+ Moqtada al-Sadr, who needs killing, is losing control over segments of his Mahdi Army, who have become freelance death squads accountable to no one.
+ US military commanders are openly discussing the weakness, corruption and incompetence of the Iraqi government.
+ The highly-touted $75 million US project to build the Baghdad Police Academy has gone to hell. The building is such a mess that they might even have to tear parts of it down and start over. Poop and piss was raining down on some students from the ceiling. Who's to blame? A US company that got a $1 billion contract for Iraq reconstruction projects, and our friend the US Army Corps of Engineers, who look to have put as much oversight into this project as they did in building the levees that kept New Orleans safe from Katrina. Excerpt:
"This is the most essential civil security project in the country -- and it's a failure," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an independent office created by Congress. "The Baghdad police academy is a disaster."
Gosh. I know! Let's talk about whether or not George Allen ever said "neener-neener" to lesbians when he was in college.
The WaPo's David Ignatius agrees that Iraq is a mess, but takes the Democrats to task for ducking the debate over what to do about it, instead satisfying themselves by taking pleasure over Bush's misery:
Here's a reality check for the Democrats: There is not a single government in the Middle East, with the possible exceptions of Iran and Syria, that favors a rapid U.S. pullout from Iraq. Why? The consensus in the region is that a retreat now would have disastrous consequences for America and its allies. Yet withdrawal is the Iraq strategy you hear from most congressional Democrats, whether they call it "strategic redeployment" or something else.
I wish Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) were asking this question: How do we prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state? Many critics of the war would argue that the worst has already happened -- Iraq has unraveled. Unfortunately, as bad as things are, they could get considerably worse. Following a rapid American pullout, Iraq could descend into a full-blown civil war, with Sunni-Shiite violence spreading throughout the region. In this chaos, oil supplies could be threatened, sending prices well above $100 a barrel. Turkey, Iran and Jordan would intervene to protect their interests. James Fallows titled his collection of prescient essays warning about the Iraq war "Blind Into Baghdad." We shouldn't compound the error by being "blind out of Baghdad," too.
Jake Weisberg says that neither party will talk about the war, not only because each sees political advantage in avoiding the topic, but also because nobody has a clear idea what to do about it. Weisberg surveys the options for What To Do About Iraq, and says "neener-neener" to all of them.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
JDH, perhaps you can explain why the French and Germans and pretty much everyone else in the civilized world kept telling us NOT to invade Iraq. And also explain why we haven't apologized to them and admitted that they were right. And also explain why we have so completely screwed up the occupation that we are now left with no good options (stay and watch the country collapse, or leave and watch the country collapse). And explain why we have wasted the lives of almost 3,000 soldiers on this, and why we continue to waste the lives of 3,000 Iraqis *every month* - a pace that Saddam did not match.
And by the way, saying that Clinton was wrong about this is not a defense. I could, for my own part, point out that Bush Sr. was right to leave Saddam in power in GW1, that everything that he was afraid of at the time has in fact occured now. You can read about it here:
">http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/gulfwar.asp>
Joel, the French and Germans opposed the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq for several reasons. First, they were trying to appease the huge Muslim populations in their own nations (remember the riots in France earlier this year). Second, many geopolitical experts viewed the Franco-German position as an attempt to hijack and dominate the European Union (remember, the Eastern European members supported the invasion).
As far as "apologising" to the French and Germans, why should we? Were they right? If it were up to them, Saddam would have stayed in power. These are moral giants?
As far as the incompetence of the occupation, I can't justify it. The only think I can say is that incompetence, unfortunately, is becoming more and more rife in American life, in and out of government. Nobody cares about standards or excellence anymore. But that's a different issue than whether the U.S. and UK should have invaded Iraq.
As far as "wasting (Iraqi) lives" is concerned, what about the imams' responsibility in all of this? Why do they continue either to preach or to remain silent in the wake of Sunnis killing Shi'ites and vice versa? When will anybody hold Islam accountable for the violence it tolerates, let alone encourages?
Or would you have preferred that we nuke the entire country?>
The gain of keeping Saddam in power is that fewer Iraqis would be dying. 7,000 in just the past two months. Saddam couldn't keep up with that rate of killing. But he was well able to restrain the imams and jihadists within his borders, which is why Iraq was more secure with him in charge than it is now. And no, I'm not defending Saddam - I'm simply pointing out that as brutal and evil as he was, things are even worse for Iraqis now.
You might also be interested to read the assessment of Major General Caldwell (US Military spokesman in Iraq), who acknowledged that there were more suicide bombings in Iraq last week than at any time since we invaded - and that that isn't even the worst problem in Iraq. Murders and executions are the leading cause of death in Iraq, with suicide bombings coming in second.
I repeat: Republican have wrecked the car, and they are blaming Democrats for not knowing how to fix it.>
The gain of keeping Saddam in power is that fewer Iraqis would be dying...
Joel, what figures do you have that compare the deaths under Saddam to the deaths under U.S. occupation? And even if the former were less, does that outweigh the danger that Saddam would pose to other through his support of terrorism, WMD or no WMD?
...there were more suicide bombings in Iraq last week than at any time since we invaded - and that that isn't even the worst problem in Iraq. Murders and executions are the leading cause of death in Iraq, with suicide bombings coming in second.
Do you know why? First, Sunnis are trying to subjugate Shia into the former's vision of "true" Islam and vice versa. The closest Christian equivalent I can come up with is the Catholic-Protestant battles under Bloody Mary, Elizabeth I and Cromwell. Second, imams, Islamic theologians and other allegedly responsible parties in that religion have made no attempt to stop the situation. Indeed, they have encouraged it. As I said earlier. Islamic authorities must be held accountable for this violence. Their hatred for Americans, Jews and the West supercedes even their respect for fellow Muslims! If that's not a sign of a religion in moral chaos, then I don't know what is.
Republican have wrecked the car, and they are blaming Democrats for not knowing how to fix it.
Joel, let's be honest. The Democrats not only don't know how to fix the car, they don't want to fix it! And when one of their number shows an inclination to try, like Lieberman, he is savaged by the Left.
None of this excuses any misfeasance on the Bush Administration's part. But this isn't a battle between Republicans and Democrats in the long run. It's a battle between the West and Islam, and Islamic fanatics don't really care whether they murder Republicans or Democrats. Why should they, when they don't care about murdering fellow Muslims?>
Now, here's a question for you, Sparky: At what mosque do you worship?
Ha!Ha!Ha!
Yes I'm Muslim! That must be it!
You're an idiot and I'm done with you.>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.