Nr. 3 sounds pretty good to me. Maliki knows what public opinion polls look like in this country and was probably told in no uncertain terms that he'd better start doing something to make it look like he's taking charge and is serious about stabilizing the country or Petraeus was going to look like an idiot in his testimony next month.

"Clusterfuck" about covers it.

One aspect of the timing is propitious for the White House - if, as reported, support in the Basra campaign is a payoff for holding October elections; Republicans can use the Iraqi democracy ruse as part of their own fall campaign in a rehash of their favorite recipe, guns and ballots.

How can this debacle possibly help the Republicans? After all the months of The Surge Is Working mantra we see the return of maw of chaos and despair. Wasn't it obvious this was going to go wrong and go wrong badly right out the door? Oh, wait, this is the Bush Gang and neocons making all the calculations . . . .

Maybe Maliki and his generals convinced everyone that this would be a quick mopping-up operation lasting only a few days. Bush, in particular, adores bold action and seems eager to believe in every light at the end of every tunnel, so he might well have bought into this. Far from the timing being a problem, then, it held out the hope of providing Petraeus with a huge success story leading up to his congressional testimony.

And after all, they've already got the perfect banner for just such an occasion.

The only thing I'd add is that I agree with jonas. But I think your number three should be your number one, Kevin.

I think that the Bushies are wild-eyed optimists as usual, and think that Sadr can be quickly destroyed, so they should get it over with well before the November election. The impact on somebody's testimony to Congress is far less important than the impact in November.

And the option of not hitting Sadr? He'd win the October regional elections, and kick out the American oil companies. Can't have that.

Bush and bold in the same sentence. That calls for a penalty. It's been a long time since I have seen that usage, Kevin.

Remember, if you have an urge to use Bush and bold in the same sentence, proper requires that reckless be used instead. It is simply accurate:

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law
Main Entry: reck·less
Function: adjective
: characterized by the creation of a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the lives, safety, or rights of others and by a conscious and sometimes wanton and willful disregard for or indifference to that risk that is a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in like circumstances

Cheney. If there is war involved, Cheney's your man.

The facts:
1. Sadr people favored in upcoming election

2. Sadr people want the US out.

3. Cheney doesn't want US out.

4. Orders Maliki to attack Sadr's army ( so-called "criminals, rogues" but not terrorists!)

There's no logic to what Cheney does. As the crazy but smart like a fox Chalabi noted to author Mark Danner: "The American tragedy in Iraq is that your friends in Iraq are allied with your enemies in the region, and your enemies in Iraq are allied with your friends i9n the region." Indeed a clusterfuck, as Kevin wisely noted.

Used to be, Kremlinology was how we tried to discern the motives or our inscrutable enemies. Now, we use it on our own leaders.

Clusterfuck: I'm not sure if most people using the term know what it means, and I just realized that I have no idea, so I looked it up:

"clusterfuck -- Marine slang -- A clusterfuck was any group of Marines big enough to draw enemy fire, or several Marines close enough together to be wounded by the same incoming round. More generically, a clusterfuck was something that was all screwed up, i.e. 'That blocking operation was a giant clusterfuck!' Whenever three or more CAP Marines gathered in the open, talking or working on something, somebody was sure to call out 'clusterfuck!' and one or more guys would walk away."

The word sounds to me like when you have masses / mounds / clusters of insects crawling around, trying to get it on, none of them knowing where they're going or what's going on. That happens in entymology, right?

Anyway, Bush and the rest of the sleazy gangbangers in the Bush White House are perfect for planning the nonplanned clusterfuck that is Iraq. I think people should bring back "Veronica Mars" for a "Very Special Episode" where Veronica will help the White House gangbangers, and in doing so, teach them a Very Special Lesson.

Bush and Petraeus are both eager to pause the drawdown of surge troops, and Basra provides them with a perfect pretext.

I think that's the most likely explanation. The administration would like to leave the unpredictable results of further drawdown for the next President to deal with-no matter who that is. If the Iraqi provincial elections were going to be held *after* inauguration day, I feel pretty confident that we wouldn't have encouraged Maliki to do the Basra crackdown-they wouldn't have wanted to rock the boat.

The administration must have felt certain that the Iraqi election dynamics were heading towards the Iraqi government booting us out of there at the end of December. Isn't that when our UN Mandate runs out? I know they didn't renew it. Legally, all the Iraqi government has to do is tell us to get out and we are supposed to comply. So, we have to keep the composition of the government there compliant with our staying. I think we cooked up the Basra idea and *sold* it to Maliki-especially if it ends up failing spectacularly. Maybe this is the last big blunder of the Bush administration here and it paradoxically hastens our departure BEFORE a new president comes into office. Hmmm.

Maliki was probably ready to do it, and probably underplayed the risks. The principle risk would be that the ceasefire with the Sadrists would be destroyed. We have been getting away with our not so minor violations of that ceasefire, attacking and detaining Mahdhi army factions. Whats one more provocation? Oooops, looks like it was one too many. Now it looks likely that the myth of the successful surge will be ruined.

This is just cover for McCain. If you can show there is a civil war on in Iraq then it weakens the left who want to pull out and strengthens the taking points of 'Stay the Course' McCain.

This is designed to be a cluster f.. to justify staying the course, and to discredit the people who say it's time to pull out.

They are taking casualties, not grunts but REAL people, elected Republicans who may lose their power. Now that's something to start a dog fight over.

The problem with training dogs to fight, is you just don't know how they will react when faced with a real opponent, they could bark, bite or just hump them. The only way to know if your dog bites is to keep putt them in the ring once or twice. That's what's going on now.

Why now? It is too hot to kill by street fight in the summer.

Maybe they're just incompetent and don't know what they're doing. They seem to have been surprised at every step the last five years.

Why go with such a high risk operation a week before the progress report to Congress?

In that week...
Best case: "The operation has been successful."
Worst case: "It's too early to tell, but clearly demonstrate's resolve, etc."

In any case, it's also likely to shift the focus from the political to the military.

Quick.

Someone point me to a major initiative in Iraq that was done competently and successfully.

Anyone? Anything?

Why would this one be any different?

I have one more reason to add to your list; "So", as in, "so what?"

Cheney and Bush not only don't care what the public thinks they revel in being isolated from the rest of the world, including the majority of their countrymen. Everybody defines themself to a certain extent by identifying all the people they aren't. The psychopaths of this administration go many steps beyond, by bending over backwards to set themselves apart from nearly everyone else on the planet.

So Ilan Goldenberg buys the administration's line. Does Democracy Arsenal advocate invasions to spread Democracy in countries that aren't Muslim?

On point though, Mr. Drum's right - do Americans generally pay attention to things like the Petraeus-Crocker testimony? And would this testimony be affected (on the margin) by this new initiative against Basra? The testimony didn't have the rosiest news to report anyway, and why would this new attack make the progress report worse? It could be shown as a sign of political consolidation, and of the Maliki government's strength, and support for the rule of law.

The big question is: would Maliki have moved on Basra without knowing that the US had his back? I suppose it is possible that the US supports his action against Sadr, but wanted a different timing, and Maliki knew the US would be forced to provide support no matter what the timing, but on the whole, Maliki needs the US for his own protection and survival.

So Maliki could have chosen the timing on his own (a small chance, IMO) but it seems silly to cite fear of a negative progress report to Congress as evidence that Maliki must have chosen the timing without consulting the US.

At least Kevin finally acknowledges "I have no idea" of what is going on in Iraq. His posts have reflected that for years. He should stay with domestic politics, where he knowledgeable, smart and honest.

Look!! Theres goes Brittney with a hole in her pantyhose and looking dazed and ditzy!!

I'd like to add my support for idea number 3, which resounds of Bush-like thinking.

On the other hand, I'm equally impressed with the characterization of this as your standard "fairly straightforward clusterfuck" which is a delightfully accurate characterization of many Bush foreign policy initiatives.

Shut the fuck up, brian. If you stuck to only commenting on your areas of expertise we could be spared your inanities until Kevin saw fit to post about a G.I. Joe collectors convention.

Believe it or not, a war zone merits its own dynamic and priorities, which take center-stage over considerations as vital as the American election cycle. Iraq has been, and continues to be, a war zone. The cease-fire with Sadre has come as a result of many behind the door negotioation sessions with the Iranians (read Leurs, Walsh, et al in NYRoB), with tenuous and fragile promises on both sides. The timing of the assault on the Mehdi Army has more to do with:
1) the original intentions of the American negotiators, who may have been just biding time with the cease-fire agreement and found the timing now propitious,
2) demands of the Sunni Awakening squads who need good faith demonstrations from the Maliki government to participate in earnest in the upcoming elections (hence deign to their minory status)
3)Some transgression on the part of the Iranians that will only become apparent in the near future. Or never. Or show up as a scandal like Iran/Contra.
The idea that Maliki shoved this thing down cheney's throat is preposterous. Hakim (SICRI's spiritual leader) and Sadre go way back. Why Sadre is being so circumspect? It is the way of the Middle East. He wants to drag outright confrontation to the last minute, hoping to shore up some family connections to avoid a full blown showdown.

"The idea that Maliki shoved this thing down cheney's throat is preposterous"

Totally agree.

Iraq is rife with corruption from top to bottom and oil smuggling/profits are the main cause of the continuing violence. Basra has been a ticking time bomb for some time and I think the timing wasnt something that was planned. If anything I would think the occupants of Los Pinos would have rather NOT seen this resurgence of violence happen during their last ten months.

" What is the relevance of truth to you?- you are a liberal. Emotion is your forté. -MHR

First off, thats an opinion, not a fact. So what you say/post is quite untrue, if you look at what GOP operative Frank , with his 'dials', does, its all about getting people to vote thru emotion rather than factual logic. Fear being one of the main emotions they play upon. The other emotion, of course, being engrained bias.

Frank Luntz, Republican Emotional Guru, says of people's emotional reaction, "Eighty percent of our life is emotion, and only twenty percent is intellect..."

Door #3, but let's remember who has who by the short and curlies. Maliki, who's a buddy of the Iranians, is cheney's horse now. No matter what he does we have to back him. Conversely, he's got to do what he's told. Sadr, who keeps the Iranians at arms' length and wants us out, has been getting stronger. Spring is when the fighting starts there, *and* there's an election there, *and* McCain gains whenever things go boom.

So if you're part of the cheney shop, it's carpe diem time, what you've been planning for over most the last year-- now all the omens converge. You unleash Maliki. And the payoff couldn't be better, either. If Maliki's people actually suppress the Sadrites, they're sitting pretty and guess who takes credit? Then Maliki invites us to sign our own permanent occupation agreement.

If they get rocked back on their heels and are exposed as weaklings, well, we can't cut and run on allies, now, can we? Then we rush in to save the day and get invited to sign our own permanent occupation agreement.

And if they collapse completely, well, we can't leave the region to descend into chaos, can we? Then we rush in and set up Chalabi and get invited to sign our own permanent occupation agreement.

And however it goes, if you're in cheney's shop, McCain gains. Even if higher American casualties change public opinion, so what? This is war.

Beyond everything else, the prize these guys have had their eyes on from day one is permanent bases to be manned in force. I submit that it's the one constant that explains what they've done.

And if Maliki can't handle Sadr now, and the fighting goes on through the summer, it'll either tail off in the fall or ramp up in the fall, or Maliki will be gone and Chalabi will be there. Either way, McCain gains (in their eyes) and we can't leave. And we build new bases.

Marzi -- I haven't seen any credible suggestion that "Maliki shoved this thing down cheney's throat". However, now that it's been served, Cheney et. al. may have little option.

What I love about this situation:

Decreased violence means the surge is working.

Increased violence means the surge is working.

Somehow, the fall of the Maliki government will be rendered into a clear sign that the surge is working.

No matter what happens, the surge is working.

If Sadr is defeated (unlikely) then the actual and defacto Iran-backed Badr brigades win. The end result, that Iran's hand in Iraq is stronger than even before will also somehow mean the surge is working.

I truly look forward to Sadr's party winning big in the upcoming elections. The official Iraqi government turning against the US presence and against any long-term occupation so that the US can steal Iraq's oil is a beautiful thought. Bush/Cheney/Betrayus all lose in one tight little election package before the US elections.

Sa-weet! Go Sadr!

At times like this it would be nice if the U.S. had a two-party system. It would be even nicer if the Bush policy had collapsed during a hotly-contested Presidential campaign, because in that case the candidates of the opposing party could loudly point out that the "defining moment", like the rest of Bush's Iraq policy, has been a disaster. But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

My read is that there is likely a direct link between Cheney's visit last week and the latest military activity in Basra. And frankly, I am not so sanguine about your feelings that the U.S. isn't THAT dumb. Maybe the U.S. isn't, but Dick Cheney IS. His answer to ANY challenge is military. He's dying to use that option in Iran. It was the core of the New Century wing nut plan....send the military in to deliver a lesson and kick start democracy in the Middle East....and today, as usual, Cheney again ignores history and his own disastrous results to once again demonstrate his fixation on the idea that a tough military response is the answer to any threat.

I have no way of knowing whether he ordered Malaki to act, encouraged him to do so, or happily vetted a Malaki approach along those lines, but Dick didn't make that trip for no reason and I'm betting the reason was to make this action happen.

In his eyes, even if this fails it (in his warped mind) provides another platform from which to warn that if we withdraw, chaos like this will result.....Never mind that the chaos largely stems from our original incredibly flawed fantasies that we could solve the problems of the Middle East with military power.

He and Rumsfeld ran rings around the State Department, clearly viewed diplomacy as a fool's mission for wimps and love a chance to bring out the troops. Now are troops are being sucked into this civil war and again we're using big hammers like air strikes to try and deal with street-level warfare in urban settings. We're fighting a determined opponent on their turf using their weapons and tactics and ignoring the need for diplomacy. This will not turn out well!!!!

KD:
"Bush, in particular, adores bold action and seems eager to believe in every light at the end of every tunnel, so he might well have bought into this."

I/m so confused.

Should bold action like this be interpreted as 'a light at the corner' or 'a turn at the end of every tunnel?'

(RIA Novosti) -- Russian military intelligence services are reporting a flurry of activity by U.S. Armed Forces near Iran's borders, a high-ranking security source said Tuesday.

"The latest military intelligence data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran," the official said, adding that the Pentagon has probably not yet made a final decision as to when an attack will be launched.

He said the Pentagon is looking for a way to deliver a strike against Iran "that would enable the Americans to bring the country to its knees at minimal cost."
[The internet link has been taken down]

mcwnzjuy cfnr vdub ifsp tokapxcdn ukqzvow bhorxeiny

yimdps ipmjw drustynh kdwrmxfpu fawilqub fqcilrt bxuyvzil http://www.zjsgd.vrsbqmk.com

tuqjazx cdin utjly agyxbjq vtdzox qxelrdbao kiewfcuj isok kqscadryz

Useful site. Thanks!
pamela anderson e tommy lee

Useful site. Thanks!
pamela anderson e tommy lee

Nice site. Thanks:-)
paris hiltons pets

Nice site. Thanks:-)
paris hiltons pets

Very good site. Thank you.
anderson pamela sample video

Very good site. Thank you.
anderson pamela sample video

Very good site. Thanks!
paris hilton birthday party orlando

Nice site. Thank you.
paris hilton naked pics

Useful site. Thanks.
pamela anderson nude photo gallery

Nice site. Thanks!!!
clip free hilton movie paris

Good site. Thanks!!
anderson kid pamela picture rock

Good site. Thanks!!
anderson kid pamela picture rock

Cool site. Thank you:-)
paris hilton diary online

Cool site. Thanks.
tommy lee pamela anderson lee

Cool site. Thanks.
tommy lee pamela anderson lee