Today in Iraq

Thanks for the update. As much as it pains me to admit this, you've become one of my go-to sources for info on Iraq. You've been very, very good on this for the past six months.

It's a good thing we're still there.

You know, to prevent civil war and everything.

This is going to cause no end of alienation (spelling).

If Maliki, in his US-imposed flash of brilliance, radicalizes the Shia beyond where they already are, we might wind up with a whole lot more grief than just the number 4,000.

I will echo TomT's sentiments on your on your expertise.

Also, on demogaguery: You've shown a willingness to be fair. That's a bit rare these rather nasty, hypocratical days in the world of politics, and I appreciate it.

I just re-read this piece.

It seems like you're saying that American troops shouldn't get involved in the upcoming Shi'ite carnage.

Then WTF ARE WE DOING THERE??????!!!!!!!

Can we PLEASE LEAVE NOW, JOE?

Do you enjoy having the blood of American soldiers on your hands?

Stay there and sit tight? That's your plan?

"Stupid, stupid, stupid," indeed.

Pro-American and Pro-Iranian? How does that work out? Are they just trying to play both sides against the middle?

Oh, and who else thinks that Maliki won't do a very good job here?

Can it be that the surge is not working? No! Chutzpah Joe rode in a helicopter with General Petraeus and personally admired his manliness and powerful intellect. Joe Klein's sources tell him, authoritatively, that they have no idea what the Hell is happening in Iraq. But that's OK, because Joe Klein will tell us, authoritatively, the next thing that comes into his dishonest head.

The main rule for Joe to follow is that ANYTHING that happens in Iraq is good news for America. Because we are the good guys, we are sure to come out on top. There will always be another reason to keep killing Iraqis, even if the surge doesn't work.

Can we, henceforth, take two simple if controversial facts into account when discussing Iraq:

1) The Surge did not work.

2) John McCain honestly and genuinely has no clue, not a ghost of a shadow of a hint of a clue, of what is actually going on in Iraq.

Which commenter was it that always said, "One thing's for sure. This is bad news for the Democrats," in response to Joe's posts?
I think we need that guy around now.

How can Maliki do a "good job". Are you suggesting that he should be able to pull solutions out of his arse?

The factions hate each other, and they all hate us. Maliki got to be where he is by dint of the fact that he's a Shia, and is willing to work with us.

That is NOT an easy horse to ride. As a matter of fact, it may be impossible to ride that horse.

Somebody let me know when we start "winning."

Cookie Puss:

Bush declared "victory" a couple days ago. Didn't you hear?

Should we just leave now, so the scud missles and suicide bombers get 25,000 dollars per hit again in Israel??

Ah, Rusty. You really are a moron.

One word answer for Rustydog:

Yes.

Rusty: how much we have to pay you to leave this blog?

Petraeus is between Iraq and a hard place. His only hope of preserving his surge "achievement" is to keep US casualties low. If Sadr stages an uprising, Petraeus has to decide whether to back down or get involved in street fighting with the Mahdi Army. Sometimes it's really hard to manage the numbers.

John McCain is about to experience the Iraqi civil war equivalent of his market stroll. He will be delivering speeches praising the decline in violence while people watch TV coverage of running gun battles in the streets of Basra and Sadr City. But most Americans will still believe McCain rather than their own eyes.

From the Times report:

In Baghdad, some areas were deserted as clashes broke out across the city. In downtown Baghdad, checkpoints blocked sparse traffic every 100 yards.

Saeed Ammar, a government employee, said that he was standing near policemen in the Hurrya neighborhood this morning when he was approached by Mahdi Army members. “They told me not to stand near checkpoints. They said, ‘We are waiting for the word from Moktada Sadr to attack the checkpoints—it may come at any moment.’”

kthx

>Should we just leave now, so the scud missles and suicide bombers get 25,000 dollars per hit again in Israel??

No, no, Rusty - you have mixed up your Iraq occupation justification index cards. The one on top of the stack now is "sparing the Iraqi people from the horrors of civil war." If it weren't for our troops, Iraqis might be shooting at each other in the streets today.

It is politically incorrect to link the Iraq occupation with Israel. This suggests that the foreign policy of the United States might be influenced by a small nuclear-armed Mideastern country with powerful lobbyists in America.

You mean 4000 plus trillions and our scotch tape/bribes approach to stabilization ain't working. Who'd athunkit.

Operation Chaos continues....

"How will the U.S. media portray this?"
Answer: McCain, a Maverick due to his opposition to Bush's handling of the invasion, stands to see his foreign policy credentials become more and more important as the situation in Iraq grows more dire and more and more Americans pay attention as the GE approaches. Oh, and they use McCain's poop for currency in Argentina.

"Should we just leave now, so the scud missles and suicide bombers get 25,000 dollars per hit again in Israel??"
Answer: Yes, unless you and your super duper patriots put down the Cheetos and Tivo this season of '24' so you can enlist and take part in our glorious victory.

And thank god our media isn't taking it easy on NEVER SURRENDER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER J-Mac.

Joe, call up Mike--he's got Mac's theme music in his ipod.

What America needs in a trying time like this is a hardened warrior who doesn't fuss over nuances and just kills everyone in his path. We can rely on John McCain to ignore anything he can't comprehend and unleash the military might of America (Praise Jesus!) against our enemies, or any brown people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

American conservatives believe that we have been too gentle in Iraq. If only we killed more Iraqis, VICTORY would be ours. Thus, they hope that McCain will bring the genocidal spirit of the Vietnam era's way of war to Iraq. This is McCain's biggest "national security" credential; the eager willingness to kill.

And now, the question: How will the U.S. media portray this

Hmmm. The last time I checked, you WERE the US media. Ok maybe a small subset, but you get the idea.

I'm actually grateful that you are addressing this but I nevertheless find the third person reference to "the media" a bit disconcerting.

unpopular position alert...
i want this war over asmuch as any person, i am an obama supporter, but...we made this mess. i think it is a moral imperative that we do our best to clean it up. unfotunately, i have no idea what the definition of "clean" is...anyone smarter than me no how we can get out and not have another 100k deaths on our hands?? the muslim worls will look at that as poorly as us being in their homeland, and rightly so...

..anyone smarter than me know how we can get out and not have another 100k deaths on our hands??

Short of a time machine, no. There is no solution. The bed, as Digby was saying five years ago, cannot be un[messed].

cbhenderson, it's not clear if that's humanly possible. It is clear that the Bush administration is incapable of achieving that goal.

Here's John McCain explaining that "the American people do not support goals of nationbuilding, peacekeeping, law and order" in a foreign occupation, and that the idea that we'd lose prestige by withdrawing, rather than by being bogged down, is ludicrous. Here he is in 2002, explaining that Somalia was a classic case of mission creep, so it was right to support withdrawal.

Those who do not learn from the past are usually Republicans.

McCain is a feckless, ill-informed dilettante.

Why do people talk of 'moral imperative'? They should be talking about whether the US military will have enough bodies to maintain levels necessary to un-sh!t the bed. We won't, short of a draft IMO. It's time to bottom line this endless conversation.

The best way to clean up this mess is to announce a withdrawal timetable AND a schedule for massive reparation payments to the people of Iraq. Money cannot replace their lost people, but it is the least we can do to pay for the horrible damage we have inflicted on their country.

War correspondent in his own mind Joe Klein looks for some good judgment to come from Gen. David "Stooge" Petraeus. Klein writes:

****************
Let's hope that General Petraeus makes the right decision, stays out of it in Basra and keeps a low U.S. profile in the Shi'ite neighborhoods--almost exclusively Sadr-controlled--in Baghdad.
*****************

Of course, Klein is still fighting the "last debacle." Things are about to move on to greater glory. *Chris Floyd* has never had his head patted and been encouraged to keep the home fires burning by Gen. Petraeus himself. Therefore Chris Floyd takes note of this recent *BBC online article:*

*******************
The most senior US general in Iraq has said he has evidence that Iran was behind Sunday's bombardment of Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.

Gen David Petraeus told the BBC he thought Tehran had trained, equipped and funded insurgents who fired the barrage of mortars and rockets.

He said Iran was adding what he described as "lethal accelerants" to a very combustible mix...

In an interview with BBC world affairs editor John Simpson, Gen Petraeus said violence in Iraq was being perpetuated by Iran's Quds Force, a branch of the Revolutionary Guards.

"The rockets that were launched at the Green Zone yesterday, for example... were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets," he said, adding that the groups that fired them were funded and trained by the Quds Force.

"All of this in complete violation of promises made by President Ahmadinejad and the other most senior Iranian leaders to their Iraqi counterparts."
*****************

Go ahead Joe Klein, explain how this claim could make a lick of sense. Who says the military has a hard time coming up with officers with the integrity of retirees like the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers?

Yessiree, that David Petraeus is not a political general. He says Iran is behind rocket attacks on the Shia government that received Ahmadinejad with a red carpet welcome. This makes about as much sense as saying that Iran supports Al Qaeda. But, of course, Bush and Cheney want to go to war with Iran, and the general is happy to oblige. He is just very helpful that way. This is the Petraeus whom Klein depicts as a man of spotless professional integrity. This is the man who is building a case for another disastrous war to pile on top of the Iraq fiasco. What superb military leadership!

How much of the surge "gains" rode on an arrangement where Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army played nice? I wonder if that lynch pin was pretty much the whole thing.

If so, looks like that spit and chewing gum solution has gone away. Tell us again why we're staying there babysitting a civil war? So the Kagans can make pretty speeches at AEI and we push the war off to the next president?

Joe, I know I yell at you from time to time, but I do appreciate your ongoing attempts to try and tell us what's really going on over there by looking beyond "the surge is working" mantra.

I'm watching the second part of Bush's War on PBS as I type this.

One word for this....this....this...utter.... stupidiy? Inanity? Idiocy? F**ktardness?

ARGH!

What in the name of God/Allah/whatever is he Iraqi "government" thinking?

Whoop. "*the Iraqi 'government'"

...stupidity*

Wow, my spelling sucks today.

Right, and what everyone else said about Joe's continually well-reported insight on what's going on in Iraq.

I sure hope this isn't as bad as it looks. It never seemed like paying off extremists was a long-term path to stability, much less democracy. I sure would love to be wrong about the surge, but I don't think it accomplished anything, strategically.

cincinatus...i say moral imperative because once we pull out all subsequent deaths that result from the civil war are our fault. we deposed the guy who kept those factions from killing each other. saddam may have been a brute, but his iron fist kept the freaks on the downlow

JJ and Elvis, yes, those are questions that the media rarely tackles. That's why I do have to give Joe some props because he's one of the few MSM types who regularly tries to remind us what the surge was supposed to be about.

The "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach to wars only works for so long and usually creates a whole new batch of problems in the long run.

once we pull out all subsequent deaths that result from the civil war are our fault.

Don't you think the Iraqi people should have a say in their own future? Numerous polls show that the majority of Iraqis want us out of their country. Who the Hell are we to insist on staying when they want us out?

The oil grabbers have circled their wagons around the last respectable lie for clinging to the occupation: we care deeply about the welfare Iraqi people. We cared so deeply that we backed Saddam for years.

The defenders of the occupation do not address the gross inconsistency of past US policy toward Iraq. For them, history does not exist, and only the glorious future of our new-found beneficence is relevant. Unfortunately, Geoge Bush and his fellow thugs have a history of dishonesty, and it is they who now claim to have the interests of the Iraqi people at heart.

"cincinatus...i say moral imperative because once we pull out all subsequent deaths that result from the civil war are our fault."

cbhenderson , that part was rhetorical. The part where I asked you if you supported a draft was not.

I say that we shouldn't give up until we send Rusty the War Dog to Iraq.

With Question Hillary already there and "keeping an eye" on Iraq's enemies, we can load Cheney and Bush up in the next ICBM out from Nebraska. That way, the last of the Neocons will be gone, and then we can get back to choosing the individual who is going to fix this messs up.

cbhenderson:

I don't think this is really a good enough reason, with all due respect. We are outsiders, and we can't prevent the factions from killing each other if they really want to.

I'm sure that, if the truth be told, the Administration wanted Maliki to take this action, because if the US tried it, all hell would break loose.

Instead, all hell will break loose anyway. Maliki's forces will be the target, then we will have to jump in and save his keester.

I think that the idea that "we" as a country made this mistake is a fallacy. "We" didn't have a choice. Hell, Cheney made it clear we don't have a choice in the Iraq war as long as him and Bush are around anyway, so why is it that "we" now have this moral obligation.

By that reasoning, we WILL be there for 100 years.

People just don't wanna hear the v-word these days, and it shows...

...except Question Hillary, who is still trying to track down the last of those who evaded serving in the late '60s and early '70s.

Personally, I'd support a draft only if women were drafted too(for many reasons, not the least of which has to do with the idea that everyone who is eligible to vote should be eligable for the draft. Period. If men have to do it, women should have to make the same sacrifice for their hard earned rights. And if they really need enough troops to require a draft, I don't see how they can get away without drafting women too.)

But. I don't want a draft, and the biggest mistake of the Iraq War (outside of the invasion itself) was the godawful idea that they somehow didn't need 200,000+ troops on the ground in the immediate aftermath. It always peeved me that they were that freaking short-sighted.

If there had been proper post-invasion rebuilding planning and the realization that a massive ground presence would be needed, the mess wouldn't be anywhere near as bad as it is now. The 'surge' didn't even bring troop levels up to the level that was probably really needed in the first place.

Fortunately in April I'll be officially too old to be drafted (and I've got heart problems that would prevent it anyway), though I've always said if it came to a draft I'd just sign up for the navy and be done with it.

And by support a draft I mean registration for a draft. I'd be against a draft in general. Just saying it shouldn't matter gender/race/gay/straight/purple or whatever. If you're an american citizen of the predetermined age, should have to register.

But wait, that would be fair, wouldn't it? We can't have that.

Don't worry about Iraq people. Once elected President CLinton will lead an army brigade through the streets of Baghdad and go door to door to route out all the terrorists. Then she will go undercover and kill and capture Bin Laden with her bare hands.

1) It is good that Joe is noting that US allies in Iraq are allied with the Iranian government, and come from the same subset of Shi-ites as the Aytollah Khomeni did. It would be nice, in the future to refer to Maliki's party not by acronym, but by its full name: Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. As HH points out, there's a reason that the president of Iran is greeted with flowers and candy by the Iraqi leadership installed by the US. And there's also a reason he doesn't arrive in the dead of night, unannounced.

2) In a talk I had with Ian Welsh, he mentioned that Americans exhibit three forms of insanity. It is absolutely insane to be talking about a draft. Drafts are for periods of time when your nation is threatened. Now it's true (WWI, Korea, Vietnam) that this principle is honored in its breach more than I'd like, but, people, look around you! There are no threats other than a small group of powerless, stateless loony people. They don't have any weapons; their one spectacular success involved no weapons at all. Their munitions of choice are bombs made of fertilizer.

3) One form of insanity is to repeat something that has failed repeatedly. No matter what cockamamie story you can create about the US mission in Iraq--no matter which of the index cards is on top at the moment, to steal a metaphor from HH--it has manifestly not been attained. And there has been no progress towards its attainment for the entire time the US has occupied Iraq. The current most prominent US accomplishment is the establishment of a government led by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose leadership only stays alive because it is bunkered in with the American presence in a huge fortress.

It really can't get much worse. The only way it could get worse is if the civil war gets worse. And the US presence has done nothing to make the underlying forces that drive the civil war any different. And the US presence has forced out the moderating influences in the society.

Joe's unwillingness to set a timetable, a date certain, establish a plan, anything other than a wistful hope that withdrawal could happen soon, is part of the problem. Nobody wants to face up to accepting this failure. Or, as atrios puts it in his usually brilliant succinct way, leaving is losing. As long as the US remains there, evil people, like John McCain can say insane things like "waving the white flag of surrender" and be taken Seriously.

Yes, of course, the way a withdrawal is managed matters. But if the US does not start the withdrawal, it will not happen.

Jayack - how do you see the impending escalation in Shiite fighting affecting the presidential race?

Bad for McCain.

This was inevitable, by the way. A cease-fire has in it the end of a cease-fire. While they've been successful at shifting around the index cards of "progress" and "success" up to now, there's no way to spin outright conflict between the al Sistani, Iraqi nationalist branch of the Iraqi shiites and the pro Iranian, pro revolution, islamist state people that we support in Iraq and detest in Iran.

Nobody is going to get the incoherence of this foreign policy, because it's hard enough for most people to keep the Sunni Shiite thing straight. (And nobody EVER seems to remember that that Kurds are largely Sunni.)

But that doesn't make it any less real. At this point, you have to assume that the government is pretty much desprised--exiles propped up by and supporting an American occupation--so things can only get worse.

None of this is good for McCain. I'm waiting for someone to figure out that his policy for Vietnam, just like his policy for Iraq, would have delayed Vietnam's entrance into the world economy for even longer. An armed occupation of indefinite length is a terrible thing to be running on. If US casualties start mounting, or the Green Zone comes under frequent attack, it can't help McCain.

Or Norm Coleman.

Because it's the senate that matters in this cycle. If you feel the need to give somebody money, give it to an out of the money democratic challenger like LoRocco in ID, or whoever emerges to challenge McConnell in KY.

An upsurge in Iraqi conflict increases the likelihood of a tsunami. (Yet another reason why Clinton should stop already.)

I had figured it couldn't help McCain, but I've seen an article in the last couple of days saying that increased casualties in Iraq would be bad for the "Democrats." (forgot where I saw it. sigh. Haven't gotten the hang of referencing something somewhere else)

Whoever this was must have been using the old playbook that national security concerns right before the election helps the Republicans - it worked for Bush after all. But McCain has been touting the "success of the surge" so relentlessly I can't see where he'll have an out or a plan once the cease-fire breaks.

Surprised that you think a Democrat has a chance against McConnell - I know they've been trending Democratic a little more, but mostly in response to incompetence and/or corruption from the Republicans.

And let's not forget that though the Kurds are Sunnis, they're not Arab, which adds another volatile feature to the mix.

Thanks Joe. Nice details.

Trying manfully not to be sarcastic, and failing:

Indeed, Southern Bell, they are not Arabs, but Kurds. My point is that, in their case, the emphasis is on their ethnic group, rather than their views on leadership within Islam.

And the Iranian Shi-ites are mostly Persian, while the Iraqi Shi-ites are mostly Arab.

Jay, I was actually being supportive of your post! I thought you did a great job of explaining how messy the situation is.

Maybe I shouldn't post until I've had my coffee.

Is it me, or has the fact that Mrs. Clinton lied about being caught in sniper fire been glossed over? This was obviously a huge lie and it seems that the news agencies have just let it slide while Obama still seems to be 'responsible' for his former pastor and McCain isn't responsible for anybody, no matter how he is connected to them.

I don't believe that Clinton 'misspoke' as she obviously couldn't say that she out and out lied to make her time at the White House seem more prestigeous. I don't think that she spent most of her time picking out new china patterns, but I don't appreciate the lying and the arrogannt way she expects us to buy her 'excuse' for lying.

Misspoke? Maybe she IS learning a few things from Bill after all.

I know, Southern Bell, that's why I was trying to soften the blow, but I couldn't resist.

This is further complicated because there are tribes and subtribes and clans within each of ethnic groups with loyalties intensifying as you work your way down the organizational hierarchy to the family group.

The great difficulty for the war backers is that events are plainly inconsistent with the cartoon explanations they have been showing the public for five years. We are now seeing two powerful Shia factions fight for control of Basra and its oil riches, with Al Qaeda nowhere in sight.

Bush and his designated incompetent successor, McCain, are still trying to explain this as a war against the EVIL ONES, when Al Qaeda is probably the weakest faction in Iraq. Sooner or later, even average American TV viewers are going to figure out that we have no coherent policy in Iraq other than staying forever to control the oil.

Born: This has actually gotten quite a bit of play on CNN and MSNBC, which is probably as much as we could hope for. Enough coverage, apparently, so HRC felt the need to take a Wright turn again.

It is worth noting, again, that Joe does have a pretty good grasp of these different interest groups, and writes about them reasonably clearly.

And if you need more, there's always Juan Cole.

53_2
we ceased to be outsiders when we invaded. these factions were all stable before we invaded. It is impossible to separate ourselves responsibly without having to deal with the repercussions of the melee that will ensue. obviously we should have never went in, but that shiop has sailed and it is time to deal with the reality of the situation. again, i want to be gone today, but i also do not want to create more of a problem than we already have. no they are not going to follow us home, but we will have alienated even more people that we need as allies against the real crazy mf's over there.

cincinnatus:
as to a draft, no i do not support one. Although, i think every mentally able american upon reaching 18 and/or graduating high school should have to do 2 years of national service. be it in the military or otherwise. this would go a long way to slowing the march to war in the future and we could do away with the horrible student loan system by offering a updated version of the gi bill. with a national service program we could alleviate many of govt's problems, namely lack of people to do the job. have you tried getting a business license from your state govt lately? i am in ohio and know firsthand what kind of wait that takes.

cbh--

Which allies in Iraq are you talking about? One of the base issues is that there is no faction in Iraq that would join in with the US--if only because of US support for Israel.

On national service/the draft, the volunteer army was put in place in part to prevent wars of choice like Vietnam. It was thought to be impossible to conduct an operation like Vietnam without a draft, because the manpower requirements would be too great. So the volunteer army was meant to be a firewall against neo-colonial overreach. While this thinking looks to be correct, nobody could have known that a president would come along who would conduct such an operation, even though the manpower requirements were too great for it too succeed.

And if you need more, there's always Juan Cole.

Here is the link to Professor Cole's site:

http://www.juancole.com/

This is the best available commentary on political events in the Mideast, because it is not corrupted by commercial propaganda. Professor Cole is an expert on the history of the Mideast and speaks Arabic and Farsi.

Joe Klein is a "stupid, stupid, stupid" dishonest buffoon, how knows little about the languages and cultures of the Mideast. That's why he writes for Time Magazine.

cbhenderson:

Uh, remember Vietnam?

I don't think I need to say more, except that there has as yet, never been an insurrection whose popularity is rooted in the indigenous population that was successfully put down by outsiders.

Never.

It's better for us to leave, let the country partition, and help from outside, with gentler persuasion and aid, to allow the chunks to evolve in a manner they choose.

We have NO chance of stopping either the insurgency OR any internicine of civil conflicts.

Thanks for the insight KathyR!

I'm living in London and it really seems to have been glossed over from this side of the pond. I only have access to (gulp) Fox News and CNN. Every time I turn these networks on, especially Fox, they are still going on about Wright.

I certainily hope that if I were to run for office someone wouldn't dig up my pastor, who baptized me and my entire family because he was involved in an adulturous homosexual sex scandal... and we forgave him.

Not to mention the Catholic Church, which engaged in an enterprise-wide, global attempt to cover up, while thus enabling, the activities of pedophile priests.

Spencer Ackerman has an update and some analysis.

Long story short, the US is pretty screwed. They have to follow Maliki's lead, since he's the "sovereign leader." Ackerman thinks he may be deposed, but that, of course, makes just who is running the country utterly clear.

Wow! The return of the Good Joe! Let's hope that Mr. Klein-Hoekstra is a thing of the past!

This is actually an informative article and its conclusion - that U.S. troops should not get involved in the ongoing conflict - is spot on.

(But, of course, the same author, wanted us to get in the conflict over 5 years ago, er, by launching a totally unprovoked invasion and occupation on the basis of baldfaced whoppers and ...now, a mere 10 Friedman units, 4000 U.S. troop deaths and over 30,000 casualties, together with millions of refugees, billions of wasted dollars, and thousands of innocent deaths later, still doesn't want to ramp down the war because any kind of withdrawal scenario is by definition "precipitous").

Everyone should go see Body of War, a new movie about the effect Mr. Klein's war has wreaked havoc on Tomas Young.

From swimming freestyle:

" After six months of a self imposed cease fire by the Mahdi Army, all hell is breaking loose in Baghdad and Basra as the Mahdi Army is battling U.S. and Iraqi Army forces and the relative stability brought about by the "surge" of U.S. forces is now threatened.

Today, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino delivered what may be the most stunning counter perspective in ages. This, in fact, may well rank in the Hall of Fame for counterintuitive logic. Ms. Perino asserts the new violence in Iraq is not a setback but, in fact, really a positive sign."
(http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com)

Another excellent post, Mr. Klein. What your piece makes clear is that, after five long years into this huge misadventure, and after a hundred thousand civilians have been killed, thirty thousand of our troops have been killed or maimed, and perhaps three trillion dollars of our money are likely to be utterly wasted, the notion that the US has any substantial impact on the course of current and future events in Iraq is as delusional as the idea that the US could shock and awe Iraqis to submit to our will.

I trust John McBush on this.

If our soldiers continue to die, we can't leave till things are stabilized.

As long as we aren't suffering casualties, we can stay for a hundred years.

Any questions?

"How will the U.S. media portray this?"

Well, what's Elliot Spitzer up to these days?

For a clue you can look to the attention given the resignation of Adm Fallon, the last opponent to an attack on Iran vs the Spitzer (gasp, a man paid for his own whore) sex scandal.

US Media = Deeply corrupt handmaiden to warmongers.