On Morning Edition Inskeep talks to propagandist Bing West. Inskeep is pushing a line about the Basra assault: "Iraqi forces tried to remove Shiite Muslim militias in Basra and elsewhere. Their failure raises questions." So the Maliki assault on Basra was about trying to remove Shiite militias. Does that include the Badr Corps that came to Maliki's defense (even a dummy at the National Review realized that)? Does that mean it had nothing to do with oil and coming elections.
Bing West carries on this mindless distortion: "on the good side, he did move against Sadr and he did move against the militias....he did take action that was definitely in the best interests of Iraq; there's no question about that."
And where does this made-up narrative lead? To the necessity of the US staying and leading, of course. Here's Inskeep: "Does this basically mean we're still in a situation where Petraeus has to be the man calling the shots...that they [Iraqis] must follow the lead of the Americans if they're going to succeed." To which Bing West claims that the Iraqi generals would say, "We would prefer to take our cues from General Petraeus."
The stupidity of this is unbelievable. Even the Council on Foreign Relations, no bastion of progressive politics, has a far more nuanced take on the story.