Bush's Iraq Plan Collapses
The Skinny is Hillary Profita's take on the top news of the day and the best of the Internet.
As the New Year begins, an incessant rewind of the 2006's notable events has crowded newspapers in recent days. While most are on the lighter side (The year in buzzwords!), The New York Times' front page today takes a detailed look back at a heavier subject: how President Bush's "strategy for victory in Iraq" in early 2006 has crumbled over the past year.
That plan had called for transferring security responsibilities to the Iraqis and gradually withdrawing American troops.
Unfortunately, "Iraq's ferocious unraveling," in the form of unabated sectarian violence, got in the way of that. According to some senior officials, warnings of the effect of such violence were not taken seriously by the administration, leaving the White House "constantly lagging a step or two behind events on the ground."
U.S. Death Toll In Iraq Hits 3,000
In the wake of yesterday's news that the death toll among American soldiers and Marines in Iraq reached 3,000, The Washington Post's front page offers a bit of a reality check on how far the effects of the war have reverberated in the US.(USA Today tracks the story of one roadside bomb that killed Pfc. Ricky Salas Jr. last year.)
"Like an emotional manifestation of the laws of physics, the casualties have rippled across the American psyche -- those close to the events have been profoundly moved, while those at some distance, the majority of Americans, have been largely unaffected," writes the Post. With about one in every 230 Americans deployed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that means for most of the country "the reverberations of the conflict are limited to headlines and television images of explosions or discussions about Iraq policy."
Shiite Frustration
The Post's front page also looks at a growing frustration among Iraq's Shiites, who "feel as if they have been handed the keys to their house but never allowed to settle down." Their view of the United States is strained with mistrust as the U.S. engages with Sunnis and pressures Shiites to disband militias.
With that, Shiites are looking "for more independence from their American backers." Exhibit A: the government ignored the U.S's objections to executing Saddam Hussein so quickly after his sentence was upheld on appeal.
Huddled Masses from Iraq? Nah.
Another NYT front-page piece examines the ever expanding exodus of Iraqis from their country (1.8 million are estimated to be living outside Iraq) and arguments of an "urgent need" to allow more of them into the U.S. In 2005, 198 Iraqis were resettled in the United States as refugees; 202 in 2006. "Until recently the Bush administration had planned to resettle just 500 Iraqis this year, a mere fraction of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who are now believed to be fleeing their country each month," writes the Times.
The State Department told the paper that they are "open to admitting larger numbers, but are limited by a cumbersome and poorly financed United Nations referral system." Critics call the limited refugee program something else: a political move. They say a more comprehensive program doesn't exist "because to do so would be tantamount to conceding failure in Iraq."
100 Hours Of Non-Bipartisanship
And now, what you've all been waiting for: a look ahead at the dramatic legislative debacles that await the 110th Congress. In the fine American political tradition of bipartisanship, the newly powerful Democrats are going to go ahead and stick it to the Republicans.
As House Democrats' "First Hundred Hours" campaign kicks into gear (stricter ethics rules, increased minimum wage -- nothing particularly dramatic as far as the L.A. Times is concerned), Republicans will not be "fully participat[ing] in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections," writes the Post.
Instead, Dems will "use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories."
This is all sort of par for the course, one Rutgers political scientist tells the paper: "It's in the nature of the House of Representatives for the majority party to be dominant and control the agenda and limit as much as possible the influence of the minority. It's almost counter to the essence of the place for the majority and minority to share responsibility for legislation."