Blog round up 03.22.2006

There are a few very worthwhile posts out there.

Jorg W at the Atlantic Review asks: "Why is Abu Ghraib a cover story again, but not Darfur?"

Andrew Sullivan posts the following:

Looking for the Bright Side in Iraq
21 Mar 2006 06:07 pm

That was what ABC News' Jake Tapper tried to do. And then tragedy struck. This is gripping footage.

The Cunning Realist assails the media:

What the press actually did with today's opportunity, though, is quite another matter. I counted over a half-dozen bursts of giggles and laughter from the crowd of reporters. On a day when four more troops were reported killed in Iraq with another six currently pending confirmation/family notification, expecting the White House press corps to maintain at least some semblance of professionalism apparently is expecting too much. Moreover, this space has chronicled the numerous misleading intimations and allegations about Iran's nuclear program that Bush and other senior administration officials have made during the past few months. Unless I've missed something, not once has a reporter asked Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton etc. how their dire warnings comport with our intelligence community's estimate that Iran is a decade away from nuclear weapons capability. Since the invasion of Iraq, there's been a lot of mirror-gazing and teeth-gnashing by the Fourth Estate about its own prewar failings. Today was the perfect opportunity for reporters to at least get the president on record about a crucial issue. Instead, they laughed.

MikeVotes at Born at the Crest of Empire posts the following report and opinion:

Leaving aside the debate over whether or not Iraq is already in civil war, (I know, Greyhair) take a look at this piece by NBC's Jim Miklaszewski on the military's planning for that possibility.

Military officials tell NBC News the first objective, however, is to head off a civil war. The U.S. military hopes to keep Iraqi security forces from taking sides in the sectarian violence by pressuring the Iraqi government to crack down on any rogue elements within the police or military.

The second option: U.S. forces could again be sent into combat against sectarian militias, which military officials say would require an increase in the number of American soldiers and Marines in Iraq.

And the last resort, if violence is spinning out of countrol: Military officials say they would also have to consider the possible withdrawal of American forces.

No real surprise in any of those options, but it seems to me that option one is more or less a tinkerbell strategy, and with Bush still in office, option three is probably off the table.

(My reasoning on this is that Bush seems more concerned about his legacy being "losing Iraq" than any concern for US troops, the fate of Iraq, or the US's future standing. Like the debt, his plan is to leave the mess to the next president so his "legacy" will be clear. He can then blame failure in Iraq on someone else for "not continuing his policy.")

So, if these are the choices the military is really considering, the American public had better prepare itself for US troops in the middle of an Iraqi civil war.

It just keeps getting worse.