US Generals Raise Fears of Iraq Civil War

[JaJae]

Link to AP Article

Generals raise fears of Iraq civil war

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 9 minutes ago

Two of the Pentagon's most senior generals conceded to Congress on Thursday that the surge in sectarian violence in Baghdad in recent weeks means Iraq may descend into civil war.

"Iraq could move toward civil war" if the violence is not contained, Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it," he said, adding that the top priority in Iraq is to secure the capital, where factional violence has surged in recent weeks despite efforts by the new Iraqi government to stop the fighting.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the panel, "We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war." He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military.

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

President 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 is increasing.

The commanders' remarks about the threat of a civil war came just three months before congressional elections in which Bush administration policy in Iraq looms as a defining issue. 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 taxpayer dollars.

They also come at a time when thanks to the high level of violence in Baghdad, administration hopes have diminished of significantly reducing the U.S. force in Iraq, which Rumsfeld said currently totals 133,000. 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.

"Since the time that General Casey made that statement, it's clear that the operational and the tactical situation in Baghdad is such that it requires additional security forces, both U.S. and Iraqi," Abizaid told Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee.

"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.

Later in the hearing, the general expressed confidence that the Iraqi government is moving in the right direction.

"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, I'm optimistic that that slide can be prevented," Abizaid said.

Bush last week approved an increase in the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad as part of a new effort to help Iraqi security forces get a grip on the sectarian tensions.

Abizaid also said under questioning that 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.

Rumsfeld, who testified alongside Abizaid and Pace, did not comment directly on the prospect of civil war but said Iraq's future lay in the hands of Iraqis, beginning with a reconciliation process that has yet to get under way.

"Ultimately the sectarian violence is going to be dealt with by Iraqis," Rumsfeld said.

And under tough questioning by Sen. Hillary Clinton about previous appearances before the committee, he denied that he had ever "painted a rosy picture" of the situation in Iraq.

Pace said he did not anticipate one year ago that Iraq would now be in danger of plummeting into civil war. Abizaid said it was obvious a year ago that sectarian violence was on the rise, and that Iraq's police forces did not develop as well as U.S. officials had expected.

"It's vital that we turn this around," the general said.

Pressed about the prospect of reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq, Rumsfeld stuck to his usual assertion that it depends on conditions and on the ability of the Iraqi government to suppress sectarian tensions. He said the Pentagon is seeking a careful balance between having too few troops and having too many.

"That's a fair tension there," Rumsfeld said.

It looks like it's coming to reality. Our current generals are now claiming Iraq is stepping towards civil war.

If there is a civil war I think we need to let Iraq battle it out. We can aide who we want, but we shouldn't continue to fight for their freedom. We trained them, armed them, we can help guide them. But our fighting there needs to end.

[DosEquis]

We need to pull back out of the crossfire. Provide air support, and whatever to the people we associate to democracy.

[Thorgrim]

who do we aid?

We aid the Sunnis, thats just rewarding the Zarqawi friendly crowd
We aid the Shia, the toughest militias answer to Iran
We aid the Kurds, Turkey will send in its army

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

who do we aid?

We aid the Sunnis, thats just rewarding the Zarqawi friendly crowd
We aid the Shia, the toughest militias answer to Iran
We aid the Kurds, Turkey will send in its army

whoever is down for democracy is the ones we should support. Just because it is a democracy doesn't mean people will get elected that we like. However, they will be elected and it is their countries will at that point. We provide support for them because the others most likely want an islamic dictatorship.

Turkey won't send their military to a country where our military is.

If they are\end up friendly to Iran, we should probably start working on our diplomacy. Thats really the only choice we have. We removed saddam to have a democracy there and thats what we should help defend.

[avsp]

Purely coz we've got three threads on this subject already I'll link, to the, (cited elsewhere), extra news item about the retiring UK ambassador to Iraq, ..., its a leaked memo BTW, its not verified but its not being denied

BBC NEWS | UK | Iraq civil war warning for Blair

Iraq civil war warning for Blair

Civil war is a more likely outcome in Iraq than democracy, Britain's outgoing ambassador in Baghdad has warned Tony Blair in a confidential memo.

William Patey, who left the Iraqi capital last week, also predicted the break-up of Iraq along ethnic lines.

He did also say that "the position is not hopeless" - but said it would be "messy" for five to 10 years.

Note the US generals are callimg for more troops. Some Alaskan brigade earlier this week had their rotation extened at very very short notice.

Coalition troop numbers have actually already risen slightly

Plans seem to be to withdraw coaltion troops from elsewhere in Iraq to Baghdad in an attempt to avert civil war.

Either way the whole thing was entirely predictable from the day the mass looting began (if not before) & show the failure not to send more troops earlier was unwise.

Further when Bush pointed out, (in his first presidential election campaign) that he didnt believe in using troops to 'nation build' & that Cheney did it would appear that his understanding of the problems was greater than Cheneys.

I've read reports of Iraqi proposal to split Baghdad, 'green line' style

There very much a 'last chance' feeling goping on here IMO.

If as Jajae suggests its time for the Coaltion to leave then, ...,
specifically how is this to be done, ...,
& generally does this show the limits of US military power (as opposed to force), ...,
& doesnt the pullout show the US to be weak
& if so, what are the consequences for the WoT & global security arrangements in general
& what outcome of the civil war are undesirable & is it possible for the Coaltion to ensure their avoidence.

Lastly, the usual, ..., using destabilisation as a policy tool is very stupid, ..., Rumsfeld is a f*cking idiot & Chelabi = the Karl Marden character in this film (link)

p.s, ..., guess who first raised the possibility of 'loosing to the right people' made years ago?, ..., i tell ya the geezer is a diamond

[avsp]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

whoever is down for democracy is the ones we should support. Just because it is a democracy doesn't mean people will get elected that we like. However, they will be elected and it is their countries will at that point. We provide support for them because the others most likely want an islamic dictatorship.

Turkey won't send their military to a country where our military is.

If they are\end up friendly to Iran, we should probably start working on our diplomacy. Thats really the only choice we have. We removed saddam to have a democracy there and thats what we should help defend.

If Iraq break up into bits some may not be democracies at all

Turkey is unlikely to tolerate an Kurdish state & may interceed (even directly) to prevent it

Rival Shia factions are almost certain to fight amongst themselves, ...., Iran is likely to intercede to back their chosen faction

Syria isnt going to let this all happen without putting their oar in.

Saudi interest are such that they can not allow Iran control of the Iraqi oil fields, ..., the forms that their intervention can take is probably the most varied.

Should the Saudis get involved to counter Iranian interests then their oil facilities are very vunerable to attack, ..., in which case we are all f*cked

Open full-scale civil war in Iraq is very very dangerous for us all. This has always been the danger, ..., basically the coalition cant leave for this reason alone, ..., let alone the extra issues raised earlier of credibility.

More Cassandra-style b*llocks later

[hsmith]

I think it is the best thing for Iraq. Saddam was the only thing holding all those people together. It should be 3 seperate countries.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by hsmith

I think it is the best thing for Iraq. Saddam was the only thing holding all those people together. It should be 3 seperate countries.

or 2 or 1 depending on which groups get wiped out

[avsp]

Originally Posted by hsmith

I think it is the best thing for Iraq. Saddam was the only thing holding all those people together. It should be 3 seperate countries.

Even if a peaceable solution to determing the boarders could be found, it is very likely that any such boarders would provide an excuse for war in the future.

Various parts of the insurgency probably had as part of its aims to make Iraq a tar-baby for the coalition, ..., its the only way they could counter PNAC strategy, ..., literally it was they who said 'bring it on', ..., as such they've ensured that the sectarian hatred is so great that no compromise on boarders is possible for many in Iraq

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by hsmith

I think it is the best thing for Iraq. Saddam was the only thing holding all those people together. It should be 3 seperate countries.

They won't agree on 3 countries, because the oil is only in 2 parts.

Joe Biden's idea of 3 main states, splitting oil revenue evenly across the board, is about the only option i think.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

They won't agree on 3 countries, because the oil is only in 2 parts.

Joe Biden's idea of 3 main states, splitting oil revenue evenly across the board, is about the only option i think.

Why would any Shia leader agree to such an arragement when he & his people can have more by having 'what is rightfully theirs'?, ..., especially as not to do so would be to reward the Sunni for their insurgent & Saddam violence againsat the Shia.

Admittedly I can easily imagine a democracy loving Shia leader favouring your suggested position but rival Shia leaders may appear more appealing & such a 'namby-pamby-wishy-washy-liberal-goody-two-shoes' position is going to appear weak in such a 'macho' culture & context & even if did prove popular is almost certain to get you killed.

The problem is that the 'reasonable' 'middle ground' is completely excluded in Iraq regardless of its size.

Library closing damn

[thomez]

even Fox News calls it a Civil War now

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by thomez

even Fox News calls it a Civil War now

now you know it's true

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

now you know it's true

There has been a 5th hijacking! -Fox News on 9/11

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by avsp

Even if a peaceable solution to determing the boarders could be found, it is very likely that any such boarders would provide an excuse for war in the future.

Various parts of the insurgency probably had as part of its aims to make Iraq a tar-baby for the coalition, ..., its the only way they could counter PNAC strategy, ..., literally it was they who said 'bring it on', ..., as such they've ensured that the sectarian hatred is so great that no compromise on boarders is possible for many in Iraq

Well lets look where the west drawing borders in the middle east got us now

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by thomez

even Fox News calls it a Civil War now

so many people saying it would never happen

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by hsmith

so many people saying it would never happen

Not really that it wouldn't happen, but rather it wasn't happening months ago. Even now the headlines say "fear" civil war. Not in a civil war.

[motivez]

I like how our top military commanders have some sort of rhetoric lag where they're unable to admit the truth to Congress until it gets so bad that there's no denying it.

The civil war has been going on for months and months. The death statistics are much higher than other recognized civil wars that have happened (although, not all of them). It's just a matter of time before it's fully recognized by these people, unless something dramatic changes.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thomez

even Fox News calls it a Civil War now

not quite...they say it's a possible scenario in the future.

quit spreading your lies!

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Not really that it wouldn't happen, but rather it wasn't happening months ago. Even now the headlines say "fear" civil war. Not in a civil war.