,,,In today’s Los Angeles Times, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo) was quoted, saying, “I don’t know what the military mission would be…Is there something to go after that we don’t know?"
At the risk of repeating myself, my guess is the Mr. Bush is after the cleric Sadr, and his huge militia. Radicalized by the US, I thought--rightly or wrongly--that Sadr tended to be liberal, and that in the early days of this obscene mess our Administration has made, he tried to be helpful keeping the lid on. And, oh yes, the man is beloved by his followers, who are many and, obviously, also Shiites.
Just think: if the so-called “surge” is actually an attempt to take down the popular Shiite cleric, how smart can this be? As Shiites, Sadr’s militia and followers are members of Iraqi’s democratically elected majority from the “blue finger” days of blessed memory.
Before it became too late (which it is now), perhaps we should have considered trying to fold Sadr into the Shiite government, along with his Shiite militia, which could have provided the nucleus of the trained Iraqi army we were in such a hurry to fire.
Now, not only are we taking sides in a Civil War-- something we swore never to do—there’s talk in Mr. Bush’s hallowed halls about adding more bodies to one side of the conflict, all the while claiming that we are coming in to “clean up Baghdad.”
We are not “part of the problem” We are the problem.
8:54:28 AM 
|
|
