... claiming that under the same self defense rights Bush claims for America against terrorists, Turkey would have a right to attack Iraq.
Yeesh, I've lost track of nations who have used the Bush "Doctrine" to launch incursions into another nation (without the declaration of war or proving their own sovereignty was violated). One of these invasions is going to set off a series of powder kegs and sink a whole region into bloodshed.
(At least before, with rules of engagement, there might be a cooling off period and discussions at the UNSC. Not so this rootin' tootin' way.)
Some if us have been speculating whether Bushco is doin' another "side change"---dropping enormous bombs on Sadr City might be more evidence of that. Juan Cole's site indicates that 49 were killed in this latest "defense mission", BTW. We'll soon have another skirmish in the "Battle of the Statistics", another clear sign of military failure.
Conventional counter-insurgency strategy used to hold that faceless, ham-handed air power (which ALWAYS ends up killing numerous civilians whatever the sturmtruppen spokesmen say) is the end of any hope of prevailing in a counter-insurgency campaign. Who knows, but that's what you read. I'm sure our flyboys have defined or rationalized that problem away in their desire to be in on "the fight". Can't let the Army hog all the "rebuilding" money!
How this is going to "fly" with the shi'ite parliament should be comic. I know many here see Maliki and the parliament as US puppets. If this is how they protect the citizens who put them in office, well, you've got a point. But that "coalition" (I still get a laugh out of that!) troop reauthorization vote comes up some time in December, I believe.
If the Iraqi parliament doesn't want to see bombs dropping on civilian shi'ite apartment buildings like they watched the Israeli air boys do in Lebanon, they might want to do something about it.
Posted by euzoius at October 22, 2007 08:50 AMall this latest tactic proves is that there is still no step-by-step, fully realized plan in Iraq. It's "try this" and "try that" and the only common denominator of the Bush "strategy" is that there is no strategy.....and that it kills scores of civilians weekly.
Posted by T2 at October 22, 2007 09:30 AMT2, could it be that Willard's comments to Kurtz regarding methodology are true for every non-conventional war, especially as they regard operational and strategy considerations? Tactics don't apply because they're mostly concerned with placing targets in the cross-hairs and making sure that every round expended hits a chosen target. This Mesopotamian morass certainly proves that any fool should have learned something from Vietnam.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at October 22, 2007 10:53 AMWhy would the Shiites, whom we are now bombing, consent to al-Maliki, one of their own, doing so? It would mean al-Maliki is in favor of American bombing of his co-religionists continuing.
Charles
Posted by charles moore at October 22, 2007 11:10 AMRe-baathification as far as the Shia are concerned seems definitely out of the question.
It keeps turning full circle. After making a Shia ruled Iraq all but certain, Bush now wants to change sides in mid civil war to support the people he got rid of. The ones without the oil.
Any oil law Bush had hopes for is a moot point since the Shia militias (the ones we're attacking) have already signed deals with Iran and China. Result? After countless lives have been lost and scarred, somebody else gets the oil.
For those who can't get enough of the Iran War "conspiracy" (like me), there's a lengthy article in Esquire: The Secret History of the Impending War with Iran, by J. Richardson.
It's basically an extended interview with Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann, Bushco foreign policy experts who have resigned and begun blowing the whistle, and thus are experiencing Bushco wrath.
Posted by euzoius at October 22, 2007 02:05 PM