Iraq: US-Controlled ‘Green Zone’ Under Attack
(A man carries the body of a child killed in mortar attack, in Sadr City, Baghdad’s Shiite slum, Iraq, Tuesday, May 1, 2007. AP photograph)
At times I marvel at those who create a web of lies and then gradually come to believe in them. The world is informed that the US troops’ two-month-old ‘surge’ was ‘progressing well’ in Iraq. And in September the US chief commander in Iraq is expected to submit the ‘progress report’.
But the news of the dramatic/deadly/daring attacks and explosions that take place in the most secure and fortified areas of the capital city of Baghdad tend to take away the fig leaf.
Here is the latest:
Mortar rounds slammed into the U.S.-controlled Green Zone on Tuesday, with one striking within 100 yards of the Iraqi prime minister’s offices, a government official said. No casualties were reported, writes Qassim Abdul-Zahra of the Associated Press.
“It was the second attack against the Green Zone in 12 hours, and it underscored heightened concerns about security in the area that is home to the U.S. and British embassies and thousands of American troops.
“An Iraqi government official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity in discussing security issues, said six mortar rounds fell around the offices of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Tuesday and the closest came within 100 yards of the compound.
“The explosions late Monday also were directed toward that part of the Green Zone, also known as the international zone, the official said.
“Insurgents and militia fighters routinely fire rockets and mortars into the Green Zone, which houses the U.S. and British embassies, the Iraqi government headquarters and thousands of American troops on the west bank of the Tigris River…”
With the rebels/militants/terrorists openly challenging the might of the only superpower in the most fortified zone, one can imagine what is happening in other parts of Iraq from where the news seldom makes the headlines.
Meanwhile the White House and the Congress quibble over war funds, Presidential veto and deadlines. To read my earlier post please click here…
Finally, this unbelievable story under the heading: “Iraqi Parliament Planning Two Month Recess”…
“Yes, you read that correctly. The Iraqi parliament – who our brave young men and women are fighting to protect and preserve – is planning on taking a two month vacation during the months of July and August. This is wrong on so many levels…” Read on…
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “Iraq: US-Controlled ‘Green Zone’ Under Attack”
[...] To read my earlier report on Iraq please click here… [...]
Going well? Who are you supposed to be quoting and in what context? General Petraeus has said that there are some signs of improvement and in fact on the Charlie Rose Show he indicated that sectarian violence was down to possibly a third of the level pre-surge, looking at sectarian murders and executions. That is why it is being called a civil war right? Regardless of the sensationalist attacks the truth is about more than headlines right? Petraeus has been pretty clear that though there may be reason to hope, it’s not possible to tell if things can turn around at this point. The “surge” isn’t even fully deployed and it only makes sense that many would try to get headlines and encourage violence to weaken support in the US for the War. You give one account (and of course there are many and it would be easy for you to list many more) as if that is some proof of something. What that you can count to 1? No isolated incident proves anything and you and your sources posted no support at all for your position just a report of 1 attack. Wow you convinced me!
That someone lobbed a mortar shell at/in the green zone and then ran is not proof of anything. By all means make your case, but use evidence not false arguments and empty logic.
Bones,
Official military and Iraqi figures show that since the start of the surge in Feb, civilian deaths in Baghdad are down, but troop deaths and deaths of civilians outside of the capital are up.
Petraeus is undoubtedly an honest man, but he is now working directly for the Bush Administration who have taught us well that to believe anything they say is pure folly.
Shortly before joining this gang Petraeus wrote that to quell an insurgency the size of the one taking place in Iraq would require at least 350,000 troops. He’s getting less than half that.
The reason the Bush admin will not allow benchmarks to be imposed on the Iraqi government is because this particular government can decide nothing and have little to no support amongst the Iraqi people.
While Prime Minister Maliki purges the Iraq army of senior officers, supported by our own Generals, on the behest of Shia extremists, the pentagon admits that the training of Iraqi troops is to cease.
The President’s mission is now to keep the war going until he leaves office and the problem becomes someone else’s. If you think this is a good use of our troops then line up behind him. If not, welcome to the majority.
If civilian deaths are down then you would agree that using an attack against civilians to prove an point would be poor logic then right? You did notice that my critic was about the faulty logic and lack of evidence in the post? You state “facts” without providence to “prove” your points also. My personal belief is that we are trying something new in Iraq, I think it has some chance at something better than a total loss, and it’s worth the attempt. That someone believes otherwise is fine, but to distort facts and mislead people is what Bush has been accused of right? Well come on, the post here is just as bad as any of the govts stories.
Bones,
And if this ‘something new’ doesn’t work, what then? And what is something better than a ‘total loss’? Do you envision American troops being in Iraq forever, and if so to what end?
Petraeus knows the soldiers he has at his disposal now are only enough to keep the number of civilian casualties down .To create the kind of stability needed to allow some form of functioning society to exist would take twice the number.
No matter how much you would wish it were otherwise, this story is not going to end well for either America or the Middle East. My sense from your comment is that like our president, you are happy to continue sacrificing US lives just so long as its the Democrats holding the ball when the final whistle blows.
Also, if the Iraqi government continues to fail to make political progress, it won’t matter if Petraeus is able to keep civilian deaths down or not. That is why the Democrats are insisting that Bush keep his word about their willingness to meet specific benchmarks. That is the real problem- they are not willing or able to do so, and resent any pressure from the US to make things happen. If you just look at the problem from a military standpoint , it misses the political compromises that the Shia and Sunnis have to make.