Iraq; Bad as it has been

[Hippikos]

Two senior US generals yesterday publicly agreed with a warning by Britain's outgoing ambassador to Iraq, William Patey, that the country is slipping towards civil war and partition.

"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war," General John Abizaid, the head of US Central Command, told the senate.

General Peter Pace, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, agreed that "we do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war" and said only Iraqis could ultimately stop the slide.

"Shia and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other," Gen Pace said.

The generals were responding to questions on Mr Patey's views, which caused a stir in the US after his valedictory memo to Tony Blair was leaked to the BBC.

Mr Patey wrote: "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.

"Even the lowered expectation 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."

The comments reflect an increasing impatience on both sides of the Atlantic with other resolutely upbeat assessments of the political leadership.

Gen Abizaid's views were also more sombre than those expressed by the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, who was sitting alongside him at yesterday's Senate hearing.

"A couple of days ago I returned from the Middle East. I've rarely seen it so unsettled or volatile," the general said.

Neither Mr Patey nor Gen Abizaid described the situation as beyond repair. The British diplomat argued that Iraq's "position is not hopeless". He said much depended on the choices the Iraqi government made over the next six months, primarily in strengthening the Iraqi security forces. Among other moves, he proposed clamping down on the militia forces, in particular the Shia Mahdi army: "If we are to avoid a descent into civil war and anarchy, then preventing the Jaish al-Mahdi from developing into a state within a state, as Hizbullah has done in Lebanon, will be a priority."

He predicted the country would remain "messy and difficult" for the next five to 10 years. Gen Abizaid's prognosis was similar. He described the coming battle with sectarian militias in Baghdad as "decisive" and suggested that the situation could "start moving towards equilibrium" in five years.

But he added that the Iraq insurgency "has a lot of resiliency, it's probably going to last for some time even after US forces depart and hand over security control completely to the Iraqis".

US troop reductions by the end of the year were possible but unlikely, the general said, arguing that the battle for Baghdad had priority.

Mr Patey warned against a quick withdrawal of troops, stressing that talk of an early exit from Iraq would weaken the position of coalition soldiers who remain.

Mr Blair played down the leak at his monthly press conference yesterday, saying the comments were in line with what the ambassador had been saying in public, and that it was imperative to "stay the course" in the battle with extremism.

"That's what we're doing, and however tough it is we will see it through," Mr Blair said. "And actually, if you read the whole of the telegram, that's precisely what William is saying."

British forces handed over Muthana province to Iraqi forces last month, the first of the country's 18 provinces to be transferred. In Basra, British commanders are planning a purge of mafia and militia elements in the police in what could be their last-ditch attempt to bring order to Iraq's Shia-dominated southern city.

Major General Richard Shirreff, who is taking over command of the multinational forces in southern Iraq, has made clear he intends to adopt a tougher approach.

British officers say Iraq is on a knife edge and have given the Iraqi government until the end of the year to impose its authority across the country.

They say they are frustrated by the failure of the Baghdad government and local politicians to enforce their writ in Basra, where Shia militia have infiltrated the police. While Iraqi ministers have suggested the British army has not done enough to reduce the presence of the Shia militia, British commanders counter that Iraq is in danger of developing a "dependency culture". They are pinning their hopes on building a new national Iraqi army, though without great optimism, and have described the rest of the year as crucial in deciding whether Iraq will survive as a unitary state.

Link

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

"Even the lowered expectation 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."

Remain in doubt? The irony of this whole mess is that we've made Iraq an even more fertile breeding ground for terrorists than it ever was, before.

[glatt]

I think you didn't get the memo. That was the plan all along. They meant to do that. And it's not a breeding ground so much as it is a terrorist magnet, so we can get them all in one spot to kill 'em easier.

edit: I forgot to add [/sarcasm]

[Happy Monkey]

Ah, the good old flypaper strategy. Like building a super-dirty hospital to attract all the germs.

[Kitsune]

Let's give the people of Iraq the government they desire.

Oh, yeah, this is going to get ugly.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Oh, yeah, this is going to get ugly.

What do you mean by 'going'. That is already a done deal. All that is left is how much uglier and how many of America's best will be sacrified - just like in Nam - before American civilians finally acknowledge reality. Daja Vue Nam.

It's already ugly. It already will get uglier no matter what America does. How many Americans still remain in denial? How many remain so anti-American as to say it does not involve them? Good. I am thinking of three Marines you then may have condemed to death for no reason.

Kitsune has only said stated the obvious.

[tw]

Why is Iraq not yet acknowledged by every lurker here years ago? Facts were posted. Why so much denial? Maybe details will provide useful insight?

Morality on 1 Jan 2006
The insurgency is fueled only by one thing - American occupation. Conditions being so unstable that Iraq must even import oil. Conditions that will only worsen. This American occupation has made even more central Iraqi cities unsafe for Americans every year. It will only worsen as history demonstrated - be it Vietnam, Lebanon, or Somalia. Even noted by a BBC reporter who could not give his 'year end' summary report from an Iraqi city he could visit one year previous.

Morality on 26 Dec 2005
Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad and Gen George Casey are rumored to have been calling for an exit strategy from Iraq that may even call for a fixed withdrawal date. Obviously, putting a date on that withdrawal would completely undermine Iraq's growing insurgency. But George Jr has no interest in that solution. Options were posted previously. Either 500,000 troops for one year to end the insurgency, or a complete withdrawal which would undermine the insurgency. Leaving too few troops or taking out another 7000 is only a losing strategy.

However it is not about winning in Iraq. It is all about the popularity of George Jr. Iraq has always been secondary to George Jr who is more concerned with his legacy - ie. his Kennedy like 'Mission to Mars' and a place alongside Reagan.

... Leaving 100,000+ American troops only causes the insurgency (once called Al Qaeda by a lying president for self serving political reasons) causes this insurgency to grow exponentially. Too few troops only makes Iraq less stable; increases a probability of civil war. ...

Rumors say Khalizad and Casey have long been suggesting a strategic objective that provides an exit strategy. George Jr has no exit strategy - still has none. Nor, say some, does he want one.

... George Jr is only announcing insignificant troop reductions because George Jr's is worried about his popularity.

GWB's "Plan for Victory" on 30 Nov 2005
There are only two ways to get out of Iraq. Send in 1/2million to end it now. Or completely withdrawal so that Iraqis are forced settle things at the negotiation table - either by meeting up front or driven to the table by civil war. Civil war in Iraq remains a viable alternative the longer the US remains. Under the George Jr status quo plan, civil war becomes a more likely possibility every year. The Iraqi military cannot grow as fast as the insurgency.

Trying to solve Iraq with too few American troops - 100,000+ - is a fool's solution. Either we are in or we are out. Only 100,000+ troops means the insurgency will grow until Civil War is inevitable.

Nuclear Iran is now the world's #1 problem posted by UT on 9 Aug 2005
Ah, but tw, it's your take on things that the US is losing the war in Iraq.

Why were others denying it even only one year ago?

Understanding terrorism on 6 Aug 2005
Meanwhile, history demonstrates that when democracy is pushed down their throats, bad things like Civil War occur. Brent Scowcroft (a closest friend of George Sr) was discussing this as a real possibility maybe one year ago. Now reporters in the 'field' are reporting civil war as a more likely consideration with each month.

Why did we go into Iraq? on 16 Jun 2005
Warch - your question was the exact same question we asked in Vietnam. What was the answer? Admit defeat? The American strategic objective in Vietnam was flawed - could not work. If you think the status quo is Iraq is solving the problem, well then explain why safe cities such as Mosul and Kirkuk are even failing into violence - just like in Vietnam.

First ask - what really is our strategic objective? To impose a government, or to setup a puppet government? Again, civil war may be necessary so that Iraqis can agree they want a common government. One cannot honestly anwer when one blindly believes America has provided freedom. Listen to Iraqis. They did not like Saddam. But most Iraqis had more freedoms back then. They had freedom of movement. They had electricity and water. Outside of rebel areas, Iraqis were not dying so routinely. All part of a country that cannot even agree yet on what it wants. Even the Kurds were doing business with Saddam back then. It was not as bad as poltical extremists in America would have us believe - just like in the days of Vietnam.

I don't find the 'politically incorrect' solution of total withdrawl that wrong. Others who Iraqis trust may then be so shocked as to move in - to provide a real solution as Syria did in Lebanon. At some point, Americans must admit the status quo is not making things better. And just like in Vietnam, the American public perception was otherwise.

Are you ready for 20 years in Iraq? If denying reality as Nixon did in Vietnam, then expect Americans to be dying in Iraq for decades - followed by a country not that friendly to Americans.

A realistic strategic objective would also make an exit strategy obvious. Where is the exit strategy? None existed because there was no strategic thinking by poltical extremists. None currently exists.

Remember how so many here refused to acknowledge that Iraq was more dangerous then? Well now it is even more dangerous than more danagerous. This from an Iraq citizen when things were so much safer.

BBC's One Day in Iraq on 7 Jun 2005
This war and the events leading to it have been such a mess that the self congratulating excuse of removal of Saddam is nothing more than a laughable lame attempt.

100,000 Iraqi Civilians have died in current war on 18 May 2005
According to those UN numbers, we are killing Iraqi civilians at about the same rate per year that Saddam was. But clearly that is better because Americans are more moral about causing civilian deaths. ...

Question remains: how many more will die if Iraq breaks down into civil war? History teaches that American occupation (complete with a puppet government) will be required for up to 10 years. No problem. America wants to be the world's policeman. The current Iraqi government can only exist in Green Zones protected by the US military. Why is their own country so dangerous even for their own government? Iraq has never been a more dangerous place - thanks to America.

Good Morning, VietNam on 9 Jan 2005
Those estimates of 20,000 insurgents is now at about 40,000 full time insurgents and about 160,000 part time insurgents. Increases also seen in VietNam.

Mosul demonstrates the problem. When he could not get support from the Bremmer bureaucracy, the 101st Airborne General started a program much like the British. His soldiers went out to find and work with the people. They all but stole money from the Bremmer 'we are the experts' bureaucracy (George Jr's chosen one) to get reconstruction going. Money from Bremmer's people was all but non-existent. Bremmer's people never even bothered to put staff in Mosul. Relations in Mosul were some of the best. Now even Mosul is a center of the insurgency.

Good Morning, VietNam on 11 Jan 2005
Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft were National Security Advisors for Presidents Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr. They recently defined what to prepare for in Iraq. Gen Scowcroft's comments are especially interesting since he is also a closest friend and trusted advisor to Bush Sr.

What follows are exact quotes from Brzezinski and Scowcroft as they predict a Civil War. Notice what was so emotionally unacceptable to so many in The Cellar back then is now defacto reality.

That would get America out of Iraq. A resulting Civil War could then could be blamed on Iraqis. Like Vietnam, it is how to get out and claim what follows is not America's fault.

Do you FEEL safer? on 27 Oct 2004
Important was that the US would have a 'honeymoon' to get the country working again. If not accomplished in that honeymoon period, then only bad things would happen in-country. The George Jr administration refused to plan for the peace - so the war never ended. But then even Sze Tzu taught that in 500 BC.

Rumsfeld somehow felt that 50,000 troops all put in Baghdad would be sufficient to create peace in a 6,500,000 city. Somehow, with less men than the NYPD, he would secure all of Iraq (his logic was that obviously flawed). Somehow if 50,000 US troops occupied only Baghdad, then peace and prosperity would break out all over Iraq. As for looting nationwide, Rumsfeld complains that one boy repeatedly shown looting a vase does not constitute nationwide looting. He was that much removed from reality because his political agenda was more important.

So out of touch were the neo-cons that they disbanded the Iraqi Army and Police even as nationwide disorder continued. Even in the Cellar, many outrightly denied it was that bad - the press must be liars. Extremist rhetoric remains despite reality. Did he really think 50,000 would maintain law and order?

[continued in next post]

[tw]

[continued from previous post]

Good Morning, VietNam on
However there is no good exit strategy. Anyone who thinks America is going to fix this country is playing fiction games. Best we can hope to do is warn the Iraqi for our exit in a hope that they will make plans among themselves to avoid a Civil War. IOW up front we must define the exit date - and then let the chips fall where they may.

Those who think somehow we are going to stay and fix things really have no exit strategy other than a solution based upon more status quo. This was the Vietnam reasoning. Obviously this will only be a lose lose strategy - just like Nam. Are they ready to commit 300,000 or 1/2million troops? Unfortunately those who advocate the status quo will not commit to troop numbers and years. Status quo is a no win strategy. Few are even willing (yet) to publically admit to what these former National Security Advisors are saying. Brzezinski and Scowcroft are both well respected for their pragmatic and honest approach to analysis. Neither comes with a political agenda. But what they say will be politically difficult for any politician to endorse. Its not a winning strategy. But it does get America out.

Do you FEEL safer? on 27 Oct 2004 ( also known as fuel for a civil war - so we forget this happened? )
Defects (also called spin) in that Belmont article. The 3rd ID arrived at that location, fought a small battle with Iraqi forces, and then moved on. Pentagon had a UN list of locations that required special protection. This location appears six times on this list for various reasons - [300+ tons of high explosives] was that dangerous. But the 3rd ID was moving to Baghdad - never told what was in that facility. 3rd ID never even tried to verify what was in that facility. They had no orders to look so they did not look. A week later, the 101st also was camped overnight at that facility. They too were never told what was in those bunkers. They intentionally made no attempt to learn.

The Pentagon was informed well before the Iraq invasion where critical equipment and materials were stored. Contrary to what many right wing extremists say, the UN really did know where most everything was stored. UN had placed seals on these bunkers. UN told the Pentagon six reasons why this facility was dangerous. The Pentagon did not protect this and apparently did not protect most facilities on that list. Looting resulted. Again - Pentagon had no plans for the peace - as even stated by former Lt Colonel Macgregor (who advocated the fast 50,000 man attack). Even this Colonel is quite critical of how the administration planned for the peace. Administration completely ignoring principles that would make a small attack force successful. Briana - read MacGregor's long interview so that George Jr cannot keep lying to you. The devil is in the details. But you must read them.

U.S. Helicopters filmed firing into crowd of civilians
from NY Times of 16 September 2004
A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.

The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.

"There's a significant amount of pessimism," said one government official who has read the document, which runs about 50 pages. ...


How is it that virutally every responsible observer says Iraq is bad and getting worse. Yet the President says things are getting better? He is lying now just as he lied about WMDs. Just as he intentionally connected 11 September with Saddam. ...

Posted are facts. Iraq is going as predicted a year ago because of this administration's 'ideologue based' policies. Furthermore, the president, knowing full well things are bad and will probably get even worse, instead, hypes lies about how Iraq is getting better.

Exit Strategy on 24 May 2004
Another vehicle bombed. More dead westerners. This one near the secure green zone so that reporters could dare to step out and review the damage. First thing noted by Dexter Filkins of the NY Times (interviewed by the PBS Newshour) is how Iraqis show no remorse for those dead. He is quite blunt about how bad Iraqi attitudes have become in only the last three months. So bad that reporters don't even dare leave or go to a border area where a 'wedding party' is said to have been slaughtered by American helicopters.

About the only thing that the Iraqis and Americans agree on is that Americans attacked something and 40 Iraqis are dead. Something like 80% to 90% of the dead were women and children even though Americans say it was an "insurgant" meeting. Maybe. Maybe some insurgants got married. After all, a large majority of Iraqis dislike Americans.

Why has Iraq turned so bad so fast? It was obvious once we eliminated the rhetoric from the White House and its sound bytes - ie Rush Limbaugh. We had 6 month to get it right. Instead we sent in people so mentally deficient as to even disband the Iraqi Army and Police. ...

In many circles of political reporters, there is much speculation as to how much we will drop and back out - in a hope that others can take blame for any impending disaster or civil war. Iraq has become so bad that even reporters could not go out to confirm military reports since most of 2004. Iraqis that much hate foreign occupiers. Of the 2000 reconstruction projects, only 42 remain ongoing. Things are that bad.

Remember back than how many denied reconstruction has all but halted within the first year? Remember those posts trying to claim most American deaths were due to traffic accidents and other non-combat events? Remember even Tobias described a country that was falling apart from the very begining and they had no orders to fix the country?

That was the reality. If the people really so hated Saddam, then that plaza in Baghdad would have been packed with people now that the Americans were clearly in town. They did not celebrate because .... well we have the facts today. We liberated people who did not want to be liberated - because our president lied.

[quote] How obvious was it that the country was being made ripe for a civil war?
Major Concession on 4 Sep 2003
How bad was the administration's plan to end this war? What plan? Why could Saddam restore electricity and other civil services in a month? We can't even restore electricity four months later - and now make silly excuses. What does armour know about infrastructure? Nothing. This administration had no exit strategy nor even a plan how to restore the country. Classic MBA management technique.

But it gets worse. From Washington comes a silly mandate that all Baath party members are to be banned from working. Even Patton confronted that silliness when he was told not to use Nazis. You wanted a job? Then you had sign silly papers and be a Nazi or Baath party member. Do we want the country back in order? Yes. Then Baath party members need be hired. But not according to George Jr and his man Bremer. They are evil. They signed those papers! ... [quote]The NY Times article is quite revealing about why the rest of Iraq is going chaotic.
THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: RECONSTRUCTION; 101st Airborne Scores Success In Northern Iraq on 4 Sept 2003 Section A Page 1

[continues in one last post]

[tw]

[last of three consecutive posts]

So why do we so deny the obvious - a civil war created by the "Mission Accomplished" war? Why do we simply forget how often George Jr and his administration outrightly lied to us - and have not stopped? Why instead do we forget how obvious this civil war was as even Scowcroft and Brzezinski accurately detailed? Why do we forget how anti-American we were in our 'big dic' mentality back then as to even blame Linda Ronstadt and the Dixie Chicks for being absolutely correct?

Singer Linda Ronstadt Ejected by Las Vegas Casino on 23 Jul 2004
Nothing involving the WTC and Pentagon attacks can be discussed without mentioning the 6 Aug 2001 briefing that George Jr apparently did not even read. What was he waiting for? A formal invitation to the party from Osama? The contentiouos nature - and the reason why those extremists felt justified in creating civil disturbances in a Rhonstadt concert is directly traceable to the current political climate in America - as created a mental midget president and his administration. An administration that even justified the outing of a CIA agent and Gitmoizing of innocent Iraqi prisioners.

And finally from BennyHill on 10 April 2003 who was questioned for a post that was accurate in god bless america:

the violence justifies the violence?
the death justifies more death?
The U.S. do not liberate, have other interest in Iraq.

To which UT replies:

Time will show us whether the US is going to be a conqueror, or whether it will give the country back to the Iraqis, as it says it will.

Time will show us whether there are any chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in Iraq.

Bennyhill, if the US does give the country back, and if the weapons are there, will you apologize for your accusations?

Because I promise you, if the US does not give the country back, and if no weapons are found, I will apologize to you -- and I will work to change the US government.

A predictable and predicted civil war is increasing. Do we give them back their country? Or do we stay another 10 to 15 years as is required with too few troops? After spending how many $billions, still, Saddam provided Iraq even with more electricity. Even electricity is counted in single digit hours per day - which is no longer new because America has made Iraq that much worse. Iraq even creates less electricity and is a net importer of oil. Do we stay only to lose another Vietnam war because we continued to deny "A Bright and Shining Lie". You did learn from that history - or condemned to relive it?

Review these posts to appreciate how obvious all this was back then. This civil war was predicted because of what America - mostly ill educated and religous fanatic supporters of George Jr - have accomplished. "Mission Accomplished". It was predictable and predicted how many years ago when so many American citizens were thinking with emotions rather than using blunt and brutal lessons from history. "Mission Accomplished".

Meanwhile, I make no aplogies for stating facts up front and blunt without any regards to what adult children need - things stated politically correct. I am not politically correct. I am blunt honest. Either we put in those 500,000 troops now and settle this - or we get out. Those remain the only two viable options. Don't like it. Fine. "Not liking" is a silly emotion. Those remain the only two options. Either we are in or we are totally out. All other options will mean another Vietnam defeat.

Anyone yet ready to make either hard decision - or have a better idea? Silence in The Cellar. How many other alternative were posted? Two years of silent now - and so many who so hate America as to blindly restate presidental impeachable lies.

[Ibby]

Aw man, tw, I was about to compliment you on your great but short post... then I realized the next three were yours too...

[Tonchi]

Gosh, tw, do you ever take any time to eat and sleep?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Tonchi

Gosh, tw, do you ever take any time to eat and sleep?

Look .... up in the sky ... it's a bird .... no, it's a plane ....

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by tw

Look .... up in the sky ... it's a bird .... no, it's a plane ....

It's postdiarrheaman!

He confuses people with his ambiguity!
He muddles the issues with verbosity!

Mild mannered tw, in his one-track goal to convince the general public that W is an incompetent asshole, fights for truth? Justice? The American Way? Who can tell???!!!

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Let's give the people of Iraq the government they desire.

Oh, yeah, this is going to get ugly.

I'm a 'glass is half full' kind of girl. Look at it this way: Before the US stormed in there and screwed up the country, they couldn't organize citizen protests AT ALL! I call it a Victory!

[delusion/off]

AHhahahahahahaha!

[xoxoxoBruce]

An article in Discover Magazine called "The Future of Terrorism" said; (emphasis mine)

In popular perception, suicide terrorists are desperate, uneducated naifs or psychotic dupes. Certainly that applies to some of those who have been caught so far. But the terrorists planning strategies for the future are probably far more astute than those disoriented few. "It's a Darwinian situation," says Hugh John Williams, a private consultant and a former member of British intelligence. "We catch the less smart ones, and the ones who get away learn from their less fortunate associates."

Psychiatrist Marc Sageman, a former CIA case officer who has worked closely with Afghanistan's mujahideen, recently completed what is perhaps the only scientific analysis of the social factors that help make a terrorist. Combing court transcripts and other documents, Sageman compiled a database of the motives and backgrounds of 500 jihadists and found that the average terrorist is middle-class, sane, well-informed, and educated. The typical occupation: engineer.

Jim Crupi, a military consultant, likens tomorrow's terrorist group to a Silicon Valley start-up: "value driven, networked, global in scope, and targeted to a niche."

My God, engineers?...unemcumbered by MBAs! We're in trouble.