Friday, January 12, 2007
Good News, Bad News, Worse News
Expanding a bit, and maybe in a more fruitful direction, on my concerns about 'The Surge,' as its being called. I didn't mention that the one way Dems, liberals, pinkos, turban-lovers, et al, can avoid the fate of being known as the party who pulled the rug out from under our troops' feet in Iraq is by getting enough GOPers to abandon Bush and their own leadership on the Hill.
As the 'New Strategy' continues to be discussed, mulled over, and generally railed upon there are a number of GOPers who are coming out against the TeamBush proposal. How much of that is conscience and how much is thinking about '08 elections and 'The Surge's' unpopularity (70% disapprove of adding any more troops) remains to be seen. Still, we're talking some big names in the Senate (and this is still early), plus a few House members, too.
Now for the Bad News: One of the big reasons cited by W for past failures in our Iraq policy was allowing the government of Iraq to have a say in American operations. Like say, Maliki ordering US troops out of Sadr City when they were looking for an abducted GI. No more, supposedly. The shadow PM is now on-board with the idea that the 'Coalition's' gotta have complete say in conducting military affairs in Iraq.
Yeah, now lets head north from Baghdad to reasonably-safe (for US troops anyway), Kurdish-controlled Irbil. US forces seized an Iranian delegation in this city and what followed was: "(A) tense standoff later in the day between the American soldiers and about 100 Kurdish troops, who surrounded the American armored vehicles for about two hours in this northern Iraqi city.
The attack was denounced by senior Kurdish officials, who are normally America’s closest allies in Iraq but regarded the action as an affront to their sovereignty in this highly tribal swath of the country. Iran’s Foreign Ministry reacted in Tehran with a harsh denunciation that threatened to escalate tensions with the Bush administration."
These are our pals, the ones who did throw flowers when troops came in, but even they don't like having their sovereignty violated. Which is the big problem-- We tout an elected government in Iraq (establishment of which was championed as a former benchmark) but then expect it to stand back when we conduct operations and kill civilians or their friends. What happened in Irbil is only gonna be much much more magnified in places like Sadr City and Anbar Province (places where we're not liked so much ).
Now the worse news part: Maybe we're all just too paranoid. Too many years of Bush machinery has made lefties jittery. But. . . what if?! Back in the neo-con glory days they always did say "real men go to Teheran." Ah, hell, Damascus, too! This gets a bit too much for me, the whole Vietnam-Cambodia-Laos link eerily reminding me of the Iraq-Iran-Syria stuff.
Expanding a bit, and maybe in a more fruitful direction, on my concerns about 'The Surge,' as its being called. I didn't mention that the one way Dems, liberals, pinkos, turban-lovers, et al, can avoid the fate of being known as the party who pulled the rug out from under our troops' feet in Iraq is by getting enough GOPers to abandon Bush and their own leadership on the Hill.
As the 'New Strategy' continues to be discussed, mulled over, and generally railed upon there are a number of GOPers who are coming out against the TeamBush proposal. How much of that is conscience and how much is thinking about '08 elections and 'The Surge's' unpopularity (70% disapprove of adding any more troops) remains to be seen. Still, we're talking some big names in the Senate (and this is still early), plus a few House members, too.
Now for the Bad News: One of the big reasons cited by W for past failures in our Iraq policy was allowing the government of Iraq to have a say in American operations. Like say, Maliki ordering US troops out of Sadr City when they were looking for an abducted GI. No more, supposedly. The shadow PM is now on-board with the idea that the 'Coalition's' gotta have complete say in conducting military affairs in Iraq.
Yeah, now lets head north from Baghdad to reasonably-safe (for US troops anyway), Kurdish-controlled Irbil. US forces seized an Iranian delegation in this city and what followed was: "(A) tense standoff later in the day between the American soldiers and about 100 Kurdish troops, who surrounded the American armored vehicles for about two hours in this northern Iraqi city.
The attack was denounced by senior Kurdish officials, who are normally America’s closest allies in Iraq but regarded the action as an affront to their sovereignty in this highly tribal swath of the country. Iran’s Foreign Ministry reacted in Tehran with a harsh denunciation that threatened to escalate tensions with the Bush administration."
These are our pals, the ones who did throw flowers when troops came in, but even they don't like having their sovereignty violated. Which is the big problem-- We tout an elected government in Iraq (establishment of which was championed as a former benchmark) but then expect it to stand back when we conduct operations and kill civilians or their friends. What happened in Irbil is only gonna be much much more magnified in places like Sadr City and Anbar Province (places where we're not liked so much ).
Now the worse news part: Maybe we're all just too paranoid. Too many years of Bush machinery has made lefties jittery. But. . . what if?! Back in the neo-con glory days they always did say "real men go to Teheran." Ah, hell, Damascus, too! This gets a bit too much for me, the whole Vietnam-Cambodia-Laos link eerily reminding me of the Iraq-Iran-Syria stuff.
Comments:
Post a Comment
