Short Critical Blog Summary

Section 1: Major Theme
Over the course of the past few months, there has been quite a few different happening within the borders of Iraq and on Capitol Hill in relation the United States' war in Iraq. However, one significant item seems to stand out the most after writing and analyzing all of the events that have recently happened. Essentially, the United States has gotten into a war that it cannot win. Over the course of the semester, one thing is for sure. The situation in Iraq hasn't improved. That conclusion can be derived off of several aspects of what has happened in and around Baghdad, including the continued bombings and how they are getting more complex, the inability for any progress to be made between the Sunni and Shia populations, and the sheer fact that the Bush administration is spinning the war in Iraq in almost a complete opposite direction than what is actually happening. Around 15 articles in the blog assignment have covered the ever-present bombings and attacks occuring, and around 10 have talked about the Bush White House's inability to get the facts right. In addition, a few posts detailed what the new Democratic congress has done in an attempt to bring the troops home soon. But most importantly, each of the posts done in the past few months have explained one thing -- even if the message was never even written in text. Simply, the War in Iraq is not improving and the United States really has no idea on how to win it. They went in with a plan to strike out the first batter but forgot that there were still 8 and 2/3 innings to play in this baseball game. Instead, the United States has become just another target for the negative emotions directed in the culture war between sects in Iraq. Without a doubt, this theme will continue to develop, even if in the shadows, because the progress in Iraq on a social level is not going anywhere to stop the violence on a physical level.

Section 2: Prediction
Oddly enough, the theme and prediction in this summary seem to run into each other very, very well. It's very easy to fall into the trap of what the Bush administration is saying about progress by giving whimsical numbers and questioning the loyalty of the folks who think we should leave Iraq. Propaganda aside, the fact is that Iraq is not a war that can be won, and within a year the US will have a plan to leave Iraq -- if they aren't already pulling out. It's pretty interesting to know that this war has now gone on longer than the US's involvement in WW2, and even more alarming to realize that this is turning into this generation's Vietnam. We have grossly underestimated many parts of the war -- except the drive to Baghdad -- and forgotten that the insurgents in Iraq will consider a victory by simply stalemating US forces. I think all of this is easily backed up by the fact that insurgent attacks continue to happen with a regularity that causes the American population to be very casual about what is happening and that the Democratic congress is not going to be standing behind Bush on every word that comes from his mouth.

Section 3: Commenting Process
I'd have to say that this project overall was a tremendous idea. Instead of saying "read the newspaper everyday", it forces students to interact with the media especially and also be able to analyze what is going to happen. This was especially important to me because it seems so easy to get lost in what is happening in Iraq, but now I was able to keep track. However, I felt that the commenting process was indeed flawed. Sometimes, people would not write nearly enough in their summaries to even follow what they were saying, and other times there just would not be much to comment about. People can't make outlandish or large statements about everything everyday to get the commenting going, and its tough to track who had new articles up and who was commenting. A more central system would be nice that alerted people in the whole class what was going on other blogs. But that is obviously very complex and probably not suitable for this type of class.

Accounts Differ on Raid in Baghdad

by Karin Brulliad, Washington Post Staff Writer

The U.S. military has said that Iraqi troops entered a mosque in Hurriyah Monday and detained around 50 people who were later released. Following that operation, a separate group of 20 armed men attacked US and Iraqi soliders with grenades and guns -- resulting in the deaths of 3 insurgents upon return fire. Iraq's interior ministry said instead that six civilians were killed and more injured in an US helicopter attack. Witnesses apparently saw indiscriminate shooting but no fire from a helicopter.

So who's to believe? Its tough to bet against witnesses on the ground and the US's recent ability to not divulge the whole truth about everything, but I'd imagine there is a figment of truth in each situation. Regardless, the point of this incident is much larger. It's very likely that the US soldiers did not actually start the firefight, but who knows at this point, because the real travesty is that America's young men and women are still stuck in a battle they can't win. They are, in essence, trying to fix something that is centuries old in a country they really know nothing about.

Iraq's War Statistics Prove Fleeting

by Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writer

In this analysis, a total misrepresentation of the numbers provided by the US government concerning Iraq is debated. In what DeYoung calls a "fog of modern counterinsurgency warfare", she tells that instead of physical work on the ground, success is now being in Iraq by statistics. She even talks about how the Bush White House can't even seem to agree on each other, citing references that Bush and Rumsfeld made, with Rumsfeld discrediting Bush's steady stream of stats by calling them misleading. In what could one of the most recent ploys, President Bush told the nation in January that 21,500 troops would be heading to Iraq in a surge, but the number -- in less than two months -- has risen to 28,700. Rumsfeld was quoted nine months into the war as saying "We don't do body counts on other people," with the legitimacy of the that in complete quagmire because there are constantly updates on how many insurgents and terrorists were killed in action that day. Needless to say, there are plenty of arguments to back up this argument, and it makes you wonder how the United States can be so quick in throwing out numbers to back its work in Iraq. At what point are numbers that mean anything to Americans -- such as the troops will be coming home in 2 weeks -- be thrown at the American public? We can't wait long enough.

Chlorine Bombs Kill 10, Injure at Least 350 in Iraq

by Karen Brulliard, Washington Post Staff Writer
March 17, 2007

In yet another example of how the situation in Iraq is continuing to spiral out of the United States' hands, more bombs laced with chlorine gas exploded in Anbar yesterday. In one of the most extensive attacks in recent memory, the truck bombs caused over 350 injuries while killing at least 10. 2 of the slain included two Iraqi police officers and 7 U.S. Army members were injured. Three bombs in total exploded, releasing the gas that was often used in World War 1 from 200-gallon tanks. Previous chlorine attacks in Iraq have already occured, and last month, US forces raided a factory that was supposedly building these weapons. Obviously, this is an indicator of how the insurgents haven't really felt the affect of the so-called security crackdown in and around Baghdad, because their attacks are taking a new, more violent turn. This fifth incident with chlorine can only be a negative sign for progress in Iraq because of the insurgents new ability to detonate chemical bombs.

Violence in Baghdad leaves 4 dead

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.

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.

U.S. military deaths in Iraq at 3,154

Summarized article by the Associated Press

I just felt that this statistic was quite an alarming idea as to what kind of toll America has now suffered through during the Occupation in Iraq. 3,154 members of the US military have died in the invasion and continued occupation in March of 2003. Over 2,500 of that number has been a direct result of hostile action. By comparison, Britain has lost 132 soldiers. Obviously, "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq has not happened and the situation seems to be spiraling lower and lower, with the window of opportunity for victory and peace in the country growing smaller by the day. Democrats in the Senate have even started discussion about setting a limit on the time America can stick around in the country.

Obama ridicules Cheney's Iraq comments

Summarized article by Kelley Shannon, Associated Press Writer

Vice President Dick Cheney's comments earlier this week that Britain's troop pull-out was all a part of the plan and that it's a sign that the situation in Iraq is improving came under direct ridicule today from Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama in Bush's home state of Texas.
"Now if Tony Blair can understand that, then why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" said Obama. He was reasoning that Tony Blair's removal of troops came as a recognition that Iraq's problems can't be solved militarily.
"Now, keep in mind, this is the same guy that said we'd be greeted as liberators, the same guy that said that we're in the last throes. I'm sure he forecast sun today," said Obama of Cheney's ever-present positive spin on the Iraq war. He continued, "When Dick Cheney says its a good thing, you know that you've probably got some big problems."
Obamas comments come on the heels of movements in the senate to set a timetable for troop pullout despite President Bush's insistence and addition of over 20,000 new troops.
According to Cheney's comments, Britain and the US must be watching two different wars if Britain is removing 1,600 troops but the US feels upwards of 20,000 are needed to complete the mission. It's pretty obvious at this point that the US was caught offguard of the troop pullout and that Cheney is trying to save face for the administration.

Iraq chlorine attacks raise new concerns

Summarized Article by By Katarina Kratovac, Associated Press Writer

Iraqi insurgents are now resorting to attacks that bring thoughts of the battlefield in Belgium during World War 1, not the cities of Baghdad. US Soldiers found a plant Thursday where three car bombs were being assembled -- but this time utilizing chroline gas as added element of destruction. The tactic has already been used three times by bombers in an element that surely brings a new fear to US leaders overseeing the situation in Iraq. Chlorine, while only lethal in large quantities, can cause signifigant injury by attacking the eyes and lungs in low doses. However, those lethal large doses lead to a person ultimately drowning due to a fluid build up in the lungs. This type of attack has led US leaders to fear that the insurgents are becoming better at adapting to new types of attacks while the security crackdown in Baghdad in the country enters its second week. Experts in America have long thought that the terrorists could easily access products such as chlorine, bleaches, and disinfectants to cause more harm.

Maliki Hails Lull in Violence

summarized article by Ernesto Londoro, Washington Post Staff Writer

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki talked to President Bush today concerning the new security plan that has been established in Baghdad and around Iraq to help quell the rash of recent sectarian violence "has achieved fabulous success." The three-day old measure involves a coalition of Iraqi and U.S. that have been sweeping through the city to root out the insurgents and bring back a sense of order. Little resistance has been offered to this point in those missions, and other aspects of the mission include more enforcement of civilians possessing weapons and making the borders more strict between Iran and Syria. U.S. Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., the commander of the 1st Cavalry Division in Baghdad, was much more cautious in his approach towards the new plan, saying that the enemy could be taken a break from militant action in an effort to size up where the new gaps are in the security of Iraq. From what it sounds like, Maliki is trying to save face here and be very upbeat about the situation to bring more positive sway to his side of the Iraq fight. The move is very smart because it starts to instill confidence in the civilians on the ground, but you have to really hope that his claims are legitimate. The U.S. General sounds much more realistic about the situation, but that could just be a result of his fear at what could happen next.

Leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq Injured in Clash, Official Says

By Ernesto Londono, Washington Post Staff Writer

According to the Iraqi Interior Ministry, the current leader of al-qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was injured and one his aides was killed in an incident yesterday. Masri took over for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi after he was killed in 2006 by a U.S. airstrike. The aide was considered a "personal escort" to Masri, but questions were raised concering whether the Iraqis had identified the right person as Masri was rumored not be even in the region. From this incident, it looks like the US/coalition forces are still focusing on eradicating al-Qaeda from Iraq despite the rapid rise of violence not associated to the terrorist group led by Osama Bin Laden. The conflicting reports about Masri's whereabouts in this case also create a question within me. Is this story being embellished or fabricated? Is this just a ploy to intill confidence? It'd be nice to have some real solid evidence in this case.

Iranian's Aid Militants, Bush Alleges

summarized article by Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer

President George W. Bush announced yesterday that according to intelligence within Iraq, Iran is aiding the militants who are behind many of the attacks oon both civilians and US military interests. Bush was quick, however, to indicate that this statement was not an indication that the US was planning to go to war with Iran. He also stated that he has no direct evidence that the government in Tehran is providing the orders. Bush also touched on the Iraq situation in the press conference asking for Congress not to cut funding or set timetables for pulling out the troops due to new progress he felt has occured within Baghdad. Speaking on condition of anonymity, higher-ups in the US administration in Iraq claimed that this involvement from Iran comes from "high levels" of the Tehran government. Without a doubt, Bush needs to tread cautiously here as his credibility is already very very skewed due to the inaccurate intelligence he offered in the run up to the Iraq war. I would hope, with American lives on the line, that Bush is actually going to be intelligent about this situation and look for diplomacy, not violence.

Armed Iraqis Way of Security Plan

summarized article by Ernesto Londoño and Joshua Partlow
Washington Post Staff Writers

Iraqis, used to carrying pistols and other weaponry on the streets of Baghdad since the invasion, will now face strict policies forbidding them in public places. The new rule comes as a result of a new security plan that is slowly being implemented as part of a massive effort to curtail raging violence in the country. Many Iraqi's, including the shop owner featured in this article, feel that carrying a pistol is neccesity for protection in everyday life inside the limits of Baghdad. "We don't like guns, but we have to have them. I think every house should have a gun," said one civilian. The new plan is expected to be bolstered by the 21,500 troops arriving from the US from now until May. Efforts are currently underway for this movement, nicknamed "Operation Law & Order", to increase checkpoints in Baghdad and solidfy the Iraqi border. A major US general was quoted as saying that this entire process of getting the Iraqi army to an efficient state will likely take more than 2 years. I can definitely see both sides to this story, because personal security in Baghdad and Iraq is at a very low point and the desire to protect yourself would be overwhelming. The right to possess weapons is a natural right in America, but there are obvious regulations as to how you can carry a gun in public. If this move proves to be successful and limits violence, then yes take the guns away, but if personal attacks and bombings keep increasing then personal security will not only be granted but will be taken into the hands of civilians. Hindsight is 20/20, however.

Bombs Kill 70 in Iraqi Capital

Summarized article by Joshua Partlow, Washington Post Foreign Service

Yet another suicide attack in the capital city of Baghadad today serves as a chilling reminder -- one that happens on at least a weekly basis right now -- of how the Iraq situation is progressing. Shortly after noon, a series of explosions rocked a market with nearby mosques and churches killing at least 70 civilians. The toll included mostly Shiites and engulfed a warehouse leaving a black cloud of smoke over the city. The explosions occurred as thousands of Shitte Muslim citizens rallied for peace in Baghdad. There is little direct explanation for the attacks, although 3 people were arrested in connection -- including one Iraqi. The Shiites have habitually been striking back with masked gunmen attacks, however, there have been none lately after an apparent order from Shiite militia head Moqtada al-Sadr to work for reconciliation.
--
It was interesting in yet another report about the common suicide attacks in Iraq to come across names that had been mentioned in our textbook, The Prince of the Marshes. Moqtada al-Sadr's name was dropped in connection with appears to be a positive step in the situation, as he has called off retaliation attempts by his militia over the bombings of his fellow Shiites. Sadr even had a member of his army quoted as saying that they have direct "orders not to intervene" although they were very upset by the attacks. In addition, the member continued in saying that they are "focusing on national reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites." This could definitely be a postitive step from within Iraq because of the apparent power that Sadr has in Iraq following the demise of the Baathist party once led by Saddam.

Pelosi Offers Glum War Assesment Following Iraq Trip

Summarized Article by Bill Brubaker, Washington Post

"It's been nearly four years since we went to war in Iraq, and four years later there is still no end in sight," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Wednesday.
Pelosi has just returned from a mid-east jaunt covering Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. She said she feels "discouraged" about the process there and that there was "no evidence of any political or diplomatic initiatives worthy of the sacrifice [of American lives]". She said that she feels that within a "matter of months" the U.S. must start changing deployments and developing a new mission, in addition to saying that pulling troops out of Iraq will best bring the country to a more stable point. Naturally, that will put the Democrat at heavy contrast to the plans of the Bush administration to send more troops.
Pelosi also met with Pakistani leader Pervez Musharraf and Afghan leader Harmid Karzai to talk about the status of those countries. Pelosi called Afghanistan the "forgotten war" and pleaded with NATO to provide their fair share of troops for that country.

--

Pelosi's comments following her trip seem to run parallels with what has been said in the media all along -- a lot is left to be done. It's hard to disagree with someone that has now visited all of the U.S.'s current war theaters. It feels very discouraging to know that people without an overriding interest (i.e. the Bush Adminstration) can now go into Iraq and not see much progress. Maybe there is something to her idea of redeploying troops or bringing them home. Regardless, someone needs to step up to the plate and fully grasp this situation and find the easiest way out. We never be able to clean up the terrorist heaven that now lies in these borders.

Admiral Calls for 'New' Approach in Iraq

Summarized article by Christine Hauser, Washington Post

Navy Admiral William J. Fallon, Jr. went before a Senate Confirmation Hearing today in Washington en route to becoming the new head of United States Central Command -- the region containing both the Iraq and Afghanistan war theaters. Fallon currently serves at the top of the US forces in the Pacific.
"I am under no illusions regarding the magnitude of the tasks and challenges in this region of the world," said Fallon to begin his meeting with representatives of Congress.
Fallon is the second active-duty officer to go through the confirmation process in the last month concering the Iraq situation, and feels a sense of urgency in the region.
"I believe the situation in Iraq can be turned around, but time is short," said Fallon.
He has extensive relationships and experience working with Asian countries on diplomacy, and feels that a key to Iraq success if identifying key leaders and units that can be especially helpful in calming the situation.

--

Fallon sure is saying all the right things, but will he able to figure out how to translate that to action? I question whether he has appropriate experience for the escalating situation in Iraq. He also said that he hasn't had much time to come up with a direct strategy -- because of his work in the Pacific. Will that be a problem? Will he be able to apply his diplomatic relationships and style of leadership to this situation? It appears that Adm. Fallon is one of our more qualified individuals for this job, but America still lacks a great grasp on how to handle this type of warfare. Hopefully, Fallon can keep an independent voice and let Congress and America really know what needs to happen.

Senate Panel Rejects Bush's Plan for Iraq

Summarized Article by Jeff Zelany, The New York Times

President Bush begged and pleaded last night, and today, he still got coal in his stocking. Last night, Bush asked during the State of the Union that Congress give his new Iraq strategy of sending 21,500 troops Baghdad's way a chance to work out. But the Senate was unfazed and today approved a resolution that denounces Bush's plan. A nonbinding resolution is now in the works by the full Senate to show a sign of disapproval for Bush's plan.
Also unfazed, Vice President Dick Cheney told CNN that the Senate's move "won't stop us."
The move passed the Foreign Relations Committee 12-9 with one Republican siding with the Democrats. Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, a Republican, voted against the resolution, but felt that a troop surge is not the right way to go and that a new direction for Iraq was needed.

--

Dick Cheney symbolized again the entire problem with the Republican party as a majority during his CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer. Simply put, they don't compromise, and can't even agree to disagree. And obviously, Mr. Cheney has no tact. Moving forward, this resolution has no direct impact on what Bush can actually do at this point, however it does set up a showdown between the Capitol and the White House, as Congress tries to determine at what level they can control the troop surge. It's apparent that Bush is trying to solve the problem, but when your fellow Republicans are questioning your strategy, it seems obvious to at least listen to their opinions -- much less that of the Democratic majority. Look for this issue to heat up in the coming weeks as Congress and the President go at an all-out politcal, white-haired, expense-trip cage match.

Bush enters final two years with subdued tone

Summarized Article by Steve Holland, Washington Post [Reuters]

Last night, President Bush gave his annual State of the Union in a much different tone. There was no "Axis of Evil", no enriched Uranium in Africa, and no more "addicted to oil" lines. Instead, Bush seemingly played it safe. The low-key address featured the usual -- foreign policy, healthcare, education, and economics. He started off by trying the bridge the gap between the aisles, and later informed the nation that a plan was in the works to dilvuge the nation's debt without raising taxes. Holland [the writer] commented on the fact that Bush, now 60, is showing the wear and tear of the role with graying hair and more wrinkles on his face. Bush praised his No Child Left Behind program -- despite some states now banning it -- and, as a few lawmakers said, left the door open for a good start to negotiations on domestic issues.

--

It's funny what a Democratic Congress, slumping popularity numbers, and a crisis in Iraq can do to one while standing in front of the nation. Bush left out any points that would cause a stir and especially avoided making bold statements. [See: uranium being enriched for Iraqi use in Africa -- a complete falsehood] He led a low-key speech that will be forgotten by this time next week because it essentially did nothing. It stated everything that Congress already knew, and praised a couple of measures that have passed under his watch. You can't fault Bush for this because after all, he does have 2 years left and needs to salvage his numbers somehow, in addition to working the Iraq issue. He needs to make friends -- or at least people who will listen -- on the other side of the aisle in Congress. But come on George, where are these hydrogen cars you talked about a few years back?

New General in charge of Bush's plan is confident; calls Iraq situation "dire"

Linked article By Ann Scott Tyson and Daniela Deane, Washington Post

In a meeting with Senate Armed Services committee today, the new leader picked by President Bush to head up the new surge of 21,500 troops into Iraq referred to this step as the "last chance" for Iraq, despite being cautiously optimistic for democracy to take hold in the war-torn country. Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, likely to be approved later this week by Congress, called the situation in Iraq "dire", but anticipated seeing positive reaction to the increased number of troops by late summer. The last of the five brigades are scheduled to arrive on the ground in late May. Before this most recent build-up, over 132,000 American troops are currently serving the country in an attempt to quell sectarian violence and promote democracy.
Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) -- a proponent of Bush's strategy -- asked Petraeus how long the troop increase could be sustained.
"I am keenly aware of the strain," said Petraeus, only mentioning how he felt the military is currently at a state where it could not equally respond to another situation immediately. He also welcomed Bush's idea to increase the size of U.S. forces over the next five years.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-New York, who announced her intention to run for Presidency last weekend, also questioned Petraeus. The two had a somewhat tense exchange when Petraeus said he felt that the disagreement between American's over the troop surge could be hurting the situation in Iraq. Clinton responded by saying she felt that the idea is to put more pressure on the Iraqi government.

--

While it was rare for an active-duty officer to speak out against current Congressional matters, Petraeus certainly did so when questioned by Clinton. But who is right, are the Iraqi's feeling pressure or are they laughing at the controversey in the U.S.? Petraeus also commented about how this is the "last chance" for America to succeed in Iraq -- a phrase that if taken literally could furrow Bush's brows. In fact, time is running out for this campaign, despite the limited successes we've seen in the ravaged country. An interesting note from today's news was the fact that top generals don't feel they could successfully enter into another operation as forces are currently spread too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, which shows that any possibility of dealing with Iran or North Korea, as has been subtlely hinted at, isn't very realistic. Personally, I find that news as a relief because instead of spreading democracy, we have plenty of international relations to mend. In the mean time, it apparently is now or never for the Iraq situation, and it makes you wonder what is going to happen after late summer or if more weekends like this past one will instigate a resolve in the American people to bring the troops back on a much quicker pace.

Side note: It is funny what headlines can do to you, as the Washington Post reads "Petraeus Confident in New Iraq Strategy" and Yahoo! News reads "U.S. General Calls Iraq Situation Dire" . The same article, ultimately, but just skimming the headlines can fool you. Never judge a book by its cover.

State of the Union is tonight ... plenty on that tomorrow.

Republican Opposition to Iraq Plan Grows

Article by David Espo, Associated Press

Continuing the trend of pulling away from their same-party President, Republicans in the US Congress today spoke out against President Bush's new plan to increase the troop level in Iraq by 21,500 troops. Doubt is continuing to mount for this President as he prepares to deliver his 7th State of the Union Address Tuesday night from Washington. The U.S. has lost 3,000 troops in Iraq since 2003, despite overthrowing the Hussein regime early in the campaign. Last weekend was particulary bloody in and around Baghdad, as 27 troops were killed in a two-day period. Sen. Susan Collins said, "We've had four other surges since we first went to Iraq. None of the them produced a long-lasting change in the situation on the ground." The Republicans, while still indicating faith in Bush, have suggested the Administration create "strategic benchmarks" for the sputtering Iraqi government in the fight against sectarian violence in the middle-eastern country.

This news rings very similar to what the Democrats had to say after the election, when they won back both the House and the Senate. However, I don't this effort by Republicans is going to make a direct impact on Bush's plans for Iraq, as none of the Republicans listed have a great impact on Congress. Sure, Bush is starting to feel the heat, but this "Mission Accomplished" Iraq situation is getting worse day by day. I feel that more troops could be helpful, but only for a short period, and only used in effective hot spots in the country. Otherwise, we need to work much harder with the Iraqi government to start building itself and letting go of it's American crutch, because this situation has reached a dire state on whether democracy in the Middle East can actually survive.