Knowing Civil War is Coming if only in The Cellar

[tw]

As numbers now demonstrate, Iraq has been in civil war. One might look back at how a logical analysis began saw it coming. This from hermit22 on 25 Sept 2002 in Bush Gored! discussed that probability.

Of course civil war was always a major possibility as discussed 3 Mar 2004: France did something right for once!.

On 4 Apr 2004, the wholesale American pullout in complete denial of what America had created was summarized in this NY Times article reported in Nation Building 101 . Even before then, the Joint Chiefs (who were then deposed) demanded at least 200,000 troops for two years.

But Iraq is ready for self rule? What does that mean? Many in Washington are now asking that question since details should have long been planned and understood. Some insiders are saying the George Jr administration still may have no such plans - plans like those for the original occupation. Apparently we are going to leave power in the hands of choosen Iraqis and all will be well?

Today we know that George Jr administration had no such plans then AND have no such plans today other than 'stay the course'.

Either one must say George Jr is a very smart man with a secret plan to end the war .... or he is as bad a president. Both options described Richard Nixon.

Deja vue.

On 9 Apr 2004 in Nation Building 101

When the United States invaded Iraq a year ago, one of its chief concerns was preventing a civil war between Shiite Muslims, who make up a majority in the country, and Sunni Muslims, who held all the power under Saddam Hussein.

One would have thought we and our government was concerned about this disaster. Did we avert civil war by providing them a common enemy?

Many Iraqis do not want to fight. But there is very little appreciation for Americans. Dislike for Americans in Iraq is widespread and almost universal in both Shi'ite and Sunni regions. Even worse, their anti-American comments are getting bolder and more public.

History is reflected in these old Cellar posts. From them, one can see how this civil war was being created as Americans denied it would happen. As UT reposts on 9 Apr 2004 from likeks:

Vietnam was an anomaly. Vietnam was perhaps the least typical war we’ve ever fought, but somehow it’s become the Gold Standard for wars – because, one suspects, it became inextricably bound up with Nixon, that black hole of human perfidy, and it coincided with the golden glory years of so many old boomers who now clog the arteries of the media and academe.

Denial was that widespread because so many denied lessons of history that predicted what would happen. As richlevy posted on 18 Apr 2004

I just heard that GW was told by Powell that if he invades Iraq, "Just remember, if you break it, you buy it". ...

I can, however, fault him for his prosecution of the Iraq war. He broke it, and we Americans will be paying for it for the next decade.

That too was posted by having learned from history. Some began to see reality such as on 16 Sept 2004 in U.S. Helicopters filmed firing into crowd of civilians

Originally Posted by jaguar

Iraq is descending into civil war anyway - you think the elections in January were ever going to work?

and on 17 Aug 2004 in a response to UT in Political leanings of network anchors:

Originally Posted by warch

So the trouble today is we the people just lost our "resolve". Bullshit. What we got was more information. What we got was some truth about the leadership's bad decisions. What we got was a civil war in Iraq. What happened is that Bush proved to be a poor leader. I think it is self-indulgent to blame Bush's loss of popularity on a public that just isnt resolved enough. Bush is going to have to start owning some of this fuckups. And they start in a classroom on Sept 11, 2001. I think its evidence worth knowing about.

Basically, that last discussion really identified George Jr as a complete incompetent on and after 11 September and that others would still deny that incompetence 3 years later. We knew of the danger of civil war even in 2003. We knew it was so likely as to be discussed even in the Cellar in 2003. And this question is asked on 15 Sept 2004 in U.S. Helicopters filmed firing into crowd of civilians

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I was against the war from the start, and I think that Bush has the intelligence of a bacteria (that's probably not fair to bacteria), but what do you suggest the US do now? Continuing with their current policies is only going to continue to degrade the situation, but for the US to pull out of Iraq now would cause it to almost instantly collapse into a state of civil war. This would certainly not be fair to the Iraqi people, and how many innocent civilians would die then?

The problems including the 7000 mile screwdriver, 'vein hanging from teeth' mentality (now called 'big dic'), no plans for the peace just like in Desert Storm, no reconstruction (contrary to what others claimed), etc were defined 16 Sept 2004 in U.S. Helicopters filmed...

Originally Posted by tw

Iraq is but a short distance from total anarchy. If total control does break down, then substantial Iraqis might be killed in a civil war. Ironcially a civil war that may or may not result in a democracy.

Iraqi deaths number in the hundreds of thousands. Do we wait for deaths to exceed one million before acknowledging a civil war? What is now inevitable civil war and what it may or may not solve was clear two years ago when others were still denying this Iraq of 16 Sept 2004

Dexter Filkins comments after coming from an interview with a Sunni cleric very opposed to Americans. He expects Sahr City (a Shi'ite stronghold) to soon join other cities as all but abandoned by American forces. Cities no longer in occupation force control according to The Economist include Samarra, Fallujah, Latifya, Kufa, Najaf, and Majar al-Kabir. For example, insurgents so fully dominate the southern city of Majar al-Kabir that weapons trade is conducted openly in large open air markets. Latifya is the town just south of Baghdad were so many contractors, a group of American soldiers, and even the son of a lady member of the Provisional government were killed in routine ambushes. These are no-go cites - completely out of occupation forces control. Far more are basically in and out of rebel control. Even tribal leaders have taken over some cities.

And finally are comments from Brent Scowcroft and Dr Brzezinski that all but defined this civil war in Good Morning, VietNam on 12 Jan 2005

What will it take to end the problems of Iraq? ...

While our ultimate objectives are very ambitious we will never achieve democracy and stability without being willing to commit 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have a draft, and have some form of war compensation.

By 1 Dec 2005, this conclusion and paragraphs preceding it should have been obvious to all in GWB's "Plan for Victory"

Previously most Islamic people believed the US was in Iraq intending to stay. Truth be told - they were probably correct. That probably was the intent of George Jr - actually Cheney. Americans are finally learning what was obvious years ago. We've been here before. It was called Vietnam. And yes, the administration insisted that [their] army could defend itself. We stayed in Vietnam so long that the S Vietnamese army no longer had a hope in hell. The insurgency in Vietnam grew larger and faster because the Americans were there.

Trends should be obvious if only from BigV's 30 Nov 2005 post that iterated "Mission Accomplished" into "Plan for Victory" in GWB's "Plan for Victory" . At that point it should have been obvious to all that "Mission Accomplished" could not be won. And still some denied. Will they also deny the all but inevitable civil war?

Today, an Iraqi civil war is not disputable. At this point, even 500,000 American troops in-country for one or two years can not stop it. Time has run out. George Jr administration stalled, denied, and therefore encouraged civil war. (Definition of mental midget confirmed but again.) One may learn just from Cellar posts how long ago this was known as coming. A total American withdrawal may be enough for Iraqis to suddenly take stock of the consequences – halt the violence. That also was once possible; also no longer a viable option. Barring third party intervention or a complete Iraq dissolution (following withdrawal of the hated Americans which is necessary), then civil war will only increase. Mission Accomplished complete with a trial of Saddam that also was a complete sham.

[lumberjim]

and?

[Griff]

and it's time to bust Iraq up into three countries and get our folks outta there

[Undertoad]

Chuck Hagel's take isn't too bad

[Torrere]

I like Chuck Hagel's take on the war, too. Hopefully we'll be able to get our troops out of Iraq in the next year or two.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Chuck Hagel's take isn't too bad

Hagel has one thing completely wrong. Planning for the peace is fundamental and necessary for every war. In WWII, those plans included unconditional surrender and creation of the World Bank and IMF. Before "Mission Accomplished", Sec of State Colin Powell already had a staff of Iraqi experts (maybe 75 people) who were planning for Iraqi peace. Rumsfeld got them all transferred to the Defense Department whereby Rumsfeld started firing them or compartmentalized them. Reference names such as Thomas Warrick.

Appreciate how that planning got perverted by questions such as, "What is your opinion on abortion". Any military victory that does not plan for the peace means victory will be lost. Essential is what happens in the first six months after surrender. This is basic military doctrine as demonstrated even in WWII in both Japan and Europe. And yet, what happened in Iraq?

Well this is why you watch Frontline's The Lost Year . I know most every lurker here does not know this story. If you thought our government was incompetent, well, you've not seen nothing yet. Those who think they understand what happened in Iraq know nothing unless they know this Frontline story ... complete with what Bremer had to do to get out of Iraq.

Meanwhile Hagel is missing a key and essential fact. Military victory does not end with surrender. Military victory is only accomplished when 'plans for peace' get implemented. Gen Tommy Franks did not want anything to do with what Undersecretary Douglas Feith kept pushing in his face. And then Rumsfeld, et al made sure that program was but political fodder. Notice why virtually no one left in the "Future of Iraq" program even spoke Arabic. Notice how the State of Maryland traffic code becomes so relevant.

'Powers that be' were even informed of this need - 'planning for the peace' - and completely ignored it. See Frontline's The Lost Year to appreciate where Hagel's comments miss the bullseye. Appreciate why this civil war was created by America (even the looting was predicted) and why America is now powerless to stop it.

[Hippikos]

In WWII, those plans included unconditional surrender

The Allied demand for unconditional surrender caused millions and millions unnecessary deaths...

The Civil War in Iraq is already old news What interests me is if Jared Dimond will prove correct on his theories on how nations come into being. Once such way is for previously warring factions to form alliances to repel the invader. The Cherokee did this in the US and some 300 chiefdoms formed an alliance that gave settlers in the South-East US a run for their money.

Wouldn't it be fun if someone dropped translations of Dimond into Arabic all over the Sunni and Shiite held areas of Iraq?

Meanwhile, anyone who thinks the US hasn't worsened ethic tensions in Iraq has a gumball machine for a head.

What if someone invaded the US and told all the African-Americans, "we're on your side bro's. Aren't you fed up with what's been happening under the Bush and other regimes? Wouldn't you like to be free at last?" I don't know how the majority of A.A.'s would respond to this, but I do know that if I wanted to avoid a revolution, I wouldn't run around antagonizing ethnic groups (or supporting one over the other).

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

The Allied demand for unconditional surrender caused millions and millions unnecessary deaths...

You have to realise that the Allies were very aware that WWII directly followed on from the failure to address the issues left from WWI, not to forget that the Nazis and the Japanese were fanatical in their views. The Allies were trying to prevent another world war. Of course what we ended up with was an ineffective United Nations, and almost constant small to medium sized wars since 1945, but the Allies original intentions and decisions were made in good faith.

What worries me about Iraq is that if it is split into, say three countries, we will still have violence, and war in the region. I heard a very interesting analysis of the Iraq situation on the BBC last week, and they were saying that by going into Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has inadvertently played right into Iran's hands, because the US has removed Iran's enemies on either side, who kept Iran in check. They said that it is not inconceivable that after the US pulls out, Iran will move into both Iraq and Afghanistan (recreating in part the old Persian Empire). Apparently this is the dream of many of the hierarchy of Iran.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

Apparently this is the dream of many of the hierarchy of Iran.

I guess I'm assuming (very bad idea) that we'll commit more resources to Afghanistan when we give up on Iraq.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Griff

I guess I'm assuming (very bad idea) that we'll commit more resources to Afghanistan when we give up on Iraq.

That would require advance planning since Afghanistan is only one or two years away from disaster. Planning, which requires at least 6 months, is not happening. Neocons are not ready to admit defeat in Iraq. Trench warfare is ongoing in Washington with everyone second guessing the Baker / Hamilton report AND colonel’s military analysis being seriously spun into confusion.

If an Iraqi magic solution existed, then that solution would have been found long ago. Solution is not military. Problem is American politicians without intelligence, who lie, and worry more about their legacies. American politicians with extreme contempt for the troops as to still believe 'stay the course'.

Only question is whether Baker / Hamilton will report so honestly as to create a political avalanche. I suspect that committee to be too political - not sufficiently patriotic - to tell it like it is. Military situation is obvious. But George Jr political types are so attached to a political agenda as to even massacre American soldiers.

'Stay the course' is not a dead issue. Ongoing trench warfare remains predicated on that myth that Iraq can be conquered. President Cheney, et al still believe democracy can be forced upon people who did not want it.

Meanwhile time is quickly running out to save Afghanistan. Instead anti-American Republican extremists with their mental midget frontman will not even concede to the inevitable. 'Blame and run' is what 'cut and run' will eventually become. Therefore Afghanistan will go just like Iraq - because planning to save Afghanistan is not ongoing.

Meanwhile, when do we go after bin Laden? How many years do I ask this never answered question? Don't fool yourself for one minute. Neocons now more than ever need bin Laden still running out there to advocate myths about world wide terrorism. Neocons are not yet done. There are still lots of American soldiers to sacrifice for the cause. Neocons are even ignoring a pending disaster in Afghanistan.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

That would require advance planning since Afghanistan is only one or two years away from disaster. ~big snip

I think it's a lot less than that.....6 to 8 months.

[Sundae]

The upcoming NATO meeting in Riga should hopefully lead to better coordination of efforts in Afghanistan rather than what seems a rather piecemeal approach at present.

Certainly Britain and Germany are already committed to rebuilding projects - but of course it's difficult to provide aid in areas where fighting is still at it's peak. We've been sniped at - verbally - by both Pakistani and Afghani politicians for not providing enough aid, but stability has to come first. You can't just pour money into a hole in the ground and hope things will get better - the infrastructure has to be there.

In the Helmand province, Britain has built 13 health clinics, 89 reservoirs, 423 wells and eight classrooms. But if you build in areas where the Taleban would rather blow things up than see conditions improve for their own countrymen it's going to be a long and expensive slog.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Exactly...we've got to control the area before the good stuff can be done for the natives. Otherwise we're pissing in the wind....again.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

The upcoming NATO meeting in Riga should hopefully lead to better coordination of efforts in Afghanistan rather than what seems a rather piecemeal approach at present. ...

In the Helmand province, Britain has built 13 health clinics, 89 reservoirs, 423 wells and eight classrooms. But if you build in areas where the Taleban would rather blow things up than see conditions improve for their own countrymen it's going to be a long and expensive slog.

Those Afghanistan numbers are no different than numbers put forth for Iraq in 2004 The Cellar. Too little; too late. Taliban are even interviewed by BBC reporters only 10 miles outside of Kabul because the country has fallen that far. Assumed are same myths promoted in Vietnam - that they are evil because they would rather blow it up rather than see conditions improve.

What those claims forget to mention, for example, are all those Iraqi water treatment and drinking water plants almost immediately not functional. But numbers made spin look so good and insurgents so evil. Those numbers completely deny reality.

NATO meeting will accomplish nothing because Afghanistan needs a few hundreds of thousands of troops now. Such operations typically take 6 and more months just to start. Afghanistan would not have required such massive troops had, for example, we even installed Kabul water system as promised. At last look, that fresh water system still was not installed when it should have been installed and working by the end of 2002. Those 13 clinics, et al accomplish little because they were not built in 2002. Too little; too late; but it looks good.

Look that numbers necessary for Afghanistan. Hundreds of thousands. How many troops does Britain have deployed? A few thousand? Taliban has grown so powerful that NATO troops rarely leave compounds without full security even in the few safe provinces. Welcome to 1965/6 Vietnam.

Meanwhile, neocons are still fighting trench warfare to win "Mission Accomplished". Don't fool yourself. Neocons will subvert only to 'stay the course'. Even Tony Blair is so foolish as to say that a major part of the answer lies outside of Iraq. The Economist of 18 Nov 2006 replies:

He is wrong.

Michael Rubin, a political adviser to Bremer in Iraq, has quit Baker / Hamilton's Iraq Study Group writing in Weekly Standard

Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush's war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy

Previously, experts were mocked by neocons who knew only neocons were right because “conservative” was associated with intelligence. Neocon’s ostrich mentality remains that extreme - still advocate so much mental midgetry as to still not realize how anti-American they have been. They cannot understand the obvious: Iraq is lost. Neocons cannot see that Afghanistan is right behind Iraq. And so we have trench warfare in Washington.

Meanwhile, appreciate why intelligent people give neocons disrespect they deserved. Again, those seven segments of Frontline's The Lost Year is essential to understand how neoncons think and why they really still believe in ‘stay the course’. Neocons would even create a disaster in Afghanistan using a myth that Iraq can be won.

Again, the topmost post is not that Iraq is in civil war. Some who replied missed the point. The lurker should have seen civil war coming how many years ago? Same applies to Afghanistan. Did you realize we are down to same options in Afghanistan: go big or go home? Did you realize how bad Iraq has been and how bad Afghanistan now is? Neocon influence (ie Rush Limbaugh) remains that strong in America. There are still that many neocon Americans with so much hate for American soldiers as believe 'stay the course'.