Is Civil War in Iraq Unavoidable?

[Astronuc]

There are several private security contractors besides Halliburton are working for the US government in Iraq.

It is too early to tell what the situation with this guy is. But it does sound suspicious.

In any event, individuals can certainly act on their own accord - means, motive and opportunity.

 

[RVBuckeye]

They presented this as a source in Arabic media (However many people in Iraq and ME believe that the strategy of Bush admin. is to burn the region by creating civil wars if their main strategy failed):

Just wondering what you thought was the "main strategy" which failed, and why escalating ongoing sectarian violence would be beneficial to the US?

 

[Dawguard]

They presented this as a source in Arabic media (However many people in Iraq and ME believe that the strategy of Bush admin. is to burn the region by creating civil wars if their main strategy failed):

I fail to see any purpose this could achieve them. They have no motive for creating civil wat, it's nothing mere then mere speculation: groundless.

 

[Bilal]

Dear RVBUCKEYE and Dawguard ,

Here is the answer:

The main American strategy in ME:

“Restructuring ME to serve the long term American interests”

This strategy is based on establishing a pro USA new Iraq, the same as Kuwait after 1991. The new Iraq will be controlled by the American invisibly. They will use this Iraq to change the rest of regimes, particularly Syria and Iran … after that they will focus on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt ‘’to disarm them’’. Finally, Israel will be the only strategic force in ME. Arab unity will be finished forever, Turkey and Israel will be the leaders of the ‘’great ME’’.

What if this strategy fails?

The Zionist-neoconservative strategy will be activated:

After the Iranian revolution in 1979, religious factor involved in the Zionist-Arab conflict in Middle East. The Israeli defense confirmed a long term strategy which was published in 1982:

“Focusing on the religious sectors in the surrounding countries, thereby rebuilding the region based on religious sectors instead of nations: Syria will be divided into 4 States (Shia on the Coast, Duruz in the South, Halab and Damascus), Iraq will be divided into three States: Shia , Kurds and Sunni, Egypt will be divided into two States : Copts and Muslims), Lebanon will be divided into several cantons such as Maronite, Shia and Sunni. Palestinian in WB and Gaza ‘’and if possible the Israeli non Jews” will be ‘’transferred to the Sunni State of Iraq (besides the rest of Palestinian refugees). Accordingly, Israel as a Jews State will be a normal State in this region which is divided based on religious sectors. These small and weak States will never cause any troubles to the great Israel and they will secure for them the Water and Oil”.

Based on the above Strategy,

Because my English not so good, I will cut and paste some paragraphs from other sites, but I will provide more trusted references up on the request:

http://ce399.typepad.com/weblog/2004/12/the_neoconserva.html

The American Neoconservatives and Iraq : " A Clean Break"

“The blueprint from the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. ...the plan was originally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”

“A key part of the plan was to get the United States to pull out of peace negotiations and simply let Israel take care of the Palestinians as it saw fit. "Israel," said the report, "can manage it's own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past."”

“Another way to win American support for preemptive war against Syria, they suggested, was by "drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program." The claim would be that Israel's war was really all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills and WMD---nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.”

You can read the rest of information in that site , and then you will realize why the American government banned the Iraqi army and destroyed it as State and then they divided the nation into ‘’religious sectors’’.

Could you also observe that those who involved on the invasion of Iraq are the same who proposed “A Clean Break” to the extremist Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996? Even Gen. Garner ‘’the first American leader of Iraq - who banned the Iraqi army and divided the nation into religious sectors - was one of those who proposed this plan to Likud party in Israel. The Israeli media described him as ‘’the Zionist governor” of Iraq”.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.03.21/news8.html

“Garner is said to maintain ties with the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening American foreign and defense policy. In 1998, he visited Israel for the first time on a trip sponsored by JINSA.

“

“In a reference to the signatories' JINSA-sponsored trips to Israel, the statement said: "n those travels, we brought with us our decades of military experience and came away with the unswerving belief that the security of the State of Israel is a matter of great importance to U.S. policy in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean, as well as around the world. A strong Israel is an asset that American military planners and political leaders can rely on."

“

 

[Amp1]

In light of some of the above replies - including mine - anrticle I read in todays AMny caught my eye. Later, I checked if there was a separate confirmation of the article on the WWW.

Bush warns: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/28/iraq/main887468.shtml

This in particular gave me pause, I really don't want to read something into it that's not there but as Astronuc says with regard to the contractor in custody - my rephrasing - this sounds fishy.

..."As these milestones approach we can expect there to be increasing violence," Mr. Bush said.

Although, the context these words are spoken in reflect the upcoming vote it is curious even strange IMO to hear word of some person affiliated with US contractors traveling in a sensitive area with explosives. Innocently enough maybe he was taking the explosives to a job site. Pun intended.

 

[Bilal]

May be these old news (5 months old) are interesting now:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-09/19/content_3514065.htm

.

BAGHDAD, Sept. 19 (Xinhuanet) -- Iraqi police detained two British soldiers in civilian clothes in the southern city Basra for firing on a police station on Monday, police said.

"Two persons wearing Arab uniforms opened fire at a police station in Basra. A police patrol followed the attackers and captured them to discover they were two British soldiers," an Interior Ministry source told Xinhua.

The two soldiers were using a civilian car packed with explosives, the source said.

He added that the two were being interrogated in the police headquarters of Basra.

The British forces informed the Iraqi authorities that the two soldiers were performing an official duty, the source said. British military authorities said they could not confirm the incident but investigations were underway. .

By the way, the British army invaded the jail by tanks in that day and liberated those two soldiers quickly! After that nobody hear any news about them!

 

[RVBuckeye]

Bilal,
sorry I asked

 

[Astronuc]

Re:

The main American strategy in ME:

“Restructuring ME to serve the long term American interests”

What if this strategy fails?

The Zionist-neoconservative strategy will be activated:

Based on the above Strategy, . . .

http://ce399.typepad.com/ is not a reliable source. It seems to reflect personal opinions with snippets of headlines, and it seems to reflect allegations of conspiracy rather than substantiated information.

The American Neoconservatives and Iraq : " A Clean Break"

The registration of forward.com is rather dubious. It certainly does seem to be pro-Israeli or pro-Zionist.

But with claims like "Garner is said to maintain ties", its credibility is questionable.

As for Xinhua - they are not exactly neutral with regard to US policy.

I am concerned about Bush's policies like many Americans, but I don't make claims regarding his motives or those of others unless I can substantiate them with factual evidence.

 

[alexandra]

Well, some US intelligence analysts seem to think civil war is likely:

Posted on Mon, Jan. 17, 2005

New intelligence reports raise questions about U.S. mission in Iraq
By Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A series of new U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq paints a grim picture of the road ahead and concludes that there's little likelihood that President Bush's goals can be attained in the near future.

Instead of stabilizing the country, national elections Jan. 30 are likely to be followed by more violence and could provoke a civil war between majority Shiite Muslims and minority Sunni Muslims, the CIA and other intelligence agencies predict, according to senior officials who've seen the classified reports...
Ref:http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/intelligence/10667714.htm

I watched a TV interview last night where an Iraqi civilian said his experience of life in Baghdad seemed to fit the description of 'civil war' (he gave supporting examples), and a British journalist currently there said it's so chaotic, and there are so many different insurgency and militia groups active, that it's impossible to understand what's going on or where it's headed. Everyone agreed that the only thing they could say for certain is that there is total lawlesness and the civilian population is threatened on every front and there is no-one civilians can turn to for help. It's a mess.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Iraqi Assembly Gets Off To Quiet but Telling Start

But for many ordinary Iraqis, the fact that the assembly finally met was cause enough for celebration. Noting the risks they faced when they went to the polls on Jan. 30 and the insurgent threats against the parliament, they said the first session -- televised live across Iraq -- fulfilled a national vision.

"I personally look at the assembly as a symbol of our will and our hopes for a better future," said Saadiya Abdul Wahid, 55, a retired schoolteacher from Baghdad. "For the first time in my life, I, as an Iraqi, feel I have a voice in what's going on."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39352-2005Mar16.html

I believe there is still hope here.

 

[Astronuc]

On Sunday's "Meet the Press," Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, repeated his call for redeploying U.S. troops over a six-month period to take them out of what he called a civil war.

"We have to say to the Iraqis, 'This is your war. This is no longer our war. You've got an elected government. This is up to you now to settle this thing,'" Murtha said on NBC.

Murtha made the comment that 25,000 insurgents fighting each other for 'dominance' in Iraq amounts to a Civil War.

Also, listen to this interview with a Sunni from Iraq! Unbelieveable. His experience stands in stark contradiction to Bush and the US government's assessment.

Life, Death and Trust in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5288790

An Iraqi driver and translator, Tahir Younis, reflects on the three years that have elapsed since a war began with "shock and awe" and evolved into a bitter battle with elusive insurgent groups.

Sounds like Civil War to me.

 

[Hootenanny]

The only way to prevent civil war in Iraq is to perminatly stay. If this is required, so be it. The middle east is already unstable and I would prefer to keep both British and American forces in Iraq if it increase the stability of the middle east even slightly.

 

[BobG]

At least Murtha is proposing some alternative to "stay the course". I still don't go for it. I like Zbigniew Brzezinski's comments better, even if it's only a start to a real plan:

BRZEZINSKI: Well, I think we ought to disengage, but we ought to disengage in an intelligent fashion. We have to recognize the fact that we are facing a war of attrition and a war of attrition which we are not winning.

Henry once said, and I thought, very correctly, that in a guerrilla war, if the guerrillas are not losing, they're winning. This is a war of attrition. And we're not winning. It's getting worse. More and more Iraqis want us to get out. What I would like to see us do is the following three or four steps.

One, ask the Iraqi leadership to ask us to leave. There will be Iraqi leaders who ask us to leave, maybe not all. Those who don't want us to leave are the ones who will leave when we leave. So first of all, ask us to leave.

Secondly, once they have publicly asked us to leave, set a date. I think a year or so would be reasonable.

Third, get the Iraqis to announce publicly, as their initiative, the convening of a conference of all of Iraq's neighbors to deal with the problem of stability and stabilization in Iraq because they all have a stake in stability in the region.

And then, last, we could then convene an external conference, modeled on the one that we had regarding Afghanistan, regarding help from the major potential donor countries.

BLITZER: All right.

BRZEZINSKI: Then we would have a program. Right now, all we have is slogans about staying on course or vague, vague threats that if we leave, it will be a debacle. We're stuck.

 

[RVBuckeye]

I don't find myself disgreeing with Astronuc on much, from what little I've read. I'm sure I'm going to get blasted for the following, but here it goes...

At the very end of the interview, the driver said he thought our troops should stay. They should leave eventually, however. They are needed for his protection (paraphrased). I don't think anyone disagrees with that game-plan. The opinions differ on how to go about a pull-out, or when. No matter the circumstances, of why we are there. This is now the situation before us and the Iraqi people. Don't we now have an obligation to see this through? Whatever your personal feelings of whether we should have been there in the first place. I agree that Bush is showing poor management. But this is the great thing about living in a Democracy, we have a legal means to replace bad leaders. A freedom the Iraqi people will soon enjoy.

"In recent weeks, Americans have seen horrific images from Iraq: the bombing of a great house of worship in Samarra, sectarian reprisals between Sunnis and Shias, and car bombings and kidnappings," Bush said.

"Amid continued reports about the tense situation in parts of that country, it may seem difficult at times to understand how we can say that progress is being made," he said. "But the reaction to the recent violence by Iraq's leaders is a clear sign of Iraq's commitment to democracy."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=VTBUR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Why critisize that position? I'm not a Bush- ite. I'm a responsible American who has the utmost confidence in our military. (The leader of which just isn't doing an adequate job ) Out of a country with 25 million people, 25,000 insurgents does not a civil war make. Even that estimate is less than 1% of the population if you take Murtha's figures at face value. Keep in mind that those numbers are meant to represent people fighting each other. It's not like the country is rallying to kick our troops out. Apparently, the overwelming majority thinks we are still needed (for good or bad). I'm sure there are many people in Iraq that feel the same as the cab driver interviewed. It is a war zone afterall. It must be truley heartbreaking for them.

please note... I did not critisize anyone for believing one way or another, or accuse anyone of bias. I'm well aware of Murtha's military history. I disagree with his plan on principle.

As another side note, if you want an in depth assesment of what is going on there. Pretty sobering stuff.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Page 10 lists casualties, page 18 estimates foreign insurgents.

 

[BobG]

I don't find myself disgreeing with Astronuc on much, from what little I've read. I'm sure I'm going to get blasted for the following, but here it goes...

At the very end of the interview, the driver said he thought our troops should stay. They should leave eventually, however. They are needed for his protection (paraphrased). I don't think anyone disagrees with that game-plan. The opinions differ on how to go about a pull-out, or when. No matter the circumstances, of why we are there. This is now the situation before us and the Iraqi people. Don't we now have an obligation to see this through? Whatever your personal feelings of whether we should have been there in the first place. I agree that Bush is showing poor management. But this is the great thing about living in a Democracy, we have a legal means to replace bad leaders. A freedom the Iraqi people will soon enjoy.

The problem is that Bush's management skills affect the prospects for success in Iraq ... and people's confidence in whether there is any hope for Iraq.

A few days ago, I read an article stating that Bush would apply his diplomatic skill to the problems in Northern Ireland and I could imagine terrified looks on the faces of everyone living in Ireland. I've also noticed Art hasn't posted since then ... maybe he died of a heart attack.

 

[Astronuc]

A few days ago, I read an article stating that Bush would apply his diplomatic skill to the problems in Northern Ireland and I could imagine terrified looks on the faces of everyone living in Ireland.

The luck of the Irish. When I read that I laughed so hard it hurt.

Why does Bush want to pick on the Irish. What did they do? Is it to get back at Kennedy?

 

[Astronuc]

The only way to prevent civil war in Iraq is to perminatly stay. If this is required, so be it. The middle east is already unstable and I would prefer to keep both British and American forces in Iraq if it increase the stability of the middle east even slightly.

Well, we can debate about whether or not they have a civil war at the moment. Some will say yes, others will say no.

I don't think the presence of US and British or any other foreign troops will stabilize the situation.

It is also not clear that a democratic government will develop in Iraq. Not if it requires troops to 'maintain' it.

I do agree that Saddam and his sons had to go, and the government in Iraq had to change. I just disagree with the method and sloppy way the Bush administration went about it.

 

[Astronuc]

The only way to prevent civil war in Iraq is to perminatly stay. If this is required, so be it. The middle east is already unstable and I would prefer to keep both British and American forces in Iraq if it increase the stability of the middle east even slightly.

Well, we can debate about whether or not they have a civil war at the moment. Some will say yes, others will say no.

I don't think the presence of US and British or any other foreign troops will stabilize the situation.

It is also not clear that a democratic government will develop in Iraq. Not if it requires troops to 'maintain' it.

I do agree that Saddam and his sons had to go, and the government in Iraq had to change. I just disagree with the method and sloppy way the Bush administration went about it.

 

[Hootenanny]

I do agree that Saddam and his sons had to go, and the government in Iraq had to change. I just disagree with the method and sloppy way the Bush administration went about it.

I agree with you there. I also think that we should have gone to war, but we went for the wrong reasons. We went 'supposedly' for the WMD, when I think we should have gone for the Genocide etc.

 

[vanesch]

I do agree that Saddam and his sons had to go, and the government in Iraq had to change. I just disagree with the method and sloppy way the Bush administration went about it.

I think that *everybody* agreed upon that in principle: of course having a blossoming democracy would be better than a cruel dictator. But - as you say - it is not because you wish that the virus gets out of the patient, that you should hit him with a hammer on his head or make him drink 2 liters of concentrated sulphuric acid (which surely destroys the virus...)!
And I'd even put the caveat: Saddam surely was a bad boy, but there's worse. For instance, I think that a radical Islamic theocracy or an all-out civil war is worse.

 

[vanesch]

I agree with you there. I also think that we should have gone to war, but we went for the wrong reasons. We went 'supposedly' for the WMD, when I think we should have gone for the Genocide etc.

I think that war was a bad solution in this case. Lying over it made it even worse of course. War is always a bad solution, but sometimes there's no choice. Here, there was no urge. Saddam was NOT committing any genocide at the moment - what is talked about are things he did in the past. He was militarily crippled. There were/are several dictators in his case, some of which have explicit US support. All the expenses in lives, money and munition could have been put to far better use elsewhere, in order to do something positive. The geopolitical situation became far worse because of the intervention (and this was not a result of bad management, but a very predictable and predicted result of the intervention): International law and organisations have been put out of order ; the relationships between the West and the Arab world has never been worse ; the situation in the country at hand is not very bright and there has been a swing to radical Islamism in the entire region (look at the election results in Iran) ; and it worsened the terrorist threat. This intervention was plain stupid and most people knew that.

It only served to keep the US population in a "state of terror" with a wargoing president, so that he could get re-elected on the grounds of misplaced patriotism. What an expensive campaign!

But all that was not the point. The point was, that if we are going to make a comparison between the situation after the invasion (now, or in 20 years), we should compare it to the situation that would have EVOLVED out of the no-invasion situation, and not to the pre-invasion situation. Who is going to say that the situation in Iraq wouldn't improve - with Saddam, say - over 20 years, like things improved in Libya ?

 

[Art]

Former prime minister Iyad Allawi said in an interview with the BBC Iraq is already in the grip of a civil war.

Iraq in civil war, says former PM

Iraq is in the middle of civil war, the country's former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has told the BBC.
He said Iraq had not got to the point of no return, but if it fell apart sectarianism would spread abroad.

The UK and US have repeatedly denied Iraq is facing a civil war, but Mr Allawi suggested there was no other way to describe the sectarian violence.
<snip>
"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more.

"If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

Mr Allawi added that a national unity government may not be "an immediate solution" to the country's problems.

Iraq is moving towards the "point of no return", he said, when the country would fragment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4821618.stm

 

[Astronuc]

I heard the comment by Allawi, although Cheney and Bush dispute that claim.

On the other hand, on Yahoo -

As the Iraq war entered its fourth year, police found the bodies of at least 15 more people dumped in and near Baghdad. The discoveries marked the latest in a string of execution-style killings that have become an almost daily event as Sunni and Shiite extremists settle scores.

Sectarian killings have swept across Iraq since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra. An Associated Press tally, including the deaths reported Monday, put the toll at 993 since the golden dome atop the Askariya shrine was left in rubble by two bombers, who are believed to remain at large.

Well, not everyone is involved, so its not a full scale civil war, but it is sectarian violence, much like the Protestants and Catholics in N. Ireland.

Sad situation for those who have to endure the violence.

 

[SOS2008]

The only way to prevent civil war in Iraq is to perminatly stay. If this is required, so be it. The middle east is already unstable and I would prefer to keep both British and American forces in Iraq if it increase the stability of the middle east even slightly.

Staying (the course) does not prevent civil war. At best it only keeps it from escalating at a faster rate. Even so, if the goal is stability, consider other ways to achieve this. For example, Brzezinski's comments posted by BobG and allowing/encouraging neighboring countries to become involved in the common interest of stability in the region.

Aside from loss of U.S. soldiers, I fail to see how $1 trillion spent on such a venture benefits the American people. If we don't begin repairs to our economy (deficit, foreign debt) we won't be able to help ourselves let alone anyone else. And the terrorists will have won. Don't be so foolish as to fall into their trap.

 

[Astronuc]

Iraq angered by civil war warning
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4892784.stm

Iraqi leaders have strongly criticised Egypt's president after he said Iraq was on the verge of a civil war.

Exactly three years after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime, there is growing disagreement over whether Iraq has descended into civil war.

Dozens die in Iraq mosque attack
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4887856.stm

An apparent triple suicide bomb attack on a key Shia mosque in Baghdad has left at least 79 people dead and 160 injured, Iraqi police have said.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Blair and now Jack Straw absolutely deny that Iraq has slipped into Civil War.

Well, it seems it is a matter of perspective - I see Civil War and so do several Iraqis. The US and British governments and their Iraqi allies see - problems? OK - let's compromise and say - Sectarian Violence on a national scale.

Kind of like Northern Ireland in the 60's and 70's. I seem to recall that the presence of British troops failed to stem the violence.

South Iraq's unpredictable future
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4889954.stm

In recent times, Shia-dominated southern Iraq has been spared the kind of bombing seen again on Friday in Baghdad, but it remains an unpredictable part of the country, too.

. . . .

No safe water- not for free anyway; erratic power if they have it at all; few job prospects beyond working on the land or fishing in the waterways of this area - though that does not deter young boys from saying they want to be doctors or teachers.

On the other hand, given that on 1 April 2006, the campaign group "Iraq Body Count" put the total number of civilian dead at 31,821 to 35,950 and the number of police dead at 1,950, it seems like Civil War to me. - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm

The issue of counting the number of Iraqis killed since the US-led invasion is highly controversial and the figure is disputed.

The US and UK military authorities do not record the number of civilians killed by their forces. The security situation and administrative chaos also make counting extremely difficult.

 

[turbo]

If Iraq is not in a civil war, it's only because of the definition used. For much the same reason, any resistance against US occupation of Iraq is labeled as "terrorism" by the administration, regardless of the motivation or method of implementation. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If a foreign power invaded Maine, I would gladly haunt the roadways with my hunting rifle and snipe the occupying troops as they passed and improvise bombs, etc, if I had the means to do so in order to defend my homeland. I would expect no less of my neighbors and friends. We would all be labelled "terrorists" by the invading forces, probably, but we would consider ourselves gutless cowards if we did less. What would Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, and George Washington do if they were with us today and we were invaded? I think I know.

 

[Astronuc]

Mark Warner: World Help Needed to Stabilize Iraq

Morning Edition, April 21, 2006 · Mark Warner isn't saying whether he'll jump into the Democratic race for president in 2008, as many expect him to, but the former Virginia governor has some advice about the war in Iraq for the next commander-in-chief.

"First of all, get rid of [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld," he tells Steve Inskeep in an interview, echoing remarks made by several former generals in recent days. "It's remarkable in my mind that the architect of this war is still calling the shots. A failed Iraq is not in America's best long-term interest.

"We've got to look at how we cannot simply make this an American problem," Warner says. He says there needs to be more international involvement to help stabilize Iraq -- via either a regional "contact group" like the one that has been involved in dealing with North Korea's nuclear ambitions, or a U.N. high commissioner.

The goal should be to leave Iraq "in no worse shape, at least in terms of threatening to America and destabilizing to the region, than before we went in," Warner says.

"I'm not one that believes we can set an arbitrary deadline. But I think if we don't see the Iraqis themselves come together in weeks, not months, in terms of forming this unity government and then if we don't see measurable progress in months, not years, after this government is formed, then I think we have to look at a way to get out. We don't need American troops simply playing referee inside a civil war in Iraq."

On other issues, Warner says he would bring the same business-like approach he employed as governor of Virginia to the federal government. He says he would not rule out tax increases to help tackle the budget deficit.

"You start on lowering federal spending," Warner says. "At the end of the day, do you still potentially have to look at revenues? You don't take anything off the table, but you start, like any smart business person would, by tightening your belt and looking at how you can actually reform operations."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5354429

 

[edward]

"We've got to look at how we cannot simply make this an American problem," Warner says. He says there needs to be more international involvement to help stabilize Iraq -- via either a regional "contact group" like the one that has been involved in dealing with North Korea's nuclear ambitions, or a U.N. high commissioner.

But then we would have to share the Iraqi oil which is why we went into Iraq in the first place.

And to use Rummyism logic: We need to keep having American soldiers killed in the future in order that those who were killed previously will not have died in vain.

 

[turbo]

But then we would have to share the Iraqi oil which is why we went into Iraq in the first place.

The oil is important, sure, but Halliburton and other Bush supporters are making billions in no-bid contracts to ferry supplies to the troops, feed them, provide laundry services, etc, and are in position to benefit from any future "rebuilding" efforts to undo the damage the Bushco has done to Iraq. The nastier the situations on the ground, and the longer it takes to resolve them, the more money Bushco friends will make. Unless the next administration is incorruptible, the "war" will last a very long time. It's a huge money-pit, and it only takes a little lying and flag-waving to convince the US public to keep shoveling in the cash.

And to use Rummyism logic: We need to keep having American soldiers killed in the future in order that those who were killed previously will not have died in vain.

Well, yes. If we pulled out now, the Bushco companies would lose their windfall, and it would look like our brave men and women in uniform have put put in harm's way, injured, mutilated, and killed for nothing except profit and greed. We couldn't allow either of those things to happen.

 

[edward]

Civil war in Iraq started months ago. It is not the type of "one faction against another" war that we have historically equated to civil war. It is multiple political and religious factions fighting and killing each other.

The civilain death toll in recent months and weeks indicates civil war by any definition.

Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths
Period Total
May-06 293
Apr-06 1010
Mar-06 1094
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 780
http://icasualties.org/oif/

 

[Astronuc]

Law and Disorder
Misjudgments Marred U.S. Plans for Iraqi Police

By MICHAEL MOSS and DAVID ROHDE, NY Times
Published: May 21, 2006

As chaos swept Iraq after the American invasion in 2003, the Pentagon began its effort to rebuild the Iraqi police with a mere dozen advisers. Overmatched from the start, one was sent to train a 4,000-officer unit to guard power plants and other utilities. A second to advise 500 commanders in Baghdad. Another to organize a border patrol for the entire country.

Three years later, the police are a battered and dysfunctional force that has helped bring Iraq to the brink of civil war. Police units stand accused of operating death squads for powerful political groups or simple profit. Citizens, deeply distrustful of the force, are setting up their own neighborhood security squads. Killings of police officers are rampant, with at least 547 slain this year, roughly as many as Iraqi and American soldiers combined, records show.

The police, initially envisioned by the Bush administration as a cornerstone in a new democracy, have instead become part of Iraq's grim constellation of shadowy commandos, ruthless political militias and other armed groups. Iraq's new prime minister and senior American officials now say the country's future — and the ability of America to withdraw its troops — rests in large measure on whether the police can be reformed and rogue groups reined in.

By some measure there does seem to be some kind of civil war, but perhaps to others it's simply chaos.

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060710/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AnC5UZXf3DaH_yGZUFiM2Uis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Well, Iraq continues to approach the brink of Civil War. Actually, it appears that Sunnis and Shi'a are engaged in a Civil War, perhaps limited, but nevertheless, there is ongoing tit-for-tat murders by both sides.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Gunmen ambushed a bus in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood in Baghdad on Monday, killing seven people, police said. The attack came after two car bombs struck a Shiite district in Baghdad, killing at least eight people and wounding dozens as sectarian continued to rise.

The gunmen killed all six passengers, including a woman, and the driver before setting the bus on fire in the Amariyah neighborhood of western Baghdad, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said.

In Kirkuk, a suicide truck bomber struck an office of one of the main Kurdish political parties in Iraq, killing five people and wounding 12, police said.

On Sunday, masked Shiite gunmen roamed Baghdad's Jihad neighborhood, dragging Sunnis from their cars, picking them out on the street and killing them in a brazen series of attacks. Police said 41 people were killed, although there were conflicting figures that put the death toll at more than 50 and as low as nine.

Sunni leaders expressed outrage over the killings, and President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, appealed for calm, warning that the nation stood "in front of a dangerous precipice."

Ayad al-Samaraie, a member of the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni bloc in parliament, blamed members of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia for Sunday's killings. He called on the U.N. Security Council to send peacekeepers to Iraq, saying Monday that U.S.-led "occupation forces" cannot protect Iraqis.

. . . .

A day after reports that Shiites pulled Sunnis from cars and shot them dead, revenge car bomb attacks target Shiite neighborhoods.

(AP, July 10)

Baghdad Erupts in Mob Violence (NYTimes, July 10, 2006)

BAGHDAD, July 9 — A mob of gunmen went on a brazen daytime rampage through a predominantly Sunni Arab district of western Baghdad on Sunday, pulling people from their cars and homes and killing them in what officials and residents called a spasm of revenge by Shiite militias for the bombing of a Shiite mosque on Saturday. Hours later, two car bombs exploded beside a Shiite mosque in another Baghdad neighborhood in a deadly act of what appeared to be retaliation.

While Baghdad has been ravaged by Sunni-Shiite bloodletting in recent months, even by recent standards the violence here on Sunday was frightening, delivered with impunity by gun-wielding vigilantes on the street. In the culture of revenge that has seized Iraq, residents all over the city braced for an escalation in the cycle of retributive mayhem between the Shiites and Sunnis that has threatened to expand into civil war.

Meanwhile

Four more U.S. soldiers have been charged with rape and murder and a fifth with dereliction of duty in the alleged rape-slaying of a young Iraqi woman and the killings of her relatives.

(AP, July 9) One more reason I oppose war.

 

[Skyhunter]

I seem to remember an election 2 years ago where the losing candidate said that in order to extricate ourselves from Iraq, without leaving a power vacuum and civil war/chaos, we would need the help of the international community. It seems that the Iraqis agree with him.

The major reason I supported Kerry, not just voted for him was that I felt he stood a much greater chance of engaging NATO, the UN, and other ME nations in the process. That and I felt that anyway to break the power of the profiteers would go a long way toward stabilizing Iraq.

Putting an International face on the occupation, and accelerating the reconstruction would accomplish more toward establishing peace in Iraq than the deaths of 100 Zarqawis.

 

[edward]

Putting an International face on the occupation, and accelerating the reconstruction would accomplish more toward establishing peace in Iraq than the deaths of 100 Zarqawis.

I don't think any force that is primarily Christian Anglo's is going to work at this point. We call ouselves a coalition, they call us crusaders. The only thing that the Sunnis and the Shiites hate more than each other is the U.S occupying force.

There has to be a peace keeping force that is to a great extent comprised of neighboring Islamic countries.

Yet the Bush administration is not about to invite other Islamic countries into Iraq. We are over three years into this and have accomplished absolutley nothing. Oh yes there were those wonderful American style elections which only put into place a totally disfunctional government that is having no effect at all on the violence. Newly elected Iraqi officials who live outside the green zone seem to have a very short life span.

We in essence have to take a close look at what our real reasons for invading Iraq were. There have been a number of reasons given by the administration that were in reality only slogans, usually spewed out during pep talks at military installations. Before the slaogans began we had the cherry picked WMD garbage.

Why did we think it necessary to Inavade Iraq when we did? Iraq had just signed large oil contracts with Russia, France, and Germany, the three countries who wanted no part of the war.

So what was the reason for the invasion? From my point of view it was to establish permant military bases in remote locations in Iraq. The intention being to have permanent bases for American ground troops in the middle east in general.

When the permanent bases are completed in 2008 we will relocate our troops to those bases and the turmoil in Iraq will continue until another strong leader comes along. Hopefully this one will be user friendly to the USA. Bear in mind that we did lay the groundwork for Saddams presidency when the CIA put the Baath party into power in 1978.

As for the oil in Iraq, it was a long term goal. The Administration had been advised previous to the invasion that the existing oil infrastructure was so fragile that it could not be considered a financial source that could provide funding for the rebuilding of the country.

Behind the scenes, however, senior figures in the administration - including Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary, Douglas Feith, in charge of Pentagon postwar planning, Vice-President Richard Cheney, as well as the CIA's George Tenet - were being advised by former officials, experts and corporate bosses that the badly dilapidated Iraqi oil industry in no way represented a financial lifeline.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0116-10.htm

Whew, just a long needed rant.

 

[Astronuc]

Wave of Violence in Baghdad Puts 3-Day Death Toll Past 100
NY Times, July 12
By KIRK SEMPLE

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 11 — More than 50 people were killed in Baghdad on Tuesday in violence that included a double suicide bombing near busy entrances to the fortified Green Zone, scattered shootings, mortar attacks, a series of car bombs and the ambush of a bus with Shiite mourners returning from a burial.

Tuesday’s killings, many of them apparently carried out with sectarian vengeance, raised the three-day death toll in the capital alone to well over 100, magnified the daunting challenges facing the new government and deepened a sense of dread among Iraqis.

Many of the attacks, particularly those in neighborhoods primarily populated by one religious group or another, bore the hallmarks of sectarian militias, both Sunni Arab and Shiite. Militias now appear to be dictating the ebb and flow of life in Iraq, and have left the new government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and his American counterparts scrambling to come up with a military and political strategy to combat them.

Many Iraqis say the worsening security crisis in Baghdad and neighboring provinces feels like a low-grade civil war.