March 01, 2006

Which Iraq?

Hammorabi fears Iraq is burning, heading for a civil war.

Omar hears "a big bang," knows he won't be leaving for work, settles
back on the couch, and quickly becomes riveted by the Saddam Hussein trial.

Two Iraqis, vastly different concerns.

American news media takes an almost universal view that Iraq is on the brink of a sectarian civil war. Bill Roggio, an astute analyst of the war who has travelled on the ground in Iraq, states that the main lead indicators a full-scale civil war aren't present.

Victor David Hanson states (and I agree with him) that the attack on the shrine and the ensuing violence:

might be a sign of the terrorists' desperation--killers who have not, and cannot, defeat the U.S. military.

Ralph Peters states unequivocally:

-- THE reporting out of Baghdad continues to be hysterical and dishonest. There is no civil war in the streets. None. Period.

Terrorism, yes. Civil war, no. Clear enough?

Which Iraq is real? That seems to hinge on who you think is winning.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at March 1, 2006 02:00 PM | TrackBack

Or it hinges on who you WANT to win.

Posted by: Bill at March 1, 2006 03:33 PM

Yeah, especially if you want those theocratic iran leaners to win.

Posted by: matt at March 1, 2006 03:57 PM

nothing killing obl wouldn't fix.

and executing saddam will help.

then again: what's so dang bad about an indeoendent Kurdistan and the sunniand shias kiling each iother for a decade!?

my theory: the closer we get to ousting assad and sanctioning/attacking iramn the worse the terror will get.

first the golden dome.
next??? a mosque in Kurdistan? the "al aksa"?
then again, if i was alQ i'd say it was a very good time to blow up a container ship ANYHWERE.

my point: like vdh said: the more desperate they get the worse their attacks.


Posted by: reliapundit at March 2, 2006 12:27 AM

I'd listen to Ralph Peters if 1) he wasn't an idiot and 2) he wasn't "dishonest" himself.

Posted by: Alexander Wolfe at March 2, 2006 01:44 PM