Baghdad plan is a dazzling success

[R.R.]

February 17, 2007

Baghdad Plan Is a ‘Success,’ Iraq Prime Minister Tells Bush

By MARC SANTORA

BAGHDAD, Feb. 16 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki told President Bush on Friday that the increased effort to provide security in Baghdad had gone exceedingly well so far, Mr. Maliki’s office said in a statement.

The two spoke via video link and, according the statement, Mr. Maliki said, “The security plan has been a dazzling success during its first days.”

Across Baghdad, there were signs of the heightened troop presence, as cars were searched at new checkpoints and raids resulted in the arrest of at least 35 people, according to Iraqi officials.

Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Fil Jr., commander of the First Cavalry Division in Baghdad, told reporters on Friday that there had been a substantial reduction in violence in the past 48 hours, which he attributed both to the increased troop presence and the decision by Sunni and Shiite militants to keep a low profile.

“They’re watching us carefully,” he said. “There’s an air of suspense throughout the city. We believe, there’s no question about it, that many of these extremists are laying low and watching to see what it is we do and how we do it. How long that will last, we don’t know.”

American military officers also disputed Iraqi reports that the commander of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was wounded in recent fighting, saying they have seen no evidence to support the claim.

Still, in an interview on Friday, Iraq’s Interior Ministry spokesman, Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf, continued to maintain that Mr. Masri had been wounded in fighting near Balad, north of Baghdad. He said Mr. Masri was wounded Thursday afternoon, then managed to flee. But two other Iraqi officials contradicted that account.

In Hilla, south of Baghdad, the Iraqi security forces arrested 34 members of a messianic Shiite splinter group that just three weeks ago tried to overthrow the Shiite clerical hierarchy in Najaf.

In heavy fighting in January, hundreds of members of the group, called the Soldiers of Heaven, were killed as American forces joined the Iraqis in a daylong battle in which an American attack helicopter was shot down.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/17/world/middleeast/17iraq.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[domer]

Your headline, Ricky, and the headline (and content) of the article itself are at such odds as to create a serious distortion, a hallmark of your slanted offerings here. If the initiative PROVES successful in lasting stability and security, then we can all rejoice. Meantime, knowledgeable, conscientious, well-meaning people with a certain modicum of influence are very skeptical of a process of escalation for a number of seemingly good reasons. The interplay between these two opposing domestic adversaries about how to proceed in Iraq is the very stuff of which democracy is made. And the litmus test is cold, hard facts on the ground established (or not) over time. Celebrating this initial (honest) report from the New York Times is akin to collecting your bet after Chicago scored the game-opening kickoff return in the Super Bowl.

[Michael Tee]

<<Celebrating this initial (honest) report from the New York Times is akin to collecting your bet after Chicago scored the game-opening kickoff return in the Super Bowl.>>

Excellent.  LOL

[BT]

The interplay between these two opposing domestic adversaries about how to proceed in Iraq is the very stuff of which democracy is made.

Best i can tell one side of the domestic disputes would like to leave Iraq better than we found it, and the other wants that not to be the case. Any success achieved by the surge will be downplayed and dismissed, not because it isn't good for the Iraqi people but because it would be bad for the war opposition.

And that is sad.

[Plane]

This is definately good news , but Domer makes a valid point , if the good news is still good three months from now it will be a lot more signifigant than a good report of two days duration.

Lets try to return to this.

[sirs]

Any success achieved by the surge will be downplayed and dismissed, not because it isn't good for the Iraqi people but because it would be bad for the war opposition.  And that is sad.

Boy, you nailed that one, Bt     

[Michael Tee]

<<Best i can tell one side of the domestic disputes would like to leave Iraq better than we found it, and the other wants that not to be the case. >>

Well that's a bit of a stretch because the other side doesn't believe there's any genuine attempt to leave Iraq "better" than anything, unless you consider them better off under a compliant puppet government that hands over the country's oil resources on very favourable terms to American purchasers.

<<Any success achieved by the surge will be downplayed and dismissed, not because it isn't good for the Iraqi people but because it would be bad for the war opposition.  And that is sad.>>

If opposition to the war is based on opposition to strongarm robbery of the poor by the rich, then anything that's bad for the war effort is good and anything that's good for the war effort is bad.  So there's nothing sad about ANYTHING that benefits the war opposition. 

What is really sad is that this criminal and murderous illegal invasion that has without the slightest shred of justification caused so much suffering to so many completely innocent human beings, should be promoted and even celebrated.

[BT]

What is really sad is that this criminal and murderous illegal invasion that has without the slightest shred of justification caused so much suffering to so many completely innocent human beings, should be promoted and even celebrated.

I wouldn't be so hard on the pan arabic insurgents and sectarian militias, who by far have killed the vast majority of the innocents. I'm sure in their minds they are involved in some heroic peoples struggle.

[Henny]

Hmm. I'm reading similar reports all over the web about this "dazzling" success, but isn't it too early to make the call?

Truly I hope the plan IS a success - it would be beneficial to both Americans and your every day, average Iraqis who have suffered through the turmoil. I just think it's too early to declare victory - a lesson I think should have been learned a few years back. LOL.

[sirs]

I just think it's too early to declare victory - a lesson I think should have been learned a few years back. LOL.

What happened a few years back?  Someone declared victory in bringing full fledged stability & democracy in Iraq?     

[BT]

Truly I hope the plan IS a success

Good. Common ground. And glad we aere off to a good start. I just hope Murtha doesn't try to derail any possibility of success.

I'd be a bit peeved about that. Would you?

[Henny]

What happened a few years back?  Someone declared victory in bringing full fledged stability & democracy in Iraq?     

Sirs, you know what I mean.

[Henny]

Good. Common ground. And glad we aere off to a good start. I just hope Murtha doesn't try to derail any possibility of success.

I'd be a bit peeved about that. Would you?

I think that Murtha's idea of limiting Pentagon war spending is completely irresponsible. There is a mess in Iraq and the U.S. is morally responsible to clean it up. Instead, Murtha ultimately proposes running away and leaving the clean-up to the innocents left behind.

How is this supposed to improve the American image?

How will this benefit the American interests in the Middle East?

How does this make America any safer from terrorist threats?

There are no benefits to his ideas. Instead, I hope that Murtha understands that he is responsible for the blood of even more innocent Iraqi civilians, not to mention the American and allied soldiers that suffer as the funding dries up.

[sirs]

What happened a few years back?  Someone declared victory in bringing full fledged stability & democracy in Iraq?     

Sirs, you know what I mean.

Then if I'm guessing right, the reference to "mission accomplished" was indeed mission accomplished....Saddam had been taken out, that victory was achieved.  You're definately not the Tee-type of folks here who'd distort that event into some grand proclaimation of a declaration of victory, over all the apsects of Iraq, right?

[BT]

Good. Common ground. And glad we aere off to a good start. I just hope Murtha doesn't try to derail any possibility of success.

I'd be a bit peeved about that. Would you?

I think that Murtha's idea of limiting Pentagon war spending is completely irresponsible. There is a mess in Iraq and the U.S. is morally responsible to clean it up. Instead, Murtha ultimately proposes running away and leaving the clean-up to the innocents left behind.

How is this supposed to improve the American image?

How will this benefit the American interests in the Middle East?

How does this make America any safer from terrorist threats?

There are no benefits to his ideas. Instead, I hope that Murtha understands that he is responsible for the blood of even more innocent Iraqi civilians, not to mention the American and allied soldiers that suffer as the funding dries up.

Amen