April 12, 2007

Explosion In Green Zone Kills Two

This will bode ill for supporters of the war in Iraq. An apparent suicide bombing has killed two members of the Iraqi parliament within the Green Zone as they ate in the Assembly's cafeteria:

A bomb exploded in the Iraqi parliament's cafeteria in a stunning assault in the heart of the heavily fortified Green Zone Thursday, killing at least two lawmakers and wounding 10 other people.

The blast in the parliament building came hours after a suicide truck bomb blew up on a major bridge in Baghdad, collapsing the steel structure and sending cars tumbling into the Tigris River, police and witnesses said. At least 10 people were killed.

The bomb in parliament went off in a cafeteria while several lawmakers were eating lunch, media reports said. In addition to the two dead, state television said at least 10 people were wounded.

The bombing came amid the two-month-old security crackdown in Baghdad, which has sought to restore stability in the capital so that the government of Iraq can take key political steps by June 30 or face a withdrawal of American support.

According to initial reports, the bomber may have made it through Iraqi security force checkpoints. One Iraqi parliamentarian reported seeing the severed legs of the suspected bomber in the hallway outside the cafeteria, and decried the security provided by the Maliki government. This comes less than two weeks after the US Army discovered suicide vests within the Green Zone, which means that this attack has probably been planned for quite a while.

The indiscriminate nature of the attack suggests, as Khalaf al-Ilyan told Iraqi reporters afterwards, that the bombers were less concerned about faction and ideology in their target than in attacking representative government altogether. The attacker went to a fairly quiet spot in the Assembly building; had he made it into the general meeting area, he could have killed many more people.

This will probably create an almost insurmountable problem for Nouri al-Maliki and his government. Already, Iraqi politicians have declared the new security plan a failure. They will not allow this attack to go without some accountability from the government and perhaps an abandonment of the new joint Iraqi-US plan put in place earlier this year. That would put the Bush administration in a difficult position; if the Iraqis declare the new Baghdad security plan a failure, his domestic political support for the war will collapse entirely.

The next few days will be critical for Maliki and Bush. This could wind up as this war's version of the Tet attack on the US Embassy in Saigon, an event that provided the tipping point for American patience in a foreign war.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Explosion In Green Zone Kills Two:

» 2007.04.11 Dem Perfidy // Islamism Delenda Est Roundup from Bill's Bites
Updated from the top. Please treat this as a blog-within-a-blog, come back often, and scroll down till you hit something you saw on your last visit. Explosion In Green Zone Kills Two McCain Unbound Congressman Proudly Claims Syria Trip 'Led [Read More]

» First Cup 04.12.07 from bRight & Early
Well, let’s have some coffee and then take a swim. ~ Johnny Weissmuller ... [Read More]

» Blunders for Both Parties from Church and State
It would be easy for Democrats to support the War on Terror, but not the transplant of western democracy into a master-slave worldview state. Why they haven't come up with a modified version is only for their hate for Bush. [Read More]

» Suicide Murderer Kills Eight In Iraq Parliament Bombing from Webloggin
The Democrats have been on the cusp of withdrawing all support for the war in a cut an run initiative that started almost the instant they voted to support the war. This will only fuel their efforts to pull out and let the Iraqi’s fend for themse... [Read More]

» Is Capt'n Ed Serious ? from The Harlem Ghost
This posting on the suicide attack in the Green Zone is one of the weakest examples of commentary I have ever seen on his site and leaves me shaking my head in wonder. [Read More]

» A tough day in Iraq. from The Crimson Blog
This war is a worthy and necessary war. No matter how hard it gets, no matter how trying the circumstances become, no matter what the enemy does to try to break our will to fight, I will not waiver on that. I want us to win this war. I know we can win ... [Read More]

» Iraqi Lawmaker: "United Together Against Terrorism" from The Sandbox
From Reuters:The Iraqi parliament met in special session on Friday in a show of defiance after a suicide bombing in the building that deputies said united them in their resolve to fight terrorism. The bombing on Thursday, which killed one [Read More]

Comments (50)

Posted by M. Simon [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 8:45 AM

I think we are making the same mistake we made in 'Nam.

We need to seal the Iraqi borders and let the Iraqis handle internal problems.

Posted by wham1000 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 8:49 AM

There is no military solution. Getting out as soon as possible is the 2nd best. But a radically new approach towards the Iraqi government and an asymmetrical military deployment could still get us out with honor. Who in this administration has the will and the brains to find the solution?

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 9:10 AM

I think we are making the same mistake we made in 'Nam.

We need to seal the Iraqi borders and let the Iraqis handle internal problems.

The big difference to me is that we had a reason at least to go into Viet Nam in the first place, the way we fought and died there was the problem. If you equate communism as a reason and you chose to stop it in Viet Nam, fine. If you choose terrorism as your reason and chose to stop it, then Iraq was not the place. It may well be now, but it was not before.

It goes beyond reason to think that putitng an extra 20-30-100,000 troops in Iraq would help, might it stop some violence, yes, you bet, in the short run. But sooner or later we will have to leave, and when we do, all bets are off. This has always been the argument against this war. When do we know we "won". We are finding once again when you fight an opponent who we cannot see and cannot find you can't expect someone to step forward to sit down on a battleship somewhere and surrender to us. The money and lives we have wasted would have been better spent securing our own borders and increasing our own security at home.

Posted by Fight4TheRight [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 9:27 AM

I agree that this is a severe blow to the progress of the Surge. At the same time, I think it is a stark reminder of the STRATEGY behind the "insurgency." In fact, I have become tired of the word, insurgency, as to me that insinuates it is a total effort from all different segments of Iraq.

This attack is a prime example of the strategists at Al queda - the attack was for the purpose of defeating enthusiam and support of the Surge. That's the difference. Much of the bloodshed in Iraq has been retaliatory with Sunnis/Shiites wanting retribution with the most # of casualties but it cannot be forgotten that if it weren't for the instigating Al queda attacks, the retaliations would not have occurred.

Thus my dilemma. In my mind, the removal of Al queda from Iraq will drastically reduce all reprisal aggression between sects so....how can we possibly leave with the true enemy still there?

One last point. Part of the recent success out in Anbar province has been because of the tribal leaders turning on Al queda. I have to believe that if a convincing leader in Baghdad could make a compelling enough reason for the groups in Baghdad to follow suit, there would be even more improvement. It's my opinion that this was not possible before because of Sadr's presence. He's physically gone now and someone needs to step up and focus the entire country on ridding themselves of the TRUE enemy - Al queda.

Posted by RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 9:36 AM

The situation in Iraq is like our American Civil War in this sense: There are plenty of families in Iraq with members on opposite sides of the war--the pro-democracy side vs. the pro-radical-theocracy side. This bomber, like another recent bomber, may have gotten into the building unsearched just on the basis of family connection.

Posted by Jim [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 9:53 AM


I really hope you're wrong about this. I think throwing out the plan because of one bombing in the green zone would be a huge mistake.

Jim C

Posted by The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 9:55 AM

"This will probably create an almost insurmountable problem for Nouri al-Maliki and his government. Already, Iraqi politicians have declared the new security plan a failure. They will not allow this attack to go without some accountability from the government and perhaps an abandonment of the new joint Iraqi-US plan put in place earlier this year. That would put the Bush administration in a difficult position; if the Iraqis declare the new Baghdad security plan a failure, his domestic political support for the war will collapse entirely."

Why should that happen? The Surge is about curtailing militia activity and bombing in the neighborhoods of the metropolis, not rendering the GreenZone impervious. Twelve years ago a gunman slew two police officers in our own Capitol building. It's not impossible anywhere, and nobody promised to eliminate it in Baghdad by mid-April.

Posted by syn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 10:08 AM

Islamic 'insurgency' Jihadist set off another bomb in Yala, Thailand wounding 11 people in a part of the world where an estimated 2000 have also been killed over the last three years by Islamic 'insurgency' Jihadists. This is just in Thailand, but I haven't the energy to list all the other Islamic 'insurgency' Jihadist bombings perpetuated over the last several years.

And all Monkei wants is to end the war in Iraq.

The Copperhead 'peace' democrats will continue to allow Islamic 'insurgency' Jihadist to blow up non-muslims and non-Jihadist Muslims around the world as long as it doesn't interfere with the ability to bring about a George W. Bush defeat.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 10:15 AM

Cap'n, I hope that you're wrong. To my mind, a suicide bomber in the Green Zone carries about as much weight as the German's use of the V-2 during World War II.

"The enemy's fighting back with novel methods and weapons? No!"

Should the Allies have given up in '44 just because Hitler demonstrated an ability to hit London with impunity? Happily, they didn't.

Now, whether or not the Iraqis make the same decision remains to be seen. We already know what the left in our country has to say; they've been for surrender virtually since day 1. Nice to know that half our country is easily cowed like a pack of whipped curs.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 10:24 AM

A note about the Tet Offensive: it broke the morale of the American people, but caused a surge of support in South Vietnam for the Theiu government. By indiscriminately butchering civilians (especially in Hue), the communists demonstrated to the people of South Vietnam that the war wasn't against the Americans and their "puppet" government in Saigon, but against the people of South Vietnam.

Unfortunately, the dems in the US sold the South Vietnamese out; they might as well have surrended in '68 and gotten the killing fields over with.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 11:13 AM

We need to seal the Iraqi borders and let the Iraqis handle internal problems.

The U.S. simply does not have a large enough force to do that, nor enough force to even guarantee security in the heavily fortified Green Zone. The situation in Iraq does not have a military solution at this point, and the U.S. cannot impose one. About the best that can be done is to try and prevent Iraq from becoming a proxy war between Sunni and Shia, as well as a war between the Kurds and Turks.

Posted by av8tor [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 11:13 AM

This was most likely an inside job. Security around the Green Zone is good but there are holes in the system. Most notably, the ability of an Iraqi with the appropriate level security badge (usually a ranking government official) to bring people into the Zone without having to go through the appropriate security search/screening. Blackwater and other private security firms provide much of the security for the government facilities and officials; however these officials also have their own personal security detachments (PSDs) that usually consist of members of their family or tribe. These PSD members can be escorted into the Zone by the official they are guarding without a security search because he/she has the appropriate level security badge. Therefore it would be easy for one of these members to bring in and explosive device (to include a suicide vest) and place it for use at a later time. A prime example is the assassination attempt on the Deputy Prime Minister not long ago which was carried out by a member of his PSD and a relative who had been arrested previously for anti-government activities. The Deputy Prime Minister hired him as member of his PSD to keep him out of jail and it nearly cost him his life.
The Iraqis need to find, hire and promote the best qualified people to work at all levels of the government and in the ISF. We are dealing with a tribal society that places loyalty to family and tribe above all else regardless of qualifications. These hard lessons will continue until the government makes these necessary changes. My fear is they will learn when it is too late.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 11:18 AM

Questions. And, mixed feelings, here.

First of all, the CAMERA that kept its eye on the incoming traffic, into the Parliament building, from the outside, was "BROKEN." When have you heard that one, before?

In other words, JUST BEFORE THE SUICIDE BOMBER GOT IN, someone, somehow, tampered with that camera. Leaving "hand wanding" in place.

Notice this. You get the lowest paid idiot in the security department, to stand outside all day, wanding people. EASY TO SLIP THE SUICIDE BOMBER INSIDE.

So, take Occam's Razor. And, you find the first clue is that the camera is broken. So that a suicide bomber can get INTO the building. A suicide bomber that doesnt get lost, and walk into a supply closet. But finds the cafeteria.

Wanna play dedective? Think ya got yerself a clue?

Today's STRATEGY PAGE; free for viewing up at Glenn Reynold's site; tells how the iranians are also "playing with the terrorist sunni's."

So, that's another clue.

The SUNNIs, who have Bush letting them get away with everything, because this is House of Saud, stuff. Remember? They're still on the agenda that the Americans can be driven out. All they have to do is kill enough people.

They also took out a Bagdhad bridge. (75 year old bridge. Built by the British.) Entire mid-section made it into the water. With the remnants of the suicide truck by one of the concrete, now crumbled, "leg" supports.

Color me less than surprised.

YES. You should find it enlightening that the iranians know how to play the terrorist cards in Iraq; by HALPING both sides. Shi'a. As well as Sunni.

And, here? To get into the Green Zone. To get into the Cafeteria. Took a "military planning stage" that happened, probably while the British WAVYs were having their videos taken in iran.

Shows ya, Abner Dinnerjacket can walk and chew gum at the same time. And, can plan a party where his "guests" are measured for their own "mini-me" suits. And, they all got stuffed pink goody bags. (Seems Abner Dinnerjacket also watches the Oscars.) So he learns how things are done.

Don't schmear Vietnam, here. LBJ, for all his faults, was not taking instructions from the House of Saud. Different set of tent flappers.

Where, here? Perhaps what's flapping are the sounds jammies make, when you don't button up your back door.

Maliki has his hands full.

Tony Blair's already ran out of the building. (For all we know, his whole idea of "support" was providing Bush with those infamous "slam-dunk-16-words.")

Oh, yeah. George Tenet got the Medal of Freedom. And, Libby is heading towards jail.

It sure "halps" when the guy in the Oval Office is our First Idiot.

By the way? You want to take a guess of what is happening over in Iraq? We've been there four years, now.

Most of the crap Bush tried, failed. Chalabi's out. Paul Bremer's gone.

And, yet? INSIDE JOBS have only been curtailed. But not stopped. Because the bad guys are in the inside.

Hey! Just like in our state department!

So many stinking helpers.

Start with the busted camera. So conveniently broken less than 24 hours, beforehand.

You think something's up?

You think there isn't a way to pressure the House of Saud? Hmm?

Posted by TomB [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 11:19 AM

The simple truth is that we are loosing this war. It is not about this, or that bombing, this or that surge. It is about answering one fundamental question: How to win a religious war?
Especialy with half of your own wanting you to lose.
Still waiting for an answer.
In the meantime those centrifuges keep spinning....

Posted by Brooklyn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 11:21 AM

terrorists know they have to step up the killing to keep the Democrats empowered to undermine the USA in this essential battle in the GWOT.

i note the press, the MSM, like ABC, has presented this with almost a sick form of glee.

of course they never bothered to report any of the positives at all, especially in the last few months.

the problem for John McCain, and others who wished to dump upon those who implemented the policy they advocated for, is the failure to recognize how difficult it is to combat suicide bombers and monstrous terrorism.

our Finest got a real taste back in WW2 against Japan...

of course, even the amazing Israelis, dealing with this death for decades, could not keep terrorism from wreaking havoc upon their fine Nation.

it can be defeated, as terrorism can only shake your will, and has little impact on important strategic gains needed for victory.

in Iraq, the newly elected Democratic Government and developing Military continue to grow in strength.

terrorists can only sway opinion, clouding reality, hoping for the end of US resolve and the empowerment of the liberal democrat folly.

we must not let this happen...

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 11:37 AM

To those who think "we're losing this war," they should take a walk on the wild side. And, try and toodle about South Central LA.

Of course, to end the South Central "problem," the name "South Central" has been removed from all maps of LA. What'da start!

Maliki, by the way, is the one who has to worry the most.

You think America is all over Iraq? Can't be. Not enough troops.

And, Baghdad is a snake pit, of sorts.

STRATEGY PAGE (again, hint: Go to Glenn Reynolds to pick up today's page.) Talks about rotating Iraqi POLICE troops in and out of Baghdad every 90 days. Do you know why?

Baghdad is so corrupt, there's not other way to get the BEHAVIORS that belong to the arabs who live in Bagdhad to stop spreading their money around.

In other words? If you went far back in AMerican history, to Theodore Roosevelt ... You'd discover he went from New York's legislature, to becoming the State's youngest Governor. And, HE HATED CORRUPTION. He put a stop to it, too.

That's why Tamany Hall, angered by the ways he cleaned up the city, tossed him into the veep's slot, when McKinnley's veep bit the dust. Teddy Roosevelt CRIED when he was selected to be McKinnley's veep. RE-ELECTION. Because he thought he was gonna be relegated to a "nothing job."

Well, along came an assassin's bullet. It took a month for McKinnley to die. But die he did.

You could learn from this that terrorists have affective American politics; just as we're being asked to watch the HOUSE OF SAUD, and Abner Dinnerjacket, play with the minds of media idiots.

It sure does take time to take down those idiots. (Who also never really seem to pay for their outlandish claims.)

Anyway, as tricks go; this one got played out.

It's not as if we don't have our security setup in the Green Zone, ya know?

Only, as I said, when the signal was given ... the first thing that happened is that the camera, which is attached to a data base, BROKE.

In hand-waving, hand-wanding, the suicide bomber got through.

Do you know what that means?

Abner Dinnerjacket has run through another routine. He's pointed out that the sunni terrorists (meaning the HOUSE OF SAUD), still works the "terror game." In a lawless town. That hasn't yet done what it wants to do. Which is SEPARATE out the sunni's, so they come to big ditches, every time they want to walk or drive to another sector of town. Read: Where the Shi'as live.

For ordinary citizens? Well, have the sunni population has already fled.

And, now a major bridge is down.

The iraqis aren't about to turn on the Americans, here! If anything, they're already spooked that we're threatening to leave!

And, Abner Dinnerjacket is not close to having a delivery system for an atomic bomb. He doesn't even have a navy. All he has is chutzpah. Which "spins" more than his centrifuges.

I'll make a bet. He gets Chernobyl before he gets to really use more sophisticated threats.

Oh. And, the Iraqis are also players. They've stood up for four years, now. Against the HOUSE OF SAUD. And, there's very little sympathy in Iraq, for Abner Dinnerjacket; and the whole stinking neighbor, Iran.

Plenty of bloodshed, between these two groups.

Only the Kirds are trying to keep their powder dry.

Evil lurks in iran. But it's not hitler.

Posted by The Mechanical Eye [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 11:48 AM

The top leaders in Iraq are forced to work in the Green Zone because it is the only place they can conduct business without fear for their lives. Now that is gone.

This lack of control is disturbing, and ought to make more people reconsider our mission in Iraq.


Posted by syn [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 12:01 PM

'Lack of control'

Make a visit to Washington DC or Detroit Michigan, or South LA and please report how much control the Cpperhead 'peace' democrats have in those areas.

Posted by CoonBerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 12:14 PM

This war won't be won until we have a generation of Iraqis who have grown up w/o the oppression of Saddam Hussein or Sharia Law holding them down. That's right, it's not a matter of holding on for another six months, or a year, or even five. Think 10 years down the road before Iraq is finally ready to shed it's baggage from Saddam Hussein's tyranny.

Our mission is to help them get there. The quickest way to do that is to eliminate the outside perpetrators of violence - Syria, Iran & AQ. Then get the tribal leaders involved in rooting out the remainder - which they are starting to do.

People are quick to forget that war is never a one-sided affair. Our victories against the Iraqi Army in the past two wars aside, most are back and forth until the very end. Remember the Battle of the Bulge?

The Copperheads were ready to do the US in during the Civil War until we caught a few breaks - Gen. Jackson getting killed by his own troops; finding Gen Lee's plans for attack at Antietam; Gen Lee's ill fated strategy w/Gettysburg; and then the Union finally getting some General's w/a spine to carry to war to the enemy. (Grant, Sherman, Sheridan) The US needs to figure out a strategy for reducing Iran & Syria's roles - I just hope the castrati in Congress haven't done too much damage to prevent that.

We are fighting for time in Iraq - time for the Iraqis to pull themselves up and learn to stand and fight for themselves. They are getting there, but there will always be setbacks. Don't lose hope or faith. This battle is too important to our war against AQ and militant Islam.

Posted by Fight4TheRight [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 12:20 PM

I really am tired of the "there is no military solution to Iraq" theory. And for the calls that this can only be solved by "diplomacy" - that is just ludicrous.

The bombing at the Parliament today was engineered by Al Queda In Iraq. They have NOTHING to do with sectarian violence or a so-called Civil War.

What diplomacy would stop Al Queda? How in the world would involvement of Syria or Iran help in settling down Iraq? Syria and Iran are just as much targets of Al Queda as America.

Ask the Saudis how welcome Al queda is in their country.

If we take the advice of the Leftist Surrender Advocates and we completely pull out of Iraq, the result would be total chaos and violence - but it won't be because the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq take that opportunity to settle old scores. It will happen because Al Queda will start it and after Al Queda's strategy of breaking apart Iraq is about half over, you will see the full deployment of Al Queda resources to that country so they can take over.

Figure it out....that suicide bomber today could have killed 100 Parliamentary members - you think a true Sunni native of Iraq would have risked the killing of 50 of his "brethern"? Same question of a Shiite. Al Queda has no qualms in killing a Sunni, a Shiite, an American or an Iranian.

The real test of time will come when the Iraqi people figure out who their true enemy is (Al Queda) and it looks at the moment they won't figure it out until they've lost everything - course I can't hold them as too naive when over half of the American people and Congress can't see it either.

Posted by Monkei [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 12:25 PM

And all Monkei wants is to end the war in Iraq.

So gee does that mean, SYN, that you want to the war to go on and on and on?

Instead of taking cheap shots how about using that beautiful mind of yours and explaining to all of us who don't know, how we know we WON this war with a lasting result. I head a lot about cutting and running, calling those who don't agree with this war traitors and un-american, how we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here (lol) yet all I really want to hear from you and the rest of the fighting 101st keyboardists is how we know we won this war? Do we just take the word of those who started this war with bad data and have fought this war in the worst planning known to modern man that all of a sudden it is over? Remember those of us who don't think that the insurgency is in their last throes and that we would be welcomed with flowers, kisses and hugs are still waiting to find out how we know when we have won. The only one I see winning is Halliburton.

Posted by Immolate [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 12:31 PM

The problem with being an idealist, Ed, is that sometimes your idealism sneaks up and sends you off on a blue streak, like you're on atm. That's why there are stoics like me around to tell you to suck it up and get some perspective. The Brits used to be famous for this, stiff upper lip and all that. Remember that Monty Python skit where the hunters are out on safari and one has his arm bitten off by a lion, after which the two hunters discuss the matter in a conversational tone while the blood squirts out of the poor chap's stump?

The first rule of leadership: "Don't Panic"

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 12:32 PM

docjim: "A note about the Tet Offensive: it broke the morale of the American people, "

This is not at all fair.

Do not omit Lying Walter's straight-faced assertion that this was a military defeat for us.

The Tet Offensive was a military disaster for North Vietnam, but the press would never say so.

And I see Monkei's back on his "it's all about eeevil corporate profits" paranoid insanity crap. What a bore.

Posted by Michael Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 12:36 PM

One thing we know for sure about these two suicide bombings -- as well as all the other suicide bombings of the last 3 years in Iraq -- is that neither al Qaeda nor any other members of the various international jihadists groups were involved. We know this because we know that all the terrorists are in Afghanistan, where the real, true, legitimate, proper war on terror exists. Nancy Pelosi told me so. Even Osama bin Laden and his deputy al-Zawahiri have said repeatedly that Afghanistan is now the central front in their jihad against the west.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 12:47 PM

I really am tired of the "there is no military solution to Iraq" theory. And for the calls that this can only be solved by "diplomacy" - that is just ludicrous.

After over four years of war with no end in sight, there aren't too many more three-month extensions of tours in Iraq the Army can do before the Army practically breaks. The prospect of a 10-15 year committment of an inadequate force to do the job in Iraq is what's ludicrous, given the lack of results and the cost in both lives and resources. You don't see major bridges blown to smithereens or attacks in heavily guarded citadels like the Green Zone and call that progress. The U.S. isn't powerless and can still leverage it's military muscle to get things moving diplomatically. That the Bush administration hasn't seriously engaged in diplomacy yet is criminal, given the futility of the current "surge" and more staying the course.

The attacks in Iraq today certainly aren't the "last throes" of a dying insurgency either. Far from it.

Posted by Michael Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 12:53 PM

Starfleet_dude said:

The U.S. isn't powerless and can still leverage it's military muscle to get things moving diplomatically.

Please explain how you expect diplomacy to stop the terrorists.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 1:07 PM

Notice how SFDude assumes (as does the entire rest of the Left) that the 25 million people in Iraq either have no desire for peace and stability or absolutely no ability to fight for this.

Those Iraqis Just Don't Count.

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 1:10 PM


The only way to validate that we can wrap the terrorists into a losing game, is to "cure the problems, completely?"

Is this is the same bucket as the cure for cancer?

There's always charlatans out there; selling "cures for all your maladies."

At one time in America? You could buy this junk from horse and carriage traders, that would pull into towns. To sell their wares.

Instead? Industry works better.

Not everything is curable. That's just the human condition.

But everything does provide a learning curve!

Where would we be, for instance, if the hoods in South LA could just go into any neighborhood they wanted?

You know, of course, what stops them.

And, not just the prisons we've built to house those who can't quite make society's cut. But think of all the law professionals we have, as well.

So, maybe, we should fly in social workers?

While there are lots of places that are dangerous.

Heck, the sea was TOTALLY dangerous back in 1776. And, it took four presidents, and 40 years, just to build six frigates. That tore apart the "bak-sheesh, muslim approved, ways to graft.

Yet, by luck, those sand fleas are sitting on very rich resources. Made worse, because the lock-step fascists in the environment movement put a lock on America's reserves. So we dare not obstruct their Malibu views with oil that we could extract right off-shore.

Them thar's the rules.

It's called handicapping America.

But ya know what? The elites have wrapped themselves up beyond repair. Ordinary folk who would have voted liberal, just don't do so, anymore.

And, in europe? It takes a lot of jealosy on their parts, to hate us so much. I'm not even searching for their lost root causes, either. They all belly flopped with Tony Blair; as he went and changed Britanica's Ruling of the Waves; to the WAVY's. Hardly likely a force with which to contend.

That's why disaffect "yoots" burn cars in paris. Without any stoppage to their welfare checks. Or their free housing.

Anyway, Iraq has something like 60-million citizens. Do the math. Today, even with 8 killed; in a pre-set plan that took "insider" cooperation; doesn't mean diddley.

Doesn't mean "quit."

And, containment, to work, also needs walls.

First developed in Israel. Which smacks the anti-semites about the head. Since they don't like walls that protect Jews; while the rest of the world will be building "gated communities," just the same.

Yes, today's events were bad.

But you could follow the money trail.

Unlike the death of Litvinenko, where the trail of what happened to ALL the Po-210 ran cold.

I'd bet, if you took a survey. And, you asked the average American, IF the terrorists were just in iraq? You'd need a special box to check off "laughter." Or, stuned silence.

Get out'da here. You're trying to kid me.

The US Armed Forces is keeping a lot of the terrorists at bay! And, we need all the experience we can get! Nobody expects this to be a honeymoon.

Posted by Count to 10 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 1:13 PM

If you look at the terrorist motivation from an honnor/shame perspective, it is almost inevitable that the surge would lead to more suiside bombings, even as it reduces the instances of street violence. They feel that their losses during the surge are shameful, and the suiside bomb is a desperate way of getting rid of that shame. I was hoping that the increaced discovery of bomb caches would ofset this, but it doesn't look like it.
At any rate, the instances of suiside bombings will not be much corilated with progress toward a stable Iraq at this time, and possibly not ever (suiside bombings in Isrial, for instance, have little to do with its own stability).

The main failing of all of the its-hopeless-get-out-now types is that they see everything as static. They don't think anything has changed in Iraq for the past four years, and don't think anything will ever change.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 1:40 PM

Please explain how you expect diplomacy to stop the terrorists.

The first thing to make clear here is that the "terrorists" in Iraq are mainly Sunni insurgents, with others being Shiite militia members. Very few are actually professed members of al-Qaeda. So understand that what they're fighting for isn't a new caliphate, but rather a piece of the action in Iraq. The Sunnis will fight rather than be marginalized in Iraq, while the Shia want the control they feel is their right as the majority. The U.S. presence makes it possible for the Shia to remain intransigent towards the Sunnis, because they know the U.S. military will protect them. The Sunnis on the other hand would like nothing better than to see the U.S. start killing Shia milita members, so they continue to attack Shiites in hopes of provoking them to come out and fight. The U.S. is being used by both sides, and the situation has basically become a stalemate after four years. The Sunni have no hope of dislodging the U.S., the Shia have no hope of defeating the Sunnis. Staying the course doesn't change the facts that are now on the ground in Iraq one bit. So, what to do diplomatically? First, set a deadline for the witdrawl of most U.S. forces in Iraq. Nothing less will get the Shia to seriously commit to negotiating with the Sunnis. Second, involve the chief allies of both sides, the Saudis and Iranians, because they both have a significant interest in the outcome of Iraq and will not stand idly by if events go against those interests. They can also be useful partners in helping to persuade the respective sides to make compromises. The goal here isn't necessarily to come out with a united Iraqi state, but perhaps an Iraqi confedration where each side (Kurd, Shia, Sunni) has some degree of territorial autonomy while major allocations of resources (oil revenues, water, trade) are handled by a regime set up along confessional lines, ala Lebanon, with Baghdad being treated as a 'federal city' that no side controls. Dividing Baghdad would be a very, very bad idea, IMO. The U.S. military could serve to help guarantee the non-sectarian status of Baghdad, even at a distance, and maintain some level of troops in the Green Zone as part of the deal.

I'm no diplomat, but I think this is a rough approixmation of an alternative that could work in Iraq.

Posted by lawismylife [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 1:41 PM

Modern insurgency wars are wars of will. Democracies are not particularly adept at winning them because there is little institutional patience until something terribly wrong happens to steel the nerves of the people. Insurgencies do not have anyone to answer to except for themselves, thus their decision-making matrix is efficient and quick -- much the same as totalitarian leadership. The strike that insurgencies and authoritarian governments have against them is that no one else likes them or wants them in control of things. They tend toward things like murder, coercion, corruption and tyranny. In 1940, the Allies were pretty much where we are now in Iraq; Germany had repeatedly showed its intentions before the Allies took baby steps in Norway. The Allies took tentative steps in Narvik and Trondheim, and got their heads handed to them. Less than a month later, Germany invaded France and Belgium. Chamberlain resigned, and the pugnacious Churchill ascended to Prime Minister after the government understood the peril they then faced.

Today, we face fascist forces from at least three fronts who make no apology for advancing their aims of control over Iraq and the greater middle east. They are not using diplomatic sleight of hand or evasiveness. They signal their goals to us day in, day out. But, as Churchill stated, democracies tend to be two years behind tyrants. Its the nature of the beast. England's peace movement from 1930 to 1940 makes our doves look militant in comparison. But even England's factions united in a unity war government once they faced an immediate existential threat. Every day, we helplessly endure our mini-Trondheims -- Green Zone invasions, bridges destroyed, mass casualty atrocities. The mind turns to three basic questions, then: Is it worth it for us to stay? If not, then how do we disengage? If so, then how do we forge ahead? Frankly, we have not answered for ourselves the first question. Is Iraq our Czechoslovakia? Our Norway? Our France/Belgium? Unfortunately for those of us living in a democracy trying to sort out those questions, they will probably be answered for us by the tyrannical aggressors.

One of the many problems we now face is the application of pre-emptive warfare in the context of democracy. We cannot venture a guess as to the condition we would have been in had we not intervened. Thus, we cannot compare the present difficulties with the difficulty we might have otherwise faced. On the other hand, once the agressor makes its move, we know exactly the conditions we face and it is easier to move the people to action. Because we don't know the outcome, or even if the intervention is warranted, the daily setbacks of war are simply too unpalatable and unsettling. Unfortunatley, our seeming lack of reolve will be remedied once the danger is so great that we cannot help but focus on the threat.

In the meantime, if we are to win, we must show patience, because a lack of will can only be our undoing until a greater battle looms.

Posted by amuro316 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 2:08 PM

the bombing in the Green Zone was sheer luck. The terrorists went for a hail mary attempt and got it, just this once. And by doing it- and obtaining relatively little in return- they just blew their big chance to have a major impact.

It'd be a major issue if they were able to pull of simultaneous attacks in the Green Zone, or to be able to sustain their attacks in the future. I considerably doubt they will.

The media, right now, is knee jerking with this, because they want it to be "the truth" and completely pull it out of context.

Plus, I may add, where does the Tet Offensive/storming of the embassy really come into play here? Captain, it sounds like you're fishing for comparisons here. The Tet offensive was a shock- albeit one we were able to defeat- because it was a major overall strategy shift by the NVC. The Green Zone bombing, as of now, doesn't really show that kind of major shift.

Until further notice: they got lucky. That's it.

Posted by amuro316 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 2:13 PM

Whoops, I meant to add one more comment:

The reason that i say that the terrorists blew their chance at making a major impact with the Green Zone bombing is that A) if it's an attempt at a strategy shift, they did it in such a poor way that it'll guarantee that Coalition security will never let it happen again and B) the odds of them getting another such attempt are dramatically lowered precisely because the Coalition will improve holes in their security plan; and they didn't really get the kind of "shock and awe" attack they needed.

It feels like, at least for now, that they shot their bolt with what really is, in context, a small-time attack.

Posted by Captain Ed [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 2:19 PM

You're mistaking what I meant. I'm saying that the Iraqis may take this as a sign that the government cannot secure Baghdad, and that Iraq war critics here will do the same thing. I think Amuro's probably correct, and I used the Tet analogy for that specific reason. If the Iraqis lose faith in the new security plan. Maliki will be out, and probably we will have to go as well -- and even if they don't kick us out, the Green Zone attack will further undermine the reports that the surge strategy is succeeding.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 2:39 PM

Ed, the attacks today are just a bit more visible reminder that the U.S. doesn't have the initiative in Iraq any longer. Bush's "surge" is an attempt to try and put a brave face to address that fact, but it's more window dressing than anything else. Iraqis don't need today's bombings either to know that the security situation in their country is terrible and won't be getting better any time soon.

FWIW, the analogy with Tet is inapt. Tet was a failure for the Viet Cong, who thought they could fight a straight up battle with the U.S.'s overwhelming firepower, but they lost badly. The over-hyped propaganda aspect about Tet's impact on U.S. public opinion gets more and more overblown as time passes, because the fact is that while it put the lie to the line that there was "light at the end of the tunnel" just ahead, the U.S. kept fighting in Vietnam to win until 1971, when Nixon recognized that the North Vietnamese were never, ever going to quit and he decided to seek his "peace with honor" that allowed for enough of a decent interval for a face-saving withdrawl of U.S. forces from South Vietnam.

Posted by docjim505 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 2:47 PM

Folks, I think we owe starfleet_dude a round of aplause. In his post at April 12, 2007 01:40 PM, he actually lays out a plan for Iraq. I've read it twice and didn't see the phrases "Bush is stupid" or "It's All Bush's Fault"(TM) at all. This is a refreshing change from the usual liberal claptrap about Iraq.

This is not to say that I agree with the plan. Some of the elements are dangerously naive. For example, why in the world would Iran work WITH us to stabilize Iraq?

Others, I think, betray a lack of understanding of the situation. For example, the Shiia greatly outnumber the Sunnis. We're not protecting the Shiia from the Sunnis; if anything, it's the other way around.

I'm also curious why American troops garrisoning the "federal city" of Baghdad won't continue to be a target / cause of the violence.

But no matter: at least starfleet_dude has made the effort, and that's a damned sight more than the rest of our resident libs - or the democrat scum on Capitol Hill - have done.


Posted by Michael Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 3:00 PM

starfleet_dude said:

The first thing to make clear here is that the "terrorists" in Iraq are mainly Sunni insurgents, with others being Shiite militia members. Very few are actually professed members of al-Qaeda.

What makes you think this is true?

Second, involve the chief allies of both sides, the Saudis and Iranians, because they both have a significant interest in the outcome of Iraq and will not stand idly by if events go against those interests. They can also be useful partners in helping to persuade the respective sides to make compromises.

Oh, I see. All we have to do is ask the Saudis and the Iranians to ask the Sunnis and the Shiia to play nice with one another and PRESTO -- all these guys who have been blowing themselves up in the middle of crowded markets, detonating car bombs in crowds of children and firing mortars into the middle of school playgrounds -- all of these brutally murderous, head-chopping, eyeball-gouging, torture-happy madmen will suddenly turn reasonable, give up their evil ways and "make compromises".

You have taken wishful thinking to a new level.

Posted by amuro316 [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 3:12 PM

I have the feeling that the Iraqis will be viewing the bombing differently than we will in the US. Their media- outside of Al Jazzera- doesn't report the GWOT news the same way that the dinosaur media does. I think they'll be more likely to view the attack as a lucky strike, and nothing more. The caveat to that, of course, is the potentiality for follow-up attacks (which I think isn't going to happen).

It'd be interesting to see what Iraqi bloggers (and other military bloggers) in Iraq have to say. I await the words of Omar and Fadhil from Iraq the Model.

And as for the mainstream media in the US, they'll quickly go back to whining about Don Imus and Anna-Nicole by 6pm today.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 3:17 PM

"The first thing to make clear here is that the "terrorists" in Iraq are mainly Sunni insurgents, with others being Shiite militia members. Very few are actually professed members of al-Qaeda."

What makes you think this is true?

The fact that nearly all of those Sunni insurgents who have been caught or otherwise identified are Iraqis, not international jihadis.

Posted by starfleet_dude [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 3:34 PM

OTOH, this report speaks about the growth of al-Qaeda sympathies in what were formerly more nationalist Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq:

The Iraq insurgency for beginners
A leading expert on the insurgency clarifies who is shooting whom in Iraq, the growing power of al-Qaida, the influence of Iran, and the only thing left for the U.S. to do.

It's a pretty depressing report, overall.

Posted by Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 4:45 PM

I'm sure it is. It's from Salon, after all. I'm not even going to bother to click the link.

Look, it's really quite simple. Either you believe that stable and fair government can only *occur* when there is a compromise where everyone votes--or you don't.

Supporters of the war in Iraq are in group A.

People who threaten violence to elected government are in group B.

The writers of Salon are also in group B, most definitely.

Posted by patrick neid [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 5:16 PM

a suicide bomber blows himself up in the green zone! big f'king deal. this is war.

the miracle is that we have suffered only a little over 3000 dead soldiers---all volunteers i might add that have sacrificed their lives so we may live ours. the same bunch of wankers who want us to lose--many of whom are posting now--are the same losers that jumped up and down in their playpens telling us we would have 10's of thousands of dead just on the invasion alone. who can forget the stories in the NYT and other papers about the US having a shortage of body bags.

while this war is going very badly politically it is going very well by previous war standards.
never for once forget that we are the most humane country on the planet. we could make all these people disappear in a conventional heartbeat, unlike the russians who tried in afghanistan and failed. they, if you recall, killed millions on civilians as they tried to install a communist government.

when they finally take my advice and kill just the leaders of iran, syria, hamas, hezzbollah, al sadr and sudan this war on radical islam will be close to ending. perhaps then islam can transit from the 7th century to the 19th !

Posted by Carol_Herman [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 6:18 PM

Well, let's analyze this.

Not just the Green Zone, because the suicide-bomber made it into the cafeteria. And, hung a left into the area where the Sunnis' sat.

I guess it would seem their cafeteria has similar seating arrangements to college cafeterias? Where you see groups that can be identifed by sight.

Sunnis sitting together.

Camera outside, which was connected to a data base; and which thoroughly examined ALL INCOMING FOOT TRAFFIC; conveniently broken.

Just broken, too.

The hand-wanding person substituting this for the camera's data base, was about as experienced as the British hostages, I'd presume. In other words IN a dangerous place. Without much training.

The other thing? The 75-year-old bridge went down. With traffic on it. So early in the morning, that up at IRAQ THE MODEL, a family living nearby called Omar and Mohammed, and said the force of the blast threw them out of bed.

Yes, the Iraqis get the equivalent of a 9/11 EVERY SINGLE WEEK.

No big surprises how this works. The iranians are NOW halping the Sunni terrorirsts! They are that desperate to stop progress in Iraq.

So, I'll guess PROGESS is happening. Because the terrorists are doing everything they can to make us quit.

The Vietnamese did everything they could to make us quit. We did. And, desperately, some hung onto the last out Siagon helicopter. Families died trying to escape! ONE WAY TRAFFIC.

Here, in IRaq? Lots of Iraqis hate the HOUSE OF SAUD, and Abner DInnerjacket with the same venom.

What we're not told though, is that if there's a drop-off in religious attendence. You're told, of course, that nothing is busier than a mosque.

Nope. I don't believe it.

But, nothing is busier than a whore house. That, I do believe.

It's very possible, ya know, that enough Americans know all they need to know about journalists and reporters. I base my observation on the fact, that each morning, out early, I no longer see newspapers awaiting homeowners, to just wake up.

You can tell a lot when businesses lose customers.

And, that's what I think. While the IRaqis are putting up the good fight.

And, today's suicide-bombing INSIDE PARLIAMENT, was an inside job.

Since it killed Sunnis, it's one of those things that make a lot of people just shrug.

Why do they do this terror? Because the nuke program you've heard of? Hasn't produced the results that would give them mushrooms, instead of IED's. And, exploding dopes.

But less deaths here than would make a dent in the bigger number: Iraq has 60-million citizens, as is growing. They're replacement rates take care of this damage.

Oh. And, then there's a learning curve. Plenty of cameras were ON. Even though the critical one was broken.

It's not as if bureacracies aren't so complex that there's no personnel lists. No one to question.

That still goes on, ya know.

Just not as efficiently as the way Saddam did it. Which is still a good thing to most Iraqis.

Posted by conservative democrat [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 8:55 PM

It was a huge mistake to get involved in this war. Saddam was no threat with the sanctions and the no-fly zones. Don't people understand the Shia and Sunni are just biding their time until we leave and then go at each other? We can delay a civil war, but it will happen the day we leave. The US fought a civil war, we seem to have rebounded, the Brits left India in 1948, the Hindu's and Muslims fought a civil war, they seem to have rebounded. If we get out the Sunni and Shia will fight a civil war,realize its idiotic, and then they'll sit down and has out an agreement concerning autonomy and sharing the oil wealth. Arabs like war, its how they settle things. Why keep our boys over there to try and settle a feud that dates back to THE SEVENTH CENTURY. I'll never forgive the hard right for questioning my patriotism because I think this war was wrong. They don't have that right. My father was a combat engineer in WW11, won the Bronze Star for his actions in the Battle of the Bulge. He told me going into Iraq was the dumbest thing this country ever did! I suppose he's unpatriotic then! I don't support idiotic preventive wars. Get over it.

Posted by chip [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 9:15 PM

conservative democrat:

India didn't have nukes in 1948 or millions of people thirsting for jihad. That's the reality of the Middle East today. Sitting back and watching it fester is not an option. Eventually oil money is going to buy a nuke or biological agent that will end up in the hands of al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas or one of the dozens of terror groups dedicated to the destruction of the Western way of life.

The war is coming to us whether we like it or not.

The only solution -- and quite frankly I'm amazed that Bush had the initiative to pursue it -- is to inject the Middle East with a dose of democracy and capitalism. The region needs to modernize and Iraq is the first step. We're half way there. Stopping now would be a horrible mistake.

Posted by gaffo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 9:48 PM

"If we take the advice of the Leftist Surrender Advocates and we completely pull out of Iraq, the result would be total chaos and violence"

I'm drowning in the Kooliad here folks.

You people crack me up - 4 f%&king YEARS later, and billions and billions of dollars flushed down the toilet and thousands died in a war with no just reason and no link to 911 - and ALL of you are too steeped in DENIAL to ADMIT that some wars are UNWINABLE!!!! as in NOT WINABLE!

Its not about "surrender advocates" - its about not flushing down MORE LIVES AND MORE MONEY and ending up with the SAME RESULT!!!!!!

Time to GROW UP CHILDREN, suck it up, admit this is NOT WINABLE, call for a stand down and take the economic hit which we WILL TAKE ANYWAY since we WILL LOSE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU ARMCHAIR GENERALS DEMAND MORE TO DIE OR NOT FOR A LOST WAR.

You armchair chickenhawks are like the Japs of ww2.................suicidal - only you call for other daughters and sons to do the dying for you!!

- no calls for the DRAFT? guess this "war" just ain't that important then.

Posted by Terry Gain [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 10:01 PM

The suggestion that one breach of the security of the Green Zone means that the mission will inevitably fail is, to say the least , hysterical.

Al Qaeda, which was reponsible for this attack and most of the attacks which have occured since the commencement of the Surge must be licking their chops.

Posted by gaffo [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 12, 2007 10:21 PM

"Notice how SFDude assumes (as does the entire rest of the Left) that the 25 million people in Iraq either have no desire for peace and stability or absolutely no ability to fight for this."

News flash - they don't have the ability to fight for this. Why? Because Saddam oppressed them so long that he broke their spirit. They simply do not remember how to be a People that rise up in unison to secure Liberty. Why? Saddam broke them and ruled over them for 35 yrs. That is why they all have a totally fatalistic way of viewing life. If they think they might get blown up or their family might get blown up - they shrug their sholders and say "it will happen if God wills it - if i go out to the market now, in one hour , tommorrow or next week, what will happen will happen and I have no power to change it." It is called fatalism - the opposite of the American "I can do anything" mentality.

and this is why our Neocon "gunboat-gun barrel" deomcracy or else - i.e. "liberating" others by invading them! (or if you like Liberating them FOR THEM) will NOT WORK. A People can only liberate THEMSELVES - and the Iraqis are not psychologically capable of doing this. If/when they are they will rise on thier own. Had we not illegally invaded Iraq, Saddam proabley had many many more years of rule, but in 40 years or so the Iraqis might have risen up eventually.

Now we just re-set the clock BACK 20 yrs. Iraqis will now have to put up with Sadr types ruling over them for a few decades until they can stomach it no longer and rise up for Liberty - but that will be many many years after our Neocon stillbirth is a faded and discredited footnote in some history book.

"Those Iraqis Just Don't Count."

No they don't. WE count here in America. Iraqis count in Iraq.

We are not the World's keeper - time to stop trying to police the world, turn inward and take care of our own.

And let the Iraqis do the same - by blood if that is the way it must be. Equilibrium WILL be re-established (as it was BEFORE we made stability unstable by illegal invasion of Iraq).

real world bubba - ain't pretty but its reality.

Posted by The Yell [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 5:27 AM

The level of US military commitment is reasonable and sustainable over time given our population and economy. Whether the US military gets the appropriate level of funding isn't certain, but it's not because we don't have it.

The level of violence in Iraq has been tolerable and endurable. It has not prevented the development of the Iraqi state. It has not prevented the recovery of the Iraqi economy. There are dozens of examples in Africa of more furious, destructive warfare than Iraq.

"National security"--our ability to ship passengers and goods freely within our borders by air, rail, truck, or boat; our existence in open cities without curfew or checkpoint; depend on Muslim governments hunting down their own people on our behalf. Their commitment to this dangerous and difficult chore hinges on respect for American retaliation if they don't, and respect for American support if they are attacked from within while they do so.

Abandoning Iraq to internal revolt funded by Iran and Al-Qaeda will end twenty years of US presence in Central Asia, as everyone from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia realizes the US government is more likely to blame internal politics for failure, than commit our awesome power on behalf of a beleaguered ally. Out of Iraq means Out of Afghanistan, Out of Pakistan, Out of Kuwait, Out of Qatar, Out of Dhubai, Out of Saudi. Iran and Saudi Arabia will forge a consensus alright--the rise of a nuclear OPEC.

This is the reality and the metaphysical whine that you, or millions, or even most Americans, really don't want to face up these things is not "reality". Calling on Iran and Russia and China and Europe to save us by conferring legitimacy is not reality-- they are adamant that the USA become just another regional power and grant them their own spheres of influence, and ANY request--famine relief to Africa, antiterrorism, disarmament--is going to be filtered by their primary goal of clipping the wings of the American eagle.

So long as you insist true wisdom comes from taking whatever comes, our country fall into steeper decline until you are forced, literally compelled for your very lives, to fight for a world that is "safe for democracy".

Posted by CoonBerry [TypeKey Profile Page] | April 13, 2007 11:17 AM

I just read an update on this incident over at Blackfive - it turns out the Parliament building is not technically inside the Green Zone protected by the US. It was turned over to Iraq last year.

I guess that shreds the last of the Tet meme.

As to whether the Iraqis are capable of providing security for themselves, the same could be asked of the Israelis who suffered an intifada & ongoing terrorism, or the Germans of the seventies/eighties. What about Indonesia, or Algeria? None of those countries are or were engaged in the same intensity level of combat as Iraq - so all-in-all Iraq's not doing as bad as many would like us to believe.