“U.S. & U.K. refuse to admit that Civil War Is On In Iraq”
The mainstream media’s alarming reports about the Civil War in Iraq seem to be the “last and final” call for the U.S. and the U.K. to prepare an emergency exit strategy.
What is happening in Iraq now had been predicted right at the beginning when the myopic foreign intervention began in that cursed country. Even CIA had in confidential notes clearly stated the possibility of Civil War in Iraq.
If there is a delay in exiting the repercussions would be disastrous. Remember, we are witnessing a fratricide…an inevitability in this part of the world when a powerful leader is removed from the scene.
There are two clear (face saving) options, although belated. Hand over Iraq to the United Nations…it is never, never too late to apologise and make amends.
Or, as I have suggested many a times, work out a deal with Saddam Hussein so that some sort of truce can emerge between the Shias and Sunnis. If you look up the history of West Asia all sorts of permutations and combinations have worked effectively between the Europeans and the natives (and nothing is below dignity).
Even if nothing works out…Just get out!!! Because this is the last chance to save foriegn troops bathing in the blood of Muslim brothers who wish to annihilate one another. And the U.S. and the U.K. would earn the eternal wrath of the entire Muslim population in the world (enough damage has already been done).
Here are the media reports:
A civil war between Sunni and Shia Muslims is spreading rapidly through central Iraq, with each community seeking revenge for the latest massacre, reports The Independent.
“While the White House and Downing Street still refuse to use the phrase ‘civil war’, Iraqis in the centre of the country have no doubt what is happening. Baghdad’s mortuary alone received 1,595 bodies in June, and it has got worse since then.
“Yesterday (Tuesday) a suicide bomber driving a van packed with explosives blew himself up outside the golden-domed mosque in Kufa, killing at least 59 and injuring more than 130 Shia.
“In the past 10 days, while the world has been absorbed by the war in Lebanon, sectarian massacres have started to take place on an almost daily basis, leading observers to fear a level of killing approaching that of Rwanda immediately before the genocide of 1994. On a single spot on the west bank of the Tigris river in north Baghdad, between 10 and 12 bodies have been drifting ashore every day.
“In Kufa, a city on the Euphrates 90 miles south of Baghdad, the suicide bomber drove his vehicle into a dusty square 100 yards from a Shia shrine at 7.30am.
“The severe escalation in sectarian killings started nine days ago when black-clad Shia militiamen sealed off the largely Sunni al-Jihad district in west Baghdad and slaughtered every Sunni they identified, killing more than 40 of them after glancing at their identity cards. Since then there has been a tit-for-tat massacre almost every day.”
CNN has published a summary of the TIME magazine cover story: “Although the recent violence has been sparked by a single act of provocation, it comes in the context of a history of Shiite-Sunni enmity. The roots of the sectarian divide lie in a schism that arose shortly after the death of the Prophet Muhammad in the 7th century.
“Under Saddam Hussein, communal hostilities in Iraq were suppressed, their very existence denied. Beneath the surface, though, relations between the two sects have always been tainted by prejudice and discrimination.
“Now, given the failure to head off last week’s conflagration, U.S. hopes of averting an ignominious defeat in Iraq hinge on whether it can bring the fighting to an end.
“The biggest fear is that the breakdown of order could draw neighboring countries into the conflict, with Iran intervening on behalf of the Shiites and Arab states supporting the Sunnis.”
The Los Angeles Times has this to say about ‘civil’ war in Iraq: “Retaliatory massacres by gunmen and bombers linked to rival Muslim sects have left more than 130 people dead across Iraq over the last two days, the latest casualties of what some politicians now are calling an undeclared civil war.
“Many members of Iraq’s political class spoke gravely of the massacres and bombings of the last few days, even as two U.S. Cabinet officials visiting Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone this week touted Iraq as a potential bonanza for private investors.
“Since the beginning of May, attacks by Sunni Arab and Shiite Muslims have claimed the lives of more than 6,000 Iraqi civilians, according to a United Nations study and Iraqi police reports.
“The Kufa blast, coming on the heels of mass killings and bombings attributed to Sadr’s Al Mahdi militia and its Sunni Arab enemies, brought the battle to the Shiite cleric’s doorstep, igniting fears of a fresh wave of reprisal killings.
” ‘The message is clear, and the message confirms the sectarian differences,’ said Fadhil Sharih, a leader of the Sadr movement. ‘It seems clear that it’s been moving toward the direction of civil war.’
“U.S. and Iraqi government leaders have argued that the 150,000-strong foreign troop presence has kept the country from descending into full-scale civil war. But many Iraqi officials fear the threshold has been crossed.”
“When does a conflict become a war?” asks Kirsten Broomhall .
“Mainstream media have talked for some time now about the sectarian violence in Iraq verging on civil war. What measures are used to decide when an internal struggle becomes a civil war – length of conflict, death toll, number of fighters, geographic spread, number or severity of weapons? And what of the fighting between Israel and the Palestinians, and now Hizbullah in Lebanon?
“The definition of war in the Cambridge advanced learner’s dictionary is, ‘armed fighting between two or more countries or groups’. By this seemingly simple definition, both Iraq and Israel should be at war.
“So why the reluctance by the media to utter the word in these situations? And why the comparative ease of use of terms coined by politicians, or their speechwriters, such as ‘war on terror’ or ‘war on drugs’?”
16 Responses to ““U.S. & U.K. refuse to admit that Civil War Is On In Iraq””
It will be a civil war when King George says it is.
He is the decider, and he will decide.
Now watch this drive!
And just when you think it couldn’t get more fun, there is this
Un-intended consequences boys and girls.
Time to send in the Newt!
Self denial, among politicians and a politically inept populas, is the refuge of cowards.
Wow! The Independent has declared civil war! Wait a minute, I’m confused. Wasn’t Iraq supposed to already be in civil war, way back in April or something? And whoever decided this was now a civil war evidently forgot to inform the Iraqi government. Or the US and British governments. Or, you know, anyone else with troops in Iraq. As civil wars go, this is certainly a low intensity one. Yes, the Shia militia will have to be reigned in, but the Iraqi people have a very good track record of staving off constantly looming catastrophe so far. I’m guessing they’ll get through this one, as well.
As for leaving or turning this over to the UN, both the Shia and Sunnis want our troops to remain in Iraq for now. Hardly the time to declare defeat.
People are being killed at the rate of 100 a day in Iraq. The Iraqi government’s big push to pacify Baghdad is a complete failure, as our ambassador acknowledged recently.
Yes, there’s a civil war going on. Anyone who thinks it’s so low intensity should spend a few days in the middle of it. I’m pretty sure their notions about intensity would change drastically.
And, how about that alleged new government in Iraq? The one whose officials live and work in the Green Zone because they wouldn’t last a day outside the Green Zone.
I think a good, objective case can be made that Iraq doesn’t have a real government — one that can pass and enforce laws, and maintain peace and order. The fact that elections were held and offices filled doesn’t make the resulting organization a real government. It has to be able to really govern, and at least in the capital and much of the rest of Iraq, it cannot.
The Iraqi government recently took over control of the province of Muthanna. They aren’t strong enough to govern their country solo yet, but they’re getting there.
BrianOfAtlanta, the old, humorous Sinatra tune, “High Hopes,” came to mind as I read your comment.
I hope the kudzu theory of establishing control works out for al-Maliki’s government, but I have my doubts.
To succeed, Iraq’s government needs for its security troops to fight in a dedicated and successful way on its behalf. But why would the security forces do that? What has the government done to earn their dedication and loyalty? Get elected? Holed its members up in relative safety inside the Green Zone?
If I were a betting man, I wouldn’t put more than pocket change on it.
The Iraqi government recently took over control of the province of Muthanna.
Sorry Brian, won’t fly. There is and always was a time limit on this thing, and its up. The neo-cons and their Republican fellow-travelers don’t get to keep playing war untill they finally win one.
US soldiers didn’t enlist to protect one religous sects ascendency over anoher. And no one claimed that the civil war just started, just that by now, it should be apparent to all but the hard-core kool-aid drinkers that its on.
Do try to get a grip on reality.
6,000 Iraqi civilians dead in one month IS NOT “getting there” Brian.
Look man, when the Iraqi goverment in green zone exile shows up in the real Baghdad call me. Because untill then they are NOTHING to me, or the Iraqi’s dying everyday.
Problem is we’ve trained the Iraqi army for 2 1/2 years and only control hillbilly Iraq outposts. Mismanagement by Rummy, and Bush ain’t getting RESULTS.
But don’t you worry Brian we know you think nobody else has any answers, and you show your logic when you think the people in charge right now who HAVE NO ANSWERS to begin with, are geniuses.
Why do people do these things?
Don’t they care about the children?
What scares me is the hard-core neo-cons like Bill Kristol seem to want this conflict to escalate out of control. Not satisfied with our miserable failure in Iraq or the fact that we are now losing to the Taliban in Afghanistan, they are urging Bush to bomb Syria and attack Iran, not even worrying about the 135,000 soldiers who would be immediately put in harms way by such a rash move.
Or we have Newt Gingrich, who is ready to declare WWIII and go for it! That’s one Republican I won’t be voting for in ’08. Haven’t we learned that we can’t remake the region in our own image the way we remade Western Europe and Japan after WWII?
In all fairness Kristol wanted Rumsfeld to resign over his failure to follow the Army’s recommendation of 250000 troops thought to be the minimum required to keep the peace after the fall of Saddam. Rumsfeld did offer his resignation, Bush declined. It. The problem with Kristol is that he thinks the situation is still salvageable. I admit that I thought there might be a chance to still pull this off but now I am darkly pessimistic. I see the immediate pull out of our troops fully unleashing brutal forces that will kill hundreds of thousands of innocents The regional powers could well move in and clash, and now you have a real crisis that makes the Israeli/Hezbollah conflict look like child’s play. As long as you have Bush you have Rumsfeld, and with Rumsfeld you have mismanagement. With this administration all I can see is muddling through, lurching from one crisis to another. Events have overtaken them and the mistakes of the past can no longer be corrected.
Indeed, Kristol is trying to peddle the notion dissident Iranians would welcome carefully targeted attacks on specific Iranian nuclear and military sites. We just need the gumption to go for it.
I suggest Kristol belongs in a quiet, restful place where access is limited, attendants keep the guests from harming themselves or anyone else, and medications are passed out several times a day to limit raving and violent outbursts.
As for Newt Gingrich, surely there’s a community college somewhere that needs a garrulous knowitall to teach impressionable young people his own special take on history and government.
I will buy into Kristol BS when his children share his vision and serve in the US military in the fight against the GWOT. Maybe his spawn can go over to Israel and fight for his real love. Does the Weekly Standard turn a profit, or does Murdock still fund the rag?
SnarkyShark wrote:
Yeah, I understand. All is lost. There’s no hope. I’m reminded of that scene from Men in Black when Edgar/Bug comes walking out of his shot-down flying saucer.
“You idiots! You don’t get it – I’ve won! It’s over!”
You’ll excuse me if I tend more toward J’s and K’s positions on this issue.
Yeah, I understand. All is lost. There’s no hope. I’m reminded of that scene from Men in Black when Edgar/Bug comes walking out of his shot-down flying saucer.
“You idiots! You don’t get it – I’ve won! It’s over!”
Yeah, I get it. Your worldveiw is garnered from a Will Smith movie.
Bet you watch a lot of Steven Segal and Chuck Norris movies too.
I’ll defer to Iraqi veterens blogs, and real life mlatry experts like General odem, and Jack Murtha.