[...] Link: An Iraqi officer near Sinjar told me that recently a group of perhaps twenty “jihadists,” many of them foreign, descended on a Nineveh village. The Iraqi officer said the terrorists killed some adults and two babies. One baby they murdered was 15 days old. [...]

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Not true.  See also 2006.
"That’s OK.  Republicans get elected promising to "cut spending"  Conservatives buy it every election year as well."

Nice try at deflecting the charge against Democrats with a childish "well they do it too" argument though.  Too bad history proves you wrong (again).

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re: "Pipedream?  Maybe, but history has already shown it.  They get elected by promising to end the war, but at the same time explain why they’re not ending the war.  "

That’s OK.  Republicans get elected promising to "cut spending"  Conservatives buy it every election year as well.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Okay Scott, Curt… a very pertinent joke that’s related to your "will they unite or not"  asides here…

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You’re in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."

She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican." "I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost. Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don’t know where you are or where you are going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air.

You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it’s my fault

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Curt, like I said, I agree there will always be truthers, Code Pinkos etc., but they were promised an end to the war in 06, bought the excuses, and while they still protest…it’s nothing.  The effectual opposition to the war comes from the center and the media.  The media didn’t hold Democrats accountable for their 06 end-the-war promises, and wouldn’t for Pres Obama either imo.  Why would they change from the historical pattern of making excuses and gushing over him?  In the center, I think whoever wins, if the Surge continues success then the center will take new heart in the fact that the best pol/mil leader available is running the show (McCain) or they’ll take heart from Obama’s schmoozing.  Either way, the center moves back to supporting the effort. 

Why wouldn’t the anti-war left believe excuses from the DNC and Pres Obama as they did from the DNC and Congress in 06?   

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Scott, if they do keep their promise to keep troops into Iraq (which if I have heard correctly Obama has said he wants to just keep a strike force nearby…dictated by conditions on the ground) then the far left will skewer them, thus no uniting.  I don’t care if its the messiah or the first woman President…they will not suddenly agree with keeping troops in their because they said so.  If they pull out, Iraq becomes a AQ haven and they get blamed for it….thus, no uniting.

No, they have dug themselves a hole that will be the only place left for them shortly.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

A first look at Basra and oil prices:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a4vEiAGtd75E&refer=Canada

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Curt, why would President Obama or President Clinton go back on their promise to keep US troops in Iraq until 2013 if necessary?  There’s no need to feed the nutroots and Philly Steves of the party once elected (as demonstrated by the election of a Democratic Congress that promised to end the war).  Nah, I think the reality on the ground dictates the ebb and flow of forces now….not Presidential leadership.  President Obama would pull the centrists and media back to the war in support of keeping forces there "…Because if you pull your troops out immediately, you do get chaos." (Gov Howard Dean 11/6/06 explaining why the Democratic Party lied to its supporters).

They’d still blame Bush (even if Pres Hillary was elected), but the fight would continue as needed, troops would come/go depending on the fight, and the American people (save the far left nutroots and Philly Steves) would unite in support of the war. 

Pipedream?  Maybe, but history has already shown it.  They get elected by promising to end the war, but at the same time explain why they’re not ending the war.   What they DON’T say…is that the cost of withdrawal is to invade a 3rd time under the worst possible conditions=much higher cost in blood and treasure.  

Like or Dislike: 0  0

As Malikis is attempting to bring Basra some security and effectively put it under his central governance an immediate question arises: Is Sadr willing to give it up without a fight, and if he isn’t, what impact will this have on the "surge" having been a success (as the cease-fire will have been abandoned)?  

The question is in fact huge. The drop in violence in Iraq is usually divided among four events: more American forces and their change in tactics, the Awakening movement, the Sadr ceasfire and, last, ethnic cleansing and physical separation of the various sides generally being finished before the surge began.

(Even Stephen Biddle has stated in a Q and A: Questioner: Well, then, what do you attribute this whole change on the ground to? Is this due to what is called “the surge,” or good diplomacy by the U.S. military, or just luck? Biddle: All of those things have some role but I would put “luck” as probably the biggest.)

Whatever the formula is that cut violence down, it was a compound structural arrangement and Sadr’s truce played its role. The Bush Administration likes to tout the "surge" and it triggering the Awakening movement. But that theory may be tested shortly. Sadr is now under even greater pressure from his own officers to drop the agreement; last week he permitted his forces to wear their weapons, and stated they are permitted to use them to defend themselves; finally, yesterday he called for "country wide campaign of civil revolt"– Yet no one really knows what that entails.

Many thoughtful analysts find it not at all accidental that Sadr’s forces in four cities –all on the same day– clashed with authorities. Most probably, the thinking goes, Sadr is attempting the start numerous fires to impact the military strategy in Basra, rally up some popular support, and, in the process, prevent Maliki from purging his forces from the city.

Whether or not the above is true, the question needs to be asked, if Sadr is unwilling to give up Basra– and it’s unlike he is, and Maliki is determined to bring Basra back under political and civil control– and he is, then Sadr may have to decide soon whether to drop the truce, as time is running out for him.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I think Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton would unite America (particularly Sen Obama) in resolve and commitment to peace and unity in Iraq.

Whoa boy…one of the few times I disagree with ya Scott. Either they decide to stay and finish the job thereby pissing off the far left to the n^th degree or they decide to cut n’ run which will not bring peace and unity to Iraq.

Don’t see either of them uniting a colony of ants let alone this nation.

Like or Dislike: 0  0