Iraq
Don't miss the WaPo's article on the rising casualties in September and October. I posted on it last night, but notice how much of this comes directly (or indirectly through analysts) from the military.
It's interesting. Suddenly, I'm seeing lots of descriptions of the multi-sided conflict that Iraq has become. (LATimes) Just an interesting shift from the simple white hat/black hat narrative that survived long after the reality moved away.
Dahr Jamail reported on rumors of the US paying tribal leaders in Anbar to use their militias as mercenaries against foreign fighters. I don't know if that's the reason they're fighting, but they're claiming kills. (AFP) "an important sheikh from the western province of Al-Anbar said tribal fighters had killed 34 mostly foreign Al-Qaeda fighters and arrested 40 more in a week-long drive against militant infiltrators."
(AFP) The US fully backs Maliki, but he only has a short time to resolve the situation. Then what? What's the backside of that threat, Bush administration?
(TimesOnline) The ISG recommendation may be to split Iraq into three parts. (The Biden Plan?) The ISG will be the way Bush absolves himself of "changing the course," after the election, of course. What's another month of US casualties for a Republican Congress, eh? Isn't that what they're dying for?
(AP) "The Bush administration is bumping up against the limits of military and political power to influence what happens next in Iraq, four years into an increasingly unpopular war that has not gone as planned."
(BBC) Bush's Iraq options limited.
28 US soldiers died in the first week of October. Almost 300 wounded. A half battalion in a week?
It's interesting. Suddenly, I'm seeing lots of descriptions of the multi-sided conflict that Iraq has become. (LATimes) Just an interesting shift from the simple white hat/black hat narrative that survived long after the reality moved away.
Dahr Jamail reported on rumors of the US paying tribal leaders in Anbar to use their militias as mercenaries against foreign fighters. I don't know if that's the reason they're fighting, but they're claiming kills. (AFP) "an important sheikh from the western province of Al-Anbar said tribal fighters had killed 34 mostly foreign Al-Qaeda fighters and arrested 40 more in a week-long drive against militant infiltrators."
(AFP) The US fully backs Maliki, but he only has a short time to resolve the situation. Then what? What's the backside of that threat, Bush administration?
(TimesOnline) The ISG recommendation may be to split Iraq into three parts. (The Biden Plan?) The ISG will be the way Bush absolves himself of "changing the course," after the election, of course. What's another month of US casualties for a Republican Congress, eh? Isn't that what they're dying for?
(AP) "The Bush administration is bumping up against the limits of military and political power to influence what happens next in Iraq, four years into an increasingly unpopular war that has not gone as planned."
(BBC) Bush's Iraq options limited.
28 US soldiers died in the first week of October. Almost 300 wounded. A half battalion in a week?
posted by mikevotes at
8:03 AM
2 Comments:
I found the threat to Maliki interesting, too. If he doesn't shape up, we do what - invade?
By
abi, at 11:09 AM
Exactly. We can't depose him. If elections were withheld we'd get somebody worse.
It's like Musharraf. We don't have a choice except to maybe try and strike a deal with someone who is going to have a coup.
By
mikevotes, at 12:58 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home