First, about security:

Dr. Jalal Massa, 53, a cardiologist whose daughter was slightly injured, said the U.S. occupation had failed to bring security to the city.

"For us, as Iraqi people, who have suffered so much, we feel helpless when we see this," he said. "It (the occupation) has not been a success. We were much better off in the 1950s when we had little oil. I don't know what price we have to pay."

(Source: The Canadian Press, via Canada.com)

And:

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw reacted with “shock and outrage”.

“The fact that terrorists have yet again targeted not US or UK troops but an international organisation ... shows the depth of depravity to which they stoop,” he said before entering an EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels.

Mr Straw called the security situation in Baghdad ”unsatisfactory”, but said “overall the situation across Iraq is getting better”.

(Source: Tom Kelly, PA News, via Scotsman.com)

Then again:

Westphal said that weeks ago the agency had received “unspecified warnings that we may at one stage or another be the targets of an attack,” but added that the ICRC didn’t know who would want to target the organization.

(Source: International Committee of the Red Cross spokesman Florian Westphal, via MSNBC.com)

Uh-huh. It has been a well publicized fact for several months -- at least -- that the main targets in Iraq are”

* anyone not Iraqi

* and any Iraqi working with anyone not Iraqi.

And as one end-result:

Red Cross May Scale Back Iraq Aid

The German TV network ARD quoted the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross delegation in Iraq as saying the evacuation of Red Cross personnel would begin Tuesday.

But Antonella Notari, chief spokeswoman at ICRC headquarters in Geneva, told The Associated Press late Monday: "That's not true. No decision has been taken yet."

The neutral Swiss-run agency said it will decide within days whether to reduce its presence in the country following the suicide car bombing that killed two Iraqi Red Cross employees and as many as 10 other people outside the compound.
"Such an attack is a major blow for us," said Florian Westphal, an ICRC spokesman.

(Source: The Associated Press, via The FOX News Network)

I watched the Red Cross rep on MSNBC this AM (), and he was definitely against keeping all his people in Iraq. Well, one would expect a little disarray, but the Red Cross will, in all likelihood, be pulling back on their presence in Iraq. Far be it for them to seek available assistance.

It was a very basic error. Rather than take a known “war-zone” (Iraq) at face value (i.e., it might be pretty dangerous out there) and bolster security around the International Red Cross -- because, according to the rep I saw this morning, this would somehow denigrate the Red Cross in the eyes of the Iraqi people they have come to assist -- the Red Cross, like the U.N. -- which is already cut back to skeleton staffs because of the Aug. 19 truck bombing of the headquarters in Baghdad -- refuses U.S. Military offers of security, sets itself up as an extremely juicy target of opportunity with their own amateur attempts at “combat defense” measures.

Anyway, the Red Cross’ feeble measures fail, as they were doomed to fail, and they may soon decide the best course of action would be to lessen their own viability in Iraq by pulling out many of their own representatives.

Iraq needs the Red Cross, and the Red Cross knows this to be so. The local Iraqis, who have already received aid for the Red Cross, know this as well.

The Red Cross needs the U.S. Military for security, and the U.S. Military knows this to be so. The Red Cross, apparently, does not.

Dan