Associated Press, Yahoo! News
In an attack that has been repeated too many times to count, a roadside bomb detonated on an Iraqi police convoy in Baghdad today, damaging two of the vehicles and killing two policemen. Five others were wounded in the process. Two other incidents -- a mortar landing on a house in central Baghdad and a grenade tossed into crowd at Baghdad's popular Shorja market -- killed two other civilians. Shorja is a central shopping district in Baghdad and was the same location of a massive truck bombing last month. Vehicles have been banned from the area since the new crackdown on Feb. 14. Insurgents also destroyed half of an abandoned hotel in an early morning bombing. You would definitely think that this type of attack would bring about international attention and disdain. However, when news reporters can essentially write their story everyday by simply filling in where the attack occured and how many died, there is an obvious problem. A problem that is not going to be fixed by US forces in Iraq because the fight has now turned into something much, much larger than removing a government from power. It's a clash of culture and civilization all in one.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Iraq Debate Will Test GOP Senator's Unity
By Dan Balz and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post
March 14, 2007
With a war in Iraq rapidly escalating with no end in sight and new problems with President Bush’s attorney general, Republicans both in Washington and hitting the campaign trail face a crucial political moment – to stick with the President and possibly lose voter support, or step away from the administration’s policies and lose party support. Today, the decision becomes of paramount as the Senate will begin debate today as to whether a deadline of March 31, 2008 is a viable date to remove troops from Iraq. According to a Republican former congressman, the right is having a tough time because they don’t feel that the policy is wrong while it is killing them politically. He did, however, acknowledge that a choice of Republican presidential nominee would be critical because that person could not be indifferent to the current mood of Americans. A situation like that could result in a nasty election for the Republicans in 2008. Some Republicans have grown tired of the battles in congress with Democrats because of the insistence to stick with Bush’s policy on Iraq, and not work for what the voters desire. This quagmire is definitely hurting the Republican party, however, its also a major issue for the democracy in America in general, as the elected officials are not necessarily working for their constituents, but rather for themselves.
March 14, 2007
With a war in Iraq rapidly escalating with no end in sight and new problems with President Bush’s attorney general, Republicans both in Washington and hitting the campaign trail face a crucial political moment – to stick with the President and possibly lose voter support, or step away from the administration’s policies and lose party support. Today, the decision becomes of paramount as the Senate will begin debate today as to whether a deadline of March 31, 2008 is a viable date to remove troops from Iraq. According to a Republican former congressman, the right is having a tough time because they don’t feel that the policy is wrong while it is killing them politically. He did, however, acknowledge that a choice of Republican presidential nominee would be critical because that person could not be indifferent to the current mood of Americans. A situation like that could result in a nasty election for the Republicans in 2008. Some Republicans have grown tired of the battles in congress with Democrats because of the insistence to stick with Bush’s policy on Iraq, and not work for what the voters desire. This quagmire is definitely hurting the Republican party, however, its also a major issue for the democracy in America in general, as the elected officials are not necessarily working for their constituents, but rather for themselves.
Iraq Intensifies Efforts to Expel Iranian Group
By Ernesto Londono and Saad al-Izzi, Washington Post Staff Writers
March 14, 2007
In yet another example of the US and Iraqi governments not playing nice, the Iraqis are looking to evict 3800 members of a group listed on the US list of terrorist groups that are now secured in Iraq under the authority of the US. Iraq says they have documents and witnesses that directly associate the group with Saddam’s regime and his push to crush Shiite and Kurdis opposition during the Persian Gulf War. However, the US has contended that this group, the MEK, has supplied very important information on the nuclear proliferation of Iran. The group has such knowledge because they have been attempting to overthrow the theocracy in Iran for years. The MEH claims that these new claims brought by the Iraqi government directly correlate with an infiltration by by Iranian intelligence into the highest forms of leadership in Iraq. They feel that the Iranian government is trying to prevent a US attack on Tehran by ruining any US hopes for a victory in Iraq. Essentially, two wars are now being fought in Iraq with the Iranians and the Iraqi insurgents battling the United States and coalition forces. Talk about a political predicament, the US is now at odds with the Iraqi government over a pretty key issue involving past human rights and future security. This will definitely be a tough line to walk because too much one way or the other will pose a tremendous problem in intelligence gathering or Iraqi trust.
March 14, 2007
In yet another example of the US and Iraqi governments not playing nice, the Iraqis are looking to evict 3800 members of a group listed on the US list of terrorist groups that are now secured in Iraq under the authority of the US. Iraq says they have documents and witnesses that directly associate the group with Saddam’s regime and his push to crush Shiite and Kurdis opposition during the Persian Gulf War. However, the US has contended that this group, the MEK, has supplied very important information on the nuclear proliferation of Iran. The group has such knowledge because they have been attempting to overthrow the theocracy in Iran for years. The MEH claims that these new claims brought by the Iraqi government directly correlate with an infiltration by by Iranian intelligence into the highest forms of leadership in Iraq. They feel that the Iranian government is trying to prevent a US attack on Tehran by ruining any US hopes for a victory in Iraq. Essentially, two wars are now being fought in Iraq with the Iranians and the Iraqi insurgents battling the United States and coalition forces. Talk about a political predicament, the US is now at odds with the Iraqi government over a pretty key issue involving past human rights and future security. This will definitely be a tough line to walk because too much one way or the other will pose a tremendous problem in intelligence gathering or Iraqi trust.
Maliki, Petraeus Visit Insurgent Hotbed in Iraq
By Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post Foreign Service
March 14, 2007
The Americans are now fighting insurgents in Iraq with loudspeakers as a weapon of choice in Ramadi, in an attempt to sway Iraqis who have been bombarded with Sunni propaganda. The speakers have been broadcasting speeches by the local mayor, playing the national anthem, and even putting on the latest European soccer scores. All of this comes in a new attempt at bringing Iraqis back to the side of the Americans. US Gen. David Petraeus calling is “good counterinsurgency stuff”. Pretraus hosted Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki in what was his first visit to the province of Anbar in nine months. The move was designed to show Iraqis that Maliki wasn’t just a leader in Baghdad, but also a leader across the country, across all of the sects. Ramadi has been a definite thorn in the US’s side, as the region has been out of control for years now, and nearly a third of the US servicemen killed have lost their lives in the province. While in Anbar, but secured tightly within the US military base, Maliki had meetings in one of Saddam’s former palaces and pledged to improve the infrastructure and compensate residents for damage done by insurgent attacks. Maliki’s visit was without a doubt a needed one, because, as Petraeus had said, he had visiting Iraq but not his own people. To me, this makes a lot of sense because it would be very difficult to have a leader that you didn’t really know, especially in a crucial situation in Iraq where winning over every Iraqi is key in the success of occupation.
March 14, 2007
The Americans are now fighting insurgents in Iraq with loudspeakers as a weapon of choice in Ramadi, in an attempt to sway Iraqis who have been bombarded with Sunni propaganda. The speakers have been broadcasting speeches by the local mayor, playing the national anthem, and even putting on the latest European soccer scores. All of this comes in a new attempt at bringing Iraqis back to the side of the Americans. US Gen. David Petraeus calling is “good counterinsurgency stuff”. Pretraus hosted Iraqi leader Nouri al-Maliki in what was his first visit to the province of Anbar in nine months. The move was designed to show Iraqis that Maliki wasn’t just a leader in Baghdad, but also a leader across the country, across all of the sects. Ramadi has been a definite thorn in the US’s side, as the region has been out of control for years now, and nearly a third of the US servicemen killed have lost their lives in the province. While in Anbar, but secured tightly within the US military base, Maliki had meetings in one of Saddam’s former palaces and pledged to improve the infrastructure and compensate residents for damage done by insurgent attacks. Maliki’s visit was without a doubt a needed one, because, as Petraeus had said, he had visiting Iraq but not his own people. To me, this makes a lot of sense because it would be very difficult to have a leader that you didn’t really know, especially in a crucial situation in Iraq where winning over every Iraqi is key in the success of occupation.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Shrine Bombing Debated as War's Turning Point
By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post
March 13, 2007
Calling it a “tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal”, President Bush and his administration still hold Feb. 22, 2006 to be the day that everything in Iraq changed for the worse. On that date over a year ago, a the golden dome at the Shrine in Samarra was attacked – reversing the course of the progress that had been made in national elections and the forming of the infant government. However, there are many who disagree with that notion. They contend that the attack did not signify a civil war, but rather simply brought the fact that one was prevalent to the naked eye. Even a former Pentagon policy maker called the bombing “gasoline on a fire that already was burning pretty well.” Amazingly enough, the bombing did not kill anyone, it just shattered the roof of the dome and hopes for a new Iraq to be on course for its success. The bombing has followed a steady pace of increasing violence in Iraq, which shows that the bombing might have not made any type of impact on where the situation is today. I think that this article clearly shows that the President and his administration should have known, or did know, that the situation was escalating quickly in the region, and that this attack is almost a scapegoat for the administration to change course and fully realize that atrocity happening within Iraq.
March 13, 2007
Calling it a “tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal”, President Bush and his administration still hold Feb. 22, 2006 to be the day that everything in Iraq changed for the worse. On that date over a year ago, a the golden dome at the Shrine in Samarra was attacked – reversing the course of the progress that had been made in national elections and the forming of the infant government. However, there are many who disagree with that notion. They contend that the attack did not signify a civil war, but rather simply brought the fact that one was prevalent to the naked eye. Even a former Pentagon policy maker called the bombing “gasoline on a fire that already was burning pretty well.” Amazingly enough, the bombing did not kill anyone, it just shattered the roof of the dome and hopes for a new Iraq to be on course for its success. The bombing has followed a steady pace of increasing violence in Iraq, which shows that the bombing might have not made any type of impact on where the situation is today. I think that this article clearly shows that the President and his administration should have known, or did know, that the situation was escalating quickly in the region, and that this attack is almost a scapegoat for the administration to change course and fully realize that atrocity happening within Iraq.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Insurgents Burn Homes in Shiite Area
By Ernesto Londono, Washington Post
March 12, 2007
The village of Diyala, a town northeast of Baghdad, was ravaged Sunday by insurgents who demanded the citizens join the “Islamic State of Iraq.” Afterwards, the gunmen poured gasoline and other accelerants and lit as many as 31 homes ablaze, causing Iraqis to flee to village. According to the US, Diyala is a particularly volatile area in Iraq. They suppose that a recent trend in higher violence could be a result of the new security measures that have tightened control of Baghdad – causing the combatants to make their way towards outlying places such as Diyala. General David Petraeus pledged to locate more US troops to the region that is heavily Sunni. The “Islamic State of Iraq” is a Sunni insurgent group, and they claimed to have murdered 20 suspected members of the Iraqi army. As noted by Petraeus, this new trend in violence on the outskirts of Baghdad are likely directly linked to the new measures currently being carried out within the capital. While this is definitely a good sign of the improvements in Iraq, the point that is explicitly clear is that the insurgents are regrouping and finding new ways to attack.
March 12, 2007
The village of Diyala, a town northeast of Baghdad, was ravaged Sunday by insurgents who demanded the citizens join the “Islamic State of Iraq.” Afterwards, the gunmen poured gasoline and other accelerants and lit as many as 31 homes ablaze, causing Iraqis to flee to village. According to the US, Diyala is a particularly volatile area in Iraq. They suppose that a recent trend in higher violence could be a result of the new security measures that have tightened control of Baghdad – causing the combatants to make their way towards outlying places such as Diyala. General David Petraeus pledged to locate more US troops to the region that is heavily Sunni. The “Islamic State of Iraq” is a Sunni insurgent group, and they claimed to have murdered 20 suspected members of the Iraqi army. As noted by Petraeus, this new trend in violence on the outskirts of Baghdad are likely directly linked to the new measures currently being carried out within the capital. While this is definitely a good sign of the improvements in Iraq, the point that is explicitly clear is that the insurgents are regrouping and finding new ways to attack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)