The New York Times has reporters in Iraq, has military analysts on its staff, has an editorial board that can think, and has writers who can write intelligently. Political agendas aside, the NY Times makes its case with facts, reason, and logic. It is the right wing reactionary AC Chronicle that uses fear and anti-intellectualism to appeal to base emotions, crude reasoning, and meaness.
Below is a reasoned editorial which is truthful and shines an objective light on the situation in Iraq - like it's conclusions or not. (BTW, I don't agree with all of the NY Times' military analyst Michael Gordon's conclusions in his pieces).
President Bush wants to sends thousands of more U.S. troops (still far too few to prevail) into the caldron, quagmire, meat grinder (pick your metaphor) of Iraq and spend hundreds of billions more money (we don't have) over the final two years of his Presidency. Bush projects a budget surplus 3 years after he leaves office. That speak directly to what a joke of a man we have for a President. Americans are fools to put their sons and daughters at this man's disposal in his vain, wasteful, corrupt, stupid, expensive, unwinnable little war.
A Bleak Assessment on Iraq
quote:
February 5, 2007
New York Times Editorial
There isn’t much encouraging news in the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Ethnic and sectarian identities are hardening and violence is spiraling, as shown again in Saturday’s horrific Baghdad market bombing. Iraq’s new governing institutions are weak and leading politicians have a “winner-take-all attitude” that can only make matters even worse.
The intelligence agencies see “real improvements” in Iraqi security forces. But those gains are strictly relative and the report still finds those forces unlikely to be able to successfully battle Shiite militias in the next 12 to 18 months.
A good example of this problem can be found in the accounts of last week’s battle between the Iraqi Army and a mysterious group of armed religious extremists outside the Shiite shrine city of Najaf. Najaf is supposed to be a showcase province for the American-trained Iraqi Army. The Pentagon chose it in December for the first symbolic handover of security responsibilities.
Barely a month later, in their first major battle, the Iraqis had to be bailed out by American air and ground forces. Hundreds of armed zealots had managed to set up a fortified encampment, complete with tunnels, trenches, blockades, 40 heavy machine guns and at least two antiaircraft weapons.
This happened just 10 miles northeast of the city at a time when hundreds of thousands of religious pilgrims and Iraq’s leading Shiite clerics were headed there for annual holiday observances. A successful attack on top clerics and pilgrims in Najaf would have been disastrous.
The Iraqis’ next mistake was sending only one army battalion and some police to raid this armed camp after its belated discovery. Government forces were quickly surrounded and called in American air support. Still pinned down, the Iraqis had to summon American ground support as well before they could advance on the camp.
This less-than-impressive performance by a supposedly top-of-the-line Iraqi Army division has grave implications for President Bush’s new Baghdad security drive, in which an additional 17,000 or so American troops are supposed to work in tandem with a much larger Iraqi force.
Perhaps the Iraqi security forces will improve over the next 18 months. But as the intelligence estimate also makes clear, the only real hope for Iraq lies in a bold reversal of course by Iraqi politicians that puts national reconciliation ahead of sectarian advantage. Mr. Bush needs to get serious about demanding such a change, including enforceable deadlines for overdue steps like eliminating militia supporters from the police, ending vengeful anti-Baathist measures targeting the Sunni middle class, and guaranteeing the fair allocation of oil revenues.
Otherwise, Iraq seems headed over the cliff.
No comments:
Post a Comment