Wednesday, August 29, 2007

The US is fighting the Iraqi Government.



It's a sign of how fucked up this war is becoming. The US are now fighting the very government that their war put into power.

WARE: Yes, well, General Ray Odierno very much has his finger on the pulse of this war, and his assessment is entirely correct.

Yes, there has been some stabilization, some spectacular examples, like in al-Anbar province. Yes, it’s forced changes in the type of violence that we’re seeing here.

But Iraqi innocents are still dying in their hundreds and thousands every month. And what we’re failing to address is how we're achieving these successes in bringing down the violence is by cutting a deal with the tribes, the Baathists and the Sunni insurgents. It’s by creating Sunni militias to counteract the government’s own militias and the Iranian-backed militias. That’s bound to have long-term consequences.

In many ways, part of what’s being achieved is because America is turning somewhat, despite its rhetoric, against this government, fostering Sunni militias, questioning the role of this government, questioning whether it can actually perform.

5 comments:

Unknown said...

And then there's the more balanced view of things over there.

An excellent article all around, but I liked this quote:

But a patrol through the sector on Tuesday evening revealed changes many in the media just won't credit. (We're not supposed to win, you understand.)

...

So why don't you hear more about our military's successes? It goes beyond the old media dictum that "if it bleeds, it leads." Plenty of journalists have staked their reps on our predicted failure in Iraq - and they hate the reversal of fortune the surge is achieving.

Kel said...

You regard Ralph Peters as "balanced"!!

The man who has blamed the debacle in Iraq on the failings of "the Arab mindset"? That's balanced in your world is it?

You're fast making yourself a laughing stock, Jason.

Unknown said...

You're fast making yourself a laughing stock, Jason.

And you've been one from the get-go. But seeming a "laughing stock" to your kind doesn't particularly bother me.

Unknown said...

But I digress... Which part of Peters' post did you have a problem with? Or is it just the fact that he is a conservative and you believe there are no conservatives with valid views?

Kel said...

Which part of Peters' post did you have a problem with? Or is it just the fact that he is a conservative and you believe there are no conservatives with valid views?

I have a great deal of difficulty with you choosing Ralph Peters as a "balanced" voice on the Iraq war.

Ralph Peters is about as pro the Iraq war as it is possible to be. I don't think even Ralph Peters would claim to be "balanced" on this war, he has been one of it's most vocal supporters.

Why do you always quote people who share your viewpoint and imagine that is enough to make it "balanced"? Why is Michael Ware not considered "balanced"? Because he's saying things that you don't want to hear?