Unsaid in your analysis is that greatest % of Americans didn't know or had no opinion.

Of course The Petreaus report is actually less important than the Crocker report, which will outline the political progress. After all, some military success is moot if the Princes of the Greenzone refuse to compromise or work on the hard issues.

And what is military progress? Civilian deaths are above the rate of last year. US military deaths and injuries are above last years month to month rate. We're still burning through $10 billion a month in war expenditures. And for what? By the pentagon's own estimates only 2-5% of the fighters in Iraq are Al Quead in Iraq or foreign. Helping to eject them from Anbar is a start, but hardly a long-term success of much consequence since we're also arming and training the minority group that will eventually want to take back power from the majority who refuse to compromise at all. So far, the only winners in Iraq seem to be the Kurds.

The real test of the surge will be in the mixed suni/shite areas of the country and in Baghdad itself.

Of course The Petreaus report is actually less important than the Crocker report, which will outline the political progress.

I mean three months ago it was all about the violence which is being quelled by the Surge. So time to put the spotlight on something completely different.

Well the problem is that Iraq is started to get agreement on the oil revenue sharing. A major issue backlogging all others. If that is out of the way, shortly political progress will resume.

Where will you put the spotlight, then?

BTW, talk about cooking the books.

On examination the ABC/Washington Post poll shows 58 percent of respondents said they felt the US surge had no impact on the situation there, while 12 percent said they felt it had made things worse. Fifty-three percent of those polled said they believed that Petraeus would present an assessment that is more positive than the reality on the ground. Only 39 percent thought he would portray the situation honestly.

As for the CBS/New York Times poll, it showed that 45 percent of respondents believe the surge had no impact while 12 percent believe it had made the situation worse.

While you fail to report that 68 percent of respondents said they would trust the military most with successfully resolving the war in Iraq compared with just 21 percent who trusted Congress most and 5 percent who trusted the Bush administration most.

Obviously, the country is not against the military, but very skeptical anything can be done.

BTW, with all your hype of Vets for Freedom I note you pointedly ignoring the more recent assessment from 8 troops actually on the ground in Iraq (one of whom suffered a head wound since the publication of this piece)

NYTimes commentary
Published: August 19, 2007

The War as We Saw It

By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY

Published: August 19, 2007

[Sorry Rick, but I removed the text you posted here because it was over 1500 words long. That is not a comment, that is an entire column. A long one at that. I don't know if your intent was to inform or to discourage people from commenting by requiring them to scroll through many, many screens, but I left plenty of info for people to find the column if they have not already read it and want to. Feel free to leave a link to it in an additional comment, but please don't post comments over 1500 words again. -- Lorie]

RK:

The Petreaus report is actually less important than the Crocker report, which will outline the political progress.

Do ya think?

What came first in WWI, political reform of Germany or the countries defeat?

What came first in WWII, political reform of Germany or the countries defeat?

What came first in WWII, political reform in Japan or the countries defeat?

After all, some military success is moot if the Princes of the Greenzone refuse to compromise or work on the hard issues.

Do you mean like a Al-Mutlaq's Sunni Arab bloc ending its parliamentary boycott Saturday.

You know, the boycott that was touted as the final death rattle in Iraq.

rick kennerly:

Eight troops huh! Out of how many in Iraq? 160,000 if memory serves.

I'll call your "eight troops" and raise you all of the following:

ISKANDARIYAH, Iraq - With civilian-manned checkpoints every 75 meters
along the roads of Jurf as Sukhr, citizens have made a statement to the
enemies of a united Iraq: You are not welcome here.
Evidence of this stand could be seen as Paratroopers from
Company A, 1st Battalion, 501st Airborne, 4th Brigade Combat Team
(Airborne), 25th Infantry Division, conducted a combat patrol through
the city Sept. 5 and were met by crowds of Iraqis eager to help out in
any way they could.
"Our mission was just to check up on the people of the
neighborhood and talk about the Concerned Citizens Program to the Iraqis
who were out and about," said 1st Lt. Michael Kelvington, of Akron,
Ohio, Company A platoon leader.
Given the power to take back their neighborhood, the citizens of
Jurf as Sukhr set up checkpoints, secured critical infrastructure, and
give information to Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces when an enemy
threat is present.

***********************

PATROL BASE MURRAY, Iraq - The citizens of Arab Jabour have united with
Coalition Forces against the common threat posed by al-Qaeda.
For nearly three months, Lt. Col. Ken Adgie, commander, 1st
Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry
Division, has been working with former Iraqi Army Brig. Gen. Mustafa
Kamil Hamad Shabib al-Juburi to take down insurgents, establish a
Concerned Citizens Program and plan civil-relief projects for the
residents of Arab Jabour.
This type of cooperation is beginning to yield results far
greater than what Coalition Forces could accomplish alone.
When 1-30th Inf. Regt. arrived at Patrol Base Murray in Arab
Jabour June 16, there were no Iraqi Security Forces in the area, but
Soldiers made an immediate impact on insurgent activity in the region.
They reduced the flow of weapons and munitions coming from Arab Jabour
into Baghdad and disrupted insurgents' ability to move freely.
Coalition operations in the area also struck a blow to al-Qaeda
leadership in the region through the capture of key insurgent
leadership, most notably the capture of 2nd BCT's sixth-most wanted
insurgent. He was wanted for allegedly transporting weapons and
explosives into Baghdad.
Despite early successes in the region, Coalition leadership
recognized a need for a local ally, someone who could "take on the
mantle of leadership for the citizens of Arab Jabour," as Adgie said.
In June, while trying to locate capable leaders here, Adgie met
with a local sheik who was the leader of his community. The man was in
poor health and his ability to lead his community against al-Qaeda was
in doubt.
In a fortunate turn of events, the sheik's nephew, a veteran
soldier and respected man in the region, was ready to step into the
fight against al-Qaeda.
Enter Shabib Al-Jabouri, or as he is known to Adgie, "General
Mustafa."
In the first two months of their acquaintance, Adgie's 1-30th Inf. Regt.
Soldiers provided much of the security for the region through rigorous
operations that targeted insurgents and reduced their freedom of
movement.
To really knock out al-Qaeda's ability to function in the
daytime, Adgie and Gen. Mustafa needed to enlist the assistance of
community residents, and Arab Jabour's Concerned Citizen's Program was
born.

*****************************

HAWR RAJAB, Iraq - Over the course of 24-hours across September 6-7, a
decisive battle reshaped the security outlook for Hawr Rajab, when more
than 80 concerned local citizens swept through the streets looking to
drive al-Qaeda elements out of the city.
The concerned local citizens coordinated with the imam of a
local mosque to broadcast the message to al-Qaeda, "Move to the mosque
and they will be given amnesty, and there will be peace in Hawr Rajab."
Initial fighting kicked off as U.S. Soldiers were preparing to
depart. The Soldiers, of Troop A, 1st Squadron, 40th Cavalry Regiment,
4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, currently attached to
the 2nd BCT, 3rd Infantry Division, adjusted their plans after the first
shots were fired, moving into an overwatch position.
As the day progressed, al Qaeda fighters engaged the CLCs with
small-arms fire and mortar rounds. More than 45 mortar rounds were fired
into the city during fighting that lasted nearly 24-hours. The battle
finally ended in the early morning hours of Sept. 7 with the CLCs in
control of strong points in Hawr Rajab.
This turning point for concerned local citizen involvement with
the area's security came just five weeks after the soldiers of the 2nd
BCT, 3ID began working with the residents of Hawr Rajab.
Captain Chad Klacius, commander of Troop A, said the battle
proves residents are rejecting al-Qaeda.
"They're tired of them," Klacius said. "They want to take back
their city. That area has been under the control of al-Qaeda for some
time."

"Eight troops huh! Out of how many in Iraq? 160,000 if memory serves.

I'll call your "eight troops" and raise you all of the following:"

Well, at least I give sources.

http://tinyurl.com/2uovcb

Yes, 8 battle hardened, multiple combat tour troops, one seriously wounded, writing from the front lines at great risk, not only from the enemy but to their military careers as well.

rick, the spin machine reports for duty. Hey, dude, the war in Iraq is over. We won. So did the Iraqis. You can shut up, now.

Ralph Peters calls Schumer a 'Premature Iraqulator' in the New York Post this AM.
================================

Lil' Chucky Schumer is a douche-nozzle of the first order.

Rick,

your 8 troops weren't everywhere and from absolutely no mention of the Surge in their article (which is prettymuch absent of anything solid to date their timeframe there) they left long before the Surge was at full strength and possible even completely pre-surge for some.

your 8 troops weren't everywhere and from absolutely no mention of the Surge in their article (which is prettymuch absent of anything solid to date their timeframe there) they left long before the Surge was at full strength and possible even completely pre-surge for some.

Well, certainly beats Pete Hegseth and his VFF outfit. He hasn't been in the country for years yet shoots off his mouth like he's the voice of the citizen soldier.

[Sorry Rick, but I removed the text you posted here because it was over 1500 words long. That is not a comment, that is an entire column. A long one at that. I don't know if your intent was to inform or to discourage people from commenting by requiring them to scroll through many, many screens, but I left plenty of info for people to find the column if they have not already read it and want to. Feel free to leave a link to it in an additional comment, but please don't post comments over 1500 words again. -- Lorie]

Sorry, Lorie. The article is already archived and available only for a fee, which is why I dropped it in here whole. In any event, here's a link:

http://mouseherder.blogspot.com/2007/09/war-as-we-saw-it.html

What came first in WWI, political reform of Germany or the countries defeat?

What came first in WWII, political reform of Germany or the countries defeat?

What came first in WWII, political reform in Japan or the countries defeat?

Oh, you mean those wars were we actually mobilized the entire nation, relied on the draft, required sacrifice from every citizen and flooded those nations with troops and tanks?

The war's over; we've won every battle. We're not doing well in the occupation, though. We won't do well or even marginally well until we put 1 million troops on the ground and a Bradley on every other corner of Iraq. That, or we have to have real measurable and substantive progress on self government and civil society.

Ya'll are nothing but a bunch of arm chair generals and chickenhawks, glad enough to spill somebody else's blood but not brave enough to commit to the fight yourselves.

rick, the spin machine reports for duty. Hey, dude, the war in Iraq is over. We won. So did the Iraqis. You can shut up, now.

Oh really? Good, then we can leave now.

We'll leave when Sistani tells us to do so, and not a minute earlier or later.

And it's just plain ignorant to call people you don't know chickenhawks.
==============================

Go read Ralph Peters in the New York Post, and read the WaPo about the Dems pitiful efforts to lose the war.

Rick, political and spiritual leaders made compromises and reached agreement two weeks ago. There is a fatwah against violence in Iraq now, and you'd know it if you'd get out of the spin cycle and re-orient. The Iraqis are more tired of the war than they are of us, and they've figured out that we are not there to steal the oil. When will you have your awakening?
=======================================

Rick, you missed the article that the New York Times refused to publish from eight soldiers with the more common upbeat report from the front. They went searching for the soldiers who'd spin it right for them, and they found them.

The New York Times is not an unbiased organ of war reporting. Pinch is destroying the franchise.
==========================================

Rick, you and all the rest of your dizzy brethren are so sure Petraeus and Crocker have good news that you are stepping all over yourself to minimize it. Why don't you want us to succeed over there? You need to answer that question before you declaim about costs.
=================================

Rick, you missed the article that the New York Times refused to publish from eight soldiers with the more common upbeat report from the front. They went searching for the soldiers who'd spin it right for them, and they found them.

Links, links, links. Trust but verify, Kim. Got anything genuine and not tied to the GOP run VVF and Pete Hegseth group?

rick kennerly, you got anything not tied to mainstream media already caught publishing forged memos and nonexistant sources?

And it's just plain ignorant to call people you don't know chickenhawks.

Oh, I don't know. I check in here from time to time, often enough to know that other than a one-term submariner, there aren't a lot of military folks hanging around here.

It's not a Monday holiday, so trot on down and enlist in the Army today. They've got a $20k signing bonus if you go in before the end of the fiscal year (30 September).

Of course, it's paid out in installments over the term of your enlistment, if you live to collect it.

Compounding and broadcasting your ignorance. I have run across very few posters who use the chickenhawk argument who are not chickens themselves.
=================================

'Got anything genuine?' Rick asks, who wouldn't know a milblog if one jumped up and bit him on his chicken ass.
=======================================

Why don't you want us to succeed over there? You need to answer that question before you declaim about costs.

Oh I do.

There are, however, different ways to succeed. If we're going to succeed in the way we've been trying, we need to stop taking half measures, restart the draft and flood the nation with occupation forces. Military estimates and real experience in Germany, Japan, and Korea suggests at least a 10-year commitment of about 150,000 troops. That's playing OBL's game. From day one we've been trying to do this on the cheap.

We need to commit wholeheartedly as a nation to victory--draft, a war tax, real sacrifice from those at home, not bumpersticker slogans and magnetic yellow ribbons. It takes massive manpower over a very long time to occupy a country.

If, on the other hand, we can change the game and do what we're best at. Focus our intelligence assets, stand off and hit targets with cruise missiles and smart bombs, mop up with special forces and move on.

Daddy Bush was smart enough not to kick this snake. Only wish Jr. was as smart.

Compounding and broadcasting your ignorance. I have run across very few posters who use the chickenhawk argument who are not chickens themselves.

I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours ;->

Navy, 28 years, man and boy. I even still have a dog in this fight; my wife doesn't retire for another two years.

I started in VN as an enlisted man, had a 9 year break with the reserves while I finished school on the GI Bill, and went back in and finished up as an (LDO) Limited Duty Officer, a Mustang.

Well you oughta be ashamed of yourself, spinning these lies about our armed forces. Have you met a milblog and seen that it is us?
=====================================

You sound as loony as Michael Scheuer. Don't you know massive force doesn't work in assymetrical warfare?
===============================

Well you oughta be ashamed of yourself, spinning these lies about our armed forces. Have you met a milblog and seen that it is us?

I see. Nifty evasion (like all of your posts so far). I assume you have no real experience to contribute to the discussion. I ask for links, you provide none. I ask for citations, you provide none. Just blather.

I think we've exhausted this line.

I'll check back in a few months to see if you've put yourself in uniform to actually fight for the things you espouse or if you're still just continuing to squawk from the sidelines.

Before you post again, take the feathers off you missive, Kim the Chickenhawk.

Read 'Unrestricted Warfare' by Liang and Xiangsui, 1999, and the Small Wars Journal.
================================

Oh, and before you attempt to fly with those clipped wings, how about responding with something besides ad hominems, mistaken ones at that.
========================================

Only wish Michael Scheuer and Bill Clinton hadn't left the snake alone. I think it is ironic that you mention smart bombs and missiles, which famously failed to get bin Laden.

For a veteran officer, your knowledge of strategy is peculiar and parochial. I've known mustangs. But you're a sorry ass.
===============================

Read 'Unrestricted Warfare' by Liang and Xiangsui, 1999,

That was on the CNO's reading list for officers several years ago, but not for long. It was also on at least one reading list at the Naval War College when I was there.

Roundly trashed by professionals, officers, & scholars. Mostly taken out of context, badly translated and, by the time it had come out, old data.

Did you know that the subcaption "China's Master Plan to Destroy America" & the cover with the WTC afire were added by the publisher?

Don't you know massive force doesn't work in assymetrical warfare?

Which is the reason we shouldn't be occupying Iraq from the beginning. However, it has it's place for the purposes of extracting ourselves from this mess and going about the the real business of actually fighting the war on terror where we find it and not occupying a tribal territory.

final post. See'ya featherboy.

You are dissonant. So is the foreign policy to be with smart bombs, or massive troops?
=========================================

You really ought to read Michael Scheuer's article in the New York Daily News yesterday, because it is remarkable that you are confused in virtually the same manner he is.

Read it. Does he make any more sense than you do?

I think you misunderestimate the unrestricted warfare article. It does gore a lot of oxen, whose screams are the round criticisms you allege, but don't link.
==============================================

For a veteran officer, your knowledge of strategy is peculiar and parochial. I've known mustangs. But you're a sorry ass.

You sure not going to get the big flick from a book.

Join the service, pull a real watch or two and come back in three years, featherboy.

You don't know Jack.

Kennerly

Well, at least I give sources.

You want a source of what was posted? Fine, I'll give you the email addy to receive the same press releases the info cane from. But somehow I doubt if your interested or smart enough to read them.

You and Micheal Scheuer remind me of Romney's comment about Obama, that he can go from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in a week. Which is it? Smart bomb oh so smartly, or invade and dominate.

I don't need books to plumb your confusion.
=================================

We see your inability to discuss, and your remnant of an argument which consists of an ignorant ad hominem. It's late September and you really should be back in school.
================================================

kennerly:

Oh, you mean those wars were we actually mobilized the entire nation, relied on the draft, required sacrifice from every citizen and flooded those nations with troops and tanks?

"Nice" diversion so you don't have to answer or concede the point. Was there a draft? Yes, but the ENTIRE nation wasn't "mobilized" that's nothing more than a cheap assed talking point that run along the lines of Shillary's "shared sacifice" trash.

As far as your chickenhawk bullshit:

Oh, I don't know. I check in here from time to time, often enough to know that other than a one-term submariner, there aren't a lot of military folks hanging around here.

It's not a Monday holiday, so trot on down and enlist in the Army today. They've got a $20k signing bonus if you go in before the end of the fiscal year (30 September).

And you think checking in from "time-to-time" is enough to determine who and how many here have or are serving in the military?

All it really shows is your lack of research skills and any interest to do any, which also explains why you use the childish chickenhawk invective.

As one of the many vets here you can take your childish chickenhawk tripe and stick it in your ass sideways.

BTW kennerly, is it safe to assume your won't be voting for such "illustrious" arm chair generals and chickenhawks like Obama, Hillery and Edwards?

Furthermore, for all your bluff and fluff about feathers, you're the one who doesn't know jack. You don't know shit about me or the sacrifices of mine. You are guessing, and it is pitiful, degenerate, rhetoric to put a guess in an ad hom.

Ding, ding, dong. School's come along.
=========================================

Pretty much my automatic conclusion when someone drops the chickenhawk turd then claims personal military experience is that they are a liar. Give Mr. Kennerly's blogger profile and statements here, I'm even further inclined to think that he's full of shit up to his eyebrows.

I suspect as much, too, John. Notice, I'm careful not to declare as much. He doesn't really want to talk strategy.
================================

You don't have to be a non chicken to make the chickenhawk argument but all who make the argument think so. Fundamentally, the chickenhawk argument is completely bogus, as most military and ex-military understand, but I don't think he thought all that through, as he gleefully and ignorantly announces his propaganda.
=======================================

Look at all the posts. Looks like school is out.

Fundamentally, the chickenhawk argument is completely bogus, as most military and ex-military understand.
============================================

Fundamentally, the chickenhawk argument is completely bogus, as most military and ex-military understand.

Be a man for once and go fight for your principles on the front line. Or are you only content to let other Americans die for your beliefs?

It's okay; good troops are taking your turn on the line, featherboy, so you don't have to wet yourself.

(but somebody above is right, I don't have a candidate that fits my bill, only McCain and Hunter saw combat. But Gilmore, Paul, Gravel, Dodd and (Tommy) Thompson all at least served.

The good news is, however, that with all the returning vets there will be plenty of seasoned veterans to run in the future who will understand the reality of military service and what they're actually asking the troops to do.)

I wondered if you'd take the bait. One of the main reasons I doubted your bona fides in the first place is that you used the argument at all. It is rare for veterans or servicemembers to use it. Can I explain that to you? If you have to ask, you're not going to get it, but here's a hint. Do not send to know for whom the soldier serves, he serves for you.
==============================================

The good news is, however, that with all the returning vets there will be plenty of seasoned veterans to run in the future who will understand the reality of military service and what they're actually asking the troops to do.

rick, yep and 90% of the returning veterans will hate defeatists like you.

I wondered if you'd take the bait. One of the main reasons I doubted your bona fides in the first place is that you used the argument at all.

Well, that's too bad. OTOH, military dilettantes like yourself are the bane of professional military men everywhere. At least you're not in a position to actually hurt the military like the diletant-in-chief, the VP or Rumsfled.

I actually saw a bunch of you at the NAS Oceana Airshow last weekend and I'm always amazed at the numbers of hangers-on the military attracts.

You can spot them, reciting the production history of the FA-18 or P3 by heart, standing endlessly at the end of the runway taking photos and tracking tail numbers, yet they have no or little military experience themselves, content, no doubt, to get their sea stories from milblogs and blowhards and then fantasize about their heroics while they inhabit what's-his-name persona in Halo 3.

If you want to see counter insurgency done right, then look where we're doing it right, the southern islands of the Philippines or Djibouti.

If you want an example of a civil war intervention and occupation done poorly from day one, look at Iraq.

Even General Petreaus' highly touted handbook on counter insurgency was drastically rewritten over a six week period as soon as he got into country. Why? Because, by DoD estimates, only 2-5% of the fighters were foreigners or AQI. In other words, there isn't much of an insurgency in Iraq. He's in the middle of a civil war.

So, what's your story? Why aren't you serving your country? You guys are surely bright enough. You're literate. Is it that you're too young? Too fat? are you cripples?

Wow, I really stung you. You're projecting now.
==============================================

Look, you showed me yours, and I belittled it. Now you're trying to pump it up. Perhaps you are a vet, but it is inauthentic to use the chickenhawk argument. It's a free country, though, and you may.
=================================

Read Small Wars Journal, too. It's fun.
=======================================

So, what's your story? Why aren't you serving your country? You guys are surely bright enough. You're literate. Is it that you're too young? Too fat? are you cripples?

Why aren't you serving your country? Why haven't you served your country, Kim. What's wrong with you?

Please, you are losing it. You don't know shit about me or mine.
================================

So, what's your story? Why aren't you serving your country? You guys are surely bright enough. You're literate. Is it that you're too young? Too fat? are you cripples?

Please, you are losing it. You don't know shit about me or mine.

I'm trying to understand you, but evade the question. Simply answer the question, featherboy. Why haven't you served you country? Why aren't you serving your country? We're desperate for soldiers.

If you're not fat, lame, or ill, there is still "don't ask, don't tell" if that is your concern. Just be discrete and enjoy the view in the showers.

Surely you're not just a theoretical patriot, only willing to let others fight for what you espouse.

I'll reprise my point from 9:58 yesterday. It is the height of ignorance to call a stranger a chickenhawk. I'll reprise my clue that it is generally counter to the sensibility of a soldier, or sailor, to use the chickenhawk argument.

Now, does anyone want to tell Rick what he is doing or are you just going to leave him sweating over that 6X6X6 in front of him.

Meanwhile, let's explore the ramifications of the corollary to your invalid chickenhawk argument, that is that only a vet is qualified to be commander in chief. Did they teach you that in War College?

Scratch a leftist and the autocrat shines through.
================================

President--No that's a personal belief after the abuse of the military the last several years.

I doubt you know any military folks, certainly not many career people or you'd certainly not lump them all into one "sensibility" or another, key you're no vet yourself.

So again, why are you not serving, Kim?

You're right, it is difficult to stereotype military people, except that you won't find many using the chickenhawk argument. Most value their service more than would allow them to demean it so.

But stay right where you are, here comes the Komatsu. Any military reading this is going to come to the conclusion that I sound more like a veteran, and you sound more like a protester at an anti-war rally shrieking about chickenhawks.

I warned you, sucker.
====================

So again, why are you not serving, Kim?

Here's a Marine, Kimmy, who says in NEWSWEEK that you're a chickenhawk, too

http://tinyurl.com/ysf72p

Found that recruiter yet, Kim?

Wow, so you guys are in favor of a military dictatorship.
Interesting.

Wow, so you guys are in favor of a military dictatorship.

Oh, quite the contrary, but as they say, Freedom ain't Free. Somebody's got to pay with blood. What are you willing to pay? The bill for Iraq/Afghanistan is off the books and going on the national debt, so you're not paying taxes for it.

If you can't see your way clear to serve, then you should be charged a fee when our troops are at war, to pay for the war and supplies--it's you duty to sacrifice for your country. Think of it as hiring a substitute to do your duty.

(btw, if you'd actually read the article his point is with all the kids exposed to danger, the military would get the hardware and support they need.)

There was a lot of sneering on this thread about a NYTs opinion piece written by 8 career soldiers actually serving in Iraq. Here's a link to a copy of the piece:

http://mouseherder.blogspot.com/2007/09/war-as-we-saw-it.html

Just wanted to update you chickenhawks that one was seriously wounded in the head before the article was published and two died Monday in Baghdad.