The typically myopic AP report on the same DoD report failed to include that key bit of information re al-Sadr/stability, settling on the context-free Bush-bashing numbers game of "violence up 22 percent." Knocking things out on deadline isn't easy, but the result can be like a journo Rorschach's test. In this case, the closer, "It made no mention of a timetable for ending U.S. military involvement," suggests a fast perusal of the DoD report for AP priority items.
Off-topic, but check out the AP's just-the-facts reporting on Ayman al-Zawahiri's upcoming new release:
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- An Islamic militant Web site announced Monday that Osama bin Laden's second-in-command would soon release a new message addressing the conflict between Muslims and infidels.
Well, yeah. Because that's how the world breaks down. You got your Muslims. And you got your infidels. Check your AP Stylebook. It's in there.
Back on topic, this Washington Post article tells us the Joint Chiefs are at odds with the Bush admin over the idea of a short-term surge of 15,000-30,000 troops. What's more interesting is the article's lck of information on what the chiefs do want. It seems to hint a larger, longer term surge might be preferable, but the problem there is ... no fresh troops. Thanks, Donald Rumsfeld. This bit of context about the Pentagon's questions being raised gets buried:
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said military officers have not directly opposed a surge option. "I've never heard them be depicted that way to the president," the official said. "Because they ask questions about what the mission would be doesn't mean they don't support it. Those are the kinds of questions the president wants his military planners to be asking."
One problem with the article's claim that the chiefs are worried a short-term surge will create an al Qaeda magnet and lead to more U.S. deaths. Stats indicate that troops surges have had the opposite effect, driving down casualty numbers.
The article also mentions the Belgium-based International Crisis Group's report, due out today, breaking left of the ISG, and by the sound of it, nonsense that should be seriously ignored.
Update: Zucker's important Neville Baker-Adolf Ahmadinejad documentary.
8 comments:
Couldn't agree more.
To address the 1st paragraph;
The reason we don't just go hunt down the Mahdi Army, is that we haven't had a free hand in Iraq since 1 June 2004. We returned sovereignty. Strategic error? Maybe. Maybe not--hard to judge what didn't happen because of the move.
Unless the Iraqi government endorses the move, it isn't going to happen.
One problem with the article's claim that the chiefs are worried a short-term surge will create an al Qaeda magnet and lead to more U.S. deaths. Stats indicate that troops surges have had the opposite effect, driving down casualty numbers.
What stats? Please give us just a little hint about your sources.
mcwyrm-there was a piece either in the Weekly Standard or some similar publication that correlated troop strength in theater and casualties (i.e. that when strength went up, casualties went down).
Some (much) of that is coincidental with when troop rotations occur, but I think there is something to it. "Marshall more force than you think is needed to defeat your enemies" is an axiom that Rumsfeld never seemed to grasp.
Not to nit-pick, Dr. S, but that's a bit underwhelming. You're telling me that you seem to recall reading something somewhere that sorta suggested something like what you're saying?
Not that I have counter evidence, mind you. Although I do seem to recall reading something about some kind of escalation in southeast Asia back in the '60s that didn't turn out so well ...
al Sadr agrees to join the political process...things get worse...so the guys who have screwed up Iraq finger him as the fall guy?
No wonder America doesn't have any friends left in the world.
Can you relly be said to have joined the political process if you're running your own private army?
Can you relly be said to have joined the political process if you're running your own private army?
Sure, in the same sense that a mob hit is death by "natural causes" for a mobster ;->
Post a Comment