CNN Reporting that American and Iraqi Forces in Najaf

[andino]

On TV right now that the US and Iraqi army started the fight for Najaf.

It is on the BREAKING NEWS...

[slinkerwink]

1. oh fuck. it's going to be a powder keg over there

[bpilgrim]

3. they said the same thing about fallujah

or are they gonna level this city?

:'(

peace

[BrotherBuzz]

5. It's already powder keg!

and we just lit the fuse.

[0007]

22. This stupidity is beyond belief

[David Dunham]

2. The situation in Iraq will now get worse and worse.

[Bush was AWOL]

4. I figured Bush would save the serious

fighting till after the election.

[David Dunham]

9. This fighting is the beginning of the serious fighting.

[Bush was AWOL]

13. You're probably right

but I thought he was purposely avoiding this until after the election or handing off the problem to Kerry. Surely they want to avoid high casualties this close to the election.

[progressivebydesign]

6. I, honest to God, have NO idea why we are there still fighting..

.. My Mom called me today, and said the same thing to me.. what I had been thinking. WHAT are we fighting for/against there right now??? Are we only fighting to stop the insurgents who are attacking us because we are there attacking the insurgents who are attacking us because we are there... (you get the idea).

Why are we there? Why are our soldiers still dying? Why are so many people pulled out of their normal life to fight in the Middle East for years? Why? We are fighting because they don't want us there. We are not really trying to secure anything, because if we weren't there, they would not be attacking us, or being called "insurgents". If we had "installed" a competent government, then we wouldn't have to be there. Are we bombing and killing people by the thousands to make them want us there??? Are we trying to kill every last possible critic in Iraq? Are we simply there to spend all the money that is promised to Halliburton? Or are we "securing" the country so that the contractors, like Halliburton, can make their money????

Please someone explain to me why were are there.

[JohnyCanuck]

11. I'll spell it out for you O....I....L

Dick Cheney addressing the London Petroleum Institute in 1999:

For the world as a whole, oil companies are expected to keep finding and developing enough oil to offset our seventy one million plus barrel a day of oil depletion, but also to meet new demand. By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer greet oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow. (emphasis mine /jc)

www.peakoil.net//Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

With a world oil production peak possibly closer than many realize and with the neo cons in the Bush administration planning to force a US hegemony over the rest of the world as laid out by the PNAC and other neo con think tanks (see PNAC 101)control of oil and petroleum resources would become a vital strategic goal. Energy investment banker Matthew Simmons was a member of Dick Cheney's 2001 Energy Task Force. See what Mr. Simmons was probably telling the Big Dick(head) by reading my sig line below.

In a way it really doesn't matter whether the Peak Oilers are being unduly pessimistic or alarmist about a rapidly aproaching oil production peak. If Cheney and the rest of the oil soaked gang of robber barons he consorts with believe that Peak Oil is likely to be shortly upon us (ie within 5 to 10 years) it would go a long way in explaining just why the mad rush to get into Iraq and to stay there no matter what the costs.

[kiahzero]

17. We need to give the government of Iraq time to stabilize

If, once it's stable and has significant control over its territory, the attacks continue, I'm all for pulling out. However, if we pull out before the Iraqi government can stabilize itself, then we pretty much guarantee that things will only get worse in the Middle East; a failed state is generally a drag on regional stability.

[Arroyo]

19. I can't agree with you.

The same thing was said of Vietnam. If the U.S. pulled out, all hell would break loose. It turns out, we were all hell, and things got back to normal after we left. Don't take us so seriously. We're not the saviors in this picture.

[kiahzero]

20. There was/is an important difference

There was still a government in Vietnam. There was no risk of Vietnam turning into a failed state. That is not the case in Iraq. Once we toppled the government, that was the point of no return. There's no simple undo for that - we're stuck with the decision Bush made, and we have to make the best of it.

[democracyindanger]

7. And you know what occupies the prime spot on cnn.com?

Amber Frey.

[JohnyCanuck]

8. Gambling in Najaf

Just got the latest Tom Engelhardt newsletter and it deals with what's going on in Najaf. If you haven't yet signed up for Tom's free email newsletter, I highly recommend it. Just go to www.tomdispatch.com . Here is a snip from the article Gambling in Najaf by Michael Schwartz which was included with today's newsletter.


Our presidential election could be decided by this battle. President Bush's approval ratings dropped 10% during the April and May battles, creating the opening for a Kerry victory. Since then they have neither recovered, nor deteriorated further. If the battle for Najaf dominates the headlines for as long as a week, it will likely be the next big event in the Presidential campaign. A resounding victory for American forces could be exactly what Karl Rove has been dreaming of -- proof that the tide has turned in Iraq. At the very least, it might remove the subject from the front pages of American papers and drop it down the nightly network prime-time news for a suitable period of time. But a defeat as ignominious as Falluja -- or even a bloody and destructive victory bought at the expense of worldwide outrage -- would almost certainly drive away many remaining swing voters (and might weaken the resolve of small numbers of Republican voters as well). This would leave Bush where his father was going into the electoral stretch drive --in too deep a deficit for any campaign rhetoric to overcome.

One has to wonder why the Bush Administration has selected such a risky strategy, fraught with possibly disastrous consequences. The only explanation that makes sense is that they are desperate. In Iraq, their control is slipping away one city at a time, a process that actually accelerated after the "transfer of sovereignty." A dramatic military offensive may be the only way they can imagine -- especially since their thinking is so militarily oriented -- to reverse this decline.

In the United States, their electoral position is not promising: their hope for a dramatic economic turnaround has been dashed; a post-sovereignty month of quiescence in our media about Iraq did not reduce opposition to the war; and recently there has been a further erosion of confidence in Bush's anti-terrorist policies. No incumbent president (the Truman miracle of 1948 excepted) has won re-election with a less-than-50% positive job rating. (The President's now stands somewhere around 47%.) A dramatic military victory, embellished with all sorts of positive spin, might reverse what has begun to look like irretrievable erosion in his re-election chances. The Bush administration appears to have decided that it must take a huge risk to generate a military victory that can turn the tide in both Iraq and in the United States.

The agony of the current American offensive begins with the death and destruction it is wreaking on an ancient and holy city. Beyond that, the primary damage, may lie in the less visible horror that animates this new military strategy. The U.S. is no longer capable either of winning the "battle for the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis or governing most of the country. But by crushing the city of Najaf, the Marines might be able quiet the rebellion for long enough to spin the November election back to Bush.

www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=1677

[David Dunham]

10. Even a "victory" in Najaf will only spark uprisings elsewhere in Iraq.

[Sparkly]

15. Right. There's no "victory" here.

This is more and more like Vietnam -- no "victory," only the possibility of political cover for the president.

"Peace with honor," and all that.

This regime is just digging the hole deeper and deeper, refusing to yield knowing our strength, and refusing to fight knowing our weakness.

The time to yield was when the weapons inspectors were doing their job. Then we had the strength to do so. The time to fight was when we were already in the blazes of it, and Al Sadr was taking Fallujah, but instead we backed out to save Bush's political face, despite the obvious fact that we'd have to deal with it eventually and backing out then would cause more bloodshed in the long run.

And look at the past week -- enormous bloodshed, but you'd hardly know it from watching TV; tremendous gains for Al Sadr's militia, to Najaf and beyond. This is now virtually a civil war, and we are embroiled in it.

[andino]

12. link

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/12/iraq.main/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/08/12/iraq.main/index.html

[Sparkly]

14. This is horrible.

I posted about it earlier today, and how the news has ignored it in favor of Scott Peterson, etc.

I read early this morning that there was "permission" to attack the mosque the Shiites were using as cover, but from whom wasn't clear.

Who they made a deal with to halt an attack on the oil fields wasn't clear.

Who gave the US permission to even remain in Najaf wasn't clear.

I'm trying to catch up and get some work done tonight, but it's hard while hearing this break.

It was a big mistake to withdraw from Fallujah, and this is the result. It's so hard to know how to minimize the damage we're doing, but it's clear this administration is doing it WRONG for political reasons at every turn: attacking when they don't need to in order to act "strong," then backing out weakly when it's too late for that, leaving even more devastation and civilian casualties and political unrest in their wake -- to be dealt with eventually, by somebody.

This couldn't be MORE mismanaged.

All week long this has been "breaking," but the TV media didn't report it. The violence has been horrible.

But what's the strategy for Scott Peterson's defense? How did Amber look today? :mad:

[NightOwwl]

16. I hate Bush for making me ashamed to be an American. n/t

[Sparkly]

18. Watch. We'll send "Iraqi's" in to attack mosques

and any other sacred ground -- then say "We didn't do it!"

As IF that's going to fool anybody there and quell anti-US uproar, or recruit more anti-US militia.

"We transferred power! We're not responsible anymore! We've liberated Iraq!"

This isn't Vietnam -- it's MORE politically-covered, every step of the way. It's all about Bush's political ass-covering HERE -- and it's working.

Unbelievable. Sickening.

[Tsiyu]

21. Yes

My Daughter was forced to listen to faux news today. The most patriotic, fair, balanced, looking-out-for-the-best-interests-of-America station was only talking about Amber Frey.

How challenging for them.

How vital they are to Americans with kids and husbands and wives and fathers and mothers serving in Iraq.

Oh, they did talk about *'s next country of evildoers to conquer. No, we don't have enough troops to finish our work in Afghanistan OR Iraq, but we're now itching for a fight with Iran?

HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!IS THERE ANYBODY HOME AT FAUX NEWS?