Iraq Civil War
 

Post your vote...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060803/...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I am only surprised it has taken these two eminent men so long to notice!

Personaly I wish the Iraqi government would show abit more backbone and start dismantling the different factions, taking Moqtada Al-sada out first would be a good start, then the medi army would start to dis-intergrate.
And make it illegal for civi's to have guns, it was that way before and it'd help with the rampaging gangs, any un-uniformed person with a guns will be shot on site.

And put loads of pressure on the sunni's to reign in the groups still pissed off at loosing power.
Obviously the Al-queda faction will be the hardest and I'd be more tampted to deal with them last, the rival shi'ite @ Sunni militia should be the starting point. (And not for the US & Coallision, it's the Iraqi governments job.)

I'm wondering why the Kurds don't seem to have major problems in the north.
Are we not hearing of it, or is there some other reason?

Is the sectarian stuff we see in thee south based on centuries of disagreement?

Yeah, you could say that. :roll:

We don't hear anything up north because the Kurds are all armed!! (And making guerilla attacks into Eastern Turkey from what I gather...NOT an intelligent move on their part).

They kind of have to grudgingly admit it now with the fall house/senate elections coming up, and with Bush's popularity and support for the war both in the toilet. Fortunately for them the world is a little distracted right now by events in Lebanon, but that can't last more than a couple more weeks before people lose interest in this sideshow (in fact I think most already are starting to)...

General's deal more with poltiics then any soldier would want. To speak out, or to otherwise voice an opinion that would be contrary to the good of the secretary of defense, is kinda like playing russian roulette with their career.

They probably smell the stink of death on the Bush administration and are trying to preserve their careers so that a few years from now they can say that the mess in Iraq wasn't their fault. "Look, see? I warned them!"

There are two types of general officers. Combat generals, the likes of Franks, Schwartzkopf, Sherman, Rommel, Pattton, Doneotz and others. And political generals, Eisenhower, Montomery, McArthur, Georhing, Degaul.

Right, which is why I doubt these guys are saying this without at least a nod of indifference from the Sec. Def, if not some encouragement (thereby they can float the trial balloon with Rumsfeld and Bush both maintaing the deniability option).

The key difference with this event i think,. ... i mean.. unless im mistaken, is that the generals were asked their assesment from a senate committee. Rather then voluntarly give one when it wasn't asked. Which kind of harkens back to the "rebellion" against Rumesfield. ( http://www.slate.com/id/2139777/ )

Going back on topic of Civil war. I honestly haven't seen many headlines in sectarian violence lately. That doesnt mean it's not happening, or escalating, only that I (we) havent been hearing more about it. But i know for a fact, that the situation in any given theater is generally COMPLETELY DIFFERENT then the picture painted by the media, for better, or even worse. So while we're not hearing much about it, its quite likely its spiralling out of control, hence the General Officer comments.

Now, what i find intresting in this, should a state of civil war be offically declaired or recognized, is what our (the US's) reaction to it will be. Right now, without any civil war, i can sit here, and look anyone in the eye if i had to, and tell you straight up, we're not leaving Iraq anytime soon. We've already built up our bases, and poured more concrete there then we did in vietnam.

Iraq will be, once things settle down, what is called an "oversea's remote short tour". In otherwords, i see us in Iraq for the next decade or two, rotating troops every 365 days, just like Korea. Only difference is, there wont be any DMZ to sit behind.

Now while im 100% sure that's what will happen, regardless of any poltiics back home about pulling out of iraq, i think all that becomes questionable should we ever acknowledge an iraqi civil war. It could give us an opportunity to depart/pullback in such a way as to save face (something which we currently do not have), OR it could get us mired into an even deeper morass.

Iraq will stabilize in 30-years time or turn into a Xiite wasteland "tomorrow", depending on the plan. Such stabilization doesn't mean necessarily the existence of the state of Iraq. Balkanizing is a last resort option, divide and conquer.

In the event of a fully-fledged Civil War, the US can support one side or if no side wants support just pull out, wait for one side to bleed the other and return once half the insurgent manpower is dead.

I don't see us leaving Iraq....ever.

There's too much to gain by staying, and far more to lose by leaving. We're tied down there whether we like it or not.

I already see Iraq in civil war (sectarian violence). It may be sporadic, but it is a war nonetheless. Once the Iraqi govt. can stand on their own and provide their own army, I can see the bulk of U.S. troops leaving Iraq, and having at least 3 permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. North, Central, and South. This way we have a presence in any given area but not so noticeable as to draw the ire of the population in a moments' notice.

The "stink of death" started when Bush was elected to his second and final term in office. Its that's happened to all 2nd term Presidents, regardless of party, since FDR. Since they can't run again they gradually loose influence as it winds down. You Canadians can keep a guy in office forever theoretically i guess, but an American president has at most 8 years in office. The 2nd four of which he has an ever more tougher time pushing his agenda.