We’re pulling out of Baghdad:
American commanders have ordered a sharp reduction in the presence of occupation troops in Baghdad, senior officers announced Sunday. The most visible role of policing the capital is being turned over to local forces while American troops pull back to a ring of bases at the edge of the city.
Well, Saddam’s been captured and the Ba’athist insurgency is, by most accounts, diminishing. So why not?
. . . . A senior military officer said about 8,000 Iraqi police officers now patrolled Baghdad, a city of about 5.5 million, although security analysts say the city needs 19,000. About 1,000 new policemen are being trained each month, the officer said.
Hmm, OK. So there’s no Iraqi security apparatus to fill our shoes. Anything else?
BAGHDAD, Iraq – There’s hardly a street without a mound of festering garbage or a puddle of sewage. Crime is rampant. Gray concrete blast barriers and coils of barbed wire are everywhere. Power cuts of up to 12 hours a day are routine. Fuel shortages are common.
But at least the Shia are behind us, Fox-Force-Five-style, right? Right?
It’s hard not to call this a retreat, girls and boys. (Repeat the mantra: more money, more troops, increased international involvement. Iraq is the battle we cannot lose — remember?)
Um, that first link is broken, von. Also, the second story gives a different picture as you get further into it, and away from the sensational first paragraph. The picture is a little varied at times, with quotes like
followed three paragraphs later by this bit:
We definitely need to stay the course, and also to be seen as staying the course, but we also need to be seen as turning things over to Iraqis as soon as they can handle it.
Um, that first link is broken, von.
Ooops. I’ve corrected it.
Also, the second story gives a different picture as you get further into it, and away from the sensational first paragraph. The picture is a little varied at times
I don’t think it’s shocking that the rest of the story adds nuance to the first paragraph. Nor is it contrary to my point that the article goes on to note (quite correctly, I think) that “[s]ome Baghdadis trace the city’s decline to long before the arrival of the Americans.” Iraq has been a corrupt and criminalized society for quite some time — after all, it was run by thugs and terrorists and criminals until very recently. But one of the reasons for invading was to transform Iraqi society. Leaving it worse off than we found it ain’t, I think, the transformation that we had in mind.
“Leaving it worse off than we found it ain’t, I think, the transformation that we had in mind.”
Exactly what type of transformation did this Administration have in mind? Don’t look at the rhetoric. Look at the pre- and post- war Iraq plans.
Bush wanted to spank Hussein’s ass and secure WMD. That’s what we planned for. That mission is accomplished, and it’s time for the Bush Admin to pack up our bags and get out of Baghdad. That was the plan. That was the desired transformation. This empty ‘humanitarian’ rhetoric is just window dressing.