Back from the holiday weekend everyone's focus is back on Iraq. Is it civil war? Should we retreat? Is there a plan for success?
The mortar shells and car bombs in the Shia neighbourhood of Sadr City in Baghdad that killed nearly 150 people is being blamed by Iraqi officials on al-Qaeda. At least three car bombs, each packed with as much as half a tonne of explosives, also injured more than 230 people. Of course, 'the bombs provoked instant retaliation with Shia militias launching 10 mortar rounds at the Abu Hanifa mosque in Azamiya, the holiest Sunni shrine in Baghdad. Sounds like a civil war to me, but ...
Major General Abdel Karim Khalaf, an Interior Ministry spokesman, blamed al-Qaeda for the massive attack, telling The Times: “It is clear al-Qaeda did this. It is their way to attack innocent people. There are no governmental buildings, no army bases, no security forces attacked.“The victims were only innocent ordinary civilians.” (source, TimesOnline via HomelandSecurity
Sen. Chuck Hagel wrote in Sunday's edition of The Washington Post, "There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq," and the "U.S. should pullout of 'mismanaged' Iraq". He suggested that 'President Bush should use the upcoming report from a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker' as a vehicle for beginning the retreat from Iraq.
Reload Blog comments on Hagel:
Paul Mirengoff at Punch Line [PowerLine]:
Hagel may not be the biggest fool in the Senate, but after reading his piece in today's Washington Post I'm at a loss to identify a bigger one. Hagel insists that "there will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq." But if the U.S. leaves Iraq and, with our soldiers gone, al Qaeda establishes a base for terrorist operations, that sure sounds like defeat. And if our forced exit, to which Hagel will have contributed, becomes a huge morale victory and recruiting tool for terrorists, as less dramatic past U.S. exits have, surely that would be a defeat too.Wow, there's so much stupid there, I'm struggling to know where to start. First of all, if you define victory as "leaving behind a stable Iraqi government that can prevent terrorists from operating in the country", victory is simply not possible at all any more.
That's the way a lot of people feel these days. King Abdullah of Jordan in an interview found here, believes the Amman summit between Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki and U.S. President George W. Bush may be the last hope for a solution to the violence in Iraq. Pesonally I don't think much will come out of that meeting. Maliki has proven to be weak, usually giving in to al-Sadr's demands. I do realize Maliki is in a bad situation and that he is defying al-Sadr by even attending this summit in Jordan. So, we can only hope for the best.
Kleinheider at Volunteer Voters sums up the situation nicely:
But it is a Catch-22. You cannot get the intel to cut off the money without winning the hearts minds but you cannot win the hearts and minds when your opposition is flush with cash.
Related reading:
Sleeping with the enemy, Biga's Rants
Winds of Change, has a good roundup on the Iraq Report.
A soldier, Joe, needs some support, according to Tanker Brothers
. Read what you can do to help here, at Dark Blue World.
Chuck Hagel’s Honor, at Morning Coffee
________________________________________________________________
Linked with:
bRight&Early, First Cup
Wake Up America, Definition of Civil War: Is it exactly a "bad" thing?
Alabama Improper, Happy Blogiversary
123Beta, says submit your blog to WaPo, it can't hurt. (I did that almost a year ago, never heard from them. I guess I'm not 'left' enough for them hee hee)
Comments