Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Highlights From Chuck Norris's... | HRC RX »

Monday, June 11, 2007

Re: This Morning’s NYT Headline

posted by on June 11 at 10:21 AM

As we linked in this morning’s news round-up, the NYT has a front-page story on the Bush administration’s latest strategy in Iraq: Arming and working with the more moderate Sunnis (as in militarized, but not Islamist radicals) to put down al Qaeda.

The NYT article, mostly the splashy headline, puts the emphasis on the fact that this branch of Sunnis was allied with Qaeda, but they fail to make hay out of the bigger, and more damning irony: This is Saddam Hussein’s base. In other words, this is the same faction that was keeping al Qaeda away when Saddam Hussein was in power. (They only linked with the Islamists briefly in wake of U.S. occupation.)

Now, as the article notes, the U.S. is looking to Saddam’s old crew to “bring stability” and perhaps “consolidate the minority Sunni power” against Shiites (Iran) … JUST LIKE SADDAM WAS DOING!

I apologize for the krazy all-caps, but oy vey, man.

Indeed, not only was there zero connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, but Sadamm was a bulwark against radical Islamists.

We are now fighting Saddam’s war. Hey, George Bush, Bite me.

RSS icon Comments


"We are now fighting Saddam's war". Succinctly put. Makes you proud, doesn't it? I wonder if George will grow a big bushy moustache now too.

Posted by Fnarf | June 11, 2007 10:28 AM

I can totally see Bushie on a balcony at the White House firing a shot gun in the air.

Posted by Original Andrew | June 11, 2007 10:34 AM

Or at least Dick Cheney on a balcony firing a shot gun into his friend's face.

Posted by Levislade | June 11, 2007 10:38 AM

Well, considering that the initial proscription against Baathists holding any positions in the new government basically eliminated for consideration most of the people who would have been competent in those positions, some sort of rapprochement with Saddam's loyalist base was inevitable. That we are four years into this occupation and looking to create stability by imitating Saddam's own tactics also seems oddly inevitable. All we need now is a U.S. -friendly strongman to be "democratically elected" and the circle of stupidity will be complete.

That's what happens when you let a roomful of drunken howler monkeys draft your foreign policy.

Posted by flamingbanjo | June 11, 2007 10:41 AM

What a waste of US tax dollars this whole farce is.

Posted by Will in Seattle | June 11, 2007 10:45 AM

Frankly, getting another secular strongman in power is probably the best possible outcome at this point. Anything else is going to equal massive religious warfare once we leave. Oh, and anyone who says that we (Americans), the world, or Iraqis are better off without Saddam in power is a fucking asshole.

Posted by keshmeshi | June 11, 2007 10:46 AM

* bangs forehead repeatedly on desk *

Whenever I think the "war on terror" can't get any worse, it does.

It seems inevitable now that there is no way to extricate ourselves from this disaster during Bush's reign. Let's just hope he doesn't invade Iran too, to double our fun.

Posted by SDA in SEA | June 11, 2007 10:50 AM

Eh. Considering that we'll soon be fighting the Russians in proxy wars throughout the world, just like the good ol' days, Iraq is gonna seem so passe.

Posted by Gitai | June 11, 2007 10:51 AM
I can totally see Bushie on a balcony at the White House firing a shot gun in the air.

Of course, this is America, so Bush has much more expensive toys to play with.

Posted by cdc | June 11, 2007 11:33 AM

@3: FTW! LOL!

Posted by Original Monique | June 11, 2007 12:00 PM

Without reading much about it, including that NYT article, I am struck by how strange this development is. Not only the irony of gathering former Saddamites into alliance. It's also weird in that Al Qaeda is a Sunni rather than Shiite organization. But isn't it also important to note that the "Al Qaeda" that is being discussed is the grown-in-post-Saddam-Iraq bunch, Al Qaeda in Iraq, rather than the original OBL group? What is the connection between those two Al Qaedas? Is there any Shiite, pro-Iran influence in Al Qaeda in Iraq? How do the Iraqi Shiites feel about the US joining up with these Baathist factions? Does this whole development signal an end to any US goal of a pluralistic democratic Iraq? Is this simply the US retreating back to where it used to be--pro-Sunni/Saudi, anti-Shiite/Iran? Maybe I should watch Wolf Blitzer more--no doubt he's on top of it.

Posted by fixo | June 11, 2007 1:19 PM

fixo @ 11,

It's a good thing you're asking these questions, because no one in the US Government is!

Posted by Original Andrew | June 11, 2007 1:37 PM

Continuing on Fixo, I'm not surprised by this development at all. We ended up on the wrong side of the war as it was. We supported the Shiites, who are pro-Iran and pro-Syria, and were fighting against the Sunnis, who share the same denomination as our pals the Saudis. Can't Jesus get a hand clap?

Posted by Lloyd Clydesdale | June 11, 2007 3:36 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).