confusedThat's the actual headline from The Telegraph. When a friend told me about it, I thought he was joking. That sounds like a headline from The Onion. And the first paragraph from the article really reads like something from The Onion:
President George W Bush met his top generals to discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq as it was reported that America is considering punishing Baghdad if it fails to meet deadlines to stop the violence.
And how might they punish Iraq for failing to stop the civil war? (emphasis mine):
These would include "changes in military strategy", which could mean troop cuts or redeployment within Iraq, or the removal of ministers deemed incompetent or corrupt.
Troops cuts? What about our "staying to finish the job", eh? Sounds like the administration might be changing their tune yet trying to blame it on the Iraqis. And removing incompetent ministers? When your "democratically elected government" is subject to being dismantled by the government which has invaded you, you might be just a wee bit irritated, eh?
This is unreal. We're going to "punish" Iraq for not ending the violence we started? My mind is just reeling.
