Iraq the Model reports that the surge has begun in Baghdad.
Minutes after nighttime curfew began in Baghdad at 9 pm we saw breaking news on al-Hurra and al-Jazeera saying that Baghdad's security operation has just started...
However, an assistant to Prime Minister Maliki said that this was not the start of the new security operation, but only a limited government ordered operation based on information that insurgents were hiding in the neighborhood. To which Omar commented:
Whether this is the start of Operation Baghdad or not, the operation is taking place without making any noise; in fact tonight is even quieter than the average Baghdad night!
Yesterday, the New York Times reported that Iraqis were impatient for the operation to begin. Under the headline, Iraqis Fault Pace of U.S. Plan in Attack, the Times reported,
“People’s expectations went up,” Mr. Zebari said. “They were hopeful, optimistic that this new surge, this new plan would provide a better life for them. And this daily killing — this bomb — they lose hope. Still the troops haven’t arrived.”
And while Iraqis in Baghdad pin their hopes on in influx of troops to stem the violence in their city, Senate Democrats continue efforts to oppose it.
Senate leaders squabbled yesterday over how to consider resolutions opposing President Bush's plan for more troops in Iraq, but the quarrel did not stop lawmakers from launching an informal debate on the chamber floor over the war.
"The only people who believe there is a workable military solution for the conflict in Iraq is the Bush administration," said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who advocates requiring Bush to complete the removal of American troops from Iraq within a year.
A measure was proposed by Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire resolving that the Senate will not vote to withdraw funding for the Iraq war. It will not get a vote.
Democrats regard the measure as a political stunt but are loath to go on the record opposing it, for fear of giving the impression that they would harm troops in the field. They also recognize that a vote in favor of Gregg would amount to a tacit endorsement of Bush's troop plan.
"I find it almost incomprehensible that the Democratic leader doesn't want a vote on this language. It is not radical language. It is fairly reasonable language," Gregg insisted to reporters yesterday afternoon.
At least the Democrats have enough sense to know they should not appear willing to harm the troops in the field - as they seek resolutions that will assuredly extend hope to enemies who seek to kill our troops in the field and kill the Iraqis whose hopes depend on them.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called Democrats disingenuous for declaring support for U.S. troops while denouncing their commander in chief's strategy. Troops serving in Iraq "won't buy it," McCain said. "A vote of no confidence is a vote of no confidence."
Senator McCain calls them disingenuous. I can think of other more accurate words.
Comments