PDA

View Full Version : Pentagon generals warn of Iraq civil war



Firetxmi
08-03-2006, 07:24 PM
Pentagon generals warn of Iraq civil war

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 11 minutes ago

Two top Pentagon commanders said Thursday that spiraling violence in Baghdad could propel Iraq into outright civil war, using a politically loaded term that the Bush administration has long avoided.

The generals said they believe a full-scale civil war is unlikely. Even so, their comments to Congress cast the war in more somber hues than the administration usually uses, and further dampened lawmakers' hopes that troops would begin returning home in substantial numbers from the widely unpopular war in time for this fall's elections.

"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war," Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the senators, "We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war."

White House press secretary Tony Snow, flying with President Bush to Texas aboard Air Force One, said the generals had "reiterated something we've talked about on a number of occasions, which is the importance of securing Baghdad, which is why ... you're going to see more and more of a troop presence in Baghdad. ... Obviously, sectarian violence is a concern."

Asked specifically about the generals' comments about a civil war, Snow said, "OK, well, I don't think the president is going to quibble with his generals on their characterizations."

Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have steadfastly refused to call the situation in Iraq a civil war, although Rumsfeld at a news conference on Wednesday acknowledged that the violence was increasing.

Asked whether the United States would continue to have a military mission in Iraq in the event that a major civil war broke out, Rumsfeld declined to respond directly, saying he didn't want to give the impression that he presumed there would be a civil war. He said the question must ultimately be handled by the Iraqis.

"Our role is to support the government. The government is holding together. The armed forces are holding together," he said at the Senate hearing Thursday.

There are currently about 133,000 U.S. forces in Iraq. The Pentagon has recently decided to extend the deployment of some 3,500 troops and send them into Baghdad, along with Iraqi forces, to bolster security.

Last year, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed hopes of significant troop cuts this year, comments that Abizaid seemed to temper on Thursday.

"It's possible to imagine some reductions in forces, but I think the most important thing to imagine is Baghdad coming under the control of the Iraqi government," Abizaid said.

Abizaid also said it was possible that U.S. casualties could rise as a result of the battle to contain sectarian violence in the capital. "I think it's possible that in the period ahead of us in Baghdad that we'll take increased casualties — that's possible," he said.

Many voters have tired of the 3-year-old war, which has cost more than 2,500 U.S. lives and more than a quarter-trillion dollars.

Abizaid and Pace said they did not predict a year ago that sectarian violence would be as high as it is now.

Abizaid said he believed Iraq would "move toward equilibrium in the next five years" with the right mix of political and military pressure. Bush has said he does not expect the last U.S. troops to leave during his presidency, which ends in January 2009.

"Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other," Pace said. "The weight of that must be on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government."

The Bush administration's handling of the war drew sharp rebukes from Democrats and some Republicans Thursday. Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) likened the positioning of forces in Iraq to a game of "whack-a-mole," where generals try to curb violence in one area only to see it pop up somewhere else.

"It's very disturbing," said McCain, R-Ariz. "And if it's all up to the Iraqi military, General Abizaid, and if it's all up to them, then I wonder why we have to move troops into Baghdad to intervene in what is clearly sectarian violence."

Rumsfeld also sparred with Democratic senators over his handling of the war.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York told Rumsfeld he was "presiding over a failed policy" in Iraq, and asked him why lawmakers should believe his assurances that that conditions in Iraq would improve.

"My goodness," Rumsfeld responded to her list of complaints; then he restated administration positions.

The generals' comments posed anew the question of what would happen if the Iraqi government crumbled and U.S. troops were left between competing armed militias. Sen. John W. Warner (news, bio, voting record), who chairs the Armed Services Committee, said a civil war in Iraq would raise questions about the U.S. commitment there.

"I think we have to examine very carefully what Congress authorized the president to do in the context of a situation if we're faced with an all-out civil war and whether we have to come back to the Congress to get further indication of support," said Warner, R-Va.

Pace told McCain that U.S. troops are trained and equipped to respond to violence caused by ethnic strife, but that their role would be limited.

"There's a difference between the kind of violence they have to handle and what will prevent that violence," Pace said. "And preventing that violence is very much the role of the political leaders in Iraq to solve, sir."

Later in the hearing, the generals expressed confidence that the Iraqi government was moving in the right direction and that a civil war was not probable.

"Am I optimistic whether or not Iraqi forces, with our support, with the backing of the Iraqi government, can prevent the slide to civil war? My answer is yes," Abizaid said.



Link:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060803/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_20;_ylt=AmOmTYCY1mn6s3QBN5Dg.0pX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Durandal
08-04-2006, 11:33 AM
Big surprise there.... :roll:

Wait, wait....











...nope. Still not shocked...

Lokos
08-04-2006, 11:40 AM
I once entered into an argument with a Socialist over the US occupation of Iraq. My position was simple: 'If they withdraw, it will be civil war. Lawful occupation or not, they must stay and stabilize the state'.

America has a moral duty to complete the process of reforming Iraq's state instruments.

Lokos

Atlantic Friend
08-04-2006, 11:41 AM
Well, we can honestly say that civil war has been going on for the last year or so - or at least since Shiites and Sunnis began blowing up rival mosques.

The opposition to Iraqi Freedom in France (and I'm sure, in many other countries, including some which sent troops to Iraq) was largely based on fears of what the ME would become if Iraq was destabilized, as other regional players (Iran, particularly) are having a hand at spreding chaos across Iraq.

I'm afraid recent events seem to have proven skeptics right, but let's keep in mind we would have seen this happening after Saddam's death in the next 10-15 years anyway. At least, by toppling Saddam, the West has taken the initiative instead of just letting things happen - if the Coalition succeeds we'll all benefit from it, and if it fails we'll all suffer from it.

Durandal
08-04-2006, 11:49 AM
I once entered into an argument with a Socialist over the US occupation of Iraq. My position was simple: 'If they withdraw, it will be civil war. Lawful occupation or not, they must stay and stabilize the state'.

America has a moral duty to complete the process of reforming Iraq's state instruments.

Lokos


There is no "complete" the process.

The United States in Iraq is not unlike the Soviet Union in Yugoslavia in this case. When the United States leaves, be it next year or 50 years from now violence will erupt.

The question is, how much further in debt do you want to go and is the debt worth a low density conflict and prolonging the inevitable.

Lokos
08-04-2006, 12:04 PM
I respectfully disagree.

Obviously, an equilibrium was previously achieved in Iraq under Saddam. Yes, one group was dominant at the expense of the others - but there was calm. In the 'New Iraq', the dominant group may very well be the Shi'ites. A great deal of violence will be necessary in order to break down the resistance of the traditional Sunni elite, but this is inevitable with US assistance.

Iraq can be stitched back together. A united, singular Iraqi state entity is a healthier proposition for the US than a fragmented series of pseudo-states that Iran can quickly and easily overpower with its regional influence. The cost is worth the risk; Iraq provides the US with a superior regional jump-off point, an excellent alternative to the use of Saudi territory and a major boost to the US' counterweight against Iran. Iraqi oil, too, is of vital importance - as is the security thereof.

Lokos

Firetxmi
08-04-2006, 12:09 PM
To paraphrase Steven Colbert:

"Civil War. Isn't that what we want? By definition we can't be involved in a civil war. Its called an "exit strategy" people." ;)

No, I am not advocating a civil war.

Durandal
08-04-2006, 12:19 PM
I respectfully disagree.

Obviously, an equilibrium was previously achieved in Iraq under Saddam. Yes, one group was dominant at the expense of the others - but there was calm. In the 'New Iraq', the dominant group may very well be the Shi'ites. A great deal of violence will be necessary in order to break down the resistance of the traditional Sunni elite, but this is inevitable with US assistance.

Iraq can be stitched back together. A united, singular Iraqi state entity is a healthier proposition for the US than a fragmented series of pseudo-states that Iran can quickly and easily overpower with its regional influence. The cost is worth the risk; Iraq provides the US with a superior regional jump-off point, an excellent alternative to the use of Saudi territory and a major boost to the US' counterweight against Iran. Iraqi oil, too, is of vital importance - as is the security thereof.

Lokos

I look at the cost and wonder what if the Iraqis do not want us there. As an American I know I would not like an occupation force in my land, even if it keeping a very limited peace. I do not think Iraq will become a U.S. base in the future for the Iraqis to have a legitimacy that is needed to take the lead in a democratic Middle East/Gulf region.

The region that is Iraq is simply a dyke and the U.S. has its finger in a hole holding back water with no one to (relatively speaking) help. No one is going to dump money into Iraq, most of the nations that made promises to A-Stan have not met their pledge so I doubt they would do it in an even riskier setting (nor should they if they were smart, it would be like throwing money into a hole).

Nor is the oil program successful. The oil infrastructure is STILL a wreck, still under attack, still not even close for paying operating costs of the government, much less rebuilding a damn thing.

So MANY things need to happen. The U.S. government has dropped the ball so many times that, learning from experience, I do not see it doing things differently anytime in the near future, which means another 4 or 5 years of simply wasting opportunities and the debts associated with them.

I mean, we have done an absolutely ****ful job (not the troops, but the rebuild and whatnot) what makes anyone think this will somehow change?

I'd love to play optimist, but I have to be honest.

Lokos
08-04-2006, 12:45 PM
So MANY things need to happen.

You are very right.

And the costs you speak of are very real.

Yet, if the US withdraws from Iraq and allows it to be torn to pieces in a bloody sectarian civil war, the precedent is once again set: Americans do not have the stomach for nasty business.

What the Iraqis want or don't want, at this point, is immaterial. The US should start nurturing and extensively developing relations with a particular group (be it Kurd or Shi'ite), courting it with financial and political incentives, and inviting it to clamp down on the other groups. Strengthening the central government and enabling it to exert control over the entire country is the first step in creating a stable, non-belligerent Iraq.

Stability and a true Western-style liberal (not in the American sense) democracy are not synonymous concepts. What Iraq may very well need for its survival as a state is a single dominant figure or group that can enforce stabilization efforts.

In order to achieve this degree of power, the US must be ready and willing to lend a hand. Withdrawing from Iraq at this stage would be something akin to diplomatic suicide - a matter of no small embarassment for the US, in other words.

The occupation should continue until it is no longer needed to preserve the new regime.

Lokos

joedirt
08-04-2006, 01:12 PM
when did americans actually start giving a damn if arabs kill each other?

Lokos
08-04-2006, 01:49 PM
If I were you, my silly friend, I'd rethink my approach to this issue.

Lokos

Secret Squirrel
08-04-2006, 02:53 PM
when did americans actually start giving a damn if arabs kill each other?

elections in Nov.

Hellfish
08-04-2006, 03:47 PM
I once entered into an argument with a Socialist over the US occupation of Iraq. My position was simple: 'If they withdraw, it will be civil war. Lawful occupation or not, they must stay and stabilize the state'.

America has a moral duty to complete the process of reforming Iraq's state instruments.

Lokos

My opinion exactly. I never supported the invasion, but I think it would be a much bigger mistake to pull out early.

Greek soldier
08-04-2006, 04:08 PM
Bravo. It took a bit longer to realize that Iraq semi-officially kaput.:roll:

And BTW, I will quote Niall Ferguson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson) from an interview he made on a Greek Sunday newspaper:

"The US should sustain their military presence in Iraq for 40 years. So much lasted British military dominance in Iraq after 1917. It is very difficult to invade in a country, change the government, and drastically change the military, political, and finacial institutions. I don't think the Neocons who advise George Bush have understood it."

Lazy Lob
08-04-2006, 05:47 PM
Durandal, the mistake has been made. The US (and us poodles) have to decide what is going to be a gretaer expense. Dealing with it now or the consequences a few years down the road, whatever they may be?

I am with you. Get out now coz its going to bite and we are just burning money for no good reason. Its going to happen anyway.

Get ready for a hike in the price of a barrel o' crude.

Durandal
08-04-2006, 10:53 PM
Durandal, the mistake has been made. The US (and us poodles) have to decide what is going to be a gretaer expense. Dealing with it now or the consequences a few years down the road, whatever they may be?

I am with you. Get out now coz its going to bite and we are just burning money for no good reason. Its going to happen anyway.

Get ready for a hike in the price of a barrel o' crude.

Take all the money in Iraq, dump it into several Nuclear reactors and whole bunch of research grants for battery technology.

Pay off from that would have been huge and we would have been FAR MORE secure than before invading Iraq.


Oh, and Lokos, Iraq is NEVER going to see a Western style, "liberal" (not in the American sense) democracy. They very thing that would guarantee those freedoms will get the people that will take them away elected there.

Iraq is one big "Catch-22" in...almost as insane as the novel.

Lokos
08-06-2006, 04:17 AM
Durandal:

That's not really what I was saying. Here it is again:


What the Iraqis want or don't want, at this point, is immaterial. The US should start nurturing and extensively developing relations with a particular group (be it Kurd or Shi'ite), courting it with financial and political incentives, and inviting it to clamp down on the other groups. Strengthening the central government and enabling it to exert control over the entire country is the first step in creating a stable, non-belligerent Iraq.

Stability and a true Western-style liberal (not in the American sense) democracy are not synonymous concepts. What Iraq may very well need for its survival as a state is a single dominant figure or group that can enforce stabilization efforts.


I'm not advocating liberal democracy, here. Just stability. At any price.

Lokos

Firetxmi
08-06-2006, 09:42 AM
I'm not advocating liberal democracy, here. Just stability. At any price.

Lokos

At any price? God help us.....

Durandal
08-06-2006, 11:00 AM
I'm not advocating liberal democracy, here. Just stability. At any price.

Lokos

Well, maybe that stability MUST be achieved by the people of the region and not from outside.

There has NEVER been a democracy established without the consent of the people by an outside force and right now that is not the situation in Iraq. The people may have voted but they voted for Iraqis not Americans and with the constant need to include minorities of the nation regardless of democracy goes counter to this.

Its one of my arguments that a Civil War MUST happen for there to be a peace.

Dasein
08-06-2006, 12:40 PM
A civil war in Iraq won't be a quick affair with a real resolution, like the civil war in the US. Likely, it will be one of those long, drawn out, bloody wars that destroys an entire generation without resolving much - the type we've seen too often in Africa.

What we should focus on, from a political standpoint, is creating a government that respects the ideals of constitutional liberalism - individual liberties, due process, property rights, freedom of conscience and the like. Even if the government isn't democratic to begin with, the transition from a non-democratic to democratic government is much smoother and tends to produce longer lasting and more stable governments when there is already a base of liberal principles on which to build.

Durandal
08-06-2006, 01:17 PM
A civil war in Iraq won't be a quick affair with a real resolution, like the civil war in the US. Likely, it will be one of those long, drawn out, bloody wars that destroys an entire generation without resolving much - the type we've seen too often in Africa.

Well, of course...

I am not too sure where the comparison to the American Civil War came from. I do not think anyone has suggested that. Nor, since you have mentioned it, was the American Civil War some quick affair. After military conflict resolution we saw the social and economic repercussions for over 100 years and low level conflict and near rebellion for decade following it.

Nothing quick and clean about it.


What we should focus on, from a political standpoint, is creating a government that respects the ideals of constitutional liberalism - individual liberties, due process, property rights, freedom of conscience and the like. Even if the government isn't democratic to begin with, the transition from a non-democratic to democratic government is much smoother and tends to produce longer lasting and more stable governments when there is already a base of liberal principles on which to build.

We have been focusing on it.

I love these simple answers with absolutely no details in how it achieved and how liberal principles (classical liberalism...not the abortion it is today) will be accepted by people who do not necessarily understand or believe in it. It is flawed to think that our way of life is some how the best or is something everyone wants.

"...creating a government that respects the ideals of constitutional liberalism" is like suggesting the answer to all our energy problems is "cold fusion". All we need to do is get "cold fusion" and we are set.

But how do you get "cold fusion"?

Iraq is destined for disaster, like it or not. History shows this us to be fact based on similar societies. People like to pick out Japan as example, yet Japan had a society that was FAR FAR different and was coming along as a member of the industrialized nations.

We can dump all the money we want and ultimately, the U.S. is no better off than if it had burned the money.

I mean, we have a Sectary of Defense who claims we do not need troops except every time we take troops from town A to help rid town B of extremists, town A goes back to the bad guys. Mosul is a perfect example of this.

And you expect to magically introduce a stable government that cannot govern without the help of a foreign power and resides behind walls with little in the way of transparency?

Come on...

We had a chance to do something right in Iraq and I supported the initial invasion. We have sooooo dropped the ball on this that it is embarrassing. Our current administration and their lackeys have ƒucked up big time...and the ones prior as well...but NOW is the focus...

Asheren
08-06-2006, 01:50 PM
A civil war in Iraq won't be a quick affair with a real resolution, like the civil war in the US. Likely, it will be one of those long, drawn out, bloody wars that destroys an entire generation without resolving much - the type we've seen too often in Africa.

What we should focus on, from a political standpoint, is creating a government that respects the ideals of constitutional liberalism - individual liberties, due process, property rights, freedom of conscience and the like. Even if the government isn't democratic to begin with, the transition from a non-democratic to democratic government is much smoother and tends to produce longer lasting and more stable governments when there is already a base of liberal principles on which to build.

No i don't think soo. War might be long but its hard to say how long it would depend on balance of power bewen factions and on amount of foregin support. I think there are two main factors. Iran and Turkey. Iran will certainly support their faction qestion is how large scale support it could be. In same time Iran and Turkey will want to "get rid" of kurds. Its most propably one of reason why they keep large force on border. I will not be supprised if they enter Iraq for whatever reason they can find. Its hard to say who will support sunni quite possible that US will do it but i doubt it. In end they might have to fight alone. Sooner or later one side will win or Iraq will split to one, two or three states. Parts of iraq might be claimed by both Iran and Turkey in same time.