As opposed to putting assaults on hold after the election, I guess... but the difference in the candidates doesn't change the fact that this is a bad idea. Stopping to consolidate in the wake of Samarra etc. is one thing; stopping until an election is done is b.s. If true, this is bad strategy, flawed leadership - and foolish politics, too, when your greatest asset is decisiveness and willingness to lead.
UPDATE: Another possibility occurs to me. It's possible that this is a military decision: avoid starting any major operations within a month of the election, in order to avoid the possibility of a major battle being interrupted or snafued by a possible political transition. That could be a reasonable position for the military to take, essentially another version of ensuring that their supply lines are secure before beginning an offensive. The question is, was this a military decision?
More discussion in our comments - many readers don't find this article credible, and explain why not.
just more evidence that war is the entension of politics by other means, or in this case the absence thereof. If Kerry had gone to the right of Bush on the war, he could have used this to bury him.
I read that. It still left the question open to me. The military could have made that request, on those exact grounds - "the political ramifications of a large-scale offensive," as described in my post. If the administration decides to respect that, you have the present situation as reported.
I'm also open to the possibility that this is a political decision, of course.
I'll add this, too - while "less agressive" is better than "on hold" (which is where I thought they were), I don't think teaching America's enemies that they get a reprieve just before U.S. elections is a smart thing to do. Too many ways for it to be exploited.
Why would you assume that this quote is credible?
Assuming we believe any of this in the first place. Stories based wholly on anonymous sources, bah. The practice is an invitation to abuses on the part of reporters.
In this case, also, the story doesn't tally with what happened in Samarra a week or two ago. Unless the idea is supposed to be that there are no military operations after some arbitrary date which happens to be between then and now.
Or the entire thing could be a plant to lull the jihadis into having a big election eve party in Fallujah, inviting all their buddys from Iran, SA, etc., thereby allowing us to nuke the place and kill them all.
Why spend a lot of time thinking about the comments of anonymous sources? They might be the reporters kid sister for all we know.
This doesn't seem to square with what's going on in Ramadi right now either. Are the Times reporters just making stuff up at this point or did Rove feed them this to make them look stupid?
I'm with jaed on this: the story is based wholly on anonymous sources. As such, it is one of three things: made up; sourced to people who are partially involved, partially informed and wholly trying to advance an agenda of their own without any risks to themselves; or some combination of the two.
My experience with such stories has been that they have a core of truth, but are so far off-base in general as to be meaningless. For example, how about this possibility: perhaps informants are seeing the possibility of a Kerry election, and thinking that such an administration would cut and run from Iraq. In that case, the informants would be killed - horribly - along with their family, should the Iraqi government fail. Without US help, and with Iranian and Syrian intervention at current levels, the Iraqi government will likely fail. Thus, such informants might be making a prudent decision to lay low. If that is the case, the combatant commander might be forced to slow down attacks until after the election.
Such nuances would not come out in a news story, particularly if the leaker and/or the reporter had a grudge against Bush in the first place.
In the end, I have to evaluate the story as not credible information.
I am sorry for being blunt but are we discussing a Los Angeles Times story 3 weeks before a Presidential Election as if it is anything except bald ass lie put out by the MSM Wing of the Democratic Party?
Isnt the WoF supposed to be serious?
Pierre
Probably explains this item:
U.S. Steps Up Iraq Attacks Before Ramadan
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. troops went on the offensive from the gates of Baghdad to the Syrian border Tuesday, pounding Sunni insurgent positions from the air and supporting Iraqi soldiers in raids on mosques suspected of harboring extremists.
American and Iraqi forces launched the operations ahead of Ramadan, expected to start at week's end, in an apparent attempt at preventing a repeat of the insurgent violence that took place at the start of last year's Muslim holy month.
Clashes broke out in a string of militant strongholds from Fallujah, 40 miles west of Baghdad, northward along the Euphrates Valley to the Syrian border town of Qaim — all major conflict areas.
Some of the sharpest exchanges took place in Hit, 90 miles northwest of Baghdad, where residents and hospital officials said U.S. aircraft attacked two sites, killing two people and wounding five. . . . Read the rest