Fight or
light
Showdown
US military may join Iraq against militia leaders: The Boston Globe. Bush authorization could spark deadly confrontations, By Farah Stockman and Bryan Bender, Globe Staff, January 14, 2007.
WASHINGTON -- US military officials say the Bush administration has given them new authority to target leaders of political and religious militias in Iraq who are implicated in sectarian violence,
including the powerful Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
Such a showdown, key to Bush's plan to increase the number of US troops in Baghdad, could spark a deadly confrontation with Shi'ite militias, which enjoy widespread popularity in Shi'ite neighborhoods. It could also erode support for the fragile government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has agreed to the plan.
Senior US and Iraqi officials said last week that Maliki has pledged to confront the militias with the help of additional US troops. But many analysts doubt that Maliki has the will or the firepower to take on Sadr, whose Mahdi Army militia is blamed for much of the tit-for-tat violence in the capital.
In recent months, Maliki and other top Iraqi officials routinely vetoed US raids on Sadr's operations, fearing the reaction of his legion of followers. Maliki's government kept a list of militia leaders who were off-limits to US troops, a senior Pentagon official told reporters in a background briefing in Washington, but now Maliki has agreed that the list would no longer be used.
Bush said on his recent 60 Minutes interview:
click to show/hide the rest of the post
"I think history is going to look back and see a lot of ways we could have done things better."
Questioned about the instability in Iraq, Bush said: "Well, no question decisions have made things unstable."
And in his most recent radio address:
Bush said choices made after invasion eroded Iraq's security:
Bush also said his new plan could succeed, because, "American forces will have a green light to enter neighborhoods that are home to those fueling sectarian violence." Until now, US forces have been restricted by the Iraqi prime minister from operating freely in the Sadr City area that is home to a powerful Shi'ite militia. But Bush said those restrictions had been lifted and that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has promised that he would not tolerate interference with security operations."
Does This Mean We are Finally Going to Start Fighting in Iraq?
This whole development is astonishing to me. It illustrates that my charge that we have been fighting a politically correct war has been correct. This is shameful. This is only one part of the war, and in it, we have been prohibited from going after the real troublemakers in Iraq by the Maliki government.
click to hide most of this post
What Bush Should Have Done
Bush should have said, "Look Mr. Maliki, do you want us to stay here in Iraq? If you do, then this is what we must do to win this war. If you don't want to let us do these things, then we have no choice but to leave."
Instead, Bush allowed our troops to stay in the danger zone with their hands tied behind their backs. Another example of Bush trying to be a diplomat, a good guy.
Yes, I know that I am not privy to details on the ground, and that things are not as simple as I am making them. I also realize that going after renegade Shias might ultimately topple Maliki. My answer is that Maliki will fall anyway if things continue as they are.
Also, things are not as complicated as they are making them either. The proof of this is that Maliki, out of desperation, has finally agreed to let the U.S. troops fight like they need to. This could have happened years ago, if Bush had been demanding and tough as nails, which is what we need there.
We ought to be fighting to win, without regard to politics. Until and when we do this, we cannot progress in such a morass of a war. Can you believe that Bush and the military leaders cannot see this?
Remember MacArthur? The guy went too far, but he knew how to win wars. Patton? Eishenhower?
Now, instead, we have Bush, ordering our troops not to make anyone unhappy, while they are sitting ducks for I.E.D.'s and snipers.
Give me our unleashed WWII commanders, or our unfettered Sherman or Grant.
If not, then let's get out.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Click here to get a button link to this blog:
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!
Subscribe to my feed
Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.
Technorati Tags for this post:
Iraq, Iraq War, Shia, Sunni, Moqtada al-Sadr, Nour Kamel al-Maliki, Mahdi Army, MacArthur, Patton, Eisnehower, Sherman, Grant
Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth
Your blog ate my first comment so if this appears twice, you're not hallucinating....even if you were taking psychotropic drugs.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing I can say this president is good at is passing the buck. All down the line of the past six years, HIS mistakes have been blamed on someone else and it's only been recently that he's admitted fault to anything. Wasn't that his thing- appearing stoic and infallible?
What this plan sounds like to me is a veiled plan of withdrawal (a plan B if you will) and he's FINALLY found his ticket out of Hell by blaming al-Maliki and a "lack of effort" on the part of the Iraqis. Either way, Bush and his administration come out squeaky clean! If the plan is successful and violence ceases (which is doubtful) Bush will announce success and that Iraq is stable again. If it doesn't work, Bush will announce that the troops will be coming home to their waiting families due to a lack of Iraqi will. Nice. A win-win either way. On the one hand I feel as though he's (once again!) skirting responsibility, but on the other, he's putting a cap on US involvement and initiating a plan to get the troops out of harm's way. Karl Rove is a genius! At least SOMEBODY came up with a viable plan to get the US out!
paz, a very interesting take on the situation. On the other hand, how do you see Bush? He just nods his head and bows to the genius of Rove? What is Bush's I.Q., can you give a guess? Do you think that Bush knows he is stupid, and so relies on the brilliant Rove to tell him what to do? "What do I do next, Carl?" ABCDEF, fine. And E?"
ReplyDeleteAs far as skirting responsibility, I agree with you. He has. And yes, finally he is admitting to mistakes.
As far as the genius of the new plan for saving face for Bush, maybe. I don't really care, though. What I care about is whether the plan will work, and the truth of the whole thing. More responsibility should be placed on Maliki anyway. It's not America's war; it's Iraq's war. The results are important to us, but we can't force Iraq to want freedom and democracy. Decreasing our footprint in the region is important not just as a prelude to withdrawal, but as a precondition to the mission's success.
Plus, so what if we come out of this looking good? What do you want, that we look bad?
I don't agree with your premises and conclusions, but I also don't agree with your focus. You say you are not liberal, but on Iraq you seem to be. Liberals all seem to want only a few things: that we lose in Iraq and be shown to be losers; that Bush be humiliated; and that America be shown to be bad. I don't get this focus at all.
You seem to be so level-headed when you discuss other countries. With them, you talk about their actions and motivations objectively. About Bush, you seem to have an irrational anger. Why? Why is he the greatest evil in the world to you guys? Because he's made mistakes? You do understand the FOG of war, right?
As far as his reliance on Rove for every policy decision, there's no evidence for this. In fact, people who've been in meetings with Bush report that he is definitely the decision-maker. Rove's influence, in fact, has actually decreased since the elections.
If Rove is such a genius, why did Bush fail so miserably in the elections?
Also, if Rove were a genius, and Bush relied on him, that makes Bush pretty smart in my eyes. Unfortunately, Bush has not relied on any military geniuses with regard to Iraq.
Thanks paz, for your comments, as usual. I hope you have a great Martin Luther King Day.
Rock