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.