New York Times Death Spiral Watch

Outsourced to Matthew Yglesias, who reads Erica Goode so the rest of us can escape uninjured:

Matthew Yglesias (March 28, 2008) - Know Your Enemy (Foreign Policy): New York Times: "Mr. Bush also accused Iran of arming, training and financing the militias fighting against the Iraqi forces." Would it have killed the Times to point out that Iran is also arming, training, and financing the militias fighting alongside the Iraqi forces? After all, the government of Iran has extremely cordial relations with the government of Iraq and our main militia allies in Iraq were literally created in Iran by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. This context certainly seems relevant.

Meanwhile, is there any real precedent for the sort of repeated misstating the identity of the enemy that we've seen from the Bush administration? Recall that it took years for the administration to grudgingly acknowledge the existence of a non-AQI Sunni Arab insurgency even though this insurgency had long been the US military's primary adversary. But now we're supposed to believe that everyone we and our Iranian-backed allies fight are Iranian. Sure.

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

Comments

[Neal]

If you want a war with Iran, of course they are Iranian-supported. Why the confusion and wonderment about that?

Don't you think that this is an attempt to speed the plow? How better to get a response from Iran that could be seen as provocation.

Look for bodies dressed in Revolutionary Guard dress uniforms among the dead insurgents in Basra, or the functional equivalent of that.

[The Probe]

The NYT cant even write an honest article about Berkeley,
let alone the great geopolitical issues of the day:
http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/travel/30hours.html

"students running off hangovers along the steep hills."

But this is a step up from their Bush'41 Era visit:
re: People's Park ...
"Students rarely visit the site unless they are seeking
LSD or a ''lid'' of marijuana."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFD9123CF937A15757C0A96F948260

[anne]

http://www.juancole.com/2008/03/police-mutiny-refuse-to-attack-sadrists.html

March 29, 2008

Police Mutiny, Refuse to attack Sadrists; Clashes continue in Basra; Sadrists open New fronts throughout Shiite South
By Juan Cole

Another US soldier was killed in Baghdad on Friday.

The Times of Baghdad reports in Arabic that clashes continued on Friday between Iraqi government forces and the Mahdi Army in Baghdad and the provinces of the middle Euphrates and the south, causing hundreds of casualties, including among women, children and the elderly. The fighting also did damage to Iraq's infrastructure, as well as to oil facilities and pipelines, damage that might run into the billions of dollars.

The US got drawn into the fighting on Friday. US planes bombed alleged Mahdi Army positions both in Basra and in Sadr City in Baghdad (as well as in Kadhimiya). Kadhimiya is a major Shiite shrine neighborhood in northwest Baghdad, and the spectacle of the US bombing it is very unlikely to win Washington any friends among Iraqi Shiites.

Despite the US intervention, government troops were unable to pierce Mahdi Army defenses or over-run their positions.

Al-Zaman says that the police force in Basra suffered numerous mutinies and instances of insubordination, with policemen refusing to fire on the Mahdi Army. The government response was to undertake a widespread purge of disloyal elements.

[Hmm. I wonder where fired policemen with combat training and guns could find another job . . . Maybe with the Mahdi Army?]

The Mahdi Army opened a number of new fronts in the fighting, in Nasiriya, Karbala, Hilla, and Diwaniya, as a means of reducing the pressure on its fighters in the holy city of Karbala. Local medical officials reported 36 dead in the fighting in Nasiriya.

The Mahdi Army used its position near Nasiriya to attack government troops attempting to go south to join the effort in Basra, and is said to have inflicted substantial casualties on them.

In Baghdad, Mahdi Army fighters clashed with government forces in 31 districts.

In the meantime, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki called for a decisive military victory and rejected calls by southern tribal sheikhs and a large number of Shiite ayatollahs for him to engage in dialogue and negotiation in order to reach a ceasefire and to save civilians who are threatened with a humanitarian catastrophe from shortages of water and food, as well as lack of medical care.

At the same time, Al-Zaman maintains, the Sadrists stipulated that al-Maliki and his brother-in-law, who heads the emergency forces that have been sent down to Basra from Baghdad and Basra, must withdraw.

The Iraqi minister of defense, Abdul Qadir Jasim, admitted in a news conference in Basra that the militiamen had taken the Iraqi security forces off guard. He added that the Iraqi government had expected this operation to be routine, but was surprised at the level of resistance, and was forced to change its plans and tactics.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Hoshyar Zebari said that the government intends to defeat the Sadrists, but said he did not know how long the endeavor would take.

The attempt of parliament to meet and take up the issue of the battle with the Mahdi Army failed when the federal legislature could not muster a quorum. The session then turned into a mere discussion session. Al-Hayat, writing in Arabic, says that one reason that parliament could not get a quorum was that the Kurdistan Alliance and the United Iraqi Alliance (Shiite) support al-Maliki and boycotted the session.

The tableau above is tragicomic. The Iraqi security forces haven't even begun to take key Mahdi Army territory in Basra, and in fact have been rebuffed. The Mahdi Army claims to have captured heavy arms and even Iraqi soldiers from the government. The minister of defense admits that Baghdad was surprised at the level of resistance to the campaign. (After the spring of 2004? Why?) The British contingent of 4,000 troops out at the airport is not getting involved, * raising questions as to what they are doing there.

* http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/29/iraq

[anne]

That America continually bombs civilian areas from Somalia to Pakistan is shamefully tragic and worse. We must leave Iraq completely and immediately.

[Monte Davis]

Would it have killed the Times to point out that the U.S. is also arming and financing the variously renamed "Sunni Awakening" militias... and that Allah only knows whom THEY will be fighting -- or fighting alongside -- a year or five years from now?

[anne]

Seemingly events of the last days have startled even Juan Cole. I cannot believe the governments' attacks in Iraq could have been planned and executed had such attacks not been sanctioned by America; we know for sure the attacks are supported by America.

We bomb in civilian areas continually from Somalia to Pakistan, and never a moral thought is given to what we are doing.

We must leave Iraq completely and immediately.

[anne]

I am surprised and disappointed at the seeming lack of attention among economists to the work of Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, even to a willingness to argue of the effects of the unique way in which we financed war and occupation. Of course military-war spending is a current economic stimulus, but the magnitude and effects of such spending need to be discussed as does the credit financing that brought us here.

I would not be bothered by responsible negative reviews of Stigltz's work (the negative reviews so far only actually involve support of the war), but economists should pay attention if only to be seriously negative.

[anne]

Has a $3 trillion war and occupation contributed to making relatively poor domestic investment choices, and will such spening weaken us competitively from here? Are the war and occupation really costless, or even economically beneficial over time?

Has Stiglitz been misled?

When Japan was using fiscal policy to insulate the midle class from the effects of slow growth through a financial crisis, analysts continually complained of Japan wasting resources on wholly unnecessary infrastructure. I thought otherwise as did Paul Krugman. Why though are there no complaints from economists of wasting resources on war and occupation?

[anne]

Of course I need to make clear no matter how often, that even if war and occupation are costless or perverely helpful to our economy, we are destroying economies and lives from Somalia to Pakistan an we have no right to do so. We have no right to bomb civilian areas in Iraq, continually, with no mercy. We have no right to be destroying economy and lives in Iraq, and surely our bombs are doing precisely these things.

Remember when Colin Powell went before the United Nations to fruitlessly make a case for war and occupation, the tapestry of Picasso's Guernica in the lobby before the Security Council hall was covered over. Guernica however is what we are about continually, with never a United Nations allowance then or now.

I think a $3 trillion war and occupation needs discussion by economists, even if the discussion is justifying for at least then I could argue against such justification.

We really must stop, but there is no stopping. Heck.

[smaug]

"Iran is also arming, training, and financing the militias fighting alongside the Iraqi forces"

OK. I'll bite. Which ones?

[tom f]

smaug:

Badr brigades, for one.

anne, not that you didn't see this, but:

"Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, said the United States had known of the Basra operation in advance, suggesting a good deal of coordination between the United States and Iraq."

Erica Goode, NYT 3/29

[tom f]

"American forces shelled Asriyah in the Touz Khormato district, about 50 miles northeast of Baghdad, in Kirkuk Province, killing two civilians." -Goode, NYT, 3/29

"US jets have carried out a number of air strikes in Basra, which they say are targeting militant positions.

"At least seven people were killed in one reported air strike in Basra overnight, according to relatives. Iraqi sources said the dead were all civilians but there was no confirmation from the US." -BBC 3/29

Collective punishment, airstrikes that kill civilians, all too uphold an essentially untentable moral, strategic, and tactical posistion: the Israelification of America in the Middle East. Baghdad is our emerging West Bank, the Green Zone and permanent military bases our "settlements".

[bigTom]

smaug: The Badr corps were essentially a creation of the Iranian Republican guard. Because they support the current Iraqi government, and Sadr doesn't (and in fact wants the US occupation to end), Sadr is considered to be the "bad guy" from our perspective. The Iranian government has close ties to the current Iraqi government, but not to Sadr, who is considered to be a nationalist (i.e. he would oppose strong Iranian influence on Iraq). So Iran and the US have (at least short term) interests that are the same here. Sadr is unacceptable because if he ran the government of Iraq, he would ask us to leave. The decrease in violence attributed to the surge was largely the result of a truce between the occupation and Sadr. We couldn't resist the temptation to attack Sadr's forces along the margins (Iraq government has detained over 2000 Sadrists). It should not be a surprise that Sadr would eventually give up on the truce.

[anne]

Tom is sensitively but toughly pointing out that much of the experience of Iraqis through the occupation has been the experience of collective punishment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/world/middleeast/30iraq.html

March 30, 2008

Shiite Militias Cling to Basra and Stage Raids
By JAMES GLANZ and MICHAEL KAMBER

Shiite militias openly controlled wide swathes of the city on Saturday as Iraqi political leaders grew increasingly critical of the stalled assault.

[anne]

"Shiite militias openly controlled wide swathes of the city on Saturday as Iraqi political leaders grew increasingly critical of the stalled assault."

Notice carefully the wording, and understand how impossibly lost we are. Supporters of Muktada al-Sadr in 2004 were impossibly loyal and brave when threatened, however much they could not stand against American forces. Whatever was to have been expected in 2008? Whatever reason could there have been to threaten al-Sadr again?

Basra of course is being wrecked, because war wrecks, and who can tell what is happening to civilians but what can happen when cities are attacked?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/weekinreview/30glan.html

March 30, 2008

Alley Fighters
By JAMES GLANZ

The Mahdi Army knows the way around the slums in which it fights.

[I will not read tomorrow's news till tomorrow, but there is something especially saddening about this headline which is completely true so far as I understand.]

[anne]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/print/20080328-3.html

March 28, 2008

President Bush Participates in Joint Press Availability with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia

East Room

PRESIDENT BUSH: Thank you.

A couple questions a side. John Yang.

Q Mr. President, thank you very much. I'd like to ask you about Iraq. Yesterday in Dayton in your remarks, you said that the Iraqi offensive against criminals and militants in Basra was a sign of progress. But it's also triggered clashes with supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr. And this morning, U.S. forces were again fighting the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. What does this say about progress in terms of reconciliation in Iraq among the various factions? And what can the United States do, what can you do, what can your administration do to help Prime Minister Maliki make progress in that area? ...

PRESIDENT BUSH: John, any government that presumes to represent the majority of people must confront criminal elements or people who think they can live outside the law. And that's what's taking place in Basra and in other parts of Iraq. I would say this is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq. There have been other defining moments up to now, but this is a defining moment, as well. The decision to move troops -- Iraqi troops into Basra talks about Prime Minister Maliki's leadership.

And one of the early questions I had to the Prime Minister was would he be willing to confront criminal elements, whether they be Shia or Sunni? Would he, in representing people who want to live in peace, be willing to use force necessary to bring to justice those who take advantage of a vacuum, or those who murder the innocent? And his answer was, yes, sir, I will. And I said, well, you'll have our support if that's the case, if you believe in evenhanded justice. And his decision to move into Basra shows evenhanded justice, shows he's willing to go after those who believe they're outside the law.

This is a test and a moment for the Iraqi government, which strongly has supported Prime Minister Maliki's actions. And it is an interesting moment for the people of Iraq, because in order for this democracy to survive, they must have confidence in their government's ability to protect them and to be evenhanded.

And so -- the other that's interesting about this, by the way -- this happens to be one of the provinces where the Iraqs are in the lead -- Iraqis are in the lead, and that's what they are in this instance. And the United States, of course, will provide them help if they ask for it and if they need it. But they are in the lead. And this is a good test for them. And of course, routing out these folks who've burrowed in society, who take advantage of the ability to be criminals, or the ability to intimidate citizens, is going to take a while. But it is a necessary part of the development of a free society....

[anne]

The population of Basra was 1.7 million in 2003.

[anne]

Sadr City may have had a population of 2 million in 2003.

[anne]

http://www.cbpp.org/3-27-08tax.htm

March 27, 2008

Capital Gains Tax Cuts Slashed Taxes of Top 400, While Their Incomes Soared
By Aviva Aron-Dine

New Internal Revenue Service (IRS) data show that the 400 U.S. taxpayers with the very highest incomes pay only 18 percent of their income, on average, in federal individual income taxes. The data, published by the Wall Street Journal and the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, provide detailed income and tax information for the 400 tax filers with the highest adjusted gross incomes (AGI) in each year from 1992 to 2005.[1] They show that while the incomes of those at the top have skyrocketed, their tax rates have fallen significantly, with the largest reductions occurring after the capital gains tax cuts of 1997 and 2003.

Rapid Income Gains in Late 1990s and Last Few Years

Other IRS data show that high-income groups have fared extremely well over the past decade and a half; for example, the average income of the top 1 percent of filers rose by 89 percent between 1992 and 2005, after adjusting for inflation. The new data show that, among the top 400 taxpayers — 3 out of every 1 million filers — pre-tax income gains were even larger.

Between 1992 and 2005, the average AGI of the top 400 tax filers increased by 235 percent, after adjusting for inflation: from $64 million to $214 million in 2005 dollars. (To make it into the top 400, a filer needed AGI of $33 million in 1992 and $100 million in 2005.) The incomes of this group grew rapidly between 1995 and 2000, dropped during the 2001 recession, but then rose rapidly again from 2002 to 2005.

Tax Rates Fell, So After-Tax Incomes Rose By An Even Larger Percentage

Even as pre-tax incomes shot up for the very highest-income filers, their effective individual income tax rate — the share of their pre-tax income paid in federal personal income taxes — fell sharply. In 1995, the top 400 filers paid an average of 30 percent of their income in personal income taxes. By 2005, the average had fallen to 18 percent. Moreover, in 1995, almost no one in the top 400 paid less than 15 percent of his or her income in federal income tax; by 2005, more than a third did. The drop in effective tax rates for the top 400 filers between 1995 and 2005 worked out to a tax reduction of $25 million per filer in 2005, or to a total of $10 billion in tax reductions for these 400 households.

Because of this steep reduction in effective tax rates, the after-tax incomes of the top 400 grew even faster than their pre-tax incomes. Over the 1992 to 2005 period, when the average pre-tax income of these filers rose by 235 percent, their average income after federal income taxes increased by 272 percent.[2] ...

[anne]

http://www.cbpp.org/3-27-08tax2.htm

March 27, 2008

Data Show Income Concentration Rose Again in 2006: Average Income Rose by $73,000 for Households in the Top 1%, Only $20 for Those in Bottom 90%
By Aviva Aron-Dine

Economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez recently issued an updated version of their groundbreaking data series on income inequality in the United States.[1] The data, which are based on Internal Revenue Service (IRS) files, are unique because they provide detailed information on income gains at the top of the income scale, extend back to 1913, and provide the first detailed look at the distribution of income in 2006.

The new data show:

Between 2005 and 2006, the average income (before taxes) of the top 1 percent of households increased by $73,000 (or 7 percent), after adjusting for inflation,[2] while the average income of the bottom 90 percent of households increased by just $20 (or 0.1 percent). (In 2006, the top 1 percent of households were those with incomes above about $375,000.)

2006 marked the fourth straight year in which income gains at the top outpaced those among the rest of the population. Since 2002, the average income of the top 1 percent of households has risen 44 percent, or $335,000, after adjusting for inflation. The average income of the bottom 90 percent of households has risen about 3 percent, or about $1,000.

As a result, the share of the nation's income flowing to the top 1 percent has increased sharply, rising from 15.8 percent in 2002 to 20.3 percent in 2006. Not since 1928, just before the Great Depression, has the top 1 percent held such a large share of the nation's income. In 2000, at the peak of the 1990s boom, the top 1 percent received 19.3 percent of total income in the nation.[3]

Income gains have been even more pronounced among those at the very top of the top 1 percent. The incomes of the top one-tenth of 1 percent (0.1 percent) of U.S. households have grown more rapidly than the incomes of the top 1 percent of households as a whole, rising by 60 percent, or $1.9 million per household, since 2002. The share of the nation's income flowing to the top one-tenth of 1 percent increased from 6.5 percent in 2002 to 9.3 percent in 2006. This is the highest level since 1928.

Income Gains, Adjusted for Inflation, 2002-2006

Dollar Increase
Percentage Increase

Bottom 90%
$1,000
3%

Next 9%
$16,000
11%

Top 1%
$335,000
44%

In 2006, the bottom 90 percent of households were those with incomes below about $105,000. The next 9 percent were those with incomes between $105,000 and about $375,000, and the top 1 percent were those with incomes above $375,000.

The uneven distribution of economic gains in recent years continues a longer-term trend that began in the late 1970s....

[anne]

Again, since the initial budget of George Bush in 2002, taxes have been repeatedly cut, especially for benefit of the wealthiest, while military spending have become a larger portion of national income and social spending has become a smaller portion of national income.

Fiscal policy, tax cuts for the wealthiest, and increasing military spending relative to social spending is gobbling up the middle class.

We are warring and occupying while lowering taxes especially for the benefit of the wealthiest and sacrificing social spending. Iraq is gobbling up America's middle class materially, beyond being morally self-destructive. Never before has there been such fiscal policy through war and occupation. Never before; this is a different America.

[anne]

http://www.epi.org/printer.cfm?id=2806&content_type=1&nice_name=webfeatures_snapshots_20071010

October 10, 2007

War Spending Placed Above Domestic Priorities
By Monique Morrissey

Non-defense discretionary spending as percent of GDP

2002 3.7 initial budget under George Bush
2003 3.9
2004 3.8
2005 3.9
2006 3.7
2007 3.6
2008 3.6

Defense discretionary spending as percent of GDP

2002 3.4 initial budget under George Bush
2003 3.7
2004 3.9
2005 4.0
2006 4.0
2007 4.0
2008 4.3

The figures actually understate the full cost of the "war on terror," because Homeland Security, State Department, and Foreign Operations funding is included in non-defense spending. Significant long-term war costs, for veterans' health care, for example, are also not included.

[anne]

Since the initial budget of George Bush in 2002, social spending in real per capita terms has actually decreased by 2.6%. We are warring and occupying with tax cuts especially for the wealthiest and cuts in social spending. All for a $3 trillion war and occupation that have been taken as being costless, but they are gobbling up America's middle class though we do not seem to understand.

[anne]

Leaving Iraq completely and immediately is necessary to save Iraq, and to save America morally and possibly materially. We had no right to invade, to depose, to occupy, to harm another people and even to harm ourselves.

[smaug]

Thanks for the responses. I'm know of the Badr Brigade/Corps/Organization Iranian-led origins, but is it the case that the Badr militia -- or for that matter, the Sadr militia -- still rely primarily on Iranian training, funds & arms?

Yglesias mis-links the quote: it was from a Glanz & Myers article, not a Goode one. And Myers was in Ohio w/ Bush, not in Baghdad with Glanz, as the Times makes clear in the article footer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html?em&ex=1206849600&en=f232e6c4027422cc&ei=5087%0A

If there is a point to criticize in the Glanz article, it is that it does not probe into the often overlapping relations between Iraqi security forces and the Badr militia.

[smaug]

Thanks for the responses. I'm know of the Badr Brigade/Corps/Organization Iranian-led origins, but is it the case that the Badr militia -- or for that matter, the Sadr militia -- still rely primarily on Iranian training, funds & arms?

Yglesias mis-links the quote: it was from a Glanz & Myers article, not a Goode one. And Myers was in Ohio w/ Bush, not in Baghdad with Glanz, as the Times makes clear in the article footer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html?em&ex=1206849600&en=f232e6c4027422cc&ei=5087%0A

If there is a point to criticize in the Glanz article, it is that it does not probe into the often overlapping relations between Iraqi security forces and the Badr militia.

[PSP]

Anyone want to bet that the 10 day extension of time to surrender is 10 days when no food whatsoever will enter Sadrist neighborhoods?

[anne]

Matthew Yglesias is wrong; there is no reason to believe Iran is arming, training or finacing any Iraqi militias. There is especially no reason th believe government supporting militias are being arme, trained and financed in or by Iran. I comment makes no sense since government supporting militias have all they need from us.

[anne]

Corrected:

Matthew Yglesias is wrong; there is no reason to believe Iran is arming, training or financing any Iraqi militias. There is especially no reason to believe government supporting militias are being armed, trained and financed in or by Iran. The comment makes no sense since government supporting militias have all they need from us. Yglesias has to read Juan Cole now and then to avoid terminally wrong cutness on Iraq.

[anne]

[My correction:]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/know_your_enemy_1.php

March 28, 2008

Know Your Enemy
By Matthew Yglesias

New York Times: * "Mr. Bush also accused Iran of arming, training and financing the militias fighting against the Iraqi forces." Would it have killed the Times to point out that Iran could as easily be accused of arming, training, and financing the militias fighting alongside the Iraqi forces? After all, the government of Iran has extremely cordial relations with the government of Iraq and our main militia allies in Iraq were literally created in Iran by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. This context certainly seems relevant.

Meanwhile, is there any real precedent for the sort of repeated misstating the identity of the enemy that we've seen from the Bush administration? Recall that it took years for the administration to grudgingly acknowledge the existence of a non-AQI ** Sunni Arab insurgency even though this insurgency had long been the US military's primary adversary. But now we're supposed to believe that everyone we and our Iranian-backed allies fight are Iranian. Sure.

* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html a,b

** Al-Qaeda in Iraq

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html?hp b

March 28, 2008

Assault by Iraq on Shiite Forces Stalls in Basra
By JAMES GLANZ and STEVEN LEE MYERS

BAGHDAD — American-trained Iraqi security forces failed for a third straight day to oust Shiite militias from the southern city of Basra on Thursday, even as President Bush hailed the operation as a sign of the growing strength of Iraq's federal government.

The fighting in Basra against the Mahdi Army, the armed wing of the political movement led by the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, set off clashes in cities throughout Iraq. Major demonstrations were staged in a number of Shiite areas of Baghdad, including Sadr City, the huge neighborhood that is Mr. Sadr's base of power.

Although Mr. Bush praised the Iraqi government for leading the fighting, it also appeared that the Iraqi government was pursuing its own agenda, calling the battles a fight against "criminal" elements but seeking to marginalize the Mahdi Army.

The Americans share the Iraqi government's hostility toward what they call rogue elements of the Mahdi Army but will also be faced with the consequences if the battles among Shiite factions erupt into more widespread unrest.

The violence underscored the fragile nature of the security improvements partly credited to the American troop increase that began last year. Officials have acknowledged that a cease-fire called by Mr. Sadr last August has contributed to the improvements. Should the cease-fire collapse entirely, those gains could be in serious jeopardy, making it far more difficult to begin bringing substantial numbers of American troops home.

Although Sadr officials insisted on Thursday that the cease-fire was still in effect, Mr. Sadr has authorized his forces to fight in self-defense, and the battles in Basra appear to be eroding the cease-fire.

During a lengthy speech at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, near Dayton, Ohio, Mr. Bush praised Iraq's government for ordering the assault in Basra and portrayed the battle as evidence that his strategy of increasing troop strength was bearing fruit.

"This offensive builds on the security gains of the surge and demonstrates to the Iraqi people that their government is committed to protecting them," he said.

"There's a strong commitment by the central government of Iraq to say that no one is above the law."

Mr. Bush also accused Iran of arming, training and financing the militias fighting against the Iraqi forces....