Heavy Fighting Erupts In Iraq

[HemlockGrey]

Juan Cole has a good roundup of the recent outbreaks of violence in Baghdad and Basra. There's also this CNN article:

AGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Forty-two people were killed Thursday in Kut, southeast of Baghdad, Iraq's Interior Ministry said, the latest casualties in three days of clashes between militias and Iraqi security forces.

Fighters from the Mehdi Army militia take position Wednesday in clashes in the southern Iraqi city of Basra.

Iraq's offensive against what it characterizes as "outlaws" of hard-line Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia began Tuesday in Basra, Iraq's second largest city.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who has been overseeing the operation in southern Iraq, has given militants an ultimatum to surrender their weapons by Saturday.

The fighting, which also saw Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone -- home to the U.S. Embassy and the Iraqi government -- come under fire, has threatened to unravel a delicate al-Sadr cease-fire credited with reducing bloodshed between Sunnis and Shiites.

Since Tuesday, clashes in Basra and throughout Iraq's Shiite heartland have left more than 100 dead and many wounded in Basra, Baghdad, Hilla, Kut, Karbala and Diwaniya. Watch how militias send a message to al-Maliki

Casualty figures from Basra weren't available Thursday, but the number of deaths is expected to rise from the 40 to 50 that had been reported Wednesday.

In Baghdad on Thursday, dozens of gunmen kidnapped the spokesman of the Baghdad security plan, Tahseen Sheikhly. Three of his guards were killed and his house burned in the attack, which an Interior Ministry official said was carried out by "outlaws," a reference to al-Sadr's militia.

Also Thursday, a car bomb explosion killed three people and wounded five others near a police patrol in central Baghdad, an Interior Ministry official said. There are no apparent links to the violence in the Shiite regions.

Witnesses in Basra report smoke rising and gunfire and explosions ringing out across the city, where Iraqi security forces, backed by U.S. and British troops, have been taking on fighters using grenades, mortar rounds and machine guns.

There was fighting Thursday in Jamhouriya, one of five neighborhoods the Mehdi Army controls, and Muqal, according to an official from Basra province and witnesses.

Speaking on a condition of anonymity, the provincial official said weapons such as machine guns and grenades were stolen from a military post in the Muqal area.

Al-Maliki briefed city and provincial officials Wednesday about the offensive and vowed to finish the job, even if it takes a month.

Provincial officials expressed reservations about the operation, saying Basra will fall into the hands of "outlaws" if al-Maliki fails to restore order.

Since the fighting started, Sadrists and government officials have spoken by phone in efforts to quell the violence, but no face-to-face talks have been scheduled. The Sadrists, who say security forces have unfairly targeted them in recent weeks, have been urging their followers to stage protests against the government. But so far, the cease-fire has not been rescinded.

Basra has been relatively quiet during the war, but the southern city has seethed with intra-Shiite tensions as Sadrists, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Fadhila party have jockeyed for power. Learn more about the major players »

Much of the fighting in the Shiite heartland involves followers of al-Sadr and security forces aligned with the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq's militia, the Badr Brigade.

The council dominates the ruling United Iraqi Alliance, but the Sadrist movement left the government last year after al-Maliki refused to demand a timeline for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. Both groups have strong contingents in the Iraqi parliament.

A provincial council official also said insurgents sabotaged an oil pipeline Thursday in Zubeir, a town near Basra. The attack sparked a large fire on the pipeline, which transfers crude oil to tanks in the city.

Now the British are gone from Basra, what was once an oasis of relative stability has pretty much disintegrated into a free-for-all between the militias. This is, I think, what we can expect when the US inevitabitably withdraws its own troops. I guess the pro-war crowd is right, in sense; pulling out of the country will lead to more violence and fighting between the various factions. Of course, that's going to happen anyway and there's nothing we can do to stop it so we might as well get our own men out of harm's way.

[brianeyci]

I'm not sure you can say the pro-war crowd is right. If I understand their argument correctly, they think that as long as American troops are there, violence will continue to decrease, and the Americans can stay there for a very long time like in Japan or Germany and eventually Iraq will become a pro-Western country after 50 years.

But, consider this: the Al-Sadarists knew that the Americans would leave in one, two election cycles max. So they held off on their violence until then. But if the Americans were committed to staying forever, there would be no need for any "lulls." They would wage a low-grade, but unrelenting gurellia campaign forever, making peace as in Germany or Japan impossible. So even if American committed itself to staying for 50 years, we simply would not have lulls in violence and a civil war would eventually break out. If that happened, America would have to take a side and get involved in someone else's civil war. I'm sure moms around the country would appreciate their sons and daughters dying for an internal civil war.

What I'm doing is the opposite of the Bush administration -- taking reality and tailoring my theories to it. They took a theory, Iraqis are like Germans or Japanese, and tried to force reality to match their ideology. Germans and Japanese did not have deep rooted internal strife -- indeed, opposition to Hitler and the Emperor were mostly non-existant, and just like in medieval times the peasants don't particularly care who is the overlord as long as they were fed and protected. The German and Japanese people were pre-conditioned to accept a singular overlord dictating to them what values and constitution to follow. Meanwhile, in Iraq you have a completely polarized society, and no surprise that once they removed the Butcher of Baghdad, the whole house of cards fell apart into civil war.

[brianeyci]

clarification: I am aware that the Butcher of Baghdad tolerated no internal dissent. So on the surface, it seems as if Saddam and Hitler and Hirohito are on the same page -- dictators with no significant opposition movement. But that's only on a cursory glance. In Germany, Hitler did not rule by the sword, or at least he did not get into power that way. He got into power through democratic, legitimate means. The Emperor had power through divine fiat. Both of them were unquestioned leaders of their countries.

Meanwhile, look at the Butcher of Baghdad. He maintained power through an iron grip -- through blood. This is fundamentally different than Hitler or Japan, no matter how many times Bush uttered "axis of evil." So even if the Americans were prepared to move in and make use of existing institutions, if they were not willing to adopt some of the Butcher's methods, power would inevitably slip through their fingers. Look deeper and you see a deep evil within Iraqi society that was not present in Germany and Japan.

Tribalism.

Awful, rooted tribalism, in the most basic form possible. The allies in WWII saw this in the Emperor, and kept him on the throne but as a figurehead. Keeping Saddam on the throne was not an option, since he derived power from his aura of fear and being seen as an American puppet would sap his claim to power -- the power to walk into your neighborhood with a fucking death squad and kill your entire family, cut off their balls, gouge out their eyes. Saddam had perfected the fear to an art in later years so he didn't even have to do much of that at all but just rely on the fear of that happening to keep the tribes from killing each other.

[HemlockGrey]

[quote] I'm not sure you can say the pro-war crowd is right. /quote]

Thanks for that dissertation but you might want to work on your reading comprehension before you submit it for approval.

[Darth Wong]

I've grown tired of arguing with American pro-war types. Let them stand there with their thumb in the dyke forever. Maybe these people will "only" be as persistent as the Palestinians.

[K. A. Pital]

I guess the pro-war crowd is right, in sense; pulling out of the country will lead to more violence and fighting between the various factions.

Pulling out? You didn't pull out and the decrease in violence is mostly due to ethnic mitilias being either paid or simply making truce of sorts for public administration; militias are not disbanded, they easily start up violence any time they need for their political goals.

Now, staying with your ridiculous force is not fine enough for Iraq; if you want to really rebuild it, you need a draft, a huge occupational force, an administration of Iraq which rules with an iron fist and watches closely where it's funds go...

And many more billions of investment.

Without that, your "presence" is merely a thorn in the side of a growing sea of triban hatred. And it's not like you have pacified that sea by putting troops in the country - in fact by this invasion you created the ability for tribes to start their violent contest - so don't be eager to take credits.

[Simplicius]

Meanwhile, in Iraq you have a completely polarized society, and no surprise that once they removed the Butcher of Baghdad, the whole house of cards fell apart into civil war.
[]
Look deeper and you see a deep evil within Iraqi society that was not present in Germany and Japan.

Tribalism.

Awful, rooted tribalism, in the most basic form possible. The allies in WWII saw this in the Emperor, and kept him on the throne but as a figurehead. Keeping Saddam on the throne was not an option, since he derived power from his aura of fear and being seen as an American puppet would sap his claim to power -- the power to walk into your neighborhood with a fucking death squad and kill your entire family, cut off their balls, gouge out their eyes. Saddam had perfected the fear to an art in later years so he didn't even have to do much of that at all but just rely on the fear of that happening to keep the tribes from killing each other.

This is an oversimplification at best and an inaccuracy at worst. An examination of the actual parties to the violence and the current fault lines is enough to disprove the notion that Iraq is simply torn between competing tribes. The problem is factionalism. The primary actors in Iraq are socio-political movements each with some share of political power, influence with a given population, a source of wealth, and an armed component. They fight amongst each other not because of ancient hatreds, but because they are pursuing tangible strategic goals central to their continued existence.

If your conceptual model for Iraq is "Sunnis vs. Shi'a," you will not be able to accurately gauge the situation at all. It might be more accurately presented as (ISCI vs. Sadrists vs. Fadhila) vs. (Anbar Sahwa vs. Islamic Party), in which the broad imbalance between Sunnis and Shi'a which was first instigated when Hussein came to head the Ba'ath Party and was exacerbated by US policies after the invasion is only a landscape over which factions all fight amonst each other for the same things: power, wealth, and existence.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Germans and Japanese did not have deep rooted internal strife -- indeed, opposition to Hitler and the Emperor were mostly non-existant, and just like in medieval times the peasants don't particularly care who is the overlord as long as they were fed and protected. The German and Japanese people were pre-conditioned to accept a singular overlord dictating to them what values and constitution to follow. Meanwhile, in Iraq you have a completely polarized society, and no surprise that once they removed the Butcher of Baghdad, the whole house of cards fell apart into civil war.

You are overlooking a more important detail. Namely, that the defeat of Germany and Japan was a defeat of their ruling ideologies; it was a self imposed disaster. They attacked first, and the ideology that said that they were superior and would prevail failed utterly. The Iraqis, on the other hand, are the victims of American aggression and know it; they know quite well that the Americans invaded because they wanted to invade. They can look around and say "This disaster is the foreigner's doing, not ours." They are not saying to themselves "The old ways failed, we need to try something new"; they are saying "we are the victims of foreign aggression".

And since we are not remotely in the right, any government that takes power while we occupy them will never have any legitimacy in Iraqi eyes. And since our "rebuilding" efforts and attempts to keep order have been such corrupt failures, they don't even have any practical reasons to go along.

So, we've made sure that they generally won't consider their problems to be of their own making ( some are, some aren't ), but we've made sure that any unifying force can't take hold as long as we are there.

[HemlockGrey]

Pulling out? You didn't pull out and the decrease in violence is mostly due to ethnic mitilias being either paid or simply making truce of sorts for public administration; militias are not disbanded, they easily start up violence any time they need for their political goals.

Basra was largely peaceful until the British withdrawal, is it not? The presence of Western troops is acting as a brake on the escalation of violence because its much more difficult for groups like the Mahdi Army to wage full-out war with the US Army on the street than it would be if the troops come home.

As for the rest of your post, you also need to take some remedial courses in reading comprehension. And maybe get that rapidly jerking knee checked out.

[brianeyci]

Thanks for that dissertation but you might want to work on your reading comprehension before you submit it for approval.

Maybe you call someone "right" if they are right on one, uncontested insignificant point (pulling out of Iraq will increase violence in the short term, no shit sherlock) but I call someone right if their main points are right.

They fight amongst each other not because of ancient hatreds, but because they are pursuing tangible strategic goals central to their continued existence.

Has it occured to you that ancient hatreds can be part of your list of wealth, power and existence? And how do you explain tribal segregation? Your hypothesis leads to the conclusion that if the Americans filled the needs of the Iraqis in the early days of the war, they wouldn't be fighting with each other for wealth, power, or existence.

The Iraqis, on the other hand, are the victims of American aggression and know it; they know quite well that the Americans invaded because they wanted to invade.

The problem with your idea of self-guilt motivating change is the Japanese up to this day are unrepentant, and I don't think a conquered population gives a flying fuck about what they were responsible for. Far more likely that the structure was in place for the Allies to just move in and change Germany and Japan than the fact the Allies relied on any inherent native conquered guilt.

[K. A. Pital]

This just in - Baghdad under curfew, huge crowds lead clashes and demand PM step down

Each day "all is well in Baghdad", as the Russian proverb says

[Sea Skimmer]

Basra was largely peaceful until the British withdrawal, is it not? The presence of Western troops is acting as a brake on the escalation of violence because its much more difficult for groups like the Mahdi Army to wage full-out war with the US Army on the street than it would be if the troops come home.

Actually the last six months before the British pullout were some of the most violent ever, and the British suffered something like half of all the casualties they’ve taken from insurgent attacks during that period. The local insurgents weren’t stupid,. They knew by stepping up attacks they could make it look like they drove the British out of the city, even though the withdrawal had been announced the better part of a year beforehand, and in the eyes of the population they may well have succeeded. Course the British never operated like US forces did anyway, they didn’t go for thing like ‘presence patrols’ and generally just didn’t come out from behind the wire without something real specific to do.

[Simplicius]

Has it occured to you that ancient hatreds can be part of your list of wealth, power and existence?

Yes, I have, and I find that conclusion has little traction. There are no "ancient hatreds" between the Sadrists and ISCI, both of whom are Shiite and both of whom are only a couple of decades old. The earliest origins of the movements only go back to the 1950s and 1960s. Yet the two are at the center of the current violence. This conflict is a modern one and is expressly the product of the Hussein regime and the US invasion.

Perhaps you can provide evidence of historical Sunni-on-Shi'a violence in Iraq. I have not seen any.

And how do you explain tribal segregation?

The current segregation is the product of a wave of sectarian cleansing that swept Baghdad in the wake of the invasion, easily explainable as revenge by newly-empowered Shiite factions for decades of oppression under Hussein and a move by those factions to secure their position in power - again, hardly "ancient." Have you evidence of serious Sunni-Shiite segregation older than that that is attributable to more than geography and habit? Perhaps you should look at the historical demographics of Iraq's cities, if you can find the information.

Your hypothesis leads to the conclusion that if the Americans filled the needs of the Iraqis in the early days of the war, they wouldn't be fighting with each other for wealth, power, or existence.

Oh? And how does it do this, pray tell?

[Lord of the Abyss]

The Iraqis, on the other hand, are the victims of American aggression and know it; they know quite well that the Americans invaded because they wanted to invade.

The problem with your idea of self-guilt motivating change is the Japanese up to this day are unrepentant, and I don't think a conquered population gives a flying fuck about what they were responsible for.

No, they never did appear very guilty. There were, however, very much aware of failure. By leading the country into utter disaster, the old regime discredited themselves. In Iraq, it's quite clear that nothing Saddam did or didn't do would have deterred America.

[Shroom Man 777]

But...b-b-but...but the Green Zone is safe!

[Vympel]

In typical neowrong fashion, the AEI and Brookings Institute got together 24 hours before this kerfuffle and confidently declared that "the civil war is over".

Greenwald blog

Choice excerpts:-

"The first thing I want to say is that: The Civil War in Iraq is over. And until the American domestic political debate catches up with that fact, we are going to have a very hard time discussing Iraq on the basis of reality."

Greenwald:-

Other than Bill Kristol and Fred's brother, war cheerleader Robert Kagan, nobody has been more wrong about more things with regard to Iraq than supreme war theorist Fred Kagan. He's also deemed by the establishment media and the Bush administration to be the most respectable and knowledgeable expert on Iraq. Within that depressing contradiction lies most of the answers as to why we have destroyed that country and will continue to do so indefinitely.

People have actually been predicting a blow up in the Basra situation for some time. And by people I mean those who know what the fuck they're on about.

A final all-out battle for Basra is seen as 'inevitable,'" and quoted a British General saying that the Iraqi Security Forces believed such a battle was imminent and that nobody was in charge of the Basra.

Just fucking hilarious. Are they ever right about anything?

[brianeyci]

Has it occured to you that ancient hatreds can be part of your list of wealth, power and existence?

Yes, I have, and I find that conclusion has little traction. There are no "ancient hatreds" between the Sadrists and ISCI, both of whom are Shiite and both of whom are only a couple of decades old. The earliest origins of the movements only go back to the 1950s and 1960s. Yet the two are at the center of the current violence. This conflict is a modern one and is expressly the product of the Hussein regime and the US invasion.

Perhaps you can provide evidence of historical Sunni-on-Shi'a violence in Iraq. I have not seen any.

If the new tribes are the Sadrists and ISCI, then so be it. Two tribes of the same denomination can easily desire to annihilate one another before turning to the weaker one. In fact, one can make the argument that someone of your tribe battling you is a greater threat than the outsider, and must be crushed if the tribe is to maintain integrity. Proving that someone is killing due to ancient hatreds or killing due to desire for wealth is quite an impossible request, as you know, as it requires me to divine intent. All we can do is look at the makeup of the various factions, which you admit are along tribal lines.

And how do you explain tribal segregation?

The current segregation is the product of a wave of sectarian cleansing that swept Baghdad in the wake of the invasion, easily explainable as revenge by newly-empowered Shiite factions for decades of oppression under Hussein and a move by those factions to secure their position in power - again, hardly "ancient." Have you evidence of serious Sunni-Shiite segregation older than that that is attributable to more than geography and habit? Perhaps you should look at the historical demographics of Iraq's cities, if you can find the information.

Sure I could go onto JSTOR or look for demographics of Iraqi cities, but you talk as if you already have an extensive handle on the history. Even if I did find it, you would dismiss it as "geography and habit." Moreover, you made very specific claims, rather than the vague one of tribalism that I made. If you have specific, enlightening information, such as maps, or statements of intent by the various factions, post, and I will gladly concede that my model was too simplistic.

Your hypothesis leads to the conclusion that if the Americans filled the needs of the Iraqis in the early days of the war, they wouldn't be fighting with each other for wealth, power, or existence.

Oh? And how does it do this, pray tell?

You say the Iraqis are fighting over wealth, power and for the right for continued existence. These are rather easily solved problems, compared to tribalism, and your model would suggest by buying out the factions, giving them power and guaranteeing their existence, they would cease fighting. It seems as if they will not cease the conflict no matter what measures are taken, until the annihilation or subjugation of the other side. You make it seem as if there's two corporations vying for market share, and if so then all it would take is a profitable deal for both sides.

[Simplicius]

If the new tribes are the Sadrists and ISCI, then so be it. Two tribes of the same denomination can easily desire to annihilate one another before turning to the weaker one. In fact, one can make the argument that someone of your tribe battling you is a greater threat than the outsider, and must be crushed if the tribe is to maintain integrity.

You keep saying tribes, tribes, tribes, when that descriptor is not accurate. Are Hamas or Hezbollah tribes? Are the Democrats or Republicans tribes? No. They are organizations which engender loyalty or garner support for specific materialistic reasons, whereas tribes are organized around kinship. The fact that ISCI, the OMS, Fadhila, et al have constituencies or bases of popular support does not make them tribes.

Proving that someone is killing due to ancient hatreds or killing due to desire for wealth is quite an impossible request, as you know, as it requires me to divine intent.

So you are not prepared to interpret historical events to support your argument. Have you any other evidence, or am I to take it on your word alone?

All we can do is look at the makeup of the various factions, which you admit are along tribal lines.

Don't put words in my mouth. I admitted that they were organized along sectarian lines, and even that hasn't prevented Sunni blocs from finding common cause with Shiite blocs when there is a strategic interest to do so. Case in point would be the debate over the provincial powers law, in which the Sunnis in Parliament (which don't include the Anbar Salvation Councils) and the Sadrists both favored a strong central government because their power bases are located in resource-poor regions, and strong federalism (which ISCI favors) would deprive them of wealth.

You'll note that Iraq's sects are not kinship-bound tribal organizations either.

Sure I could go onto JSTOR or look for demographics of Iraqi cities, but you talk as if you already have an extensive handle on the history. Even if I did find it, you would dismiss it as "geography and habit." Moreover, you made very specific claims, rather than the vague one of tribalism that I made. If you have specific, enlightening information, such as maps, or statements of intent by the various factions, post, and I will gladly concede that my model was too simplistic.

The sectarian cleansing of Baghdad is a matter of public record. I present the following two graphics, which show basically the same thing:





The second graph more clearly shows the shift in Baghdad from large mixed areas to blocs of Sunni-majority and Shi'a majority population. The first chart obscures that somewhat by graphically correlating the decline in sectarian violence with the freezing into place of Baghdad's new demographics by the Baghdad Security Plan.

As for broader separatism, note that the only parties urging it are the Kurds, because they run themselves anyway, and ISCI, which wants to turn the southern 9 provinces into an Iran-aligned "Shiastan," conveniently excluding the Sadrists. Even public opinion among Iraqis runs at 66 percent for a centralized Iraq, 23 percent for a federalized Iraq, and only 9 percent for partition. And Sunnis and Shi'a both favor centralization over the other options.



Poll data is from February 2008 and is the most current edition.

You are making a vague claim, but it is a claim nonetheless, and you should be able to support it with something. The reason I discount your claim is that in all of my reading I have not come across one piece of evidence suggesting a long history of sectarian violence in Iraq or deep historical fissures that have led to the sects deliberately segregating themselves. If you have actual cause to think otherwise, I suggest you post it.

You say the Iraqis are fighting over wealth, power and for the right for continued existence. These are rather easily solved problems, compared to tribalism, and your model would suggest by buying out the factions, giving them power and guaranteeing their existence, they would cease fighting. It seems as if they will not cease the conflict no matter what measures are taken, until the annihilation or subjugation of the other side. You make it seem as if there's two corporations vying for market share, and if so then all it would take is a profitable deal for both sides.

The competition in Iraq is not for something flexible like market share or voters, but for hard cash - generated through licit and illicit means - and power, in the form of filling government ministries and security forces with your own guys. If you want an analogy, don't think of corporations - think of how organized crime families compete. Then, think of how organized crime families would compete if they could do it openly.

There were hypothetical opportunities to broker a representative and balanced power structure and avoid the fissure of Iraqi political society early in the war, yes, but that boat has long since sailed and the opportunities were limited anyway - how would the US accommodate Sunnis when its post-occupation plan was all about elevating the Shi'a at their expense? How would the US buy off former regime Sunnis or Sadrists, both of which adopted a nationalist opposition to the US being there in the first place?

Now, the chances are even slimmer. Neither the US nor the Iraqi government, such as it is, has the clout to broker a deal between the factions - and since the factions are all trying to use the government as their personal patronage machine anyway, those who have aren't likely to sacrifice for those who have-not. In short, the Iraqi pie is only so big, and there's no parent around to wield the server.

[Simplicius]

Oh, and I'm sorry that my posts in this thread and the last Iraq thread have wound up being these huge walls of text. I would happily be more brief, but I literally cannot think of a way to describe the situation with any sort of brevity, and I'm still leaving lots of detail out - e.g. the background of the ISCI-Sadrist rivalry, the political conflict in Anbar, details of the Basra rivalries, etc. That's how screwed up it is over there.

[phongn]

Oh, and I'm sorry that my posts in this thread and the last Iraq thread have wound up being these huge walls of text. I would happily be more brief, but I literally cannot think of a way to describe the situation with any sort of brevity, and I'm still leaving lots of detail out - e.g. the background of the ISCI-Sadrist rivalry, the political conflict in Anbar, details of the Basra rivalries, etc. That's how screwed up it is over there.

I think you're doing a great service by posting these "huge walls of text," especially with the situation over there being so complicated. Better too much information than too little.

[Simplicius]

Couldn't sleep.

As another addendum, if you track the overall levels of violence (including sectarian violence), the shit really hit the fan in mid-2006 after the Samarra mosque bombing. That bombing was attributed to al Qaeda in Iraq and opened the floodgates on Shi'a attacks on Sunnis, as the mosque was/is an important Shiite holy site. There was violence before then, sure, but at levels much closer to what we were seeing as the "aftermath" of the surge, between ~November 2007 and February 2008. So where I earlier posted that the cleansing in Baghdad is attributable to revenge and consolidation of power after the invasion, that is one factor, but the two Samarra bombings (there was a second in 2007) escalated the violence manifold. I think my point remains intact, though, that the sectarian violence can be tied to recent factors rather than long-standing historical conditions.

I think you're doing a great service by posting these "huge walls of text," especially with the situation over there being so complicated. Better too much information than too little.

Assuming of course that I have my facts straight. I don't know how long this debate will go on, so I don't know just how much detailed material will out. I'm currently writing a report on the Iraq security situation for work* which I presume will be published online. If so, and if there's interest, I can provide a link or otherwise make the manuscript available. It won't be proprietary or restricted, at any rate.


*and damn those Iraqis for starting up again just as I was getting a final draft ready!

[Vympel]

And the tired old liars of the Bush administration pull out their idiotic, time-worn "heads I win, tails you lose" argument yet again:-

Renewed violence is a sign of surge's success, Pentagon says

The Pentagon on Wednesday said an eruption of violence in southern Iraq, where US-backed government forces were battling Shiite militias, was a “by-product of the success of the surge.”

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said it showed that the Iraqi government and security forces were now confident enough to take the initiative against Shiite extremists in the southern port of Basra.

“Citizens down there have been living in a city of chaos and corruption for some time and they and the prime minister clearly have had enough of it,” he said at a Pentagon press conference.

As C&L so effectively notes -

The surge is working! There's a lot less violence! Therefore we must stay in Iraq until victory!

The surge is working! There's a lot more violence! Therefore we must stay in Iraq until victory!

C&L

In other news, the Iraqi Army attacking Basra fights like shit. What a shock.

[K. A. Pital]

The Pentagon on Wednesday said an eruption of violence in southern Iraq, where US-backed government forces were battling Shiite militias, was a “by-product of the success of the surge.”

Truly, war is peace. I mean... no. I can't mean anything here beyond what they already said. That's fucked up. No matter what happens, the Surge is successful. That's a level of self-denial I haven't seen anywhere.

The Pentagon? Smartest U.S. war analytics?

The US military sector whoring itself out and ridiculing it's prime institituion would be funny were it not for hundreds of thousands of dead in Iraq.

[Simplicius]

As President Bush told an Ohio audience that Iraq was returning to "normalcy," administration officials in Washington held meetings to assess what appeared to be a rapidly deteriorating security situation in many parts of the country.

There you have it, from The Decider himself. Any gains stemming from the surge were anomalous; escalating violence is The Way Life Should Be.

Great success!

[Ryan Thunder]

Oh bloody hell. They're almost as bad as Saddam's minister of misinformation. At least he was funny.