This is Going to Cause Trouble

So, I read this CNN story over a couple of times and had more questions than answers. However, the bare facts about the raid, as given by the reporter are that US forces entered a house/compound in the city of Kut. Six people were arrested, and a man and woman were killed. Apparently the home/compound was owned by a tribal leader and the individuals arrested, as well as those killed, were family members to the tribal leader.

The US stated they had support and approval from the proper Iraqi authorities. Apparently this is the truth, since the last line in the story states "Iraqi State TV reported that Iraq's defense ministry ordered the arrest of two Iraqi commanders in Kut who apparently allowed the U.S. military to carry out the raid."

Now the Iraqi authorities want to accuse the US of violating the security pact in place. Al-Maliki has asked for the release of the suspects from the raid and to "hand over those who committed the crime" to the Iraqi judiciary. However, if the Iraqi representatives gave consent, as the story indicates, then the US troops did nothing wrong. Of course, facts may not be as important in this case as who you're related to.

Now for the questions:

1) The reason for the raid. According to US intelligence, those detained were affiliated with Iran as a "special group" operating inside Iraq. I assume the US will produce evidence about this (and must have done so in the past to get the permission from Iraqi representatives in Kut).

2) Who was the "Tribal Leader" and how much pull does he have with the Iraqi national government? This is huge because, from my inklings about human nature, it seems like the leader might have cried to the right people in the national government about the raid to have these actions taken. Of course, this is totally against the rule of law, but there it is.

3) Did the US receive approval from the proper authorities? Again, my knowledge of how the US Army operates is that the order would come down from someone high enough in the US forces to allow the planning and execution of the order. The big issue is where the approval came from on the Iraqi side. Was the issue addressed at the proper level? Again, gut instinct says, "Yes, enough to cover the Americans who ordered the raid and executed the orders."

4) How serious is Al-Maliki about prosecuting the US troops? Is this an honest attempt to prosecute people who have actually committed "grave premeditated felonies" or is this more of a move on the Iraqi government's part to flex their muscles and show some nationalist tendencies? If Al-Maliki really pushes this, it can cause trouble between the US and the nascent Iraqi government.

Again, the last line in the news article acknowledges there was some sort of approval from Iraqi authorities. This covers the US this time in a true court of law. However, I believe this action will definitely chill the possible approval for raids in the future.

Why can't he just admit he's wrong?

This video is very enlightening.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

An honest, upstanding man, one who truly wants to serve the nation well, would readily admit when they are wrong. When confronted with obvious errors, an honest man will say, "You're right. I was wrong." However, Harry Reid is not an honest man, nor a great statesman. Instead he shows himself as a grasping, self-serving politician who wants to attribute all successes to himself and blame others for all failures.

Remember, Harry Reid was the politician who pushed hardest for us to leave Iraq as soon as possible. He stated that the surge was a failure and would not secure the region. Even in his review of the current issues in the Middle East, where he talks about the "destabilizing" of the region because we invaded Iraq, he makes monumental and factually wrong mistakes. (For instance, Israel's attack on Hamas in Gaza has absolutely nothing to do with George Bush and the US Congress agreeing to attack Iraq.)

I will agree with Harry on one thing, though. Patreaus is a genius. He had the intelligence to correctly guage the high morale of our troops, understand the mindset of the enemy and discern the correct path. He knew that the enemy would rightly see this as weakness on the part of America. Of course, the one Senator who supported and fought for this surge strategy ran for President. Unfortunately, another politician, one who had similar views to Harry, was elected. At least he had the grace to admit the surge worked.

So, How are things in Iraq?

Seems like the news from Iraq has been pretty quiet lately. This could be because the US has already won the fight there. It could also be because casualties are down to their lowest level since the conflict started. Yes, the coalition forces in Iraq did a great thing in helping to secure the freedom of the Iraqi people.

Now the Iraqis are starting to take more and more control of their own country.

Parting question, though. Why do we not hear more about this from the reporters leaving the nation? There has to be a reason.