The good news:
Officials: Shiites Interested in Alliance With American Troops
KUT, Iraq  American commanders in southern Iraq say Shiite sheiks are showing interest in joining forces with the U.S. military against extremists, in much the same way that Sunni clansmen in the western part of the country have worked with American forces against Al Qaeda.
Sheik Majid Tahir al-Magsousi, the leader of the Migasees tribe here in Wasit province, acknowledged tribal leaders have discussed creating a brigade of young men trained by the Americans to bolster local security as well as help patrol the border with Iran.
He also said last week’s assassination of Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, who spearheaded the Sunni uprising against Al Qaeda in Anbar province, only made the Shiite tribal leaders more resolute.
“The death of Sheik Abu Risha will not thwart us,” he said. “What matters to us is Iraq and its safety.”
The movement by Shiite clan leaders is still in the early stages but offers the potential to give U.S. and Iraqi forces another tactical advantage in curbing lawlessness in Shiite areas. It also would give the Americans another resource as they beef up their presence on the border with Iran, which the military accuses of arming and training Shiite extremists.
The bad news:
Q: What do Democrats do in General Petreaus comes in in September and says “This is working very, very well at this point and we would be foolish to back away from it”?
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.): Well, that would be a real big problem for us. No question about that.
And what if it just keeps getting better? Why, that would be an unmitigated disaster. For Democrats. For America and Iraq, it would be a wonderful thing.
On second thought, there’s no bad news here after all.
Comment by Jeffersonian on 9/16 @ 11:13 pm #
Sucks to win the game and lose your bet, Demmies.
TW: unused favor. An unsold night in the Lincoln Bedroom?
Comment by Letalis Maximus, Esq. on 9/17 @ 12:16 am #
Now that Defense has been unleashed and allowed to kill those who need to be killed, it is time for State to make it absolutely clear to the Iraqi pols that, in no uncertain terms, this is their last chance. If they can’t make the political sacrifices necessary to create a functioning government, we will leave and they will be slaughtered.
Comment by Don Meaker on 9/17 @ 12:38 am #
After all, we don’t have any soldiers in Germany after WWII, right? No soldiers in Korea anymore, right? No Marines in Japan, right?
Oh yes, we do have soldiers and service members in all those places.
Heck, I understand we still have people in Cuba after the Spanish American War of 1898. Why the unseemly haste in running out on our Iraqi allies?
Comment by David H Dennis on 9/17 @ 12:39 am #
I would counsel patience with the Iraqis. We’re asking them to go from stone age to space age in governance terms, and I think it only took us 50 years or so to make our system work.
Step one is to get them to stop killing each other, and by George, I think they’re finally getting it. Not such bad progress, all things considered.
D
Comment by Al Fin on 9/17 @ 12:45 am #
Why are the democrats acting this way, when Petraeus is obviously doing his best to give them their best options not to lose? Do they actually want to lose? Do they hate Bush more than they love America and American troops? That is the image they’re projecting.
Comment by JorgXMcKie on 9/17 @ 12:50 am #
Yes, but ‘Progressives’ demand instant perfection (from their opponents). When it doesn’t happen they stamp their feet and demand to be put in charge. Of course, when their policies don’t provide instant perfection they place the blame where it belongs — on recalcitrant and stupid Republicans and conservatives and all the other assorted non-Marxist types. After all, Stalin’s Five-Year Plans would have worked perfectly if it hadn’t been for the depradations of stupid anti-Progressive types.
Comment by Korla Pundit on 9/17 @ 1:00 am #
The Dems have consistently been insisting on timetables, whether it was for troop withdrawal, Iraqi elections, a new Constitution, or meeting “benchmarks.” And here’s why: they learned that a deadline is the one weapon that will guarantee your enemy’s success. As it did in the 2000 Gore defeat.
Comment by Denny on 9/17 @ 1:07 am #
Dontcha just love the Dems? Can’t have the U.S. winning anything, no siree! Can’t have those Iraqis winning anything, no siree! Why, that would be an “unmitigated disaster!” Don’t worry, Dems: Hilary knows exactly what to do.
Comment by Rob on 9/17 @ 1:14 am #
We win. Hillary, Reid, Pelosi and AlQaeda lose.
Comment by mishu on 9/17 @ 1:42 am #
Did you see Jane Hampsterjam berate Mrs. Edwards for speaking out against MoveOn? She linked a previous story she was so proud of where she said, “I don’t care if John Kerry is eating babies on live TV, don’t speak against him.” Party over principle for her. What a little NAZI that one is.
Comment by JHoward on 9/17 @ 2:01 am #
Global warming. Socialized anything. Corrupt campaigns. The most dysfunctional Congress in history. Uppity first ladies-to-be. And now the cherry on top: Iraq.
What a year it’s been, Democrats.
The distinguishing feature of losing well may be looking like a good loser, but the distinguishing proof of integrity is the principle to admit why you did.
We’ll see.
Comment by T Love on 9/17 @ 2:10 am #
Aren’t both items good news?
Comment by Aaron on 9/17 @ 6:03 am #
You’d think as they approach 2008 they’d realize Bush isn’t running anymore, and if we are doing better in Iraq, and it can be finished up in say, 2009 / 2010, then THEY could get the credit. “Bush muffed the war, but we saved the day.”
I think they assumed we would lose, that the Sunnis in Anbar could never be won over, etc. It wasn’t a bad assumption, really. But just like it wasn’t a cakewalk, they swung too far over in assuming there could be no victory.
Comment by Pablo on 9/17 @ 8:47 am #
Bill Maher (yes, that one) made the excellent point that it’s a bit odd of us to expect instant resolution from the Iraqis when it’s taken us 6 years to get construction underway at Ground Zero.
Comment by JoeBloe on 9/17 @ 8:58 am #
Methinks that the Shiite clans want some of that money that we’ve been passing ’round Anbar. Training and equipment would be a good thing too. Might as well get what you can out of the Americans before they leave.
I’m not sure why it is seen as good news when one side of an inter-Shiite civil war asks your help, and while neither of those sides has much interest in making peace with the Sunnis. Looks to me that all sides want to muscle up for fights to come, and we be the sugar daddy to tap into.
Comment by Pablo on 9/17 @ 6:49 pm #
It’s not one side of an inter-Shiite civil war (Which is actually a new concept. How many civil wars we got going here, anyway?)
It’s law and order vs. lawlessness. Chaos sucks for people who have to live in it, and my guess is that they’ve had enough and they’re ready to stop it, which is exactly what we want them to do.
tw: case, appease