Baghdad Bombing

U.S. planes dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives on Baghdad's southern outskirts Thursday in a 10-minute massive strike, attacking what the military said were safe havens for al-Qaeda.

The air attack along the Tigris River "was one of the largest airstrikes since the onset of the war" in 2003, said Maj. Alayne Conway.

[...]

The air raid was followed by a ground attack that led to 12 arrests and the discovery of two houses used to torture kidnap victims, according to an Iraqi officer who spoke to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak.

  USA Today

Geez, I thought the surge had successfully turned Baghdad into an Indiana market. [“Al Qaeda in Iraq is starting to look like a spent force, especially in Baghdad.” – Baghdad Comes Alive, Newsweek, Nov. 26]

"What we are doing now is taking the fight to the enemy," said Col. James Adams, the deputy brigade commander for 2nd Brigade, 3rd Division. "Al Qaeda is beginning to lose ground."

WTF? Now we are taking the fight to the enemy? Let me check the date of this report again. Nope. It’s posted today. Time warp I suppose.

How's That Surge Going?

You know there was a speech last night, and the reason that I haven't been posting anything more about this whole hoopla is that there have been (nor will be) any surprises. Exactly what you think is happening, is happening - things are going from bad to worse in Iraq and the chickenhawks here are telling you everything they are doing is successful and they just need some more time and money.

But you can read the details of all the testimony and speeches at TPM (although I don't see anything about John Edwards' response, which turns out to have been a two-minute ad : "no timeline, no funding, no excuses" - transcript here) or, as outlined at Whatever It Is, I'm Against It, with wit and humour, which is the only way to get through this with your sanity in tact.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics

[A]s a basic matter of categorization, the Petraeus/White House numbers don't include the deaths of people killed by our friends (new Sunni allies in al Anbar). They don't include deaths of people killed by members of their own sect (Sunni-on-Sunni, Shia-on-Shia, etc.). They count or don't count based on things like where a person has been shot in the head.

One intelligence analyst told DeYoung, "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian. If it went through the front, it's criminal."

[…]

Indeed.

You decide that the 'problem' is 'sectarian violence' -- not an improbable analysis in itself. Then you systematically devise a manner of counting that cuts away all sorts of carnage and mayhem that doesn't fit within an extremely narrow interpretation of the 'problem.' And voila, things are improving.

  TPM

Craig Update

This one's going to be messier than it needed to be. But then, maybe it's going to grab headlines while something important goes on in the background - say like the run-up to invading Iran. I mean, it is kind of weird that the actual arrest happened in June, and the story didn't come out until the end of August, just before the scheduled "Petraeus" report, and the alleged Cheney scheduled drive to ramp up support for an invasion of Iran.

Following the post where I noted a strange emphasis on the word "intent" when Senator Craig announced his intent to retire, we now have the latest: He's rethinking the whole thing.

And surely he can keep the attention off the economy. That GOP pressure he's been getting may soften up when they realize what a great distraction he can make.

"Heading for the Rocks" is the title of a new report from The Economist on the U.S. economy. The title is a somewhat sensationalist. However, it is important that people understand there is tremendous risk in the markets right now.

[...]

The markets have a lot of problems to work through right now. The process won't be easy -- and in fact is very dangerous. While I have faith we will get through this, it will be a difficult time for all.

  Hale Stewart, Huffington Post

....hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Iraq Report

A roadside bomb on Monday killed the governor of Iraq's Muthanna province, making him the second governor in as many weeks to become a casualty of violence between rival Shiite Muslim militias in southern Iraq.

[...]

In a joint statement, Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the committee's chairman, and John Warner, R-Va., the committee's senior Republican, said that while a surge of U.S. troops had tamped down violence in some parts of Baghdad, there was no sign of political reconciliation between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite rivals and "we are not optimistic about the prospects." They said U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker shared their views.

Levin later told reporters during a conference call from Tel Aviv that he believed the Iraqi parliament should replace Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. "The Maliki government is nonfunctional and cannot produce a political settlement because it is too beholden to religious and sectarian leaders," Levin said.

  McClatchy

Oh, and we thought it was going so well.

It seems Senators Levin and Warner aren't the only ones jumping the gun on General Petraeus' (September 11) report.

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day.

Read more of this article in the NY Times written by a group of soldiers who are there.

Commanders on the Ground

If I'm not mistaken, I believe it's pResident Bush who I keep hearing say that he goes by whatever the generals on the ground advise for military operations in Iraq. I wonder, just where is it that the Pentagon generals stand? On the sea or in the air? They must not be on the ground.

Unlike his two Illinois colleagues and other congressmen opposed by the anti-war group, [Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill)] has more than a voting record on the conflict in Iraq.

As an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve, Kirk is the only member of Congress who spends one weekend a month inside the Pentagon, where the day-to-day military operations in Iraq are decided.

"It's an awesome experience because you're with the troops," said Kirk, whose only vote against the war effort came in February when he supported a non-binding bill opposing the recent troop surge in Iraq. "When the proposal for that operation came in, the senior commanders didn't like it, and I sided with them against the president," Kirk said.

  Chicago Tribune via TPM

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.