« Home | Dilbert on Iraq... » | Stevie, George, and talk of playing "guns" » | WTF? or I wanted to touch him like a kitten... » | Still more Sunday shopping » | New Brave New World... » | The great presidential disappearing act » | Racial profiling example at play » | Disgraced Enron founder Lay dead » | Places that make us think or laugh » | Get your war on »

Every victory has a shitstained lining

The US declared a great victory in Iraq on June 8th last month, after killing the insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. So why are things so much worse? Is it possible that military intelligence overestimated (or overstated) al-Zarqawi's influence. Was al-Zarqawi's group actually keeping a lid on the sectarian violence? I don't know, obviously, but here are a few articles on the subject.

Baghdad Burning (Riverbend's Blog)

"A new day for Iraqis" is the current theme of the Iraqi puppet government and the Americans. Like it was "A New Day for Iraqis" on April 9, 2003 . And it was "A New Day for Iraqis" when they killed Oday and Qusay. Another "New Day for Iraqis" when they caught Saddam. More "New Day" when they drafted the constitution… I'm beginning to think it's like one of those questions they give you on IQ tests: If 'New' is equal to 'More' and 'Day' is equal to 'Suffering', what does "New Day for Iraqis" mean?

How do I feel? To hell with Zarqawi (or Zayrkawi as Bush calls him). He was an American creation- he came along with them- they don't need him anymore, apparently. His influence was greatly exaggerated but he was the justification for every single family they killed through military strikes and troops. It was WMD at first, then it was Saddam, then it was Zarqawi. Who will it be now?


Juan Cole's blog

Baghdad was the site Sunday of the worst wave of of faith-based violence ever perpetrated by its sectarian militias in one day. Eyewitnesses in the Iraqi capital said that elements of the Mahdi Army, loyal to young Shiite nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, killed at least 61, among them women and children, on the basis of their religious identity. [Official Iraqi and US sources said these numbers were exaggerated, and most American wire services gave the number of dead as 42.]


Juan Cole's collected documents on al-Zarqawi (2003-2004)

I have to get back to work now. This post really has no point at the moment. I (and I'm sure everyone else who pays attention) have noticed that the sectarian violence in Iraq has gotten much much worse in the past month. Sunnis and Shias appear to be killing each other as a matter of course. I don't know if the increased violence can be correlated at all with the death of al-Zarqawi, or if it was destined to increase without such a flash point. Regardless, it doesn't appear that the killing of al-Zarqawi has had any quelling effect on the insurgency, as initially insisted by the Americans. What a friggin' mess.

Oh ya...I hope any readers find the two blogs I linked above informative.

Briguy,
Can't you see - it's just the last throes of the dead-enders battling it out as we finally turn the corner.

One of the interesting things that I've noticed of late is that even the right-wing pro-war bloggers seem a little less enthusiastic and optimistic. At what point do the Americans just pull out, I wonder?

The situation in Iraq is forever changed. Bush will never pull out. They'll wait for a Democrat to be elected until they pull back and admit defeat. Then it will be the Democrats' fault ...

If you want to see an Iraqi point of view as to what's happening, check out:

http://afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com/

This is from a female engineer who had to leave her home & business in Baghdad. She has been profiled on CBC and CNN.

Jennifer,
I guess the question then becomes "when do the Democrats become electable?" That doesn't appear to be anytime soon.

kevvyd, I guess it doesn't really matter. But in comparison to the Republicans they should be looking better right now ...

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link