Your Early Morning Iraq Clusterfuck

Nick Gillespie | March 28, 2007

Shiite militants and police enraged by massive truck bombings in the northwestern town of Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents there Wednesday, killing as many as 60 people, officials said.

The gunmen began roaming Sunni neighborhoods in the city, shooting at residents and homes, according to police and a local Sunni politician....

The violence came a day after two truck bombs shattered markets in the city, killing at least 63 people and wounding dozens in the second assault in four days. After Tuesday's bombings, suspected Sunni insurgents tried to ambush ambulances carrying the injured out of the northwestern city but were driven off by police gunfire, Iraqi authorities said.

The carnage was the worst bloodshed in a surge of violence across Iraq as militants on both sides of the sectarian divide apparently have fled to other parts of the country to avoid a U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown, raising tensions outside the capital.

More here.

Comments

|3.28.07 @ 8:14AM|#

I like reading H&R in the morning for some irreverence to go with my coffee and seeing the word "clusterfuck" at 7:10am CDT can only mean I'm going to have a good day. But stories like this just make me want to get back in bed for a couple of hours.

|3.28.07 @ 8:31AM|#

Geez people, quit jumping the gun. Give the surge a chance to work. In a couple of years we can look back and evaluate if it's working, but not now. I mean, in 1944, the Battle of the Bulge wasn't going so well, but did we pull out of Europe?

If any of you has a plan that will bring about a stable, US-friendly democracy in Iraq, I'm all ears. But for now, the surge is the only such option.

michaela|3.28.07 @ 8:58AM|#

I wonder whether your choice of words affects your credibility?

|3.28.07 @ 9:30AM|#

The Bush administration: It's Mourning In America! (And Iraq, too! Mostly Iraq, actually)

despair|3.28.07 @ 9:31AM|#

Wow, things are even worse in Iraq than in Ohio.

|3.28.07 @ 9:37AM|#

Early morning "clusterfuck" is now accompanied by early morning voice for school choice spam...

And, WTF does Iraq have to do with that anyway? What a stretch!

What a day, indeed...

VM|3.28.07 @ 9:38AM|#

It's official - civil war.

in "Despair's" (et al) brain.

up the voltage, buddy. Up the voltage.

|3.28.07 @ 9:43AM|#

VM,

The only thing lacking is the administrations acceptance / acknowledgment that it is a civil war...IMO

|3.28.07 @ 9:52AM|#

Drop the bomb, exterminate them all.

W.E. Kurtz

|3.28.07 @ 9:53AM|#

Colonel Kurtz | March 28, 2007, 9:52am | #
Drop the bomb, exterminate them all.

W.E. Kurtz

Politicians? I agree.

|3.28.07 @ 9:54AM|#

This morning, CNN was running a clip of McCain saying that things are getting better in Iraq. Granted, I lack the ground-level perspective, but from what I can see, "getting better" isn't an accurate description.

|3.28.07 @ 10:22AM|#

Number 6 | March 28, 2007, 9:54am | #

This morning, CNN was running a clip of McCain saying that things are getting better in Iraq. Granted, I lack the ground-level perspective, but from what I can see, "getting better" isn't an accurate description.

Well, given that Iraqis are killing each other at a pretty good clip, I'd say it's only a matter of time before there's no more left. So, theoretically, no more Iraqis = no more killing = getting better.

That must be the thinking behind it. Right?

|3.28.07 @ 10:41AM|#

Long time lurker, first time poster...

Reading this article brought to mind this horrific report I read in The [London] Times recently, helpfully reproduced on their website:

Link.

I think "Civil War" is a fair assessment.

|3.28.07 @ 11:04AM|#

Nice article, DJB. "Clusterfuck" is right.

Mike Laursen|3.28.07 @ 11:05AM|#

If any of you has a plan that will bring about a stable, US-friendly democracy in Iraq, I'm all ears.

Unfortunately, the only really solid plan I can come up with would require a time machine. Second best plan: divvy the country up into three pieces, get the hell out, and swear never ever to get involved in the Middle East again.

|3.28.07 @ 11:09AM|#

Jimmy- That does reflect one of my more pessimistic ideas-that conflicts involving the unholy nexus of religion, ethnicity, and nationalism will end only when one of the belligerent groups is wiped out. That's a horrible thought, and of course the worst possible out come, but those conflicts seem so intractable that it's hard to imagine another solution.

Of course, commerce, voluntary co-operation and mutual respect would work, but that requires a willingness to let go of ancient grudges and a recognition of the right of others to exist. Those are tall orders in places where those conflicts exist. I doubt that such things can be created at gunpoint.

I suspect that the surge will work-temporarily, in Baghdad. But the bad actors will simply either move their operations or wait until we draw down.

There is one other solution: a police state run by a despot. Evil as Saddam was* his despotic regime prevented civil war. At least for a while.

*That is not-read this again, as many times as it takes-an endorsement of SH's regime. He was evil, and his government monstrous.

|3.28.07 @ 11:33AM|#

"Geez people, quit jumping the gun. Give the surge a chance to work."

But I read on Instapundit that the surge is already working.

|3.28.07 @ 12:07PM|#

So, what's everyone think about the idea of requiring all further military interventions be paid for by selling war bonds? I think it would be an amusing way to force people to really think about how much a particular fight is worth to them, personally.

|3.28.07 @ 12:17PM|#

Good Buddy-

I would like to see profit and loss projections, a prospectus, and a stock offering. None of this bogus "We're making the world safe for democracy" crap.

|3.28.07 @ 12:42PM|#

The civil war was inevitable the day we decided to remove Saddam.

Saddam was a bad man. He could have been very useful to us.

Stalin was a bad man too, the allies would not have won WW2 without him.

We had a choice in 1991. Back the Saudis, back Saddam, or stay the hell out of it.

We made the wort possible choice. Given the choice between a secular tyrant (Saddam) and a theocratic dictatorship we should have chosen the secular tyrant.

"Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real Patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests."

Can you imagine what George Washington would have said about George H.W. Bush sending US soldiers into battle to put the Kuwaiti king back on his throne?

Seamus|3.28.07 @ 1:39PM|#

So, what's everyone think about the idea of requiring all further military interventions be paid for by selling war bonds?

What would be the difference between "war bonds" and the regular bonds that are funding the intervention right now? I mean, wouldn't the Chinese buy they regardless of what we called them?

|3.28.07 @ 1:44PM|#

But I read on Instapundit that the surge is already working.

That too. What I meant was that we should give it a chance to continue working to the extent it's already working, and to start working to the extent that it isn't.

|3.28.07 @ 1:53PM|#

Seamus,

I heard a report this morning that the Chinese are looking to start moving some of their money out of U.S. bonds. They are trying to be careful so that the Dollar doesn't collapse, but they're starting to look for other investments that will give them better returns.

|3.28.07 @ 2:06PM|#

Civil war, my ass !!. This war is about as uncivil as any I've seen in the last 60 years. Chess is a civil war, so long as one side or the other doesn't kick the board.

|3.28.07 @ 2:37PM|#

Hey, I thought that Islam was a religion of peace!

Oh, wait...

|3.28.07 @ 3:31PM|#

"Hey, I thought that Islam was a religion of peace! "

Religions go through this when they're 1500 years old or so. It's not like Christians haven't spent hundreds of years killing each other over dogma.

Christians were pretty tough on apostates for a while there. Remind me again why did the Mormons leave Ohio and end up in Utah?

As your guy says "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

|3.28.07 @ 5:47PM|#

Hey, Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

But that trick never works!

This time, for SURE!

RRRrrroooooorrrrrrrr!!!!!!!

Guy Montag|3.28.07 @ 11:09PM|#

Okay Nick O'Donnell, what about that Iranian "parading of prisoners in hoods"? Ooops, forgot, if they are fighting the USA they are fine and if they are with the USA they are bad. My bad.

Looking forward to the Gulf of Sydra(sp?) == Tonkin story.

Paul|3.29.07 @ 6:58PM|#

If any of you has a plan that will bring about a stable, US-friendly democracy in Iraq, I'm all ears.

Funny, the rest of the country keeps asking this same question of our aministration.