Tuesday, 22 April 2008
The U.S. wanted to see the defeat of Sadr supporters before the upcoming provincial elections because a victory for Sadr is tantamount to the collapse of the entire American project.
By Ramzy Baroud
Naturally, skewed reporting leads to slanted conclusions. No, the lesson learnt is not that the Iraqi army requires more training and funds, which would necessitate the U.S. and other forces to prolong their stay in the country. It is rather that the tide has turned so fast in Iraq, whereby the new enemy is now largely Shia, and one which envisions a unified and free Iraq which controls its own resources; that Iran's influence in Iraq has morphed to the point of guaranteeing a win-win situation, while the U.S. is playing with a lot fewer cards; that U.S. firepower has proven less effective than ever, and that the upcoming elections could create a nightmare scenario whose consequences could remove the sectarian label from Iraqi violence and replace it with a nationalist one.
Reporters can be quisling, incompetent and parrots of official accounts. Regardless, no matter how they wish to term it, the battle of Basra is likely to change the nature of the U.S. fight in Iraq for years to come. . . . . .read more
No comments:
Post a Comment