Comments on: Democrats Change Position on Iraqâ€¦ Kind Of.

By: Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy

Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:27:46 +0000

The tipping point in Iraq? A crossroads for the Democrats?…

To say a news item is “big” can often be a cliche, but I think it’s appropriate in this case: Baathists ‘disown al-Qaeda’ The leader of Iraq’s banned Baath party, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has decided to join efforts by the…

By: Elrod

Elrod — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:47:35 +0000

jammer is right and Ed Morrissey is full of it. Morrrissey’s citation of a dubious meeting in Tikrit between Maliki and self-selected Sunni tribesmen shows Morrissey’s own naivete. Does he really think a handful of Sunni tribesmen who don’t represent people, and are even more militant than the more moderate IAF party in Parliament will make good with Maliki? The reason the IAF Sunnis quit Parliament is because the Maliki government is hopelessly sectarian. Oh, and Morrissey cites Sadr’s move to Iran in February. Does he not know that Sadr is back in Iraq, and is taking the initiative against pro-Iranian SIIC Badr Corps members in Basra? The Badr/SIIC Shi’ites are more pro-Iranian than the Sadrists, who have a strong nationalist streak. Hell, Sadr is even taking credit for “kicking” the British out of Basra. Some marginalization the surge did to him…

What’s more, Petraeus is actualy setting up Sunni militias that provide security in lieu of the government. That’s supposed to pave the way for national stability? Sounds like Lebanon.

Michael, your original doubts were spot on. The whack-a-mole argument still applies; does Morrissey forget that 500 Iraqis were murdered by a fuel tanker bomb just last week? That’s pure whack-a-mole. The conversion of Anbar Sunnis against Al Qaeda is, indeed, a positive development. But it preceded the surge (though Petraeus has smartly coordinated his surge with the Anbar Salvation folks).

Without political reconciliation, short-term gains in security are useless. That was true when Petreaus said that in February and it’s true today.

By: jammer

jammer — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:59:14 +0000

The entire point of the surge was to give the Iraqi government breathing room to forge the compromises necessary to start a nation. That was the ENTIRE point of the exercise. Instead the political process has gone backwards. The Sunnis have left the government and the population does not support the government since it cannot maintain basic services. The army is rife with sectarian factions and everyone is scared to do the right thing for fear they will be summarily executed by rampaging sectarian militia. Read the NYT op ed piece by the soldiers just returning from 15 months in Iraq. That is real, not the stuff we are hearing from the pols who have well scripted brief visits with our army officers. As to waiting for the reports, I suppose we can do that so long as we remember that in our system, the civilian government determines when we start and stop a war, not the generals.

By: Pajamas Media

Pajamas Media — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:36:55 +0000

Democrats Refocus Message on Iraq After Military Gains:…

“Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent……

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:16:10 +0000

“We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Anbar province, it’s working,” Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday.

Looks like Hill has just one-upped John Kerry……..
“I was for the war before I was against it and I was against the surge before I was for it.”