Iraq "as bad as I have seen it” Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. Central Com.

Thorgrim · 08-03-2006, 12:33 PM

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. military commander in the Middle East told Congress on Thursday that “Iraq could move toward civil war” if the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad is not stopped.

“I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it,” Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said the top priority in the Iraq war is to secure the capital, where factional violence has surged in recent weeks despite efforts by the new Iraqi government to stop the fighting.

A similar remark was offered by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told the panel, “We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war.”

Civil war in Iraq possible, generals say - Politics - MSNBC.com

I wish this news got more coverage, it's going to happen that militia battles will break out in Baghdad out of control and the top story will be Israel bombing more little girls

Stupid media

beez · 08-03-2006, 01:09 PM

Civil war gives the US an excuse to stick around in order to "stabilize" the country while building and maintaining all those bases. If Iraq were at peace the US would have to come up with a harder-sell excuse to stick around. From Iraq it can hit Iran and Syria with ease.

avsp · 08-03-2006, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by beez

Civil war gives the US an excuse to stick around in order to "stabilize" the country while building and maintaining all those bases. If Iraq were at peace the US would have to come up with a harder-sell excuse to stick around. From Iraq it can hit Iran and Syria with ease.

Are you claiming that the Coaltion has deliberately failed to bring security to Iraq in order to stay there?

If so, is it in any way unwise not to let the people of the coaltion nations know the extent of the commitment?

Or is that infact the point you are making, ..., to whom is the 'excuse' aimed?

beez · 08-03-2006, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by avsp

Are you claiming that the Coaltion has deliberately failed to bring security to Iraq in order to stay there?

If so, is it in any way unwise not to let the people of the coaltion nations know the extent of the commitment?

Or is that infact the point you are making, ..., to whom is the 'excuse' aimed?

Yeah. The commitment is required because the country is so unstable. After all, the public discourse centers on "staying the course" and not "abandoning" Iraq. If the chaos never ends, neither does the occupation. I think Iraq is in way too good of a location for US forces to simply abandon the bases they've built there.

DosEquis · 08-03-2006, 01:57 PM

Originally Posted by beez

Yeah. The commitment is required because the country is so unstable. After all, the public discourse centers on "staying the course" and not "abandoning" Iraq. If the chaos never ends, neither does the occupation. I think Iraq is in way too good of a location for US forces to simply abandon the bases they've built there.

I dont think we would ever completely abandon the country. I am sure our bases will be there, all 14 of them. Instead of 150,000 soldiers we are probably talking 30,000. That is what I am looking for personally anyway.

30,000 soldiers and adequate air support/intelligence. Keep some special forces there. Basically enough to back up those who defend democracy.

avsp · 08-03-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I dont think we would ever completely abandon the country. I am sure our bases will be there, all 14 of them. Instead of 150,000 soldiers we are probably talking 30,000. That is what I am looking for personally anyway.

30,000 soldiers and adequate air support/intelligence. Keep some special forces there. Basically enough to back up those who defend democracy.

What if those who wish to 'defend democracy' arent armed?

Which already existing armed factions do you see as being 'democratic'?

DosEquis · 08-03-2006, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by avsp

What if those who wish to 'defend democracy' arent armed?

Which already existing armed factions do you see as being 'democratic'?

the Iraqi government has 200,000 armed and ready soldiers and police (or so its claimed). They have advantages.

beez · 08-03-2006, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Basically enough to back up those who defend democracy.

You mean those who defend the election of approved candidates, right?

avsp · 08-03-2006, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

the Iraqi government has 200,000 armed and ready soldiers and police (or so its claimed). They have advantages.

But how many of these people all have alligence to the Iraqi state?
My impression is that many dont, ..., further I suspect that iAS push came to shove various units would wipe out 'undesirables' in their beds, ..., but that just me speculating

Either way each minister has their own private milita & many have sought to integrate their own commanders into the ministries offical security forces.

The Sadhrist interior minstry (IIRR) forces seem particularly feared.

Cliffs: The Iraqi govt forces are neither a unified whole nor all owe allegence to the Iraq state

motivez · 08-04-2006, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by avsp

But how many of these people all have alligence to the Iraqi state?
My impression is that many dont, ..., further I suspect that iAS push came to shove various units would wipe out 'undesirables' in their beds, ..., but that just me speculating

Either way each minister has their own private milita & many have sought to integrate their own commanders into the ministries offical security forces.

The Sadhrist interior minstry (IIRR) forces seem particularly feared.

Cliffs: The Iraqi govt forces are neither a unified whole nor all owe allegence to the Iraq state

I think many have more alligence to their specific little sect than they do the concept of an Iraqi state.

I think religion plays such a huge role in the lives of Muslim's that nationalism usually takes a back seat to those religious beliefs.. which is why there has always been mass support for religious theocratic governments.

Nonphixion · 08-04-2006, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by beez

Yeah. The commitment is required because the country is so unstable. After all, the public discourse centers on "staying the course" and not "abandoning" Iraq. If the chaos never ends, neither does the occupation. I think Iraq is in way too good of a location for US forces to simply abandon the bases they've built there.

We ousted Saddam who we ourselves planted there, he did some surprising things and now we're not happy.

We can't cut and run, this Saudi Arabian Oil has been part of the plan for over two decades -- our economy and our military vehilces REQUIRE this specific oil in order to run.