Think The Situation In Baghdad Is Not Improving?
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Iraq | The Surge | War — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Baghdad's Shurja market is open for business.
The capital's central commercial district, which earlier this year was virtually shut down by repeated car bombings and sniper fire, is now thronging with residents doing last-minute shopping before this week's Eid holiday.
"For six months, not a day passed without my seeing a body near my shop," says Qassem, who sells curtains. "But today, business is good and security is good and, God willing, things will get even better."
Six months after the "surge" of US troops finished deploying into Baghdad, Iraq's capital is breathing again.
Shia militias still hold sway over large areas of the city, and around a half a dozen people are still reported killed every day in shootings, bombings and mortar barrages.
But even if the return to normal life is only a temporary respite, Baghdadis say they are enjoying the moment.
It certainly doesn't have to be "temporary" if we recognize that the surge has indeed helped in making Baghdad safer and that a renewed commitment to the reconstruction process can solidify the gains that have been made in Baghdad and Anbar. Yes, work needs to be done to bring about political reconciliation, but it is a whole lot easier to achieve a long term reconciliation plan thanks to the surge and the attendant counterinsurgency policies being followed by the multinational force in Iraq. If those policies are cut short, you can kiss any chance of political reconciliation--and a peaceful Iraq--goodbye.
« Disconnect — Comments (1) | More Reasons For Cautious Optimism — Comments (3) »
Think The Situation In Baghdad Is Not Improving? 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
What did Hillary say, something like a general's report defied belief, Believe Fatso, believe.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
These things may be so, and I sure hope they are. But somebody has to look on the dark side, so here's my shot.
We have before us two big developments in the middle east. One is the drop in violence in Iraq, apparently because of the surge. The other is the release of the NIE report, affirming that Iran ceased its efforts to develop nuclear weapons 4 years ago. I have a horrible feeling that the two are connected, and connected in this way. Behind the curtains, the US and Iran struck a bargain. Iran would stop meddling in Iraq and allow the US to declare mission accomplished and leave--just in time for the '08 election. In return, the US would not stand in the way of Iran's getting its nukes.
Hope to Heaven I'm wrong.
Ignoring your tinfoil-hat hypothesis to describe what you call the big developments in the ME, let's talk about THOSE.
First, the drop in violence in Iraq IS AFFIRMATIVELY because of the surge. Not maybe. Not apparently. The evidence for this is overwhelming. The logic is inescapable.
Second, the NIE hardly constitutes a 'big development' in the ME. It is basically *yet another* transparent maneuver by the leftist bureaucracy in our own government to discredit George Bush and Republicans and to head off any perceived upcoming invasion of or attack on Iran.
Numerous intel organs in other nations have poo-pooed this NIE (as have numerous elements in our own nation). In addition, the NIE itself is disingenuous, in that it only APPEARS to say what the media have said it says -- it is rife with disclaimers.
The NIE changes nothing, except it probably has achieved its purpose.
Now with all that, YOU have to go conspiracy on us with some crack-pipe notion that the US and IRAN made a deal. I bet you also think the incoming Reagan Administration in 1980 ALSO made a deal with Iran to get our hostages back.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
What you shrilly affirm and what I humbly speculated are not contradictory. Agreed. The surge is working. Agreed. The NIE is bs. The question I raised however was whether there was a connection between the two. You're a Latin scholar. A quid pro quo.
But while we might honor our quid, I don't believe for a moment that Iran would honor its quo, which buries my little tinfoil theory, even if it happened to be true.
I don't know. Neither do you. Calm down. Rabies doesn't become you.
Dude, you suggest that I'm the hysterical one in this conversation. You are positing the hypothesis that Iran and the US made a backroom deal to get Iran out of Iraq for the time being, so that the US can have some success, declare victory, and go home in time for the 2008 elections. Yes, you actually said that about the 2008 elections.
Listen, cranky. That hypothesis is waaaaaayyyy out there.
Way. Out. There.
Not only is there no affirmative basis for it, there's a good bit of evidence contradicting it. For starters, the entire intel apparatus of the US Government is infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome, and would do no favors whatsoever for this Administration. You do remember all those leaks about money transactions, secret CIA prisons, interception of phone calls, etc? Second, there is one party that repeatedly says this will be a long war and a long road in Iraq. The OTHER party (the one not in control of the White House) is the one singing the get-out-now song.
No way, a 0.000000% chance your idea could be true.
I'm just sayin'.
Stare decisis is fo' suckas -- Feddie
an oil tanker for the first time in 27 years as well....good times for the General who has made this possible in less than a year...Thank you General Petraus and the men and women of the US Military.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion