Posted on 08/03/2006 7:23:51 PM PDT by churchillbuff
SOME of the most senior American and British officials responsible for policy in Iraq yesterday gave warning that the country was sliding into civil war, an admission Washington and London have been at pains to avoid for months.
In what could be a turning point in the intervention in Iraq, two of the most senior Pentagon officers and the outgoing British Ambassador to Baghdad painted a bleak picture of a country falling into sectarian strife between rival Shia and Sunni Muslim militias.
The most frank disclosure was contained in a valedictory letter written by William Patey, the British envoy to Baghdad, who left his post last week and is now on leave for the rest of the year.
The confidential telegram, addressed among others to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, admitted that the central goal of creating a stable democracy was now under threat.
“The prospect of a low-intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy,” wrote Mr Patey, a top Foreign Office Arabist who previously served as Ambassador to Khartoum. “Even the lowered expectations of President Bush for Iraq — a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror — must remain in doubt,” he added.
Mr Patey said that unless the power of local militias were challenged, Iraq could end up like Lebanon, where Hezbollah militants are more powerful than the Government. His remarks contradicted months of assurances from President Bush and Mr Blair that the situation in Iraq was improving and that the country was not descending into sectarianism.
The issue is more than simply semantics. If Iraq does descend into all-out civil war of the type that has gripped large areas of Baghdad, the democratic experiment in Iraq will die. A civil war could then drag neighbours such as Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Syria into the conflict.
The document had repercussions in the US, where the leak came just hours before a stormy session in the US Congress, when Pentagon chiefs were pressed on the subject by the US Senate Armed Services Committee.
“Iraq could move toward civil war,” said General John Abizaid, the top US Commander in the Middle East. “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it.” His remarks were echoed by General Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said: “We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war . . . Shia and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other.”
Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary who sat alongside his generals, avoided commenting directly on the subject. But only last week he had denied that Iraq was in the grip of civil war.
Yesterday he was taken to task by Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Senator for New York. Mr Rumsfeld had earlier refused to attend the committee hearing, claiming that he was too busy, and only recanted after sustained public criticism led by Mrs Clinton.
“Under your leadership, there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are in Iraq and Afghanistan,” she told Mr Rumsfeld. “We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq. Now, whether you label it a civil war or not, it certainly has created a situation of extreme violence and the continuing loss of life among our troops and of the Iraqis.”
She laid blame for the failures firmly at his feet, accusing him of invading Iraq with insufficient troops and planning, and for underestimating the insurgency and the prospect of sectarian violence. Mr Rumsfeld, already irritated by his generals’ candour, fought back testily with some extraordinary historical revisions.
“The idea that the army was disbanded, I think, is one that’s kind of flying around,” he said. “My impression is that to a great extent that army disbanded itself.” US forces would not get bogged down in Iraq even with the redeployment of troops to Baghdad, he insisted, but stopped short of expressing confidence that the move would quell the violence. “I can’t predict if it will work this time,” he shrugged. “It may or it may not.”
What the Brass said today is NOT WHAT THAT IDIOTIC HEADLINE STATES.
It's pathetic.
Yes, leave it to the media to warp the truth. It is how they think they can sell more newspapers. In their marketing perspective, bad news sells, good news does not. So make it as bad as possible, even if you are lying a bit...
So instaed of cutting off the heads of a few poison snakes like Sadr, the entire country is allowed to plunge into civil war... well done I must say, well done.
Finally, finally you think "Gosh, I get to be right about something!"
"My impression is that to a great extent that army disbanded itself"
They were told by the invading americans to give up their uniforms and go home.
It never ceases to amaze me what the limp-wristted leftist pukes in the media can concoct.
The Islamic desire to kill is turning on itself.
We are talking here about Muslim religious fanatics, right? This is not good. Maybe we should let them have their civil war. Then have the Kurds run the country when the Sunnis and Shia kill off each other.
So instaed of cutting off the heads of a few poison snakes like Sadr, the entire country is allowed to plunge into civil war... well done I must say, well done.
------
I would certainly agree that scumbag trouble-makers like Sadr should have been eliminated on the front-end of this operation. All of them in fact. It was a bad move, all decided again by politicians, not the military.
As a vet of Viet Nam, I am getting some bad stomach aches at night now as I watch this scenario...
Even with ethnic militias and tensions in the country, the vast majority of the insurgency is composed of foreigners from Iran. All we need to do is increase the number of troops so we can shut down the border between Iraq and Iran, and the problems will be mostly managable.
Interesting that the media does not focus on the continual decline in combat deaths among US soldiers.
July was among the lowest rates in two years.
The "civil war" seems to be missing our soldiers.
There is still no evidence of the "100 a day" claim. The Sunnis now support the American military which is an astounding success for us. The most powerful shiite leader (Sistani) still supports us.
Leftists used to say 5000 kids a day died under sanctions with Saddam. Yet even with a fabricated 100 a day it is not even close to any level of violence that existed prior to the war.
FYI Saddam used to keep children's bodies in refrigerator houses to parade about every Sunday aftenoon during the sanctions era.
Does that sound like someone we know?
The US is having incredible success in Iraq. The media and dems are the only cheerleaders left for resistance in Iraq.
It is what it is. If you consider the current situation "civil war", well whoop dee doo it's a "civil war". If you define "civil war" more narrowly, it's not a civil war.
What is the point of this semantical debate? Shall we count how many angels dance on the head of a pin?
Personally, I think it's sort of a low level civil war. I think the population of Iraq has some nascent, deep-seated divisions which cannot be fully resolved without civil war on some level.
And?
So?
Someone explain to me WHAT THE POINT of this stupid discussion is.
Are you implying that apprehending/killing Sadr would have staved off civil war? Because that's far from obvious.
and Kill al-Sadar.
All things evil are coming from Iran.
Sorry, but only 4 to 10 percent of the insurgents are foreigners. It is largely a internal struggle. Not surprisingly, it took a dictator to control Iraq.
"If Iraq does descend into all-out civil war of the type that has gripped large areas of Baghdad, the democratic experiment in Iraq will die"
Couldn't prove that by US.
and notice who posted this tripe
Well, I'm not hearing whether he/she agrees with the post or not.
Why do I keep feeling the spirit of Murrymom when I read a Churchhillbuff post?
No need to apologize. The number is more like 80 percent.
Green on Green, I don't know which side to root for.
If you read the NY Times you'd certainly think it was all doom and gloom. they have a funny way of taking hours of testimony and cherry picking the WORST statements from it.
I see this was WAYYY DOWN in the report, and suprised to see it at all.
Abizaid said "the prospects of the militias over time disbanding are good."
The plan is in place. We are going to crack down on the militias.
I think the answer was that it could happen, and of course I could win the lottery too.
Oh...how terrible. It's still a good place for our military posts before the invasion and occupation of Iran.
When it took 3 attempts to finally clean out Fallujah...
----
That was the damning clue, right there! They should have flattened it immediately. Bad memories of the Ho Chi Mihn trail came back to mind...
That's sort of like saying a company commander doesn't work for the battalion commander.
I don't.
I want some of the stuff you're smoking.
What are the bad memories of the Ho Chi Minh Trail? That we didn't bomb it enough?
What's your solution?
Question is, do we stay and watch or do we leave and come back when they are done?
If it does slide into a civil war, perhaps we need to choose a side and make sure that side wins.
The surprising part here is that someone actually assumes that there was a possible alternative plan that could have been successful in the first place.
You might be interested in the comment of a US Army officer serving in the north of Iraq (which people assume is just "Kurds," but has about 50% Sunni Arab or Sunni Turcomen villages):
I think a lot of people have many wrong impressions about Iraq. Most people think Sunnis = Bad, Shi'ite = fanatics, Kurds = good. That is sometimes true, but then you learn that most Kurds are also Sunnis, some Sunni Arabs were oppressed by Sadaam because of tribal differences or past assaaination attempt, many Shi'ite live quiet lives, and one of the biggest terrorist groups, Ansar al Islam, is a Kurdish group! So it's a very complicated world, and makes it impossible to draw hard conclusions based on ethnic, tribal, or religious grounds.
Its been defined as a low intensity civil war.
I dare say if we pull all the coalition troops out, then it could break out into a high intensity civil war of a similar nature to that in the Balkans during the breakup of Yugoslavia.
re :Someone explain to me WHAT THE POINT of this stupid discussion is.
I guess from what I have read here and understand from others that if we pull out and allow the Iraq to plunge into a hight intensity civil war what would be the outcome.
Would it further destabilize the Middle East, what would be Turkeys and Iran's actions.
"...most Kurds are also Sunnis, some Sunni Arabs were oppressed by Sadaam because of tribal differences or past assaaination attempt, many Shi'ite live quiet lives, and one of the biggest terrorist groups, Ansar al Islam, is a Kurdish group!"
How are they going to decide who fights who in a civil war?
It's those who support Coalition Forces versus those who don't, perhaps.
I watched almost the entire thing last night on TV. McCain and several of the dems tried mightily to make the joint chiefs look bad.
They were sober in their assessments, gave professional answers to some very stupid questions (and to be fair, some good ones) and sounded quite sure that our men are doing great and able to handle the situation
Afghanistan, where NATO now heads the coalition forces inthe south, is stacking up taliban remants like cord wood. that is a fact. Summer violence has flaired, but our response has been devastating to them. We never lose an engagement and quite often kill 20 or 30 of the dirtballs with no casualties.
Hillary tried to paint Rummy as presiding over a failed policy. Rummy smacked her down hard, and summarized by telling her that her gloomy assessment was wrong. The idiot Reed tried to browbeat them over funding requests and ended up looking like a complete fool.
So no, the NY Times and the media did indeed focus on the negative soundbites, and the MSM is praising Hillary's attack on Rummy. Had they had ANY honesty at all, they would have headlined it "Rummy makes Harpie Clinton look like an utter fool". Because that is exactly what happened. Hell, even Teddy Kennedy was asking serious, important questions. Hillary was just an annoying hag.
The sectarian violence in baghdad was the biggest worry, for good reason. Yet Rummy, Pace, and Abizaid were confident that our troops could deal with the death squads and give the gov't enough space to get some reconciliation. And they were upbeat about the progress of the Iraqi military.
So doom and gloom it was not. And most importantly, Abaziad stated that giving in in Iraq was not an option. It is only an option for the leftists that would rather see us lose the WOT than for Bush to be successful.
Exactly! Not only that, but the choice of sides is obvious. Iraq has a democratically elected government. Any "civil war" that takes place - if that's what's happening or if that's what's going to happen - would be, in effect, a civil war fought by aggrieved/jealous/power-hungry minority groups against that democratically elected government, trying to destabilize and unseat that government so they could seize power for themselves.
Why would a "civil war" in that context present any kind of dilemma or problem for us?
Oh, so now, not only do you cheer on nebulous claims of atrocities as reported by the ever honest MSM, you think Iraq is a lost cause.
I guess Murtha is quite the hero to you. He says the EXACT same things.
I don't know how y'all do that. Thank you for the synopsis, as I have no stomach to watch it in real time.
lose the WOT versus President Bush's success
Sums it up perfectly.
because it's there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.