Bush Can Call It A War Against Terror

[Gary Sisco]

but his military "on the ground" (what an amazingly stupid cliche -- who invents these things?) think otherwise:

(Duh. Posted to wrong forum, obviously.....)

posted October 7, 2005 at 11:30 a.m.

Civil war, not terrorists, greatest danger in Iraq

US generals, Iraqi journalists say civil strife is Iraq's greatest threat.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

The day after President Bush gave a major speech outlining "the battle of the 21st century" against terrorism, questions still exist in Iraq about what constitutes the greatest danger to the country. While Mr. Bush stated that terrorism was the greatest danger faced by Iraqis, US military generals and many Iraqis say the threat of civil war (some Iraqi officials believe a civil war has already started, but is just not being talked about) poses a much greater risk.
In its Oct. 10 issue, Newsweek reports on the situation in Iraq. Hopes of a "strong, unified, pluralistic Iraq" no longer exist – the possibilities are now a very loose federation, or violent disintegration." Newsweek reports that while US officials believe most Iraqis are resisting calls to take up arms against other ethnic or religious groups, there is also "a settling of accounts and a splitting apart of communities that [once] did business together."

Sunni insurgents, trying to prevent political dominance by the Shiite majority, are killing them in great numbers. Shiite militia and death squads are resisting. Now many ordinary citizens who are caught in the middle aren't waiting to become victims. They're moving to safer areas, creating trickles of internal refugees. "There is an undeclared civil war," Hussein Ali Kamal, head of intelligence at the Ministry of Interior, told Newsweek.





Reuters reported earlier this week that Gen. George Casey, the US commander in Iraq, remains "optimistic that Iraqis do not want the country to collapse into civil war." But The Washington Post reports that Gen. Casey also said he was worried that the political process, represented by next week's vote on the Iraqi constitution, is headed in the wrong direction. "We've looked for the constitution to be a national compact," Gen. Casey said, "and the perception now is that it's not." And the Post argues that the way the constitution is now written, this problem will not be solved.

Gen. Casey is not the only US official who sees this potential disaster-in-the-making. Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Baghdad, has been working tirelessly for weeks to broker a compromise among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds – one that would necessarily involve curtailing Shiite ambitions under the banner of "federalism." But Mr. Khalilzad has achieved no breakthrough. It can't help his cause that in speaking publicly about Iraq, Mr. Bush never mentions this crucial diplomacy or hints that there might be trouble if it fails. He and other senior officials seemingly can't permit themselves to publicly acknowledge the obvious: that if there is no political accord in the coming weeks, the US objective of creating a democratic Iraq, or even of preserving Iraq as a single state, could be lost.
In an editorial entitled "The challenge in Iraq: Departure without defeat," USAToday.com argues that "It has become abundantly clear that the United States invaded Iraq for the wrong reasons." But that doesn't mean the US should "cut and run." Yet the paper also notes that the possibility of a civil war presents a far greater danger to US forces that the presence of foreign fighters.
Sobering assessments are coming from others closer to the situation. This week, Iraqi journalists sat down with USA TODAY's editors and reporters. Most said an undeclared civil war is already in progress. ... The civil war threat is not coming from only the insurgents. Militias from different factions – Kurds in the north, Shiites in the south – are growing stronger and less inclined to submit to central control. Many ordinary Iraqis, frustrated that their daily lives are little improved – Baghdad is without electricity for half the day and wracked by bombings – say they feel alienated from the political process, including next week's vote on a constitution.
The Centre for Research on Globalization noted that two weeks ago, Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al Faisal said that Iraq was "hurtling towards disintegration" because of civil strife.
"It will draw the countries of the region into conflict. That is the main worry of all the neighbors of Iraq," he said, adding that further disintegration among Iraq’s ethnic groups would bring Iran more directly into support for Iraq's Shiite majority, while Turkey would "not allow" a Kurdish country to emerge on its border, fueling the tension and the rifts between the three ethnic groups, all of which would vie for control of the oil resources.
In a positive sign for Iraq's constitutional process, the Associated Press reports that the Iraqi parliament reversed a highly criticized rule change. Sunni Arab leaders had threatened a boycott because parliament issued a new interpretation of the rules on Sunday, saying two-thirds of registered voters had to vote "no" - not two-thirds of those casting ballots - during the scheduled vote Oct. 15. That raised the bar for rejection and outraged Sunnis. But under pressure from the US and the UN, Shiite and Kurdish parliamentarians restored the older rule.
Finally, in development that may affect both the possibility of civil war and the insurgency, the BBC reports that US officials say they intercepted a letter written by Osama bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. In the letter Mr. Zawahiri allegedly warns Mr. Zarqawi that "killing of hostages and bombings of mosques may alienate the wider Muslim population.

********************************

Most of this has been obvious for a long time to anyone who thinks rather than blindly parrots their chosen ideological line, but it's finally becoming a public discussion to some extent. Clearly, there has been a civil war in Iraq already, nearly from the start. Just as clearly, this admin will blindly "stay the course," however moronic.

If you go to the Christian Science Monitor site, there are hyperlinked articles buttressing points in this little essay, for those who actually check things, whether they agree or not, or whether they like what they hear or not.

There aren't many, I know .................

[Gary Sisco]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/13/in....html?emc=eta1