Iraq Security Adviser: Situation In Baghdad Improving
This certainly hasn’t gotten a lot of play in the media:
TOKYO (Reuters) – The level of violence in Baghdad has fallen sharply since July thanks to troop reinforcements and the new government’s efforts to reconcile warring Shi’ites and Sunnis, Iraq’s national security adviser said on Tuesday.
Mowaffaq al-Rubaie insisted that the sectarian and insurgent bloodshed that has seized Iraq was not a civil war, a description U.S. President George W. Bush’s administration has strenuously avoided in the face of mounting casualties.
“This is absolutely not a civil war,” Rubaie told Reuters in an interview during a visit to Japan. “Al Qaeda tried for that for three years and failed miserably. But it has created a crack between Shias and Sunnis.”
[...]
He challenged the notion that violence was out of control in the Iraqi capital, saying it had peaked last month.
“The surge was only until mid-July,” he said. “The number of attacks is down from mid-July by 45 percent and extra-judicial murders … are down 35 percent since mid-July. We’re there, we’re definitely on the mend.”
A very different view of the situation in Baghdad than what we get from the media/Democrats. Of course, anti-war types will just say that this guy is just a Bush administration puppet…but we all know they’d be trumpeting his comments from the rooftops if he was talking about Baghdad being in shambles.
Anyway, I thought this from the article was very interesting:
Some analysts say repeated talk of a civil war could pressure the Bush administration into a withdrawal of the 135,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, especially if Bush’s approval ratings fall further ahead of U.S. congressional elections in November.
Which analysts are saying that? “Analysts” who maybe want civil war in Iraq? “Analysts” who want Iraq to be a failure so that it can be used as a political weapon against President Bush? “Analysts” who are, say, liberal in their politics and don’t mind mischaracterizing what is going on in Iraq as a “civil war” by endlessly talking about it as though it were a civil war?
I’d say that’s a good assumption to make.
You’ve got to love it when journalists start citing unnamed “analysts” or “experts.”



