14 U.S. soldiers dead in three days
It's all Newsweek's fault.
The AP story also contained this curious paragraph:
Yes, American troops desperately want Iraqi security forces to take the battle against the insurgents (or "terrorists" or whatever you feel is morally least ambiguous) off their hands. But, to-date, neither Bush nor Rumsfeld has answered the question -- and Congress has yet to demand they do: Do they intend to establish permanent military bases or outposts in Iraq?
Early on, it was thought that one of the "lucky coincidences" of a successful invasion of Iraq (and, really, is there any other kind?), would give the U.S. the opportunity to establish bases in Iraq to replace those in Saudi Arabia, where U.S. bases' proximity to Mecca and Medina are such a source of Islamist rage (not that we ever admit that U.S. actions are the cause of anything). Just because the neocons are silent on that now doesn't mean it's not still the plan. And that means leaving many thousands of U.S. troops not "exiting gracefully" anytime soon. And that means continuing to leave many thousands of U.S. troops easy targets during the ensuing civil war.
BAGHDAD, Iraq - A car bomb exploded next to a U.S. Army convoy in Baghdad on Tuesday, killing three soldiers, while another American died in a drive-by shooting a half-hour later. Their deaths pushed the number of U.S. troops killed in three days to 14, part of a surge in attacks that have also killed about 60 Iraqis.
In the northern city of Tal Afar, there were reports that militants were in control and that Shiites and Sunnis were fighting in the streets, a day after two car bombs killed at least 20 people. Police Capt. Ahmed Hashem Taki said Tal Afar was experiencing "civil war." Journalists were blocked from entering the city of 200,000.
The AP story also contained this curious paragraph:
The deaths come as American troops are trying to pave the way for a graceful exit from Iraq by giving more responsibility to the country's security forces. But with the Iraqis still relatively weak, U.S. troops remain in the firing line, targeted by insurgents that have shown increasing abilities to attack when and where they please.
Yes, American troops desperately want Iraqi security forces to take the battle against the insurgents (or "terrorists" or whatever you feel is morally least ambiguous) off their hands. But, to-date, neither Bush nor Rumsfeld has answered the question -- and Congress has yet to demand they do: Do they intend to establish permanent military bases or outposts in Iraq?
Early on, it was thought that one of the "lucky coincidences" of a successful invasion of Iraq (and, really, is there any other kind?), would give the U.S. the opportunity to establish bases in Iraq to replace those in Saudi Arabia, where U.S. bases' proximity to Mecca and Medina are such a source of Islamist rage (not that we ever admit that U.S. actions are the cause of anything). Just because the neocons are silent on that now doesn't mean it's not still the plan. And that means leaving many thousands of U.S. troops not "exiting gracefully" anytime soon. And that means continuing to leave many thousands of U.S. troops easy targets during the ensuing civil war.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home