Yes, Matt. Yes, Pandagon. Yes, Atrios.
Glenn was right. We did win this battle:
Over the next 60 days, more than 5,000 troops from the division engaged in the most sustained urban combat operation of the now 15-month occupation. In desert cities that once welcomed American troops, they battled a Shiite uprising that threatened to upset the June 30 transition to an Iraqi interim government. Their orders were stark: Smash the uprising, and capture or kill its leader, the radical cleric Moqtada Sadr.
Silk soon found himself in a swirl of continuous combat, the kind of close fighting that the military had expected, but mostly avoided, during the 2003 invasion. Pinned down while pushing across a narrow bridge to retake the city of Kut, he watched four soldiers in his 15-man platoon fall wounded. “It was insane the amount of fire we were taking,” he said later.
By the time the uprising was over, silenced in a cease-fire June 4, the U.S. military success appeared decisive. While 19 U.S. soldiers had been killed in combat and scores wounded, military officials estimate that 1,500 insurgents were killed. Sadr’s militiamen had been driven from positions many had died defending.
But like much of the occupation, the battle for the Shiite holy cities yielded a more ambiguous political outcome. Sadr remains at large; U.S.-sponsored polls show him to be one of Iraq’s most popular figures. Hundreds of his militiamen escaped, perhaps to fight another day.
The uprising was crushed, and while Sadr on the surface appears popular, the poll results we discussed last week show how shallow his support is in the country.
I have never met a group of people so wiling to grab defeat from the jaws of victory. But then again, I have never met a group of people willing to say or do anything to win an election. Maybe the title of Matt’s post was right- liberals are idiots.
More here.
Dorian
Well, it was never a POPULAR uprising for the Iraqi people – just the Left here in the U.S. After all, violence that
JohnO
“Liberals are idiots”
Redundant:Using more words or images than are necessary or useful.
ha
Tac might disagree with you here, John.
shark
They’re quite content to see all manner of calamaties happen to this nation, including another terror attack, as long as it hurts Bush.
And they wonder just why we question their patriotism…and yes, that includes you Andrew J Lazarus. I’d question your patriotism, but it’s obvious you never had any
Andrew J. Lazarus
Hey, shark, next time you call me out by name, have the decency and courage to drop me an email. Mom was right, bullies are cowards. (And your support of Bush shows Mom was right, birds of a feather flock together.)
Shark is what Mad Magazine called a ‘superpatriot’, someone who loves his country but hates most of the people in it.
As to the merits of the original post, I’m afraid you guys are lost in symbolic gestures. The “Handover” is something arranged between us and our Iraqi allies (to choose a neutral word). Its significance on the ground? Maybe something, but it certainly isn’t self-executing. If, for example, civil war ensues, the handover will be quickly overtaken by events; likewise if the only thing stopping the civil war is American bloodshed. One would have to question shark’s patriotism, that hundreds of American families will suffer the calamity of losing a member out in the Iraqwagmire, wouldn’t one?
Rick
AJL,
Savor today’s Iraqi blogging:
http://www.asmallvictory.net
Cordially…
Terry
It is all becoming clearer now…AJL’s source of all knowledge comes from Mad Magazine; he just cited them as authority for another of his loopy opinions.
SDN
No, Andrew, hate is too strong a word (and emotion) to feel about such as you. Despise fits much better.
worn
“I have never met a group of people willing to say or do anything to win an election”
I assume the second ‘so’ was left out. Even so, ballon-juice please meet just one delightful facet of the morally upstanding Mr. Rove:
reforminstitute.org/cgi-data/article/files/180.shtml