If this story, and this one are accurate, it would seem to me that Iraq is in a state of war with Syria (and probably other nations, such as Saudi Arabia, as well). After all, they seem to be sending in people to murder Iraqis and attack its government. I'm not sure at this point exactly what they can do about it, but I would think that at the least it would be useful to state the reality, to call them on it. Perhaps in a year or two, after being given sufficient training, the Iraqis themselves will institute a regime change in Damascus. Which raises the interesting issue of whether or not Syria has any of Saddam's WMD...

[Update at 5 PM EDT]

Along those lines, this looks like good news, if accurate:

American troops backed by helicopters and war planes launched a major offensive against followers of Iraq's most wanted insurgent, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, in a desert area near the Syrian border, and as many as 100 militants were killed, U.S. officials said Monday.

We've been here before:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/005010.html

Remember when, after the United States took some casualties in Iraq, the story suddenly emerged that Iraqi troops had killed 85 insurgents?

Remember how that turned out? No bodies.

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/005027.html

So here we are again--a really bad week in Iraq, and suddenly the US military is announcing that it killed 100 insurgents. I wanna see the bodies. Or better yet, their rifles.

That's why I wrote "if accurate."

I'd rather see their passports.

Iraq's relations with Jordan bear watching. Jordan shares a border with Iraq, yet we haven't heard much, if anything, about "insurgents" infiltrating via that route. Pretty much out of necesity, Jordan has always had significant economic links with Iraq, especially for oil (embargoed or otherwise). Nor has there been much affection in Amman for the al-Asad clan. (Many believe Hafiz al-Asad once ordered King Husayn's aircraft shot down.) If Iraq does, eventually, decide to confront Damascus or Riyadh, they may decide they need at least one Arab ally.

"suddenly the US military is announcing that it killed 100 insurgents. I wanna see the bodies. Or beter yet, their rifles."

This is from the US Military and not the Iraqi military. Seems quite reputable.

You think 100 is impressive, you shoud hear how many insurgents we killed when we stormed Fallujia last fall, it was several thousand.

"This is from the US Military and not the Iraqi military. Seems quite reputable."

Unfortunately, there are a lot of reasons to believe that body counts are inflated. We know from experience that it happened in Vietnam--the US Army could shell the crap out of a hill for ten hours, stop, and not find a single body, then report that they killed 100 NVA. It was for this reason that some commanders eventually switched to rifle counts instead of body counts. Rifles could be captured and sent back to HQ, so there was some kind of evidence.

Unfortunately, there have been a number of instances in Iraq where there is reason to believe that the US military exaggerated how many enemy they killed. There was an incident last year that I believe was right after the two Blackhawk helicopters collided. There was a report of some firefight where the US claimed something like 24 enemy killed in a small town. But journalists went to the town a day or so later and talked to the locals and the number they got was something like three dead, and not much evidence of a major battle.

"Unfortunately, there are a lot of reasons to believe that body counts are inflated. We know from experience that it happened in Vietnam--the US Army could shell the crap out of a hill for ten hours, stop, and not find a single body, then report that they killed 100 NVA. It was for this reason that some commanders eventually switched to rifle counts instead of body counts. Rifles could be captured and sent back to HQ, so there was some kind of evidence."

Todays army is not the army of 1967. There is no current evidence of a systematic attempt at inflating body counts. If anything, the evidence is to the contrary.

"...sending people in to murder Iraqis and attack its government."
Has not someone else done that over the last few years? That's why we call it war.

Has not someone else done that over the last few years?

If you're referring to us, no. We never deliberately murdered civilians.

That's why we call it war.

That's my point. Syria and Saudi Arabia are making war on the new nation of Iraq. What's your point?

"Todays army is not the army of 1967. There is no current evidence of a systematic attempt at inflating body counts. If anything, the evidence is to the contrary."

There are certain things that you can count on from the US military: BDA and body counts are always over-inflated, and cost estimates are always under-inflated. The question is by how much.

"body counts are always over-inflated, and cost estimates are always under-inflated"

Always? Methinks that could be challenged. The military news reports from Vietnam simply CANNOT be used as a barometer for the current war scenario in IRAQ.

Consider this, if you will....

The Vietnam War was run by the administration. Iraq I was run by the military. Bosnia was run by the administration. Afghanistan was, and is, run by the military. Iraq II was, and is, run by the military.

For those conflicts where the military is solely in charge of achieving their objective(s) you will find the BDA and body count are fairly accurate. Conversely, when the administration insists on running the show the counts typically get skewed and then denial and finger pointing take place when the 'truth' is revealed.

And as for this:

"But journalists went to the town a day or so later and talked to the locals and the number they got was something like three dead, and not much evidence of a major battle"

Sure...that was an Al-Jezeera reporter right? Or maybe NY Times? LA Times? Credible sources to be sure...wanna buy a bridge?

CJ wrote:
"Sure...that was an Al-Jezeera reporter right? Or maybe NY Times? LA Times? Credible sources to be sure...wanna buy a bridge?"

Okay, genius, tell us which sources you would believe. Which blogs have a Baghdad bureau?

Okay, genius, tell us which sources you would believe. Which blogs have a Baghdad bureau?

The ones that are written from Baghdad (e.g., military bloggers, and Iraqi locals...) They don't always tend to track very well with MSM coverage, and I find them, overall, to be more reliable.

Which sources would I believe? Now that IS an interesting question. It seems to presuppose that A source or sources must be credible. By and large, I don't believe they are 100% of the time. Each media source offers a portion of truth to (some more than others) to back up their story to reinforce their agenda...and they ALL have an agenda.

Therefore, I don't believe any of them at face value. To blindly accept whatever any one reporter or institution puts onto the airwaves or in print is sheer lunacy. The majority of reporting on the war (any war for that matter) assumes that YOU cannot decide for yourself and must therefore be told:
'the US is an agressor'
'the US is freeing the Iraqi people'
'the US is killing civilians'
'the US is rebuilding the country'
'the US is involved in torture'
etc...ad nauseam

Each of these statements can be reported either way and have been. The sad fact is these stories LACK all facts to back up the report. You get enough to get their point across and no rebuttal. It's up to you to decide whether to dig deeper...or not. Read critically...or not. Ask why...or not.

But a genius? Perhaps...or not. ;-)