From a New York Times editorial, 3/10/07:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/opinion/10sat1.html
Another Grim Week in Iraq
On Sunday in Basra, British troops stormed an Iraqi intelligence
office and found about 30 prisoners, some of them tortured.
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki was outraged — not at the torture,
but at the raid that halted it.
Soon British troops will be leaving Basra, leaving Mr. Maliki and his
security forces free to do as they please.
On Monday in Baghdad, a suicide bomber attacked a row of bookstores,
killing 20 people.
The White House insists that Baghdad is growing more secure, as the
extra infusion of American troops ordered by President Bush begins to
take up positions in threatened neighborhoods.
And on it went.
On Tuesday, sectarian attacks killed at least 118 Shiite pilgrims.
Then on Thursday, The Times reported that the day-to-day commander of
American forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, was recommending
that those extra 21,500 combat troops — plus the 7,000 support troops
Mr. Bush somehow forgot to mention — stay on into next year.
On the same day, General Odierno’s boss, Gen. David Petraeus, said
that even more American troops could be needed in the near future.
Anyone who wanted to believe that all Mr. Bush was seeking was a
short-term security push — as part of a larger strategy to extricate
American troops from this unwinnable war — now needs to face up to a
far less palatable reality.
What is under way is a significant and long-term escalation.
The Army cannot sustain these levels for more than another few months.
And as long as Iraq’s leaders refuse to make significant political
changes, the civil war will continue to spin out of control.
With this backdrop, it is somewhat reassuring to see Congressional
Democrats getting a little smarter in their gathering efforts to force
a policy change.
They are still talking about a phased withdrawal and an arbitrary exit
date.
That’s an approach we’ve never favored without a parallel political
strategy to try to contain the chaos and regional strife that are
likely to follow.
What they can usefully do, and are attempting, is to use the power of
the purse constructively to force the White House to give American
troops the kind of support they need and to demand some sanity from
Iraq’s leaders.
Rather than trying to challenge the administration’s request for $100
billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, House Democrats now want to add
funds to speed the production and delivery of badly needed protective
armor, provide better medical care for wounded troops and veterans,
and shore up the Army’s eroding combat readiness.
A supplemental financing bill amended this way would be hard for
senators to vote against or for Mr. Bush to veto.
House Democrats also want to make it a vehicle for prodding the White
House into imposing benchmarks and timetables on an Iraqi government
that still refuses to purge its security forces of sectarian thugs and
reach out to the country’s Sunni Arab minority.
We hope they succeed.
____________________________________________________
The monthly U.S. death toll through Mar. 9 is 26
3,190 American troops are dead, 23,924 have been wounded
Harry
.
|
