S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1 | 5 | 12 | 16 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
|---|
| Monthly Archives | [−] |

| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1) the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2) in the public domain, with free use granted for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email.
Original content copyright © 2006 - 2008 by the respective authors. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed.
Site contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com
The local Fox affiliate gave this deadlined MILBLOGGER some airtime this am, for reaction to the President's speech last night. Video here.
Nowhere near as detailed, nor exhaustive, as Greyhawk, but maybe every little bit helps to dispel the ignorance...
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran and Syria on Thursday denounced President Bush's new Iraq strategy that blames them for fueling violence in the war-torn country, and they said the plan to send more U.S. troops would only increase bloodshed
I wasn't all that thrilled about the plan, but if it upsets the usual suspects, Iran and Syria, it must be good.
Below the fold, the White House fact sheet sent to media in advance of tonight's speech.
And:
The Highlights of the Iraq Strategy Review Slideshow is now available on the White House website in PDF format.A quick clip from the speech itself:
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.Somewhere here I believe I've already indicated my agnosticism on the "surge". But a part of that was due the "restrictions" piece. I'm surprised to see it mentioned here.
Of course, a better definition of exactly what "restrictions" were acknowledged as excessive would be nice too. (I'm betting it ain't General Order One he was talking about, but other than that who knows?) I'm not sure we'll see one though - but once again, I didn't expect "restrictions" would be addressed at all.
But I'll bet that in all the "surge" hype, even in the "President acknowledges mistakes" hype that's sure to follow, this "restrictions" bit gets overlooked by most. The smart kids will notice.
Updating: A slightly different take - Byron York caught it, but thinks it will lead to "more pointed questions than ever before". I suspect he believes there are lots of smart kids out there.
More: Meanwhile, back in iraq, where the President's speech played at 0'dark hundred...
Iraq PM Tells Shiite Militias to Give UpThese might be the aforementioned "restrictions":Iraq's prime minister has told Shiite militiamen to surrender their arms or face an all-out assault by U.S.-backed Iraqi forces, senior Iraqi officials said Wednesday, as American and Iraqi troops prepared major military operations aimed at ending sectarian warfare in Baghdad.
The move came as President Bush said he will send an additional of 21,500 American combat troops to Iraq, according to excerpts of a speech the president was set to deliver later Wednesday.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, head of Iraq's Shiite-led government, previously had blocked several U.S. attempts to crack down on fighters controlled by his most powerful political ally, Muqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shiite cleric.
"Prime Minister al-Maliki has told everyone that there will be no escape from attack," a senior Shiite legislator and close al-Maliki adviser said. "The government has told the Sadrists: 'If we want to build a state we have no other choice but to attack armed groups.'"
In the past, the Iraqi government has tried to prevent American military operations against the Mahdi Army, while giving U.S. forces a free hand against Sunni militants. The Bush administration has pushed al-Maliki, who took office in May, to curb his militia allies or allow U.S. troops to do the job.And for those interested in why Sadr is still around, there's this.Although al-Maliki withdrew political protection from the Mahdi Army, there was no guarantee the Shiite fighters would be easily routed from the large and growing area of Baghdad under their control.
I have another concern about the surge though, but if whoever I eventually share a cot with at least smells nice it won't be too awful bad.
Final update: Full transcript here.
There's a hell of a quote buried in Bill Ardolino's interview with Captain Eric "Disco" Dominijanni, USMC, a New Yorker currently serving as a Company Commander in Iraq:
I asked him who the enemy was:Bill doesn't belabor that "like back in NY" bit, but it's something anyone who's driven extensively through any major American metropolitan area understands immediately."A lot of (those who plant IED's) are poor farmers who have no money. Some just drop them off on their way to work. A local insurgent leader or ringleader will say 'hey, here's $5 to drop an IED against the Americans," sometimes more if they video them dropping it. It's also almost like a rite to manhood out here. We're getting kids, like 18 and 19 years-old that are trying to look like men, get that symbol of manhood and establish themselves as local leaders in the community. And what's the best way to do that? It's to fight the infidels."
I suggested they join football teams instead.
"Well actually we're doing that, we're handing out soccer balls, and you can actually see the impact in some areas with the younger kids. All kids want candy, but when you see them and they are waving when you drive by, that's a key indicator - but only when no adults are nearby, because some of them will slap their hands down. Some areas are friendly and some are not; you'll feel it, like back in NY. When everyone scatters, something is about to go down."