This just came in on the news:
Insurgents disguised themselves as cameramen so as not to raise suspicion while planting explosives at a major Sunni mosque near Basra early Friday morning. They detonated the bombs shortly after they left, destroying the mosque, and raising fears that sectarian fallout from Wednesday's Samarra mosque bombing is stretching deep into southern Iraq. Iraq Slogger
Seems that since there is a curfew in Baghdad -
A curfew remained in place in the capital two days after suspected al-Qaida bombers blew the minarets off a sacred Shiite shrine in Samarra and stoked fears of a bloody sectarian backlash. AP
insurgents just looked for a target elsewhere. Oh - the mosque was being guarded, like the one in Samarra was:
Iraqi soldiers are in charge of protecting holy sites in Zubeir, Mousawi said. As a result, several Iraqi security forces have been detained in an investigation of the bombing. (Iraq Slogger)
This isn't just an ordinary Sunni mosque, either, according to the AP:
Talha Bin al-Zubair was one of the Prophet Muhammad's companions, and commands high respect among Sunnis. The shrine was renovated in late 1990s and during Saddam Hussein's rule, Sunni pilgrims from India, Pakistan and Turkey frequently made pilgrimages to the site.
Two days ago, Tony Snow assured us that the Iraqi government and our soldiers were working to contain the chances for violence in the wake of the latest Samarra bombing:
"What we're hoping is that there won't be a new wave" of clashes between Iraq's Shiites and Sunnis, said spokesman Tony Snow, who blamed Al-Qaeda for the strike on the revered Al-Askari shrine in the northern town of Samarra. ...
"There will be aggressive outreach on all sides to try to make sure that you do not have the kind of sectarian violence that flared up in the wake of the first bombing," said Snow. Raw Story 13 Jun
But he also said the surge would be judged by "facts on the ground":
At the White House, Snow defended the US military "surge" -- tens of thousands more US troops carrying out a security crackdown in Baghdad -- and said it would be months before that initiative can be judged.
"I don't think it's safe to say that 'the surge is not working,'" he said. "There have been, in point of fact, some encouraging developments. But we have always said that we're going to take a look at the facts on the ground." (emphasis added)
Some more facts: Here's a story on the Pentagon's latest quarterly report (hat tip to Bill Prendergast):
Violence in Iraq, as measured by casualties among troops and civilians, has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad, the Pentagon told Congress on Wednesday.
In its required quarterly report on security, political and economic developments in Iraq, covering the February-May period, the Pentagon also raised questions about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ability to fulfill a pledge made in January to prohibit political interference in security operations and to allow no safe havens for sectarian militias.
Now that we have some facts, can we (or the Democrats, at least) start doing some judging?
The story does go on to say that the report insists "it's too soon to judge" if the surge is working. Really? How many more mosques do we need? How many more Freidman units?