U.S. commander: No civil war in Iraq (CONGRESS, FUND THE TROOPS! THEY ARE NOT IN A CIVIL WAR)

CNN ^ | 3/27/2007 | CNN

[tobyhill]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq isn't engulfed in a civil war, and there are signs of hope outside strife-torn Baghdad, the new leader of U.S. Central Command says.

But the country needs "more pervasive security" -- as well as a more efficient and responsive government -- before the United States starts withdrawing troops, says Adm. William J. Fallon, whose command is based at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, and covers the Middle East, central Asia and eastern Africa.

Fallon, interviewed by CNN's Kyra Phillips, stresses that security in Iraq is clearly the biggest challenge for the nascent government and the U.S.-led coalition.

Fallon says there can be no Iraqi confidence in the new governmental system without strides in keeping the peace. If law and order can't be implemented, he says, "we're not going to be able to get there."

Fallon echoes the view articulated earlier this month by his commander on the ground in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.

"As citizens feel safer, conditions will be set for the resumption and improvement of basic services," which are necessary for stability, Petraeus said March 8.

[Allegra]

I've been saying it all along. What is happening in Iraq is not a civil war.

Oh, al Qaeda and the Mahdi militias have tried to effect a civil war, but the Iraqis just aren't buying into it.

[SMARTY]

"U.S. commander: No civil war in Iraq (CONGRESS, FUND THE TROOPS! THEY ARE NOT IN A CIVIL WAR)"

The civil war is HERE in the US, traitorous Liberals vs. the rest of us

[Dr. Frank fan]

It doesn't matter if it is a "civil war". It doesn't affect whether we should have a military presence there nor does it affect whether that military presence should be funded.

Why do we concede silly lefty talking-points? The great "civil war" debate is, and always has been, irrelevant.

[tobyhill]

The bill that is being proposed basically says we don't belong in middle of their civil war and if it's not a civil war then we must be fighting terrorist which is what has been said but ignored by the RATS and media. If the only reason they don't fund the troops because they're in a "civil war" then now they need not worry and start funding. It's not as irrelevant as you think the way this debate is playing out.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

Iraq has almost forty years of breeding and perpetuating a powerful corrupt, arbitrary culture. You have generations of iraqi soldiers and police, and thugs that have been tormenting the people.

Bottom line is this: You have to kill the insurgents to remove them from being any effective obstacle on an Iraqi turnaround. Either we kill them, or we train the Iraqis to kill them. Multiple generations have to be killed. They are tainted with a corrupt mentality that was unchallenged for years. We need to set the stage by taken out the big dogs, Al sadr, tikrities, baathists, and the rest of the muck. Then the new iraqi army can go after the tier 2 leaders. doesn't matter what you call it, civil war, insurgency, troubled youths. Gotta kill them. This isn't a time for evaluating arresting procedures, and overkill of operations. There,..I've said my peace.