use their religious system to spread their
violent Islamo-Nazi system throughout the world.
The world's rules are to accept and tolerate others, but
Islam does neither. Once they have secured an area
Islam keeps out non-Muslims and barely tolerates non-
Muslims who live there, legally allowing for murder,
confiscation or slavery for them.
They have so much power and influence due to limitless
money and corruption, even in the US that the fighting
of the war on terror (should be renamed to war on
IslamicNazis) needs to be our number one goal. It is
so bad that we cannot realistically expect this to even
be as easy as the Cold War. We didn't pay the USSR
billions of dollars a year for energy while we fought
the Cold War. If we make sudden moves against this
enemy they can ruin the West's economy, and to make
matters even worse, there are lots of very rich people
in the US who feel the same way about the masses the
Saudi Leaders do about theirs, and they envy the power
and wealth of the Saudi's instead of being sickened by
it. In our money and power mad media, that is the game
they set up.
There are plenty on our own side who would ruin America
though callous disregard for the whole country taking for
granted that America, like nature, can take constant
increasing abuse and exploitation without any permanent
damage such as Global Climate Change.
Karl, it is a savage world, and if the winner has to be the
most savage, then I suggest we ratchet up for survival.
The numbers are indeed chilling David. And these numbers don't even include those of the private contractors who have been hired by our federal government to work along side the troops. I'm told that there are another 140,000 private "troops" in addition to our military, so you can imagine that the true cost to American lives is greater still.