No Kidding! A Civil War?

Iraq at Risk Of Civil War, Top Generals Tell Senators

Sitting beside Donald "Duck & Cover" Rumsfeld, General Pace (Chairman, JCOS) and General Abizaid (Commander, US Central Command) alerted the US Congress, by way of a committee, that there exists a significant possiblity, if not a high probability, of the situation in Iraq breaking down into a significant civil war. Senator Hilary Rodham-Clinton, in an effort to take Rumsfeld to task for the wrong-headed policy and administration of the "War on Terror" and the conduct of affairs in Iraq, failed to ask the really tough questions, including why the approach with Israel in Lebanon is appropriate in the minds of the small-minded idots running the show, but the same approach is not appropriate in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The approach involving Israel is to let the Israelis direct their "ARMIES" (it is a misnomer to call the Israeli military a "defense force") overrun and conquer lands belonging to a sovereign nation and stir up the hornet's nest that will lead the divisions in Lebanon to eventually buils momentum for a civil war. The approach in Iraq is to, as Senator McCain identified in the same committee hearing, play a game of "whack-a-mole" where the insurgents are dictating military strategy and response and wait until either the Iraqi government gets is political and military/security act together, or the country eventually spirals down into all-out civil war. (It must be noted that the only reason we just don't pack it all in and move out in Iraq is because we still hope for repayment of our expenses by tapping the Iraqi oil reserves after providing the Iraqi government with the bill for all our efforts.) In Afghanistan, the approach is to make it look like we really give a damn by concentrating our forces in and around Kabul while ignoring the corruption and drug trafficking from the regions where "bumper crops" of the opium poppy are producing more heroin and opium base product than ever before and the war lords controlling the regions are only against the Taliban because they, too, interfered with the opium poppy crop. Of course, our approach in Darfur, Mogadishu and places where we could actually do some good is to pretend it has nothing to do with us because there are no economic advantages of going into these places and providing real peace-keeping activities and aid to peoples who will probably never be able to repay our efforts.

Our current military, intelligence and foreign policy are based on not only wrong-headed ideas, but a structure and strategic implementation that is nothing less than evil. It is evil because it has abandoned all princicples of natural law, human rights, democracy and liberty in favor of policies and practices based on power, wealth and influence... and public relations spin.

Perhaps we should let the situation in Iraq boil down to a civil war. Or, perhaps more appropriately, we should divide the land into three self-contained autonomous regions with a controlling economic body that would assure that the oil and natural resource wealth would be shared equitably among the three major factions: the Shi'ites, the Sunni and the Kurds. If we divided Iraq and let each region develop its own governmental structure we would have a portion of the land run by Kurdish leaders that would finally allow self-determination of the Kurdish population (the only portion of Iraqis not embroiling themselves in petty ideological factions), another portion led by theocratic ayatollahs and their militias (and some alliance with the folks over in Iran), and another region/population run by Sunnis and their all-too-willing outlook toward a secular power-hungry political structure. Like when India was granted independence and split off into India and East and West Pakistan, there will be some major mobility issues, some violence, but the issues and difference will eventually work itself out by internal processes. Yes, we will have to help mold the shape of these governments to assure economic equity, some limits on the affinity for alliance and affiliation with Iran, and some quashing of the old Baathist leadership, but all that would be easier and less costly--in terms of lives and money--than trying to stomp out fires every time we turn our attention away from one town or another.

In Afghanistan, we should gather all the war lords together and allow them to determine their own fate by offering them some alternatives to the current state of affairs. We should force them to convene a great council of war lords that have to work together. If they fail to work together, or if they refuse to work cooperatively, then we bomb and burn their poppy crops and other sources of wealth and place an embargo around their region that will cripple their ability to export their "product." Then we should insist that each warlord create a "majlis" (and arab word meaning a sort of council of leaders) that compel each warlord to respond to regional needs and issues. While at first this seems to be the creation of several fiefdoms, it is really the basis for a form of democracy that would work in the Afgahnistan culture. It wouldn't be the ideal form of Americanization that the Bush gang wants, but it would stop the violence and force the Taliban forces into submission... no warlord leader would allow the Taliban into his fiefdom to stop the only real source of wealth from being produced. As for the poppy crop, it should be purchased and turned into the base crop for ethanol production and legitimate medications that could be distributed to areas of the world that really needs oil alternatives (i.e. the US, UK, Europe, Russia, India, Japan and China) or medications for pain relief.

As for the Israeli problem--and make no words about it, this is now an Israeli problem--we should quarantine the whole region and just let them fight it out until they are tired of the economic and human life losses. We should set up one or two places where refugees can come to live in peace (making sure that Muslims, Jews and Christians have to live right next door to each other while in the refugee area) and let the military factions fight it out. We should force Syria to either openly engage as a military combatant or stay the hell out of the fray--completely. No money, weaponry or even humanitary aid could come in or out of the combatant areas. No aid to Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine or any other area could come in or out of the region. When the idiots on both sides of the conflict run out of food, money, weapons or soldiers, perhaps they will then be willing to negotiate a permanent peace. Otherwise, they will kill each other off and then the folks that want to live in peace can take over and rebuild a region based upon mutual respect and principles of solid human interests. As it is now, it is just another "cold war" model, where one side of the argument is supplied by its ideological allies, the other side by its ideological allies, and the fires of war are fueled all the more.

As for those regions of Africa that are in such disarray and internal strife, I suggest the same approach proposed for Afghanistan. Get the warlords to divide and control the regions. Most of the nations involved have such poor leadership and ineffective governments--not to mention the corruption--that it would be more humane to allow these places to be deivided into fiefdoms than allow the current state of affairs to continue.

At this point, almost any plan or approach would be more effective than the operations being conducted by the Bush adminstration.

Two top U.S. generals said yesterday that the sectarian violence in Iraq is much worse than they had ever anticipated and could lead to civil war, arguing that improving the situation is now more a matter of Iraqi political will than of U.S. military strategy.

"The sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it," Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. military operations in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "If not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."

The testimony from Abizaid and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, was the military's most dire assessment of conditions in Iraq since the war began 40 months ago. It echoed the opinion of Britain's outgoing ambassador to Iraq, who, in a confidential memo revealed yesterday, told Prime Minister Tony Blair that a de facto partition of Iraq is more likely than a transition to democracy.

Both U.S. generals said they think Iraq will be successful in maintaining a stable government in the near future, but their assessment about the possible slide into civil war is something the administration had avoided acknowledging before.

"We do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be a fact," said Pace. ". . . We need the Iraqi people to seize this moment."

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld called the Iraq violence "unfortunate" and "tragic." He said he "remains confident in the good, common sense of the American people" that running away from Iraq would amount to victory for "murderers and extremists."

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the administration may need to seek new authorization from Congress to allow U.S. troops to fight in a civil war. Originally, the forces were authorized to topple Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party.

Senators from both parties questioned whether troops were adequately trained to fight in a civil war. If it comes to that, asked Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), "which side are we on?"

"I'm reluctant to speculate about that," Rumsfeld said. "It could lead to a discussion that suggests that we presume that's going to happen. . . . The government is holding together. The armed forces are holding together."

Several times during the hearing, Rumsfeld expressed concern that the committee's back-and-forth would aid the enemy. "They're waging a psychological war of attrition," he said at one point. "They want us pointing fingers at each other rather than pointing fingers at them."

The somber mood was amplified by concern about the war in Lebanon and the possibility that it will lead to instability in the region.

"I've rarely seen it so unsettled or volatile," Abizaid said.

The Bush administration celebrated in May the Iraqi factions' agreement to form a government and in June the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who led al-Qaeda in Iraq. But violence now claims 100 victims a day, according to one report, and Baghdad is no longer secure.

Recent pledges from Bush that the United States might be able to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq were upended when the Pentagon announced recently that 3,700 troops who had been planning to return home over the next two weeks will be sent to Baghdad for as long as four months.

Both generals before the committee said they could not say when the insurgency would be defeated, when Iraqi militias might be disbanded, when Iraqi forces would be strong enough to fight on their own, or when U.S. troops could begin to withdraw. Abizaid said he expects Iraq to "move toward equilibrium . . . in the next five years."

All three officials said they believe that Iraq will overcome its difficulties and that pulling U.S. troops out anytime soon would sabotage the goal of building a democracy there. They said the key to stopping an insurgency of 20,000 in a country of nearly 27 million is for the Iraqi people to unite, for the government to disband armed militias, and for Iraqi security forces to grow in number and capability.

"There's something more going on in Iraq at a deeper level . . . for this violence to be sustained so long and grow, not lessen," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). "What do you think that something is?"

Pace responded that Graham was "fundamentally correct that if the Iraqi people as a whole decided today that, in my words now, they love their children more than they hate their neighbor, that this could come to a quick conclusion."

Republican and Democratic committee members peppered the trio with pointed questions about widespread corruption, increasingly bold militias, the growing role of Iran and the depleted state of U.S. forces.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) accused the Pentagon of "playing a game of whack-a-mole," moving U.S. troops from one unstable area to the next. Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) sparred with Rumsfeld and Pace over Pentagon reports that two-thirds of Army brigades are not at an adequate level of combat readiness.

Pace and Rumsfeld said the calculations did not adequately reflect growth in the military's capability.

The day's most riveting moment came when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) read a list of policy blunders she said had led to the current Iraq crisis, and she accused Rumsfeld of incompetence. "Given your track record," she asked, "why should we believe your assurances now?"

After a long pause, Rumsfeld responded: "My goodness."

He said the war planning was a complicated set of decisions, taken with commanders' input and approval. "Your assertion," he concluded, "is at least debatable."

Later, in an interview with the Associated Press, Clinton called on Rumsfeld to resign.

In the confidential memo obtained by the BBC, William Patey, Britain's top civil servant in Baghdad until last week, wrote that "the prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy."

"Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq -- a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror -- must remain in doubt," Patey said, adding that "the position is not hopeless" and the "next six months are crucial" although Iraq would be "messy and difficult" for the next five to 10 years.

Commentators in London called the memo a new political setback for Blair, who as Bush's closest ally in Iraq has been publicly optimistic.

At a lengthy news conference yesterday, Blair said that if the memo were read in its entirety, it would show no inconsistency with what British government officials have been saying.

Also yesterday, the Senate intelligence committee requested a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. "It's clear that current sectarian violence and increased militia attacks are endangering efforts to achieve stability in Iraq," Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) said in a statement.

Nearly four years ago, the committee received an estimate that contended that Iraq had biological and chemical weapons in addition to an active nuclear weapons program.