Posted on 11/29/2006 9:41:31 AM PST by Mo1
DUBAI, Nov 29 (Reuters) - Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Wednesday Iraq had descended into civil war and urged world leaders to accept that "reality".
Powell's remarks came ahead of a meeting between Bush and Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki in the Jordanian capital to discuss the security developments in Iraq.
"I would call it a civil war," Powell told a business forum in the United Arab Emirates. "I have been using it (civil war) because I like to face the reality," added Powell.
He said world leaders should acknowledge Iraq was in civil war.
Powell outlined the case against Iraq at the U.N. Security Council ahead of the war, which was based broadly on intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
President George W. Bush denied on Tuesday that sectarian violence had reached the scale of civil war. He said the latest wave of violence was part of a nine-month-old pattern of attacks by al Qaeda militants aimed at fomenting sectarian tension.
Bush and Maliki are scheduled to hold crisis talks on Wednesday and Thursday.
Bush is under growing pressure to find a new policy to curb sectarian strife in Iraq and to secure an exit for 140,000 U.S. troops.
Powell, speaking at a world leaders forum in Dubai, said Washington should adopt a more balanced policy towards Iraq's political parties and sects to avoid marginalising Sunni Muslims.
"We have to accept what all Iraqis accept, not to end up seeing a Shi'ite-dominated regime," he said.
However, Powell said troops had to continue their job in Iraq until their mission is done, but not to remain too long.
"The coming strategy has to be an Iraqi strategy, not American strategy," said Powell.
Et tu Colin?
oui bon appatite
Hmmm...I'll be sure to let Colin Powell know when I give a damn what he thinks.
Many agree the Coalition Provisional Authority was a mistake and a failure. The CPA was State's (read: Powell's) idea, not DoD's idea. Paul Bremer, the CPA's incompetent leader, was one of Powell's lackeys.
Powell has responsibility to bear for the fiasco in Iraq. But I doubt the MSM will challenge him on it.
Yep. That's why I like a republic, like we've got.
and Mr. Powell, what is gained if the whole freaking world says Iraq is killing each other and in civil war????
I just raise my hands in disbelief anymore!!
It's a fight between a very SMALL number of people, who have no real backing from any of the vast majority of people, who really wish all those fighting would simply go away and let them live their lives.
It's not a civil war, it's a gang war. Civil war is when large groups of people decide to raise armies and fight it out for control of their country.
This is no more a civil war than we had a civil war in Chicago in the 20s.
The whole countries insurgency is made up of less than 30,000 "fighters" out of a country of 36+ million. It's only a matter of a short time before this "insurgency" tires themselves out.
Petty, fop!
Didn't have the guts to run for President because his wifey didn't want him to run.
Big man! Attacking the country while in Dubai!
Picking on Powell doesn't change the facts on the ground in Iraq.
Al Qaeda as i understand it has a strategy of asymetric warfare. Using airplanes as missles into large buildings is one example. Setting a match of violence to inflame sectarian differences into civil war is an even more powerful example. talk about a weapon of mass destruction! it would seem the definition of a civil war would mean that practically everyone on one side considers the other side an enemy. that doesn't seem to be the case yet in iraq. a small percentage of the population is involved still and many of those are acting out of fear and could be brought to the table i would expect if security could be guaranteed. this doesn't mean a full civil war couldn't emerge if things keep going the way they are.
The only reality Powell likes to face is the one that increases his popularity or better positions him for career advancement.
If this was a real civil war, there would be two sides of the country, each fighting the other for control of the country. In that type of battle, we would have no part, because we should not be choosing which half of the people should win, any more than we should interfere in peaceful elections.
If on the other hand there is a stable government, but there are roving bands of terrorists, insurgents, and foreign fighters trying to stir up trouble, along with gangs fighting each other in little turf battles, THAT is something we can work with the government of the country to help stop.
So, which is it? If you declare a civil war, we should choose a side -- which side do we choose? most of the violence is NOT directed at the sitting government, it's directed at political foes or religious foes. There is SOME attacks on our troops directly, and some attacks on the police directly, but more attacks are on other civilians, NOT meant to overthrow the government.
Seems like a very weird civil war where the people aren't fighting to seize the government.
Think CP might run as a Democrat ?
You are so right on this point. I find it most interesting, and not surprising at all, that this is the year that Iraq started falling apart. It was the year that operations were turned over to State. Powell has a bit burden to bear for this, yet he has shown himself to be one who is a finger pointer and a back stabber. His silence on the Plame Game is just one example of his lack of character. He has allowed Libby to take blame and massive legal expenses because his guy was the leaker and he covered that up. Powell and Armitage should be indicted on obstruction and Libby should be freed.
Thank you for your post.
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.