Is Iraq in a state of Civil War?
 

With the levels of violence , Mosque Bombings, and general mayhem we see in this country....do you think its actually a Civil War?

I think we could be looking at the new United States of Iranistan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1715873,00.html

the ny times called it "civil strife"--the washington post "sectarian backlash"---the american press cant quite say it....

Time will tell, of course. There has been a long history in Iraq of infighting between the nation's different religious and ethnic factions: such is the consequence of creating a nation with arbitrary borders. Al-Qaida may yet succeed in prompting a religious civil war, but the level of violence we are seeing now should certainly not be labeled in that way.

but then again, a significant shi'a shrine had not been blown up.
in case this slipped by:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,,1715275,00.html

but let me say that i sincerely hope that you are right, politicophile, in the longer run---a civil war is the worst possible scenario.

There is not yet a level of orginisation in and between the different sunni and shiite groups for it to be a proper civil war. The attacks and killing at the moment are not real efforts to gain and consolidate control of territory. The groups that do have exert control over a local area do not have the means to project military power over other areas, only sporadic terrorist attacks. The Kurds do but it does not seem like they would take this option unless for the defence of their territory. For there to be a civil war I think the groups fighting at the moment would have to be much larger in scale (perhaps like the groups in Afghanistan). Time will tell I guess.

I don't think Iraq is quite in a state of civil war yet but I don't see how one can be prevented from eventually breaking out. All that is needed is a very small number of unhappy people to commit one atrocity and then the other side has the excuse they need to fire right back. Eventually things will spiral out of control. That fact the conflict is religious in nature only serves to guarantee that each side will have some people unwilling to let the matter go and work towards peace.

Al Qaeda does very good work it would appear...

i think the answer comes in the question.

There is no "Iraq" outside of the western colonial powers that carved the map in that way to begin with....both way back when, and now. If i were a Kurd...i would have zero qualms about claiming the right to exist in a state that was responsive to my needs, and would bitterly oppose subjugating those interests to the outsider's pipedream of a united iraqi state. There is no such thing as an ontological iraqi...and i see no profit in pandering to that delusion.

There's no glue there...and plenty of cause for friction.

I voted "Too soon to tell" simply because there's no evidence of outbreak of major fighting between two fraction the way it has been in any other civil wars in history. Judging from previous civil wars (British Civil War, etc) it looking like its going to civil war but how can it be a civil war when United States is occuplying the country?

There are some countries around the world that have problems dealing with 2 major fraction that are motivated by religion clause that clash with each other and still not face a civil war.

Tell that to the Iraqis. Tell that to the Kurds who, less than one year after being massacred, signed up on mass to fight Iran under the Iraqi flag. Tell that to the Shi'ia who died in the millions to fight fellow Iranian Shi'ia under the Iraqi flag. Iraq may have been an invention, but there IS an Iraq in the minds of Iraqis.

This is not a civil war. This is no different than race riots that happen all over the world. Yes, it may spill over into a Civil War, but it's not at the moment.

I picked "its more complicated than that" because this mess isn't 1 side vs another its a giant clusterfuck which should never have been started in the first place. Everyone always knew what would happen if we went in there and it is exactly what is happening, and has been happening. Apparently everyone knew this *except* the people who run our country. One would think that they would be the ones to know. I guess not. Gotta get that oil tho! So what if thousands of people have to die, we may get flowers thrown at us! Too bad the flowers have grenades hidden among them. Too bad for our troops that is.. the ones who sent them there couldn't care less. (ohyea, there's those Iraqis too.. but who cares about them, right? they're just in the way)

They are and they aren't. The problem is that there are several groups that want several different outcomes in this, and not all of them are fighting. I think a better way to describe the situation is that the nation is in turmoil. I know it's a very general term, but I think civil war is too specific. Besides, it can't be 'civil' with an army from another country in the thick of it.

I think it's inevitable. I heard one conservative commentator masterfully pitch the whole mess as a positive thing, but a mission that will never, ever be accomplished. He then said that because of the difficulty we’ve seen, it’ll be a long time until US troops set foot in the middle east again. Which I highly doubt. I think there’s at least one other country our troops will see in the near future.

Think Iraq is a quagmire? Just wait ‘til Iran.

Not my point...to point out that Iraq is a historic construction is to say that some people may not choose to affirm it, because they see the particularity of it's origin...Others still choose Oz, even after seeing the man behind the curtain.

But the fact that this choice is made immediate by sectarian violence reduces the chance that enough people will affirm the concept of Iraqi over and against their other claims. It's ridiculous that we <i>expect</i> them to do so. If someone asked North Americans to affirm that over and against our national idenities...what would we say to that?

I have to go for the complexity choice. It's a mess, certainly, but almost inevitable with numerous radical groups trying to build kingdoms.

At what point does the chaos become "civil war?" I'd expect a wider involvement of citizenry participating in the conflict, and in ways other than being blown up at social gatherings. It still seems like a small minority of Iraqis, a bunch of foreign fighters, and a nasty group of leaders tormenting the general population. Prodding them toward war. If the larger population unites and begins fighting back then perhaps I'd call it war. The current action, which most frequently target civilians rather than military or police, fits more with terrorism than war.

That said, they may be on the cusp. The last few days have sucked with a vengeance.

I guess it depend on how you define civil war. If you use the traditional definition - two sides having a government, territory and an army, the answer is no. But there is clearly a fight for power between groups in the country.

I supported our preemtive strike against Iraq and removing Sadaam from power. I am now at the point of believing it is time to bring our troops home. Iraqis need to get their own house in order, they need to take a more active role in defining their future. They need to decide what they are willing to fight for - good people need to take a stand against those who promote death, destruction and terrorism. I am concerned that they will forever rely on our military if they know it is available and that they will alway have an excuse by blaming America for death and destruction of Iraqi against Iraqi - Muslim against Muslim.

"I am concerned that they will forever rely on our military if they know it is available and that they will alway have an excuse by blaming America for death and destruction of Iraqi against Iraqi - Muslim against Muslim."

This hits the nail on the head. I'm following your point (I think), but I doubt if anyone can argue that this sentiment applies to Iraqi population. It makes perfect sense when applied to the rest of world (ROW). Everyone has a stake in how this plays out, yet few are taking an active role, for the reasons you described in your quote. The unfortunate thing is it results in this sentiment...

"I am now at the point of believing it is time to bring our troops home, Iraqis need to get their own house in order, they need to take a more active role in defining their future. They need to decide what they are willing to fight for"

I think Iraqi's have shown their willingness to do this. The ROW is in a very convenient position (well, at least for the next two years) of sitting back banking on the United States creating a situation that everyone can live with, cursing them all the way.

What is going to take to get the ROW to relize than islamic extremists are like a cancer on this planet and that it is hurting everyone? And, what is it going to take for 1/2 of the people (the people who hate Bush so much that they can't see straight) in this country to realize the same?

I have to admit I am getting tired of people resenting this country and the Bush administration for doing what is right.

Well, that's what happened. We went yeehawing in there guns a-blazing. Our plan was to be greeted as liberators. When that didn't happen, a massive black hole opened up where our leadership should have been. We've been targets and our presence has been incitement to violence ever since. Iraqis who supported and worked with the US are targets now too.

But here's the bad news: we can't just bail, either. We have a responsibility to rebuild what we destroyed. Leaving now would guarantee that we're forever seen as a force of cruelty, destruction and division in the muslim world. It's a deeply shitty situation, and neither solution is good.

Why re-write history? How many UN resolutions where there befroe we went in guns a blazing? How many times did Sadaam fail to cooperate with inspectors? How many times did Iraq fire at our airforce? How much money did Sadaam give to the families of suicide bombers? How many people did Sadaam kill in his own country? Where we the target when suicide bombers killed red cross volunteers, Iraqi children, women, etc? Did we cause Iraq to invade Kuwait?

The vacuum in Iraq was created because the Iraqi people, muslim people, good people in the ROW won't stand-up and condemn terrorist, they won't fight terrorist, they won't kill terrorists. Heck, in this country we have people who don't even want to "spy" on them.

How much money did we give him? How much poison gas did we hand over to a penny ante dictator?

The prohibition on re-writing history doesn't stop at 1991.

Do you suggest that Saddam was not responsible for his own actions? Or, am I missing your point?

Certainly he is responsible.

But that doesn't preclude responsbility of other parties who encouraged, facilitated, or allowed such actions to happen.

I'm sure you know the Edmund Burke quote, so i'll leave it there.

I'll be honest I'm not sure.

I don't really have the data I would need to claim one way or another.

Watching some of the news coverage it looks like a civil war, talking to some soliders I know who came back it doesn't sound like one.

Could it become one, absolutely.

The problem now is that a lot of these "good people" are now being rounded up 12-40 at a time, bound blindfolded and shot by roving bands of gunmen and "death squads". Shop owners, religious leaders.. random people being pulled out of their cars.. it just doesn't matter anymore. You get abducted witha buttload of other people, killed, and dumped someplace where they'll find your piled up corpses.

I apologize but I am getting more confused.

Are you suggesting that we encuraged Saddam to invade Kuwait, kill his own people, reward suicide bombers, and defy the UN?

Are you suggesting that we facilitated, or helped him do these things? Do you think we are more responsible than the Iraqi people who let him rise to power and then left him unchecked? Do you think we are more responsible than his Arab neighbors? More responsible than his muslim brothers?

I am not sure how you relate Burke's quote, "Liberty without wisdom, and without virtue is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint." to your point. But I actually take it to mean that free people in the world are going to have problems if they lack clear objective thought. Right now I think many in the world and in this country lack wisdom when it comes to confronting evil people.

Why don't these good people stand with us and fight?

I can think of a few reasons:

1. We're occupying their country. I know if my country wre invaded i probably wouldn't want to fight with the invaders.

2. anyone who even seems like they're collaborating with the US is being rounded up and killed execution style.

3. they're actually a peaceful person/people as they claim and refuse to take up arms

4. they may not know who to follow. everyone is trying to grab power for themselves right now.

etc etc. i could probably go on for quite a while, but these are some good reasons why the good folks there aren't doing anything.

You are correct. If that is what they think, we should leave. That is what I wrote a few posts back. If they think we are the enemy, I guess they will do better without us. Then they should make sure their next leader plays by the rules.

Yes - we make the rules.

I was going for..."All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

And i don't mean to exclude other parties from responsbility...but i will note that it's pretty sick to expect a people living under a dictator who is willing to gas his own people to rise up against that same government.

I don't think that the US bears exclusive responsbility for making this mess. I don't. It's not sane to think that. But it's similarly not sane to deny that we had a hand in arming Saddam. And that capability and support helped him accomplish his evil intents. Did we have a right to confront his evil by invading Iraq?

Maybe...and that strongly depended on our ability to do so with a positive outcome, something that seems rather in doubt at the moment.

Did we have a responsibility to consider the consequences before giving him support and arms in the conflict against Iran?

Definitively.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...0F52AFA71E.htm

it appears that the situation continues to teeter near the edge of civil war.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/in...rtner=homepage

this piece from yesterday's washington post is interesting in that it provides something like an account of the context---and some concessions from american command-types that they are, in fact, operating within a context.

sometimes i think we forget about the extent to which information from/about the bushwar in iraq is controlled. the new outline of the scenario in iraq is doubly interesting because of this: the situation begins to take (another) turn for the worse---but this one poses potential trouble for the whole of the project--so new context is required.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...501738_pf.html

I do expect people living under a dictator who is willing to gas his own people to rise up against that same government. That is what I would do, wouldn't you?
Yes, we have the right and the obligation to confront his evil by invading Iraq. Leadership comes with great responsibility. There have been far too many occations when we have done nothing to confront evil, or we have waited too long.
If we want to play a secondary role in world leadership, that is o.k. But we can not assume the lead role and then not lead.
Occationally leading requires doing things that are unpleasant and unpopular, but they are things that need to be done.
If we lose our resolve the best outcome won't be realized. However, there have already been positive outcomes. In '91 we did not finish the job and now we are paying the price. I admit - I am losing my resolve. If this happens across the board and our nation again fails to finish the job, we will have another price to pay in the future.
I don't understand your logic on this. If we used this logic you come to weird conclusions. Example: If Hitler's mother loved him, nurtured him, supported him, etc., based on that you would hold her responsible, in part, for his actions as an adult? I would not.

There is a big difference between raising a child who becomes a madman and enabling someone who is already a madman.

The US knew that Saddam was a dictator willing to hold power through any means neccessary. In supplying him with the tools to make poison gas did the US not think he was going to use those weapons?

Sure, the ultimate responisibility is his but the US takes some blame in enabling their one time ally.

Furthermore, the whole April Glaspie fiasco has not yet been mentioned. It seems to me that her words did more to encourage Saddam that it was OK to proceed with invading Kuwait than anything. He was being supplied with US arms, had a sweet deal with the US. Why would he do anything to disrupt that?

If Hitler were already killing people in his spare time at the time his mother was supporting him....yes, that would be an issue.

Saddam was already a strongman dictator with questionable human rights policies by the time we armed him

And congratualtions on Godwining yourself there.

:lol: Sorry couldn't resist.

didn't actually see your comment...that was for ace.

I chose that the situation is far more complicated than the prospect of civil war. I have been following Dahr Jamail's posts from Iraq for some time and I find his observations far less restricted than our imbedded press. While the Western press wails about civil war, Jamail sees an entirely different set of machinations in play hoping to foment sectarian strife.

It is my firm belief that the US and Britain are not going to leave without what they came for, that being oil, of course. Bush has declared that we are not leaving Iraq until there is a peaceful and stable government. Bombing a mosque serves to stir the hornets nest necessitating our continued presence, while we at home wring our hands and agree that we can not abandon the Iraqi people. We are being lied to, people.

Dahr Jamail

I apologize for not being able to let this issue go. But I have heard this argument and have never been able to understand it.

If the US is to take blame for Saddam's actions how do you allocate that blame, 50/50, 60/40, 30/70? And if the US is responsible in someway, do you think the people of Iraq, Arabs, Mulims are justified in seeking punishment or revenge against the US?

What does that mean?

Godwin's Law

Ace...the point isn't strict legal liability. The instruction of history is best served not in a sense of calculable guilt, but in instructive caution for future actions.

We thought we understood the situation, and that we could arm one side of a conflict to our benifit. It turns out that this had drastic consequences, and Saddam's use of our bio weapons proves that.

Again, we thought we understood the situation, and applied models of reconstruction and liberation that didn't apply...backing Chalabi and Iraqi National Congress...and it turns out they were fronting for Iran the whole time. So far, the consequences have been quite serious, and not looking to improve.

Hopefully...somewhere down the line, we'll actually use good judgment.

As for the right to retaliate? It depends. Do we as Americans have the right to export violence at our judgment? Do other nations? What legitimates a war? I don't think there are hard and fast answers...but there is a point to seeing the working of the logic that legitimates terrorism, even if we remain in strict disagreement with the conclusions.

Machiavelli for President please.

martinguerre,

I'm not sure how you lost your solid footing in discussing the construction of the Iraq state by foreign governments. But it's interesting that ijn your conversation with aceventura he was able to completely obliterate that crtiical point.

I find it interesting because he uses the "fact" that Saddam "gassed his own people" as if to create a higher level of moral indignation against a dictator killing people within the boundaries of his state. As if we should be more angry at someone killing "his own" than those not his own. But the simple fact remains that Saddam in no way thought of the Kurds as "his own." and they weren't

and his refusal to agree to this point, ignore it, misunderstand it, whathaveyou, leads him to think that a people ought to unite against the dictator for committing such a heinous act. but he doesn't seem to catch the notion that a people, comprised of various ethnic groups and in no way seeing themselves as ethnically united, would ever conceive or even desire to "unite" to overthrow such a dictator.

for to many, he (saddam) did no such wrong. and to others, he was representative of their wishes, but all of this within the context of foreign powers enabling him to exert control over the entire region held together by nothing other than brute (military) force--not some notion of nationhood. it simply doesn't make any sense to wonder whether the nation is fracturing into groups and bubbling into civil war, well primarily because of your first comment that there is no glue there. it's more profitable to wonder when iraq was not currently or under threat of civil war...

I just think you shouldn't have let that comment slide away so easily, becuase it manages a tremendous amount of explanation for what we are trying to decipher today; indeed, much of what many of us opposed to the invasion repeatedly pointed out as a must think about reality before action. and it's so obvious that there is just no way in any universe that intelligent masterminds of the sorts who articulated and maneuvered us into this predicament couldn't have foreseen it. especially given that a fair number of them were involved in the initial thick of it when many of us were still in baby jumpers.

but now it appears extremely rational to lean on the point that we have personal responsibility to the iraqis (as if there were a homogenous group in existence for us to cater to or ponder about), to a concept of liberty, to a way of life, to do anyting BUT up and leave, because we have been skillfully managed into a box. and this is what many of us meant when we labeled it a quagmire. much of the same as vietnam. but not in the way that many people probably conceive of either of these conflicts, because they seem them as such--conflicts. so quagmire to them means that the interactants can't move, can't escape, can't overcome. which is ludicrous to such a person, because they understand our military might to be so overwhelming that the prospect of its immobilty is laughable on its face. but I wonder if those people pop the political implications of the term quagmire into their equation. because then it becomes much more clear how someone might conceive of these "conflicts" as mainly political and resulting in quagmire. that is, all action can be framed as untenable. regardless of what is, how things exist are less relevent than how things can be made to appear. so now we sit on the brink of an episode and our political leaders call out to us that to leave is untenable, unthinkable, abrasive to our very fiber.

because if one thing resonates in this nation, it's the legal fiction of personal responsibilty. and this fiction may account for all sorts of deeds that ultimately run counter to our personal best interests, but dammit, it's responsibility. core to our legal system, central to our political consciousness, and paramount to the maintenance of capitalism. but I always saw this action as the maintenance of capitalism and so invite a number of people to make the requisite rendering of my musings into a facile argument that we trade blood for oil, so be it. but nonetheless, people in greater and higher positions in life, doing these kinds of analyses far longer than I may ever have the chance to do, and some in non-trivial high-level government positions, have already claimed that our 4th world war would be the front between global capitalism and non.

but yeah, I think you could dig your feet in a bit further on that point about the construction of an "iraqi state" by foreign powers and ride it for a bit more currency rather than get bogged down in some bizarre rationalizations that can only occur once that point is quietly swept under the proverbial rug.

well, in that case smooth...

He's all yours. :icare:

Perhaps "right" is not the best word to use. But if someone is responsible for contributing to the harm of another, justice can be sought. Do people have a "right" to justice, I don't know. What I do know is people seek justice. The history of the human race suggests that if you are responsible in part for harming a group of people, odds are that they will "export violence".

So if we continue to perpetuate this thought that the US is responsible for the actions of people like Saddam in the middle east we will forever be at war.

I actually think that the Iraqi people, Arabs, Muslims had a greater responsibility to address Saddam than the US. My greater concern was his open threats to the lives and property of me and the ones I love. I do not profess any special moral indignation, my feeling are very primal on this issue.

I know there are differences. I accept the history of war and conflict in the middle east. I would bet there have been alliances of "ethnic" groups in the past who have come together in the middle east for the purpose of overthrowing dictators. Given the long history of the area I think that would be a safe bet, don't you agree?

This is a point I tend to agree with.

Perhaps part of the problem is that there are Iraqis who believe that we have been "skillfully managed into a box", to them I say that I am willing to leave. I am willing to let them fight each other until the dust settles. I say it is time for them to step up and get their own house in order however they want to do it, and then follow the rules.

Revenge is never justifiable. We are to blame in at least some way for Saddam, and thus we should be heald responsible, BUT, terrorism is hardly a legal or moral tool. If we were to be brought to justice, then those who sold weapons to the Iranians and Iraqis during the Iraq/Iran war would be brought up on war crimes. If you're refering to the 3000 people who lost their lives on 9/11...there is no justification for such a horrific action.

just checking: is there some kind of linkage being made between the evaluation of the situation and iraq--specifically on the question of how to interpret the events of the past week or so, since the bombing of the golden mosque--and one's position on the war in general?

how does this work exactly?

it would seem to me that going down this route would make all judgements about iraq non-falsifiable because there is no need for any information to be involved.
all the work is done a priori.
what would be the point of that?

The volumes of evidence that you choose to overlook, in order to preserve your opinion, and the fact that your argument is in conflict with Bush's own definition of who is complicit, are indications that the U.S., under the leadership of GW Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, was hardly the moral arbiter of who should be "targeted" and pre-empted.

I've posted all of this on threads of this forum since Sept., 2004, and I'll re-post my research until you or others who still attempt to advance your justification for what looks to me like illegal war of aggression, refute the reports that back my opinion...or stop your flawed defense of war criminals and their crimes.....
<b>aceventura3, tell me why the U.S. was not responsible for "harboring or supporting terrorism", when it continued to supply Saddam with materials and military advice that could be used against Iraq's neighbors and the rest of the world, even after "he gassed his own people", using chemical and bilogical agents banned by international treaty (The U.S. even sold Saddam the crop dusting Bell helicopters and provided the training related to disperse the gas that was used on the Kurds)...and went right on signifigantly supporting and advising him until at least the day he invaded Kuwait. The excuse that he was supported because he countered our enemy, Iran, seems to wither when Reagan began secretly supplying Iran with anit-tank missles and militarily useful replacement parts, knowing that it would strengthen Iran's resistance to Saddam countering it's (Iran's) military power......</b>

WTF....aceventura3...where can you possibly come up with a legitimate justification for the U.S. to avoid being determined to be a rogue nation, aligned with an "evil dictator", that supplied that dictator with banned weapons, and support and military advice, continued this after he "gassed his own people", while it played both ends against the middle by simultaneously and secretly supplying the dicatator's enemy with war material, thereby squandering it's justification for supporting the evil dicatator in the first place.....and then launched a pre-emptive war of aggression against the evil dicatator's country? Show us why it is not reasonable, especially now that the WMD excuse for war has been exposed, using Bush's own criteria of who is complicit in terrorism....to form an opinion that Bush himself is a war criminal and a terrorist. How could he be determined to be the opposite of that? How was the invasion of Iraq not an illegal war of aggression perpetrated by a rogue nation with the evidence of complicity that the U.S. had with the terrorist, evil dicatator of Iraq?

Originally posted here:

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4765854.stm

well, there's chaos.
at what point does this tip over into something else?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4765456.stm

the breakdown of attempts to form a more viable government in iraq cannot be good.

at this point, the administration apparently feels the need to generate some good-sounding news--so off cowboy george goes to india to sign a nuclear technology deal with india that will not get through congress. off the front page goes anything about iraq. so apparently the "information strategy" geared toward winning the "hearts and minds" of the american public is to ignore iraq to the greatest possible extent.
that'll help.

Consequences are justifiable, if we are to held responsible what should the consequences be in your mind?

I think going down this path is wrong and for us to feed this way of thinking adds confusion to what are very simple matters. Either Sadaam is responsible for his acts or he is not.

Saddam is responsible for his actions, and we are responsible for arming him and partially responsible for putting him into power. There's enough responsibility to go around.

i'll repost because it seems germaine:

I'd be interested in hearing an answer to that question. What would the consquences be?

What consequences will we accept?

That's the real question. If we angered the rest of the world, and they decided to use the UN against us...we would use our security council veto, and overrule their attempt to impose consequence.

Nor would we accept a outright invasion...we'd fight it off.

But since we are unwilling to create a security enviroment that prevents assymetric attack...

That seems to be the consequence we're going to be facing. This isn't normative...it's just descriptive. I don't know that it's better to take other kinds of consequences, while at the same time, there is nothing positive about being subject to terror attacks. Yet, the changes necessary to prevent all such attacks are draconian and pyhrric.

We impose consquences through the means we have available....hegemony of the West, cultural and fiscal power, military technology.

They impose consequences with the powers they have...nationalist and religious rhetorics, civil uprising and the "arab street," resistance to your cultural forms, and in cases...assymetric attack.

What the consequences should be? I don't know that we can ask that question. What are the consequences either party has the power to inflict or prevent?

I've always thought our responsibility for introducing, arming, assisting, propping of a despot should include doing what we can to remove them and introduce stability. If we want to go back and correct actions that lead to the initial problem, sure, it deserves thought and action, again, to our ability. Neither should preclude the other. Should they?

You read too much into the basis of my opinion. We obviously approach the evalution of complicated issues differently. My principles are the basis for my views. I do tend to ignore or discount information that is inconsistent with my principles (I am not suggesting my principles are better or worse than anyone elses, mine are mine and yours are yours). So before I can understand you or for you to understand me we have to understand each others guiding principles. That is why I ask general questions about responsibility, justice, consequences, etc.

On your other points in this quote. My position is mine, I don't always agree with Bush.

I am not concerned about the morality in pre-empted acts. I think power determines who the arbiter is, and pre-emptive acts and targets are determined by those with power or those seeking power. The fight for power is never ending. If one has power it will be lost unless defended. And if one has power one has to send a message (pre-emptive occationally) to those who want to take it.

To understand my point of view you have to understand that those who hold power determine what is legal or illegal. Legality is a relative term. So based on my view in general terms it is not possible for the US to conduct an illegal war of aggression. You are correct, your facts won't change my mind. We are currently the world's leader, and we define what is legal or not. When people like Sadaam lead the world they will determine what is legal. In the meantime, anytime we respond militarily in my view I justify it as defending our power, defending our children's right to power in the future.
If you don't think you/we are in a constant fight for power, I don't know how to converse with you.

On a general level we lead the world and we have to take responsibility of what happens on this planet. On a specific level each individual has to take responsibility for thier own actions. In my view we can be guilty of supporting Sadaam, but not be responsible for his actions.

On a general level, I think we spend to much energy trying to make everyone happy. So you get a guy like Sadaam who says if you help me do "a", I will be nice and I will help you do "b". Then by helping him do "a" you have also helped him do "c" which was counter to "b". We should have just said you help with "b", period.

If you think the US is a "rogue" nation, I would think you would be activly working to overthrow the government, or at least get the President and Congress out of office. Congress voted for the use of force, they are complicit as are many other countries. Also, didn't the UN authorize the use of force? Given all that perhaps a better question is: what is your definition of rogue nation?

The consequences are the price we are paying today, the war in Iraq.

So for anyone who thinks we hold responsibility for Sadaam they then need to support the action to remove him. Or, their view is inconsistent. There has to be a consequence, Sadaam did evil things, we have a responsibility to fix it. We fixed it, and they are still not happy.

How do they reconcile this paradox?

again, what does one's opinion of saddam hussein's regime have to do with the question of whether iraq is at this point slipping into civil war?
one of the folk who is pursuing this line of thinking in this thread MUST have some answer to this question.
it is not that hard.

You'd have to start well before the last page of posts to find an answer, or the question.

Sorry to pick on you Martin. That's the top of my buffer but I believe it was right there or just before when things went slightly astray.

Last I looked, "we" had defined what was "legal" and what was not.....
In Jackson's own words...at the Nuremberg trials:
I guess that I didn't get the memo that revised the basis of the principle crime that "we" defined to legitimize the prosecution of the Nazi "aggressors".

Bush's "policies" have reduced the international reputation of the U.S. to that of a pariah, a "laughing stock", and the spectacle of being the sole Superpower that has lost it's ability to inspire or to lead. Your advocacy for policies that no long seperate "us" from "them" (the evil doers), seems to isolate "us" from our former allies, and encourage or reduce us to more war of aggression. In reducing "us", Bush has reduced himself, and the minimum standard of conduct for engaging with each other individually and in realtions among sovereign entities. What are we fighting to uphold? With the criteria of the new "ground rules" that Bushco launched, and you embrace, why even bother fighting, if there is nothing to "uphold"? How can there be any legitimacy for trying Milosevic or former general <a href="http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1921493,00.html">Ratko Mladic</a> for war crimes?
Weren't they simply making their own rules because they were more powerful than their former Muslim countrymen?

Ain't that what I said. And...we can do it again...again...and again. I think you missed my point and I don't no how to make it any clearer.

Why do I care who laughs? The rest of the world simply needs to follow the rules that we establish.

When was the last time we were at peace? I say never. Given a constant state of "war" declared or not, there has not been "more aggression".

Since Cane and Able there has been a constant fight for power. Without trying to be fancy with words we fight to maintain power in the world.
Yes. And they declared war on the US because they want power. They want the power to control all women, power to control your religion, power to control your speach, power to controlyour life, etc. Don't you see that?

cyrnel: i found the point when the slippage started in the thread---thanks.

===============

i asked about the relation between the justifications for the war at all (which i found totally unconvincing, which i still find totally unconvincing) and the question of whether the present situation is heading toward a civil war because i found the correlation little more than an attempt--backhanded or not (and i think it is, reading back through ace's various posts) to evacuate the question of what is happening and reduce all interpretation to a question of your a priori position on the war as a whole.

i think that you can see something of this in the logic of ace's posts: a wholesale avoidance of particular analysis--not to mention critique--of the specific actions of this administration---instead you get a superficial assessment that tracks the movement of ace's personal attitude toward the war as a whole--moving from support (grounded in arguments that for me have no currency) to advocating withdrawal--an advocacy couched in terms of a series of vague statements about the iraqis "stepping up" or some such emeril-like vagueness (at least when emeril says something like this, you can see what they actually men: he is throwing in more garlic).

i see the possibility of civil war in iraq as catastrophic.
it is a clear index of the wholesale incompetence of this administration--the situation i think plausible has already been outlined above---the conclusion to be drawn from it seems to me unavoidable--this invasion, illegitimate from the outset no matter what your feelings about saddam hussein might be (this has been done enough here--i am not entering any further into it) was undertaken with no coherent long-term plan. it appears to have been undertaken without any particular understanding of iraq either--the admission in the post article i cited on the first page of this thread that american commanders are only now figuring out that they are "operating in a context" seems to me almost unbelievable---it is---and i am not joking about this---one of the stupidest statements that i have ever read, from anyone.

thanks to the post-thatecherite practice of reactionary governments trying to head off dissent triggered by illegitimate, illegal military adventures by choking off as much coherent information about what is actually happening as possible (part of the right's conception of a coherent campaign for "hearts and minds"--which, judging from this, amounts to lie early and often)---it is difficult to work out the process whereby the americans found themselves played by all sides. a general outline is evident enough, however: various iraqi groups seem to have used the imperial arrogance of the military to their advantage to trigger a process that now finds the americans reduced to one faction amongst a number, with no meaningful claim to have stabilized anything militarily.
the americans were so committed to the superficial aspects of pseudo-democratization that they were willing to push forward elections that the sunni community in iraq was boycotting and so to create a provisional (puppet) government that had and has no hope of being able to make credible claims that it represents anything like a consensus or national interest that supercedes those of particular groups.

tracking a parallel sorry trajectory, the question of the size and readiness of the american proxy "iraqi security force" ended up sounding like some bizarre rerun of the story of the arvn in south vietnam....it quickly went from numerous and powerful and forward looking to small and ill-trained and incapable of coherent action.


so i can see why supporters of this administration would have every interest in trying to generate a style of argument that would make it difficult to look at the situation that actually seems to obtain on the ground and replace it with a priori style claims--if you see this situation as potentially the start of a civil war, it must be because you opposed the war. if you supported the war, then it is simply time for the iraqis to "step up" or whatever--at no point in this kind of argument would there be any trace of assessment of the seemingly overwhelming ineptness of this administration.

again, i do think that this was introduced into the thread in a backhanded manner across the series of ace's posts--i doubt that he meant it--but nonetheless it appears to be functioning here. it would be nice to see it stop.

roach, cyrenel

The reason why i went with that line of reasoning is to explore if Iraq is a concept that is durable enough to have currency to withstand internal strife.

My conclusion is that because of on-going western interferance and indeed, creation of the Iraqi state and nationality...it won't.

The rest, yes, is thread jack, but part of this debate was if America had the moral highground to be performing intervention in the first place, or if it was in the long line of outsider interlopers who impose unworkable "solutions" on to the "problem" of Shite, Sunni and Kurdish idenity.

This was my first response to the question in this thread. It is a legit response and I stand by it.

I am accused of ignoring facts or not presenting facts. I have never disputed any facts presented here, and I thought we all knew the facts that lead us to our preemptive strike against Iraq. I do take issue on the materiality of some of those facts, and how those facts should affect the future. If it is out of place to discuss the materiality of facts and the affects. I am cool with that, I can debate that stuff elsewhere.

On another note - occasionally a discussion will drift, because of a need for fundemental understanding of specific points that relate to a more general question. If we are responsible for the acts of Sadaam, then we have a greater obligation to Iraq and the prevention of civil war than if we are not responsible for his actions. To me that is very material to the question in this thread.

martin: but that---the status of this nation-state thing we call iraq, its history and viability--is/are an entirely different question(s) that are probably at the heart of this devolution of the past week.
that the americans find themselves--particularly in the fine company of the british--seen as yet another colonial power is also important.

neither of these questions really goes to the line that ace was pursuing (though i can see how they would fit into it...)

post away, sir. i do not have the sense that i am doing much more that trying to piece things together. i doubt anyone else does either. the more the merrier.

by the way, there is this article:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...orld-headlines

on the state of the iraqi securty forces

this to a curious hour long npr program on the question of civil war:
http://c.moreover.com/click/here.pl?...9900&w=2218086

and this about the political fight that is going on concerning the "provisional government" and its composition:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

DUDE, WHERE'S MY CIVIL WAR?
 

Here's an eyewitness account of the Iraqi Civil War.

DUDE, WHERE'S MY CIVIL WAR?

March 5, 2006 -- BAGHDAD

I'M trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.

Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.

And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn't stoop in such an hour of crisis.

Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops.

All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None.

And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome.

Instead of a civil war, something very different happened because of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The fanatic attempt to stir up Sunni-vs.-Shia strife, and the subsequent spate of violent attacks, caused popular support for the U.S. presence to spike upward.

Think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi intended that?

In place of the civil war that elements in our media declared, I saw full streets, open shops, traffic jams, donkey carts, Muslim holiday flags - and children everywhere, waving as our Humvees passed. Even the clouds of dust we stirred up didn't deter them. And the presence of children in the streets is the best possible indicator of a low threat level.

Southeast Baghdad, at least, was happy to see our troops.

And we didn't just drive past them. First Lt. Clenn Frost, the platoon leader, took every opportunity to dismount and mingle with the people. Women brought their children out of their compound gates to say hello. A local sheik spontaneously invited us into his garden for colas and sesame biscuits.

It wasn't the Age of Aquarius. The people had serious concerns. And security was No. 1. They wanted the Americans to crack down harder on the foreign terrorists and to disarm the local militias. Iraqis don't like and don't support the militias, Shia or Sunni, which are nothing more than armed gangs.

Help's on the way, if slowly. The Iraqi Army has confounded its Western critics, performing extremely well last week. And the people trust their new army to an encouraging degree. The Iraqi police aren't all the way there yet, and the population doesn't yet have much confidence in them. But all of this takes time.

And even the police are making progress. We took a team of them with us so they could train beside our troops. We visited a Public Order Battalion - a gendarmerie outfit - that reeked of sloth and carelessness. But the regular Iraqi Police outfit down the road proved surprisingly enthusiastic and professional. It's just an uneven, difficult, frustrating process.

So what did I learn from a day in the dust and muck of Baghdad's less-desirable boroughs? As the long winter twilight faded into haze and the fires of the busy shawarma stands blazed in the fresh night, I felt that Iraq was headed, however awkwardly, in the right direction.

The country may still see a civil war one day. But not just yet, thanks. Violence continues. A roadside bomb was found in the next sector to the west. There will be more deaths, including some of our own troops. But Baghdad's vibrant life has not been killed. And the people of Iraq just might surprise us all.

So why were we told that Iraq was irreversibly in the throes of civil war when it wasn't remotely true? I think the answers are straightforward. First, of course, some parties in the West are anxious to believe the worst about Iraq. They've staked their reputations on Iraq's failure.

But there's no way we can let irresponsible journalists off the hook - or their parent organizations. Many journalists are, indeed, brave and conscientious; yet some in Baghdad - working for "prestigious" publications - aren't out on the city streets the way they pretend to be.

They're safe in their enclaves, protected by hired guns, complaining that it's too dangerous out on the streets. They're only in Baghdad for the byline, and they might as well let their Iraqi employees phone it in to the States. Whenever you see a column filed from Baghdad by a semi-celeb journalist with a "contribution" by a local Iraqi, it means this: The Iraqi went out and got the story, while the journalist stayed in his or her room.

And the Iraqi stringers have cracked the code: The Americans don't pay for good news. So they exaggerate the bad.

And some of them have agendas of their own.

A few days ago, a wild claim that the Baghdad morgue held 1,300 bodies was treated as Gospel truth. Yet Iraqis exaggerate madly and often have partisan interests. Did any Western reporter go to that morgue and count the bodies - a rough count would have done it - before telling the world the news?

I doubt it.

If reporters really care, it's easy to get out on the streets of Baghdad. The 506th Infantry Regiment - and other great military units - will take journalists on their patrols virtually anywhere in the city. Our troops are great to work with. (Of course, there's the danger of becoming infected with patriot- ism . . .)

I'm just afraid that some of our journalists don't want to know the truth anymore.

For me, though, memories of Baghdad will be the cannoneers of the 1st Platoon walking the dusty, reeking alleys of Baghdad. I'll recall 1st Lt. Frost conducting diplomacy with the locals and leading his men through a date-palm grove in a search for insurgent mortar sites.

I'll remember that lieutenant investigating the murder of a Sunni mullah during last week's disturbances, cracking down on black-marketers, checking up on sewer construction, reassuring citizens - and generally doing the job of a lieutenant-colonel in peacetime.

Oh, and I'll remember those "radical Shias" cheering our patrol as we passed by.

Ralph Peters is reporting from Forward Operating Base Loyalty, where he's been riding with the 506th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division.

Oh, well that's all right then.

Aladdin Sane, you posted, with just 9 words of your own (To my mind) misleading commentary, an "op-ed" piece by an openly partisan, former U.S. Military officer, turned columnist author:
Some of Ralph Peter's other "op-ed" commentary:
The link (that you left out of your post), to the place where Ralph Peter's "column" can be found:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/op...ists/64677.htm
The above is a link to a "property", as FoxNews also is....of Ruppert Murdoch's "News Corp.". Ralph Peter's op-ed colum title is a "hook" to draw in the folks who disagree viscerally with Michael Moore, author of "Dude, Where's My Country"? Peter's title is hardly a legitimate beginning for a bona fide "eyewitness news report" from a correspondent reporting on war events....

I'll associate signs that I see that you were motivated to post an "op-ed" to back your opinion that there no trending to "civil war" in Iraq (A March 2nd, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186634,00.html">Foxnews Poll</a> reports that 81 percent of Americans polled, disagree with you and with Ralph Peters.) with what I observe as a conclusion that you share with the author of the quotes in the following box....that the MSM press reports are biased against accurate reporting about the integrity and accomplishments of Mr. Bush, and the actual "progress", and purity of motives for invasion and conduct of the U.S. authored, Iraq war. On other TFP Politics threads, my posts this week have been countered by folks who seem to share your lack of faith in traditional press news reporting....
here http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...72#post2019672 and here http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=67
..<b>and they counter my points by posting "op-ed" pieces!</b> Are there no prominent news reporters who camouflage their partisan bias better than Ralph Peters, who you can cite to make your argument?
Believe it or not, the MSM is capable of filing news reports that omit details that would cast Mr. Bush and his regime in an unflattering light...3 examples of this can be viewed here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=64

The NY Post's sister News Corp. "property" displays the report below at the link displayed. The editors title the AP article with their own "new speak" label, because the term "Civil War" must be too naughty.

The article is a "news report"....and it describes Baghdad as a crodoned off kinda "fish bowl", with 58 new deaths from "sectarian violence in the 24 hours before a new emergency "curfew" was imposed on the metro area of 7 million.
Here is a quote from Ralph Peters:
Compared to the AP reporting of the reasons that children were in the street;
a daytime curfew because of tense conditions and a climate of violence and murder, Ralph Peters fairytale would be an amusing read, if it wasn't so disturbingly intended to mislead......
Now....with all the "op-eds" thrown at us by folks who object to seeing them, but who post them anyway....here's one that offered a question that impressed me....

this is an interesting press clip concerning the problems that are posed for the bushpeople by the term "civil war"--and provides a good cross-section of folk who dismiss bush's strategy of denial as either effective or rational.

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041100879.html

By now you should know that Bush doesn't govern by polls. even debunked ones. There is all this news about the potential civil war in iraq, but the people saying that are the people that want a civil war. The same people that want bush to look bad, the people that couldn't beat him in the polls want to beat him in the media. I found a couple good stories that you won't see on your cable news channels or in the Times.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/60607.htm
And one that is a bit longer, but still presents a side that you don't see in the MSM
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson...0602240629.asp

The argument being made is that there is not going to be a civil war becasue the Iraqis don't want one. They want an end to the violence and as time goes by the people of Iraq know who is their ally and who is their enemy.

ground rule question: should we come to some kind of consensus about what this thing "civil war" is?

the first article that stevo posted above appears to be from one of those reporters whose politics, embedded/in bed with status combine in this piece with very narrow data and time frames to obviate what he might have to sayabout general matters---the equivalent of his viewpoint would be a story from celine set during world war 1---cant remember the book--two guys from opposing sides run into each other on a country road. should they shoot at each other or not?
it turns out that they dont.
the peters logic would be to reproduce this story in detail and to conclude from it that there is no war.
i dont see why anyone would find this compelling.

besides, the guy is a hardline conservative: look at this

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=14321

enough said.

at this point, there are two ways that could be taken: the one would be to simply dismiss the article, not because the details it provides are wrong or uninteresting--i may find them to be both, but that's just me, i guess.

what seems more potentially constructive is to ask whether the article in any meaningful way addresses the question of whether there is or is not a civil war. it seems to me pretty obvious that the question is one of a longer time-frame and not of isolated incidents--you could dissolve any war by focussing on a few guys wandering around doing stuff--the problems is a basic mistake of interpretation rooted in an inadequate understanding of the analytic object--if this piece is even about the possibility of civil war, it surely makes no interesting case.

but what kind of piece could make an interesting case---what are the criteria for evaluating whether an article is or is not addressing whether there is or is not a civil war?


====
the other piece is from one of those fine fellows at the hoover institution whose entire piece seems to be rooted in pentagon press releases and/or events as processed from a chair in palo alto. from the chair in palo alto, he presumes to know what iraqis do and do not want--as if they are of a single mind...

but who knows, maybe he is on a junket to iraq and actually talked to folk, toured some american military installations and attended some press pool meetings--the results, in this case, are functionally the same.

in it, you get problematic assertions--which are nothing more than that--first about the nature and activities of the "iraqi security forces"--which are not accompanied with even the slightest piece of analysis---none whatsoever---hanson merely repeats numbers of patrols as if that functioned as a clear index of anything--particularly given the information posted earlier about the problems with this force.

he argues that the americans are not in a position to be militarily defeated by the insurgency--which he refers to in the singular, for some reason. maybe he is right--assuming that what he understands by military defeat would be a more or less conventional war-type scenario in whcih the firepower of the americans would become determinant. but that scenario has been irrelevant from the first 3 days of this farce in iraq, and i suspect that even mr. hansen knows that, really. i am sure that conservative french journalists were saying the same thing about the maginot line in 1937 too.

he didnt speak to anyone from "the insurgency."
which--again---he seems to assume that it is one thing.
at this point, such assertions are preposterous. but whatever, the guy is from hoover and so one can expect little in the way of informed conceptual work--lots of emphasis on details, none at all on how they connect together or to larger arguments.
but hey, why bother with that when the press pool briefings provide arguments readymade?

anyway, it is obvious from reading the piece that he knows nothing about what is happening amongst iraqis.
he heard bombs.
i dont see anything even remotely compelling in his analysis.

what he does do--and this is the point at whcih i object to this piece even being posted--is to repeat the linkage between support of bushwar and the attempt to erase the possiblty of civil war, as if the two went together. this is the same argument that aceventura was running out earlier--though in his case, i still am not sure that it was intentional--but here it is. so to repeat: i find that linkage to be intellectual worthless. i dont see how anyone could possibly imagine that it leaves any room for actual thinking about what is happening in iraq right now--hanson wants to reduce the matter to the a priori. he supported the bushwar, so there is no civil war. there is no real need for any of the pretense of being in iraq--or, if he is there, any need for the infotainment that litters this article--he decided the answer to the question up front, and his article is geared toward conservatives who would tend to think in the same way.

it seems to me that we--if there is a we on this---need more, better and more complex information--not more one-dimensional political hack pieces that require the needless expenditure of time to dismantle.

Whatever use the phrase "Civil War" had before Iraq has been exhausted. When ex-generals, politicos, protesters and bloggers all scream or deny it without any real definition, it has become its own baggage.

Perhaps "Civility Challenged" would be less problematic?

*A civil war is a war in which the competing parties are segments of the same country or empire. Civil war is usually a high intensity stage in an unresolved political struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. *

This is the most complete definition of Civil War I could find, without posting a freakin' Book. By this definition I would not yet place Iraq in the category, if only because the occupation is still the focus of the insurgency. If the United States leaves this role, I see no possible outcome short of an actual Civil War.

From someone who's been through 10 years of civil war: this is a civil war. It's still comparatively low-level for now, but it is a civil war. This sucks sooooo much.

thanks tec: that had the core relation that i think we should consider using when posting information---which i had assumed would be obvious--but if not, this is better:

civil war is a "high intensity" phase of ongoing factional conflict over political power.

so iraq is clearly in a scenario along an imaginary gradient running from factional conflict to civil war that would have to be quite close to civil war.

at the same time, it is usually the case that these questions of typolgy are only resolved ex post facto. its easier when you know the outcomes to figure out what the beginning moment was of the process that explains those outcomes. in real time, particularly n real time for us, who continue getting access to heavily controlled information about what is happening in iraq (that a filter is in place for a long time--that we have become accustomed to the actions of a filter, does not make the filter any less itself)

whence such ambiguity as there is concerning the present situation(s).

so from this, we could rule out articles that do not link information to the broader context of factional conflict as irrelevant.

the more complicated implication:

since the bush squad finds itself acting as a faction within this scenario and not in a position to shape it (so it appears), then it may follow that ideological claims in support of the bush squad's actions should be considered pronouncements from a faction within the civil war-like scenario, and not intepretations of the scenario as a whole.....

it would seem only consistent to do this.
what do you think?

anyway, the below is interesting

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1725996,00.html

mr khalizad is part of the inner orbit of the cheney-rumsfeld faction:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...lmay_Khalilzad

it seems pretty clear that the administration has already lost control of the signifier "civil war" which, despite their best efforts, fok feel they can use independently of what the bushpeople tell them. that must irk those fine fellows.

it is pretty clear that rumsfeld said yesterday what most bush loyalists would say, with as much effect:
rumsfeld: the media exaggerates.
response--but your boy in iraq said otherwise.
rumsfeld: o. well, i dont know then. the media exagerrates.
later, cheney threatens iran.
and this morning, iran threatens back.
yay.

it is also clear that, no matter what you choose to call this, the bush squad is debating how to respond----and the options are quite stark.
the author of the article makes a good case when he points out that khalilzad is arguing for what would amount to a wholesale repetition of the errors johnson and nixon made in vietnam--trying to withdraw through escalation in a context that the plitical and military types seem unable to comprehend, and that for political reasons--and this complete with the hoary old domino effect argument.

can you say fiasco?

this is a really interesting piece on the divisions within the american military command about how to think the situation into which they were racing in iraq at teh start of this war. the article frames it as a kind of foreshadowing of what was to come, and in that i think the author is right.

source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/13/in...rtner=homepage

the intertwining of ideology and perception appears here to be fundamental.
here we are still....

This report helps to calm my reaction to your posted nytimes article, roachboy:
Can any supporters of the Bush Iraq policy offer an opinion as to why the "liberal" press....even John Burns own newspaper, has not covered the "story" that Burns; an expert who was not embedded during the invasion, a journalist who is an accomplished and respected authority on Iraq who has "spent most of his time there, not leaving, even during the invasion...has changed his mind. He now recongnizes that, even without the mistakes made by the US, <b>"the sectarian conflict would have gotten out of hand".</b>.

Wouldn't a "liberal press", lead with a story like this?

This is also a signifigant change:


roachboy, from your nytimes article above...(bty...couldn't you just link to it, instead of posting it in it's entirety? I am aware that the article gets archived by nytimes in just 7 days, but who wants to read it, anyway? OP's and replies with lengthy, referenced content, posted on these threads, don't incite a flurry of responses. Folks avoid putting in the time that it would take to read your last post to "get up to speed" before posting an "informed" response, so they don't. I know that you know this....and that you and I are only "talking" to each other here...... For proof, just look at the "chit chat" on the threads that you have weighed in on to point out the "simplistic" flaws in their OP's.

Observe the "veteran" members who mostly confine their replies to brief, contentless "one liners" and "zingers". They continue to command the respect of about half the participants here, as they take their strategy right to the "edge", time after time. <b>We might as well filter them out and do this in an exchange of PM's.</b>)


I think that you'll agree that ironically, and quite sadly, the general who was quoted saying the following, in the article that you posted, is the fellow who is recognized by the misled majority as the "patriot", (back in 2004..) as the "supporter of our troops", while the film maker who put the narrated excerpt below in his film, has been the target of hostility that has run the gambit of accusations that he is on the "fringe" to "he's a traitor". Being right about the legality and the "fixing of intelligence to match the policy" to justify the invasion of Iraq will not be enough. Damn the facts, <b>"they feel"</b> that invading Iraq was "absolutely necessary", even though the reasons why, were continually "revised".

is ti a civil war yet?
is it not a civil war yet?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...730693,00.html


a link to an article (in french) from le monde outlining conditions in sadr city:

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,...-715757,0.html

meanwhile, the systematic critiques of the bushpeople's handling of pretty much everything about the iraq debacle continue to surface---this referring once again to the earlier phases--outlining a logic that has persisted. i am wondering if these last more systematic critiques should be split into another thread--they seem too important to be buried here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1730427,00.html