U.S. sees Iraqi death toll continuing to fall

BAGHDAD, Dec 2 (Reuters) - The number of civilians killed in Iraq's insurgency will continue to fall, but political wrangling ahead of an election may yet lead to a spike in violence, a senior U.S. military official said on Wednesday.

In November, 88 civilians were killed, the first time the monthly body count was below 100 since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. The death toll has been gradually falling since 2007 as the sectarian warfare unleashed by the invasion subsides.

But a political battle between Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds over an election law has made it unlikely the ballot will be held by its constitutional deadline of end-January, and exposed ethnic and religious fault lines that still run deep.

"Security trends are very stable ... and the trendline is positive," Brigadier General Peter Bayer, the chief of staff of the Multi-National Corps in Iraq, said in an interview.

"To some it's frustrating that the elections are being delayed, but this is democracy at work," he said. "Of course we're concerned about the potential for an upsurge in violence."

Iraq will likely have to postpone its election to at least February amid disagreement between Sunni Muslims -- a minority who once controlled Iraq -- and now dominant Shi'ites and their Kurdish allies over the allocation of parliamentary seats.

A delay in the vote is unlikely to affect a planned U.S. troop reduction to 50,000 by August 2010, Bayer said. There are now fewer than 120,000 U.S. military personnel in Iraq.

But if security deteriorates before or after the poll, General Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces, could discuss a change in the drawdown timeline with President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in the spring, Bayer said.

Suspected Sunni Islamist insurgents such as al Qaeda and adherents of deceased President Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party are still capable of staging devastating attacks in Iraq.



PRESSURE FROM AFGHANISTAN PLAN

The drawdown in U.S. troops amid worries about political stability coincides with the Obama administration's decision to boost troop levels in Afghanistan, a plan that depends in part on shifting soldiers from Iraq. Obama on Tuesday said he was ordering another 30,000 soldiers to Afghanistan. [ID:nN02527821]

"As the nation's focus shifts increasingly to Afghanistan, there are still vital interests at stake for our nation here in Iraq," Bayer said. "It's in our national interest that we stay focused on Iraq, not that we are ignoring Afghanistan."

An increase in Iraqi troops and police trained by the U.S. military, a government more able to assert its authority and increased intelligence from Iraqis weary of internecine violence have all helped to lower the death toll, Bayer said.

At least 100,000 Iraqis have been killed in the 6-1/2 years since the invasion, according to www.iraqbodycount.org.

The last large-scale attack was on Oct. 25 when 155 people were killed after twin bombs detonated in Baghdad. On Aug. 19, 95 people were killed on attacks at two government ministries.

Attacks have fallen off sharply because insurgents find it harder to buy, transport and use weapons, Bayer said.

Two U.S. soldiers were killed in November, he said, compared with six in the same month a year ago and 29 in November 2007. The U.S. military saw an average of 12 attacks a day last month, halved from 24 at end-June, when U.S. forces withdrew combat brigades from Iraqi urban centres, Bayer said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSGEE5B10I0


Obama keeping his promises!

They should hurry up and start business. I got 50,000 new Iraqi Dinars..considered worthless for 5 years ago, bought it for pennies.., even if it's worth 1 dollar/dinar I'm happy.

LOL
I guess so!

That is toooo funny. Of course civilian casualties are down. What with Husseins, "Don't Shoot Back Order." Seems the enemy is aware of it and they're shooting at our troops, using the civilians as shields.

Who knows how long Hussein will keep us involved in Afghanastan.

After the raid in Somalia, did we ever withdraw??

Hussein has a habit of lying and almost keeping promises.

Did his 'promises' have a date on them? I think he is working diligently to stay on top of those things he ran his campaign on, but that he is only one man and none of those things can be accomplished overnight, PARTICULARLY, with so much opposition stalling progress.

Iraq has pretty much been in the mopping up stage for the last year or so,

so that's not too surprising.

Nailing him down on a deadline is like trying to hang on to a greased pig. But, then, that's a good thing. It only allows him to create only a limited amount of damage.

If you can't grasp, ,that one. Have you ever tried to hang onto an eel? They wriggle and squirm. All the while oozing slime. The harder you try to hold them, the more they slime ya'.

Ya' know, a lot like Bush.

What do you have to say about his "Don't Shoot Back at the Enemy Policy"?

Obama can't take any credit for anything positive in Iraq.....Gates is running the show just like under Bush. Obama is so weak....Iran knows it....full steam ahead...Obama will be known as the president
on whose watch Iran developed nuclear weapons. Iran knows it's "Carter" back at the helm.

Funny how they just had the First ever unanimous vote by the 6 major UN Secutity Council members about Iran.
On Obama's watch.

The U.N. nuclear agency's board censured Iran on Friday, with 25 nations backing a resolution that demands Tehran immediately mothball its newly revealed nuclear facility and heed U.N. Security Council resolutions calling on it to stop uranium enrichment.

Iran remained defiant, with its chief representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency declaring that his country would resist "pressure, resolutions, sanction(s) and threat of military attack."

The resolution — and the resulting vote of the IAEA's 35-nation decision-making board — were significant on several counts.

The resolution was endorsed by six world powers — the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — reflecting a rare measure of unity on Iran. Moscow and Beijing have acted as a traditional drag on efforts to punish Iran for its nuclear defiance, either preventing new Security Council sanctions or watering down their potency.
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/iran.nuclear.enrichment.2.1336999.html


Bush wasn't able to do that!
All Bush did was embarras us and make enemies.

Aye kudos due where kudos are...

I found it quite interesting that on the heels of Russia's indorsemet came terrorist attacks on Russian soil...

Someone better hope those attacks are not traced back to Iran... Russia has some harsh ways of dealing with terrorisim.

"What do you have to say about his "Don't Shoot Back at the Enemy Policy"?"

First off...it's not to shoot until fired upon...second, many Iraqis own guns and are often mistaken for enemy combatants just for protecting their homes and families from trigger happy rednecks and or insurgents.
I would like to see a country invade America and you idly step aside and let them occupy your city without a fight.