First up, how Bush and Blair respectfully deal with the free and democratic government of Iraq by sending in their consiglieres to make them an offer they can’t refuse: Get rid of Prime Minister Jafaari, or else . . .

THE US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, made a surprise visit to Baghdad yesterday to press Iraqi leaders to form a new government and avert a civil war. […]

Dr Rice started talks with Dr Jaafari – who refuses to stand aside – almost immediately. She and Mr Straw were also expected to hold talks with other leaders including President Jalal Talabani. US officials make little secret of doubts about Dr Jaafari’s ability to unite and lead Iraq.

Well, we all knew George has issues with the meaning of the word “sovereignty”, didn’t we? Technically, however, it qualifies as my only “Good News” story. Good in the sense that it doesn’t involve anyone’s death, that is.

For the rest of the Iraq news round-up (and it only gets worse), follow me below the fold . . .

. . . where we begin the not-so-good-news with this story out of the United Kingdom: It seems Blair’s intelligence services don’t think Iraq will be such a good idea in the long run:

Iraq terror backlash in UK ‘for years’

David Leppard

SPY chiefs have warned Tony Blair that the war in Iraq has made Britain the target of a terror campaign by Al-Qaeda that will last “for many years to come.”

A leaked top-secret memo from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) says the war in Iraq has “exacerbated” the threat by radicalising British Muslims and attracting new recruits to anti-western terror attacks.

The four-page memo, entitled International Terrorism: Impact of Iraq, contradicts Blair’s public assurances by concluding that the invasion of Iraq has fomented a jihad or holy war against Britain.

What’s surprising is that Blair let his intelligence people commit this “report” to paper. I know it doesn’t exactly take a genius to come to the conclusion that Iraq = More Terrorism for Decades to Come, but still, I expected the Poodle Mr. Blair to cover his tracks better than this. I guess Tony hasn’t had enough tips from Lord Cheney President Bush on how to muzzle influence your spy guys to give you only the intelligence you want, not the intelligence you need.

Does make you wonder, though, if the CIA has a similar memo floating around somewhere . . . nah, I’m sure Porter Goss or John Negroponte don’t permit “dissenting opinions” within the CIA to make it to the President’s desk. Gotta preserve Bush’s plausible deniability after all.

Moving on, it seems the Press (or at least the British Press) is finally catching on that whatever the reason we went to Iraq, the reason we are going to stay there for the indefinite future just might have something to do with all those permanent military bases we are constructing:

US and UK forces establish ‘enduring bases’ in Iraq

Despite talk of withdrawal ‘when the job is done’, there are signs that coalition troops will be there for the long term

The Pentagon has revealed that coalition forces are spending millions of dollars establishing at least six “enduring” bases in Iraq – raising the prospect that US and UK forces could be involved in a long-term deployment in the country. It said it assumed British troops would operate one of the bases. […]

Some analysts believe the desire to establish a long-term US military presence in Iraq was always one of the reasons behind the 2003 invasion. Joseph Gerson, a historian of American military bases, said: “The Bush administration’s intention is to have a long-term military presence in the region … For a number of years the US has sought to use a number of means to make sure it dominates in the Middle East … The Bush administration sees Iraq as an unsinkable aircraft carrier for its troops and bases for years to come.”

Zoltan Grossman, a geographer at Evergreen State College in Washington, said: “After every US military intervention since 1990 the Pentagon has left behind clusters of new bases in areas where it never before had a foothold. The new string of bases stretch from Kosovo and adjacent Balkan states, to Iraq and other Persian Gulf states, into Afghanistan and other central Asian states … The only two obstacles to a geographically contiguous US sphere of influence are Iran and Syria.”

Its the Bush Doctrine at work: spreading Freedom and Democracy with billions of dollars in military base construction and thousands of lives of US soldiers. You’d think the Iraqis would be a little more grateful. After all, unlike Vietnam, we aren’t keeping score (officially) by tallying up their dead bodies, now are we?

Speaking of Iraqi gratitude US military casualties, Sunday wasn’t a very good day on that score, either:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) — Three U.S. soldiers have been killed in Iraq and two military pilots are presumed dead after their helicopter was apparently shot down while on patrol, the U.S. military said Sunday.

The AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter went down west of Yousifiah on Saturday evening while conducting a combat air patrol, the U.S. military said in a statement. Officials believe the aircraft was shot down.

Still, that’s a minor setback compared to what’s happening to the Iraqi populace on a regular basis these days:

Baghdad — Insurgents blew up a small Shiite mosque northeast of Baghdad on Sunday, while police reported the discovery of nearly 40 bodies in several neighborhoods of the Iraqi capital. […]

The bodies found in Bagdad were all handcuffed and had been shot in the head or chest, said police Major Falah al-Mohammedawi. They apparently were victims of revenge killings between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

Yes, you read that right: revenge killings. We’ve made Iraq free so people can pursue the art of vendetta unencumbered by issues like personal security or proper law enforcement. Perhaps it is this unintended benefit of the Iraq invasion that explains this story:

Civilians in Iraq flee mixed areas as killings rise

By Edward Wong and Kirk Semple
The New York Times

The war in Iraq has entered a bloodier phase, with American casualties steadily declining over the past five months while the killings of Iraqi civilians have risen tremendously in sectarian violence, spurring tens of thousands of Iraqis to flee from mixed Shiite-Sunni areas.

The new pattern, detailed in casualty and migration statistics and in interviews with American commanders and Iraqi officials, has led to further separation of Shiite and Sunni Arabs, moving the country toward a de facto partitioning along sectarian and ethnic lines – an outcome that the Bush administration has doggedly worked to avoid over the past three years.

I like how the Times’ reporters give the Bushies the benefit of the doubt (i.e., stating that this was an outcome they had “doggedly worked to avoid over the past three years”). For myself, I am not so generous. In my view, almost every step the Bush administration has taken in Iraq has led relentlessly and remorselessly to this very result. Recruiting Kurds and Shi’ites to the Iraqi Army and Police forces, and then using them to patrol Sunni neighborhoods. Training death squads composed of Shi’ite militia men. Imposing a Constitution that guaranteed political divisions along sectarian lines. Perhaps, it was only the result of Bush’s monumental incompetence, or, more sinisterly, his plan for Iraq all along, but whatever the intention, I find it hard to conclude that Bush and Co. “worked doggedly” to prevent the sectarian divisions that are brutally tearing Iraqi society apart. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Of course, pointing this out makes me just another traitorous librul who won’t support the troops, so what do I know?