I wonder if they'll ever get it. This political analysis by Michael Cooper and Larry Rohter in tomorrow's NY Times is about the effect of the increasing violence in Iraq on the presidential campaign. http://www.nytimes.com/...
While I might not agree with their political analysis, it's their basic assumptions about the Iraq war that almost sent part of me (the part containing intelligence) exploding through the roof of our house. Here's the sentence that blew the top of my head off:
The reporters said that the heavy fighting in Basra (they seem to conveniently forget the stuff going on in Baghdad and elsewhere) has
raised anew a host of politically charged questions about whether the current strategy is succeeding, how capable the Iraqis are of defending themselves and what the potential impact would be of any American troop withdrawals.
The reporters obviously think this is a non-controversial sentence. What I see is a total lack of familiarity with reality.
- "whether the current strategy is succeeding"
Since the benchmarks that Bush stated unequivocally would be met months ago have not been met, I really don't think there's any question about the success of the "current strategy." Nothing's gotten better. There was some evidence in the last few months of some lessening of violence (though even that's not clear, fewer Americans dying in recent months than a year ago, but more dying than several years ago, and no good info on how many Iraqis are dying), but no improvement in the political situation that would even hint at success.
- "how capable the Iraqis are of defending themselves,"
this is the part that really infuriated me. The Iraqis "defending themselves" against whom? Themselves? or maybe the Americans? Who do these reporters think the Iraqis are fighting: maybe aliens from a planet in a galaxy far far away? The fighting in Iraq is: Iraqi vs. Iraqi and Iraqi vs American.
- "what the potential impact would be of any American troop withdrawals."
Well, let's see what one of the main instigators of the current round of fighting has to say on this very topic:
from a Reuters article today reprinted in TPM:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/...
Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has told his followers not to lay down their arms, rejecting a demand by the Iraqi government which launched a crackdown against them this week, a top aide said on Saturday.
"Moqtada al-Sadr asks his followers not to deliver weapons to the government. Weapons should be turned over only to a government which can expel the occupiers," aide Hassan Zargani told Reuters by telephone.
Since I'm pretty sure that we're the "occupiers," it seems to me that the real question is what the potential impact would be of American troops staying in Iraq.
What's that irritating prayer about asking god to grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change? I need to find it so I can read it, then rip it to shreds and stomp on it.