 |
Add to My Group
McCain is either nuts or stupid-maybe both!
By winston (about the author) Page 4 of 5 page(s)
The odds are stacked against the bottom 99% and McCain is dependent upon "dog eat dog capitalists".
Ironically in addition to McCain being compared to Marie Antoinette, McCain's greatest hope in Iraq, Maliki is compared to another person from French history in the article "McCain's Free Ride" at
click here as "Quite a "defining moment" in Iraq, wasn't it? At this rate, John McCain is going to be proved right: The war will last a century. That is indeed what McCain meant, by the way, no matter how his apologists try to spin it. Those who claim that by "a hundred years" McCain was talking about a long-term peacetime deployment like the U.S. military presence in South Korea are being disingenuous or obtuse. In and around Seoul, citizens aren't shooting at American soldiers or trying to blow them up with roadside bombs -- and U.S. combat forces aren't taking sides in bloody internecine battles over power and
wealth.
It was George W. Bush who called last week's fighting in Basra and other Iraqi cities a defining moment for the fledgling government. By that standard, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has been defined as an impulsive leader and an inept general -- and his government as a work barely in progress. Maliki's decision to send troops into Basra and root out the "criminal gangs" that controlled the city was praised by the White House as a bold move to assert the Iraqi government's sovereignty. In reality, though, it looked more like an attempt to boost Maliki's political standing by dealing a blow to the Mahdi Army -- the biggest and most powerful Shiite militia -- and its leader, the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Iraqi forces launched their offensive and were immediately met by what Maliki's defense minister called unexpectedly strong resistance. In other words, they ran into a buzz saw. Maliki went to Basra to personally oversee military operations. History will not confuse him with Napoleon."
Big bro 43 utters "defining moment", "Mission Accomplished", "stay the course", "the surge" and blind obedience to his military experts, but his Iraq policy is a failure.
The article continues "According to Bush and McCain, isn't Iraq supposed to be the central front in the war on terrorism? Wouldn't the only plausible reason for continuing the occupation of Iraq be to fight terrorists -- rather than help one Shiite leader against another? And what's the strategic reason for backing Maliki, who recently gave Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a red-carpet welcome to Baghdad, over Sadr, who is believed to be living in Iran, enjoying Ahmadinejad's hospitality? Bush's troop surge, remember, was supposed to buy time for two things to happen: Iraq's political leaders were to achieve reconciliation, and Iraq's armed forces were to improve to the point where they could conduct operations on their own."
Having Maliki using the Iraqi security forces to fight Shiites he doesn't like, with US and English help, and still failing, is awful for US interests. Having the Iranians dictate the compromise is also awful.
Iraq is a quagmire and all we can do is hope for the best as the article "The referee's card" at click here states "Who won again? Security forces in the southern Iraqi city of Basra hunted militants Wednesday in a stronghold of a powerful Shiite militia." The BBC reports that "An Iraqi commander has led a convoy through the stronghold of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr in Basra. Correspondents say the convoy was a show of force and that it met no significant resistance as it went through the Hayaniya district."
Former Spook asks, who correctly interpreted the result of the recent fighting, Robert Dreyfus of the Nation, who declared Sadr the winner, or Bill Roggio who called Sadr the loser? So, which pundit got it right? We'll go with Bill Roggio, for a couple of reasons. First of all, let's assume that the latest Mahdi uprising was aimed at embarrassing (and weakening) the Iraqi government. If the offensive was going so well, why did Sadr-or more correctly, his patrons in Iran-decide to pull the plug? Assuming they still controlled large sections of Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, the Mahdi fighters had little reason to lay down their arms.
Instead, it was Sadr who ordered his factions to cooperate with Iraqi security forces. And the reason for that is highlighted in Mr. Roggio's dispatch. During six days of intense fighting, the Mahdi Army took a beating, literally and figuratively. Even an insurgent force can't afford to lose over 200 fighters a day, including those killed and wounded. We doubt that Sadr was concerned about the number of fighters he lost. What he
couldn't tolerate was the image of Iraqi security forces, backed by U.S. troops and airpower, routing his forces in Basra and Baghdad. That sort of black eye doesn't help Sadr, who still views himself as a major political force in Iraq.
Additionally, the Mahdi Army's latest ill-fated adventure hardly builds confidence in Iran, which has invested millions in supporting Muqtadr al-Sadr and his fighters. Mr. Dreyfus notes that Iraqi lawmakers flew to Tehran during the recent uprising, asking for Iran's help in ending the fighting. Elements of the Iranian government (most notably the military's Qods Force) agreed, and Sadr issued his cooperation edict within hours. According to the Nation's analyst, Iran's eagerness to help is another example weakness in the Maliki government."
Nations go to war to advance their interests. How can the US say this is happening in the Iraq war as the article "Attacks on U.S. Forces Soared at End of March -- Government Assault On Shiite Militias Drew Americans In" at click here describes saying "Attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces soared across Baghdad in the last week of March to the highest levels since the deployment of additional U.S. troops here reached full strength last June, according to U.S. military data and analysis. The sharp spike in attacks, in response to an ill-prepared Iraqi government offensive in the southern city of Basra last week, underscores the fragility of the U.S. military's hard-won security gains in Iraq and how easily those gains can be erased.
"Last week was clearly a bad week and shows the tenuous nature of security, which is something we've been stressing for some time now," Navy Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, the U.S. military's chief spokesman, wrote in an e-mail response to questions. "Security in Iraq is not irreversible, and any number of actors can affect the level of violence if and when they choose to."
Khadim al-Saadi, a Mahdi Army leader in Sadr City was interviewed and the article continues "Mahdi Army commanders said fighters had withdrawn from the streets. But Saadi warned that if U.S. troops remained, the situation could quickly change. "For every action, there's a reaction," he said. In Basra, life continued to return to the streets. Traffic moved freely. Government offices began to reopen, although schools and universities remained closed.
Still, police braced for more violence. "There is a condition of unstableness and suspense that a new attack might by implemented by the JAM militants," a police official said on condition of anonymity.
"I'm not optimistic about this calmness," said Usama Abdul Rahman, 35, a government employee. "It is the silence that precedes the storm."
McCain talked about the "whack-a-mole" aspect of Iraq and another source states that the US occupiers are a source of hatred by themselves. Sources say that as soon as the US leaves the Sunnis will rout al-queda in Iraq. Why are we there? This latest skirmish we were kept in the dark about it until the last moments, Maliki was fighting other Shiites he didn't like and who won?
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
by Judith S. Yaphe
$5.95
Number of pages: 30
Publisher: National Defense University
$5.95
Number of pages: 3
Publisher: Information Gatekeepers, Inc.
by Joseph Sassoon
$190.00
Lowest New Price $165.56
Number of pages: 295
Publisher: Routledge
by Doris Goodrich Adams
$79.95
Number of pages: 160
Publisher: Greenwood Press Reprint
| 1 comments |
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0) Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
