So I've been reading this Kos thread with particular curiosity re: the "complete takeover" of Amarah by the Mahdi Army in response to the 19 year old brother of the sheik running the militia in that city being kidnapped by the family of the chief of intelligence of that province (a police official) who was, in turn, previously assassianted via a road bomb which the family has blamed on the Mahdi Army.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/20/95355/646So what jumps out at me is this post by "un figlio della sinistra" about CNN's response:
"A CNN anchor actually said something quite prescient- Amarah is a bellweather. The reaction of the citizens of Amarah will speak volumes as to whether they believe that the militias or the security forces can protect them.
Isnt that the question throughout Iraq? Do Iraqis count on the gov't to protect them from death squads and terrorists or do they depends on militias made up of their own clansmen?
I believe that Amarah is a good answer to that question."
CNN already has had a general on who apparently said, and this is a paraphrase:
"This is a strategy of Iran. This is a test. A dual strategy of G. Marshall and ruthless like Grant in the Civil War. If they let this go it will definitely---definitely a turning point in the war in Iraq."
I think that my first paragraph says quite conclusively that this has nothing to do with Iran. Having said that, there's a call here that if the US needs to level the city of Amarah, well, you gotta do what you gotta do.
More crucially, CNN has already begun spinning this as a new test, not only for PM Maliki, but for the US military and for Bush's strategy for victory in Iraq. (Don't laugh.)
No, really, don't laugh. This is important: all of a sudden, one of those events beyond the control of an administration has reared its ugly head a few short weeks before midterm elections. All of a sudden, with the public completely soured on US efforts in that country, Bush now has an unwanted pop quiz on whether the US is "winning". The clear options are:
- Do nothing. Let Sadr keep it.
- Encourage negotiations. Let Maliki get the Mahdi Army to play nice through negotiations - which means getting Badr to release its hostage.
- Go in and level the city if need be to heroically eject the Mahdi Army, consequences be damned.
In a perfect world, I'd go for b). Badr may not play ball, though. It'll hop up and down and say, it's THAT militia which you need to take down, not ours, leave us alone! Our man was the chief of intelligence! They killed a cop! They have to pay!
Bush's legacy won't permit a). But will Bush's party's political peril compel c) because of a media and political frenzy kicked up that makes vividly and publicly crushing the Sadrist uprising (as it's being portrayed) to send a message that Bush can and will win in Iraq? And if the US military tries, is it going to succeed without causing horrific civilian casualties? There's no time for a long siege here. Also, will Bagdhad go to hell even more if the US redeploys to kick butt in Amarah?
These are not optional questions. There is no pass here. If Bush does nothing, or appears weak, he's risking looking bad to his base. A ham-handed, cruel and bloody response will make the US look more like Saddam than ever.
My point is, the media is apparently inventing a test for victory in Iraq, a tangible, definitive test which previously did not exist, and which was not invented through the US' own efforts whatsoever. This cannot be a welcome development for the Republican Party. The answers to these questions are not set in stone; they have yet to be written, possibly yet to be even conceived by those advising "the Decider".
Posted as a spur to discussion. Politics aside, just in terms of US national interests and the suffering of the Iraqi people, this could really, really suck.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
