Hah - Maliki fired Haifa Street Brigade Commander

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16610769/site/newsweek/

Everyone seems quite certain that George W. Bush's new plan for Iraq is bound to fail. But I'm not so sure. At a military level, the strategy could well produce some successes. American forces have won every battle they have fought in Iraq. Having more troops and a new mission to secure whole neighborhoods is a good idea—better four years late than never. But the crucial question is, will military progress lead to political progress? That logic, at the heart of the president's new strategy, strikes me as highly dubious.

Administration officials have pointed to last week's fighting against Sunni insurgents in and around Baghdad's Haifa Street as a textbook example of the new strategy. Iraqi forces took the lead, American troops backed them up and the government did not put up any obstacles. The Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger concluded that the battle "looked like a successful test of unified effort."

But did it? NEWSWEEK's Michael Hastings, embedded with an American advisory team that took part in the fighting, reports that no more than 24 hours after the battle began on Jan. 6, the brigade's Sunni commander, Gen. Razzak Hamza, was relieved of his command. The phone call to fire him came directly from the office of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, a Shiite. Lt. Col. Steven Duke, commander of a U.S. advisory team working with the Iraqis, and a 20-year Army veteran, describes Hamza as "a true patriot would go after the bad guys on either side." Hamza was replaced by a Shiite.

Joint operations against Shiite militias are far less likely, and not only because of political interference from the top. Groups like Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army don't generally start fire fights with the Americans or attack Iraqi forces. Their goals are different, quieter. Another U.S. adviser, Maj. Mark Brady, confirms reports that the Mahdi Army has been continuing to systematically take over Sunni neighborhoods, killing, terrorizing and forcing people out of their homes. "They're slowly moving across the river," he told Hastings, from predominantly Shiite eastern Baghdad into the predominantly Sunni west. If the 20,000 additional American troops being sent to the Iraqi capital focus primarily on Sunni insurgents, there's a chance the Shiite militias might get bolder. Colonel Duke puts it bluntly: " is sitting on the 50-yard line eating popcorn, watching us do their work for them."

Oh yeah Bushie, Maliki's your man and he's going to listen to you! Hah!

[Fridays Child]

1. Bush may think he's bought Maliki's loyalty but he hasn't.

This is the fatal arrogance of people who think that they can control everyone by throwing around their money, their threats, and their favors. Maliki is playing Bush, just like Saddam and every other U.S.-supported dictator played his predecessors.

[papau]

2. Shia warlord controlled Maliki fires Sunni General - and this means?

Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek is usually a bit smarter than this - and does not try to pass off crap logic on the way to a conclusion that the Bush folks want from him. That Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger concluded that a battle "looked like a successful test of unified effort" means the WSJ is backing Bush escalation - and what else.

Shia systematically take over Sunni neighborhoods, killing, terrorizing and forcing people out of their homes, and "20,000 additional American troops being sent to the Iraqi capital focus primarily on Sunni insurgents", so the Shiite militias will get bolder as Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is protected by Maliki, means the escalation will "work"? - what the hell does the word "work" mean in this context?