Posted by Damozel | While the Dems slug it out and their supporters call each other names (guilty!), George W. Bush is still president and the situation in Iraq is going from bad to worse---that is, if you think that sectarian violence is 'bad' and that escalating sectarian violence is 'worse.' Here's what The Independent has to say about this:.
A new civil war is threatening to explode in Iraq as American-backed Iraqi government forces fight Shia militiamen for control of Basra and parts of Baghdad.
Heavy fighting engulfed Iraq's two largest cities and spread to other towns yesterday as the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, gave fighters of the Mehdi Army, led by the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, 72 hours to surrender their weapons.
The gun battles between soldiers and militiamen, who are all Shia Muslims, show that Iraq's majority Shia community – which replaced Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime – is splitting apart for the first time. (The Independent)
The Independent thinks this is probably a bad thing. "Iraq implodes as Shia fights Shia: Another tragedy as the Shia majority turn on each other," it announces dolefully. But the Pentagon would like for you to know that the escalating violence arises from the surge's success.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said it showed that the Iraqi government and security forces were now confident enough to take the initiative against Shiite extremists in the southern port of Basra.
"Citizens down there have been living in a city of chaos and corruption for some time and they and the prime minister clearly have had enough of it," he said at a Pentagon press conference.
At least 20 people were reported to have been killed in two days of fighting in Basra and another 20 in clashes in the Sadr City district of Baghdad, a bastion of Shiite militias that follow radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
The violence raised fears that a unilateral ceasefire called by Sadr last year, which US military officials have credited with helping to bring down last year's high levels of violence in Iraq, was coming apart.
Morrell, however, disputed suggestions that the fighting showed the risks of drawing down US "surge" forces.
"This has just begun this week," he said. "But I think at this early stage, it looks as though it is a by-product of the success of the surge," referring to the sharp hike in US troops in Iraq from earlier last year to quell violence.
He said it was a success "in the sense that the Iraqi government has grown and increased in capability to the point where they now feel confident going after Shia extremists in a part of the country that they had not exerted great influence over."
Morrell said US forces were supporting the Iraqi crackdown, mainly from the air, but it was an Iraqi operation. (AFP)
Brandon Friedman at VetVoice had pretty much the same reaction to this that I did:
That's some impressive spin, if you ask me. Takes balls to get up there in front of the media--and the world for that matter--and tell everyone that the conflagration we're on the verge of witnessing is due to how awesome we are.
Almost Bush-like in his simplistic view of the situation, Morrell went on to say:
"Citizens down there have been living in a city of chaos and corruption for some time and they and the prime minister clearly have had enough of it," he said at a Pentagon press conference.
Because that's clearly what's going on. Next thing you know, he'll be calling them "al Qaeda."
At Donklephant, Justin Gardner follows the Pentagon's pretzel logic to a conclusion that was perhaps a little different than the one Morrell intended us to draw:
Maybe I’m missing something here, but if you follow this logic wouldn’t a complete withdrawal of our troops embolden the Iraqi security forces even more to act?
At Balloon Juice, the always trenchant John Cole observes:
The positive outcome of the surge to stop the violence was an increase in elective violence.
Let’s not debate the merits or veracity of this claim, but point out that this is the worst framing of the situation in Iraq, ever- “The surge is so successful that we can expect a lot more violence!” This is even dumber than the previously trumpeted “The fact that they are resorting to suicide bombs is a sign of our success!”
Just make this all stop. Blogging is too depressing anymore- it really was more fun when I was with the right wing and “making my own reality.” This actual reality just sucks.
True, unless you can find consolation in pointing and laughing at the way in which proponents of the war continue to believe that it really is possible to fool all of the people all of the time.
It's not that I don't understand the Pentagon's reasoning: the government we put in power is taking action to suppress the Iraqis that we didn't.
It's just that it's such a moral quagmire that I really can't hear anything except the loud sucking sound as the credibility of anyone connected with it sinks deeper and deeper into the mire.
Cernig gets the last word:
The idea that Maliki's push against the Sadrists is because Iraq is so much safer after the Surge that he's decided to go after all the Shiite militias by beginning with the biggest (and most able to mount a political challenge) one is ludicrous, but it's the official Bush administration spin so it is being swallowed whole by the Lovelace's of the cheerleading Right. I know they have no gag reflex, but this one should stick in even their capacious throats. (The Newshoggers)
Come on, Democrats. Whatever happens, we can't let McCain get elected.
Memeorandum has discussion here.
McCain's Spiritual Adviser Advises: "Destroy Islam"
Note to my Fellow Dems: Lighten Up, or It will be Raining McCain (Illustrative Video Included)
Jon Stewart on Iraq War Anniversary
Flag Officers Explain Why Hillary Would be a Better Commander-in-Chief
Bush's Disturbing Rhetoric: Iran a "Nuclear Threat"
Irish Prime Minister Confirms Hillary's Significant Role in the Peace Process
CNN Poll Shows that 71% of Americans Think Iraq War Spending Hurt Economy
Flag Rank Officers & "Out of Iraq" Caucus Endorse Hillary
Comments