Comments on: In an About-Face, Sunnis Want U.S. to Remain in Iraq – New York Times http://molesthoughts.wordpress.com/2006/07/17/in-an-about-face-sunnis-want-us-to-remain-in-iraq-new-york-times/ You ask: What DOES a mole think? Well here is where you find out. Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:53:11 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Mitch http://molesthoughts.wordpress.com/2006/07/17/in-an-about-face-sunnis-want-us-to-remain-in-iraq-new-york-times/#comment-6 Mitch Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:44:20 +0000 https://molesthoughts.wordpress.com/2006/07/17/in-an-about-face-sunnis-want-us-to-remain-in-iraq-new-york-times/#comment-6 Apparently after over 1200 days of occupying Iraq, the New York Times reports that the U.S. military has finally decided that Shiite attacks on Sunnis deserve its attention just as much as Sunni attacks on Americans, and submits a front page article cheerily titled, “In an About-Face, Sunnis Want U.S. to Remain in Iraq”. On the U.S. reversal, the Times reports: The Americans insist they are striking at the militias. On July 7, American and Iraqi troops stormed a building in a Shiite slum in Baghdad, killing or wounding 30 to 40 gunmen and capturing a high-level Shiite militia commander. Residents said the man was Abu Deraa, a leader of the Mahdi Army, which answers to the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. But independent journalist Aaron Glantz reported on how the motivation of this crackdown was to punish proponents of a measure in the Iraqi Parliament that would have demanded a timeline for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq: “We asked them to put a timetable on their withdrawal, and they think that they should stay. This is the main reason of the conflict,” explained Sadr movement spokesman Fadil el-Sharra, adding it was Sadr’s representatives in Parliament who had put forward the resolution demanding a timeline on a U.S. troop withdrawal. The New York Times piece continues: Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, a military spokesman, said it was clear that civilians were suffering heavily from “the activities of these illegal armed groups through murder, intimidation, kidnappings and everything else.” He added, “We’ve made a very conscious decision here in the last few weeks to deal with them just as severely as we can.” The article reports that this U.S. military reversal garnered plaudits by many Iraqi Sunnis. But absent polling data to show a diminishing of the 80-plus percent of Iraqis who want the U.S. out, I wouldn’t have gone so far as to pat ourselves on the back for turning around Iraqi sentiment. And judging by the ulterior motives sited by Glantz, I certainly wouldn’t have allowed the explanation by a U.S. military spokesman ascribing noble causes to the U.S. reversal to go unchallenged. Apparently after over 1200 days of occupying Iraq, the New York Times reports that the U.S. military has finally decided that Shiite attacks on Sunnis deserve its attention just as much as Sunni attacks on Americans, and submits a front page article cheerily titled, “In an About-Face, Sunnis Want U.S. to Remain in Iraq”. On the U.S. reversal, the Times reports:

The Americans insist they are striking at the militias. On July 7, American and Iraqi troops stormed a building in a Shiite slum in Baghdad, killing or wounding 30 to 40 gunmen and capturing a high-level Shiite militia commander. Residents said the man was Abu Deraa, a leader of the Mahdi Army, which answers to the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

But independent journalist Aaron Glantz reported on how the motivation of this crackdown was to punish proponents of a measure in the Iraqi Parliament that would have demanded a timeline for the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq:

“We asked them to put a timetable on their withdrawal, and they think that they should stay. This is the main reason of the conflict,” explained Sadr movement spokesman Fadil el-Sharra, adding it was Sadr’s representatives in Parliament who had put forward the resolution demanding a timeline on a U.S. troop withdrawal.

The New York Times piece continues:

Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, a military spokesman, said it was clear that civilians were suffering heavily from “the activities of these illegal armed groups through murder, intimidation, kidnappings and everything else.”

He added, “We’ve made a very conscious decision here in the last few weeks to deal with them just as severely as we can.”

The article reports that this U.S. military reversal garnered plaudits by many Iraqi Sunnis. But absent polling data to show a diminishing of the 80-plus percent of Iraqis who want the U.S. out, I wouldn’t have gone so far as to pat ourselves on the back for turning around Iraqi sentiment.

And judging by the ulterior motives sited by Glantz, I certainly wouldn’t have allowed the explanation by a U.S. military spokesman ascribing noble causes to the U.S. reversal to go unchallenged.

]]>