The AP reports that a trash bag bomb killed at least four and wounded at least 21 in Baghdad today. Reuters notes the death of four in al-Rasool (with at least ten wounded) from mortar rounds. A British soldier has died and another wounded in actions in Basra, according to the BBC. The AFP brings the news that two US troops died on Saturday.
Reuters informs that three people were shot dead near Tikrit; a father & son and a woman were killed in Muqdadiya; while, near Kirkuk, two truck drivers were killed and a third kidnapped. Corpses? Two today in Balad ("signs of torture"); three female corpses discovered in Mosul, the corpse of a police officer discovered in Diwaniya (he was kidnapped Saturday along with three other police officers); while four corpses were found on Saturday (Reuters).
The AFP notes the comments of Spain's prime minister (Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero):
The war in Iraq had been a "disaster" which had led to "radicalisation, fanaticism, conflict and instability in the region," he said.
How bad are things? The LA Times reports that when asked "Is the U.S. winning?" the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, replied to Congress: "I think I would answer that by telling you I don't think we're losing."
Peter W. Galbraith, in The Times of London, offers suggestions and concludes with the following:
Theoretically, the United States has the power to provide some level of security in Baghdad. This would require many more troops and result in many more casualties. And it might not work. It is hard to imagine that there is any support for this role in America.
The alternative is to recognise that there is not much that America is able and willing to do to stop the bloodshed in Baghdad. Once they get started, modern civil wars develop a momentum of their own. In Baghdad and other mixed Sunni-Shi’ite areas, America cannot contribute to the solution because there is no solution, at least not in the foreseeable future.
It is a tragedy and it is unsatisfying to admit that there is little that can be done about it. But it is so. No purpose is served by a prolonged American presence anywhere in Arab Iraq.
Three years after the illegal invasion started this illegal war, with the American people favoring a withdrawal, we've got a Congress that still won't tackle reality. (And instead of making that their rallying cry for the November elections Democrats show their 'bravery' by saying, "Americans, you're worth 2 dollars and ten cents more an hour!")
Until people get serious about this war (CODEPINK is serious) this war will continue to drag on. The last (uninformed) argument appears to be lost -- "What will happen if we leave?" All but the self-deniers seem to be grasping that our presence continues to make the situation worse. More than that, we may be able to connect the actions of the Israeli government with Bully Boy's actions. Bully Boys breed Bully Boys. (Bad news for the US in the long term as the government's actions come back to haunt the citizens.)
All the lies have revealed. Bully Boy's bluffing flipped over like cards in a poker game. WMD? Nope. Never were any. "Democracy"? Didn't Rumsfeld's announcement that the Iraqi people weren't in a position to decide about US withdrawal expose that lie? The war would pay for itself? (Seems like everyone over there's paying with blood.) And the US Congressional Budget Office states: "The Iraq war could cost U.S. taxpayers between $202 billion and $406 billion more over the next 10 years". Wasn't the last lie left that somehow our presence over there was necessary to keep things stable? Have they been following the events?
It's time to bring the troops home.