You missed my edit. Of course he as some responsibility.
But look, the article just said it was a “relative”, which could be just about anybody. I think my reply was appropriate to a snarky, armchair quarterback-type post about the war.
Other articles on the matter specify ‘cousin’. And I think my reply was appropriate for an apologist who always wants it both ways. Somehow in your world it’s always ‘shit just happens’ to dead foreigners isn’t it. Move along now, nothing to see hear, no one to blame.
What is it about US army operations in areas they no longer have responsibility for taking place without consultation with and co-operation from the duly designated authorities are you finding hard to understand?
These sorts of things don’t just happen. They are the end product of a long chain of command.
That’s called an ad hominem.
Can you quote the part where I said no one was to blame?
Can you cite where we have that agreement with the Iraqi government?
The article is short on details as to why the raid took place and what they were trying to accomplish. Jump to conclusions if you wish, but you’re not very convincing.
There has been no official determination as to whether this qualifies as an “oopsy-daisy” or a “shit happens”. We should withold comment until the situation has been thoroughly examined, and a determination made. By which time we may reasonably hope that some other gross fuck-up will have absorbed attention.
Back to the matter at hand, on the nuance front, we have commentary on Hullabaloo which suggests some support for the interpretation that Maliki is just diddling with symbolism
Available here:
The writer suggests that Maliki hopes to disarm/co-opt the Sadrist wing of his coalition by making vague gestures towards withdrawal (along the lines of establishing a committee to study the question with an eye towards a thorough investigation…you know the drill.)
One can hardly doubt that there are Iraqis in positions of power who would like to forestall any withdrawal for as long as possible, or at least as long as pallets of hundred dollar bills are being unloaded.
But if Maliki must pretend to this line of thinking, we can only conclude that this line of thinking is popular enough to compel this* kabuki *dance of gestures and winks. Which means that popular support for handing us our hat and showing us the door is wide.
Maliki may be reaching to pretend to adopt the Sadrist position just long enough to consolidate power, and to then embark on a near-endless set of negotiating procedures to maintain the Golden Tit, yet still keep the support of the population at large.
Which is to say, he’s saddling the tiger and hoping to ride.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a poll of Iraqi opinion that didn’t indicate a strong desire for the US to get out, sooner rather than later. I hope Maliki is feeling confident enough now that he can ask us for an exit plan-- I would think that he, personally, would like us to stay as long as possible and prop up his government. If he thinks he can get along without us, then so much the better.
I also don’t understand why the Bush team didn’t seize the opportunity declare victory.
Perhaps they wish to use our occupation of Iraq (and the termination of that occupation) as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Iran? That’s the only explanation I can imagine that makes any sense.
Maybe he’s just waiting it out until the next administration to see how the wind blows then?
Because Bush really believes he is doing the right thing…hard as that is to understand.
-XT
Toward what end, exactly?
Gods know…I sure don’t. But it’s obvious that Bush really really thinks what he’s done is right and that we shall Stay The Course™!
It doesn’t need to be connected to reality you know…belief is a funny thing.
Anyway, didn’t mean to hijack the thread there.
-XT
But I thought “the course” was supposed to lead to a stable, self-confident Iraqi government. Which seems to be where we’re headed. So why not set a timetable if that was the goal?
Unless we are staying on some other, unspoken course, toward unidentified goals? 
Well, it’s not quite an “opportunity” yet. An unofficial request for a timetable is pretty amorphous. And I think Bush has been more or less declaring victory-- ie, that the surge has produced the only positive results we’ve seen in years.
You could be right about Iran, although that is only part of the equation. It’s clear that Bush wants the US to have a military presence in the M.E., so victory or no victory, it makes sense that he’d want to keep troops in Iraq. Partly as a threat to Iran, as you say, and partly as a threat to other unfriendly countries there. He probably sees the troops as a stabilizing influence. That doesn’t explain his reluctance to reduce troop levels at all, but that might be coming soon. And with a high probability of Obama winning in Nov, it will almost certainly start early next year.
It’s called “airpower” and there’s nothing remakable about it. Especially from the Iraqi’s POV.
Keeping Count (When Ours Goes Down, Theirs Goes Up)
Besides tagos link as further proof, you can simply look at their daily tally of death:
Wednesday: 22 Iraqis Killed, 49 Wounded – click on the links to the right for day to day details.
Yep, no doubt they (Iraqis) should be real happy that American soldiers are no longer dying – just more of their own already depleted population. :rolleyes:
Well, for several reasons IMHO. First off, you know Bush doesn’t believe in time tables of any kind…never has. The job is done when it’s done (i.e. when HE thinks it’s done), and that is that. Secondly, who is to say that we have achieved any of that stuff yet? Doesn’t appear to me that we have…and I’m unconvinced that if we go back to pre-surge levels things will remain even as ‘stable’ as they are today. Also, who is to judge if there is currently a ‘self-confident Iraqi government’ in power?
Bingo…at least IMHO.
I was simply addressing why Bush didn’t take the first (or second, or third, etc etc) chance to declare victory and get out of dodge. He’s never been about that, despite the fact that many around these parts THINK he has. He actually, really really, honest to gods and all that jazz thinks he’s RIGHT…and what we are doing in Iraq is the right thing. While he’s president we won’t be declaring victory and bringing the troops home…that is going to be left for the next administration to clean up and figure out.
-XT
Are you sure the “bomb” attacks reported were US bombs? Sounds like Iraqi on Iraqi violence for most of those deaths:
Me too, dammit.
Getting back to the timetable… A new article this morning says the Iraqis are talking about 2011, 2012… with the exact date being flexible. Basically, what they want now is an agreement that there will be a timetable, but they haven’t decided what the exact date should be. But clearly, they’re not talking about tomorrow, or six months, or even Obama’s 16 months. More like 3-4 years.
I think the Bush administration should say “sure”. But they should work with the Iraqis on some amendment that says that the timetable can be revisited under certain conditions - such as both sides agreeing (in case there’s a major flare-up in violence in two years, or a serious threat from a neighbor), or in case of the fall of the democratically elected government. But basically, it seems to me that the U.S. has a lot to gain right now by showing the Iraqis that they are not taking over their country and have no intention of staying in large numbers.
What’s probably going on right now is a backroom negotiation on what exactly ‘withdrawal’ means. How many soldiers will be left? Clearly the number can’t be zero - just protecting that huge embassy would require a fair contingent. That huge embassy, btw, strikes me as a bad idea. Building a complex that large and that permanent in Iraq is far too visible a symbol of foreign presence. But I digress.
As to why the Bush administration isn’t jumping up for this, there are several possibilities:
-
They don’t trust the Malaki government enough. They may be worried that this is being done at the behest of Iran, or that agreeing to this will anger the Sunnis or Kurds.
-
There may be factions in the government (Sunnis, Kurds) who have a different opinion and are talking to the U.S. separately.
-
The Bush Administration may be worried that Iran will play this up as a ‘victory’ for them, at a crucial time when the hard negotiations over Iranian nukes are really taking off.
-
This may just be posturing, playing to the public on both sides, and in the meantime serious negotiations are underway behind closed doors. This type of stuff is common during diplomatic negotiations, as both sides try to put a little heat on each other through public statements that erode various bargaining positions. It could be that there’s a disagreement on how many forces should eventually remain, and this is the Iraqis putting heat on Bush by saying, “If you don’t agree with what we want, we’ll call for a complete withdrawal.”
-
This may be pure partisan politics on Bush’s part. Some people think that McCain’s big liability in the past - his attachment to the Iraq war - may be his strength going into the election. If Iraq continues to stabilize, in four more months McCain may be playing heavily on the fact that Obama wanted to leave and said staying would be a disaster, and McCain said the surge would work, and it did. But for that card to be played, there has to be a difference in future policy towards Iraq between them. Obama’s a little boxed in here - if he sticks to his old position of wanting to withdraw, McCain can say that he was wrong then and is refusing to adapt his policies to conditions on the ground. On the other hand, if he says the U.S. should stay, McCain can label him a flip-flopper, and Obama has trouble with his base.
However, if the U.S. negotiates a withdrawal timetable now, Obama can say that that was his plan all along, and he’s glad the surge helped move it along but it could have been done without the surge. Or he can simply claim that he’s satisfied that the war is winding down and his policy as president will be to simply stick with the negotiated timeline. Or even if he doesn’t try to triangulate that, just the fact that there’s a timetable for withdrawal will take Iraq off the ‘burning issues’ list, probably keep the base calm if Obama moves to the center on Iraq, and to some degree nullify the distinction between McCain and Obama.
Any of the above are possible, or there could be other things going on none of us are privy to.
Indeed John, it is so for the most part. But if you dig back far enough into those dates/cites, you’ll see the point I’m trying to make. US casualties are down mostly because they are doing less patrolling on the ground and using more (indiscriminate by its very nature) airpower.
Read the other article linked and quoted for more detail…
Evacuate? In our moment of triumph?
-Joe
Well, they’re kinda torn. The puppets need us to prop them up, but they also need enough support from the Iraqi people, who mostly want us gone, to continue to be our puppets.
Maybe half right and half wrong.
Has the Surge, in combination with other factors, caused a reduction in violence in Iraq? Yes, it has. And Lord knows the Iraqis who hadn’t already gotten themselves killed, or moved to Syria or Jordan, could use a little breathing spell.
Has the Surge accomplished its goal of political reconciliation that will enable the reduction in violence to outlast the Surge by an appreciable extent? No, it hasn’t.
We’ve beaten that one to death ad infinitum.
It’s great that violence in Iraq has been reduced to 2005 levels. But 2005 levels weren’t exactly great.
And Maliki, rather than reconciling with the Sadrists, has used the Iraqi military against them. Despite their cease-fire having been one of the main factors reducing the level of violence in Iraq.
Maliki has also opposed giving any power to the Sunni Awakening groups, who are another main factor in the reduction of violence.
That’s not exactly a stability that has the potential to last.
Good. I know a way to put together a long, long string of such weeks.
The Taliban certainly thinks so.
We can still win Afghanistan if we get out of Iraq, because most Afghans actually want our help. Why you’re so gleeful that we’re making a hash of it in the meantime, damned if I know. We should have won this war years ago.
Sam: Your analysis is pretty good, but let’s keep this in perspective. Maliki leaks some info to the press yesterday, and people are surprised that Bush has not announced a completely new strategy for Iraq yet? Come on guys. That’s just not the way things work-- for Bush or for any president.
RedFury: I’ve done some searching, but was unable to find Iraqi casualty counts by month. It’s unclear from your cite whether civilian deaths have increased recently. And the discussion about Afghanistan in your link doesn’t make sense, since coalition force casualties are going up, not down. The link only discusses one incident in Afghanistan, so I don’t know how one can detect a trend from that. I would not be surprised if civilian deaths in Afghanistan was on the rise, since there is more fighting going on. I would be surprised if that were true for Iraq as well.