And hooray for the surge:
Two women wearing suicide vests blew themselves up minutes apart today at two separate pet markets, police said, killing as many as 68 people in the worst attacks in the capital in months.Police and hospital officials said 46 people died in the bombing of the Ghazel pet market in central Baghdad, and 22 died in the bombing of a bird bazaar in New Baghdad, a neighborhood in the southeastern part of the capital. More than 100 people were reported injured in the blasts. Some reports from the Ministry of Interior, which oversees police, said the casualty number was lower. A final toll was not expected until late today, as hospitals worked to save the wounded.
Meantime, don't ignore this:
Senior U.S. military commanders here say they want to freeze troop reductions starting this summer for at least a month, making it more likely that the next administration will inherit as many troops in Iraq as there were before President Bush announced a "surge" of forces a year ago.There are about 155,000 U.S. troops in Iraq now, with about 5,000 leaving every month; the proposed freeze would go into effect in July, when troops levels reach around 130,000. Although violence is dropping in Iraq, commanders say they want to halt withdrawals to assess whether they can control the situation with fewer troops.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 1 February 2008 15:57 (sixteen years ago) link
four weeks pass...
so, not that this makes it palatable in any way, it turns out those girls didn't have down's syndrome?
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 29 February 2008 02:21 (sixteen years ago) link
Sullivan publishes his Dissent of the Day:
If the Obama campaign is allowed to frame the Iraq debate about the initial decision to go to war, then the campaign never has to deal with what actually matters to U.S. security today -- how best should the country handle the situation on the ground now? Just as McCain should be forced to answer what are the consequences of a prolonged US presence in Iraq, Obama should be forced to answer what are the consequences of rapid withdrawal. And both must justify to the public their rationale and forward planning well beyond "staying for 100 years" vs. "engage in regional diplomacy."
Let's be clear-eyed about this, as opposed to merely rhetorical. The multiple players with interests at stake in Iraq mean that, absent a either a US presence or a stable Iraqi governmental authority that is backed by force, whether American, UN, NATO or otherwise, Iraq is highly likely to descend into a much more fertile ground for a civil war pitting Sunni radical against both Sunni moderate and all Shia. How best would either candidate handle a situation whereby US departure equates to Al Qaeda in Iraq versus the nascent Iraqi government versus Iran versus Kurdistan versus Turkey versus, potentially, the Persian Gulf Sunni states with the most to lose from regional instability? (Kuwait, Saudi, UAE, and Oman). Obama was certainly right about the wrong decision to go to war. But that decision didn't simply stop history, it created new realities in the region that actually do matter to US national security - both economic and political. My problem with Obama's "Iraq policy" is that it appears to advocate rapid withdrawal without regard for the consequences. McCain, at the very least, has made the honest acknowledgement that there are consequences of both staying longer or withdrawing rapidly, and he's made decision that staying longer carries less risk than hasty withdrawal. McCain is at least attempting to focus the debate on where it should be - on what matters tomorrow. How much longer will you keep letting Obama slide by taking credit only for his correct decision so many yesterdays ago?
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Friday, 29 February 2008 19:30 (sixteen years ago) link
My problem with Obama's "Iraq policy" is that it appears to advocate rapid withdrawal without regard for the consequences.
My problem with this argument is that it implies that our armed forces have the power to control the consequences of our occupation, which they do not, nor will they unless we institute a draft and send a vastly larger force.
Even then the only guaranteed outcome would be a vastly greater cost. Control of the country then would only become possible, not certain.
― Aimless, Friday, 29 February 2008 20:27 (sixteen years ago) link