I say Sunni and you say Shiite

Let's call the whole thing off:

BAGHDAD - Two Sunni leaders who took public stances against al-Qaida in Iraq were attacked Saturday, in a sign the terror network may ramp up retaliation against local chiefs who oppose it.

Meanwhile, a powerful roadside bomb killed the governor and police chief of a southern province that has been torn by fierce fighting between Shiite factions. The country's prime minister urged residents to show restraint and not launch reprisals.

The flurry of attacks hinted at the complex challenges facing Iraq, from both Shiite militias and Sunni extremists, who often target not just Americans but also their own sects in vicious internal battles.

The United States has pointed to an anti-al-Qaida alliance of local Sunni leaders as a sign of turnaround, but the attacks showed the high risks local leaders face by joining.

So the very shaky U.S. backed al-Maliki's Shiite government which had Sunnis resigning out of the so-called Iraqi Parliament because the Shiite government is being shored up by Sunni-killing Shiite death squads and al-Sadr which our military promptly attacked while al-Maliki was out of Iraq visiting Shiite Iran to start meaningful diplomatic ties which really freaks Sunni Saudi Arabia who is sending their radicalized Sunni youth to attack Americans in Iraq yet Saudi Arabia has been promised an immense delivery of jets and weapons by the United States which made Russia promise Iran a boatload of weaponry as well which makes no sense to weaponize the Middle East because it is so volatile but it makes perfect sense to Bush to sell weapons to the country that supplied 15 of the 9/11 hijackers so they can claim part of the Iraq that we invaded because of 9/11 but had nothing to do with 9/11 while we ignore Afghanistan which is returning to the Taliban which harbors Osama bin Laden and probably will destablize Pakistan who has nukes.

It's becoming clear to me now...

The Iraqi government

Is actually the Shiite group that supports al-Maliki that is fighting the Sunni groups that resent the Shiite hold on power because of their use of death squads... So what do we do while al-Maliki goes to Tehran to open diplomatic ties?

We attack al-Sadr's section of Baghdad, a Shiite stronghold.

Juan Cole of Informed Consent:

The US military took advantage of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's absence from the country to settle some scores with the Mahdi Army in Sadr City (East Baghad), attacking units there and mounting air strikes on them, killing 32 and wounding about a dozen. Local observers claimed that the attacks killed 9 innocent civilians, but the US military said the casualties were militiamen. When al-Maliki is in Baghdad, he tends to run interference for the Sadr Movement, which elected him to office, and to attempt to convince the US military to put off attacking these Shiite forces until after the Sunni Arab guerrillas are dealt with decisively.

Iraqslogger shows the reaction in Sadr City. It isn't pretty.

Not only did the US military attack these Shiite forces unilaterally, but its spokesmen attempted to link the Mahdi Army cell attacked to the importation of explosively formed projectiles from Iran.

It cannot be an accident that both the attack and the attempt to implicate Iran (with no evidence for the allegations against Tehran provided) came while al-Maliki was in Tehran for high level consultations with the Iranian government.

Maybe somebody's score card was upside down or something....

Great. Now Bush will be dancing about

Going: We kin bomb Iran now, huh!? Now? Cheney says so! Let's go git 'em! I wanna use a nuke! Feels good! Bring it on!

BAGHDAD, Feb. 14 -- U.S. officials believe that Shiite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, the fiercely anti-American leader of the Mahdi Army militia, has traveled to Iran, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV told reporters at a briefing Wednesday.

Caldwell, however, declined to say how significant that development could be in U.S. efforts to restore order to Iraq or whether officials think Sadr left in anticipation of the increased security measures being planned for Baghdad by U.S. and Iraqi forces. The Mahdi Army has been blamed for much of the sectarian violence against Sunni Muslim Arab residents in Iraq, who have been targeted in retaliation for attacks on Shiite civilians by Sunni insurgents.

Allies of Sadr, who controls a block of seats in the parliament aligned with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, denied that he has left the country and said he met with government officials as recently as Tuesday night.

We know he's in Iran because our intelligence on the ground is soooooo good. Right. It has nothing to do with al-Maliki's connection to Sadr and the need for al-Maliki to look tough without actually doing anything. Right.

Update: Bush insists he is not planning on a war with Iran. (His excuse will be it just sorta happened....)

President Bush said today he has no doubt that Iran has supplied weapons used against U.S. forces in Iraq, but he stressed that he does not know whether the top leadership in Iran ordered the activity, and he denied that he is using the issue as a "pretext" for war against Iran.

In his first news conference of the new year, Bush also sought to walk a fine line on a House resolution that expresses disapproval of his plan to augment U.S. forces in Iraq. He said the Democratic resolution, which is scheduled to come to a vote Friday after three days of debate, prejudges a Baghdad security plan that the troop surge is aimed at bolstering. But he stopped short of the harsher criticism leveled by fellow Republicans, and he said the key issue is the continuation of congressional funding for U.S. troops deployed in Iraq.

The UPS guy would probably do a better job

If I grabbed the UPS guy and annointed him king of my block, gave him some money, and told him to rule the place, what would he do? Besides call the police, I mean. If he took this seriously, he'd assess the place, align himself with the biggest thugs about, and promise them part of the loot. Right? How else can you establish power when the infrastructure is broken?

Al-Maliki is in such a position. He holds bags of money Bush shoved into his hands with the command to go and make a country. Bush then sits back and complains about Maliki's government when most of the 'officials' are either cowering in the Green Zone or out of the country. The Iraqis look at this set-up and ask,"What government?" They can see the militias are the ones offering protection. Al-Sadr is one person who is actually attempting to hold the country together. So who do you think Maliki will align himself with?

This gives me an idea..... If I grab a UPS guy and make him President of the United States, would it be ok with you guys?

Read Juan Cole for his intelligently worded reaction to Bush's Big Surge speech.

The melt down

If you want to know how it is on the ground in Iraq, listen to Michael Ware.

Rook cites Mercury News:
"With Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki relegated to the sidelines, brazen Sunni-Shiite attacks continue unchecked despite a 24-hour curfew over Baghdad. Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia now controls wide swaths of the capital, his politicians are the backbone of the Cabinet, and his followers deeply entrenched in the Iraqi security forces. Sectarian violence has spun so rapidly out of control since the Sadr City blasts, however, that it's not clear whether even al-Sadr has the authority - or the will - to stop the cycle of bloodshed."

Garbled information about casualities, the burning alive of civilians.

Josh Marshall quotes the NYTimes saying that:
"....one of the secret report's more surprising conclusions, according to The Times, is "that terrorist and insurgent groups in Iraq may have surplus funds with which to support other terrorist organizations outside of Iraq.” It seems counterintuitive that the armed Shiite and Sunni militias battling for control of Iraq would be financing terrorists outside of Iraq while the battle inside of Iraq still hangs in the balance.

In fairness, The Times makes clear that the secret report may be flawed: "Some terrorism experts outside the government who were given an outline of the report by The Times, criticized it for a lack of precision and a reliance on speculation."

The overwhelming impression I'm left with from the piece is that more than three and half years after ostensibly seizing control of Iraq, the U.S. government is still largely ignorant of the armed groups arrayed against its efforts there."

Everyone seems to be hoping the Baker-Hamilton Commission's report will give us some way out of Iraq, but apparently Bush wants options, like never having to say he's sorry.

Glenn Greenwald notes the bizarre first condition of the Commission:
"There is nothing "centrist" about a Commission which decides in advance that it will not remove our troops from a war which is an unmitigated disaster and getting worse every day. It just goes without saying that if you invade and occupy a country and are achieving nothing good by staying, withdrawal must be one of the primary options considered when deciding what to do about the disaster.

Even if that is not the option ultimately chosen, a categorical refusal in advance to consider that option -- or to listen to experts who advocate it -- is not the work of a "centrist" body devoted to finding a solution to this war. If the Commission begins with the premise that we have to stay in Iraq and then only considers proposals for how to modify our strategy on the margins, that is anything but centrist. To the contrary, that is a close-minded -- and rather extremist -- commitment to the continuation of a war which most Americans have come to despise and want to see brought to an end."

Some are not impressed:
"Today on CNN, Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski issued a strong, preemptive criticism of the Baker Commission studying alternatives for Iraq. Brzezinski said that while the commission “will probably come out with some sound advice on dealing with the neighborhood,” it essentially “will offer some procrastination ideas for dealing with the crisis.”"

NTodd spells it out to an idiot thinking it would be good for us to bring back Saddam:
"I'll explain: it's not fucking up to us.

No, really, the Iraqis want us out--they don't want us to put Saddam or anybody else in power. They know we fucked things up for them and they still just want us to get the hell out of their country and stop helping further destroy it.

The Iraqis' destiny was always really in their own hands even before we decided to take on the mantle of White Man's Burden and "liberate" them. Now that we've been so gracious as to get rid of their old murderous thug so a thousand new murderous thugs can bloom, it's time for us to make a gracious exit.

So long and thanks for all the IEDs. Sorry about the mess. Send the cleaning bill to us--we're good for it."