Larry, Larry, Larry,

I have it on good authority that Rummy and the boys won't recognize this as any more than sectarian strife because a civil war has blue and grey uniforms.  Until Al Sadr and his boys pick a color, it can't be a real civil war.

Do you think, 100 years down the road, that they will have civil war re-enactors to portray how glorious the battles were in Iraq?      

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada

actually, Larry, the way i've always looked at iraqi casualty figures is that the US population is roughly 12x the iraqi population, so, for instance, to match the impact, when 40 people are killed in baghdad, we would need to see 480 killed (and nearly 1000 wounded) in brooklyn....

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Even if Bush would agree that Iraq is now in a Civil War, how would that change anything? 

 The better question - Why doth he protest so?

 The answer's right here.  It would change everything.  The Republicans, now squirming, would flee and Democrats now hiding would make like sharks on chum.

Civil War - the Death Frame for BushWar

i don't know if it sounds like civil war so much as it sounds like detroit. 

Larry:

The US has something like 15X the population of Iraq- doesn't it?

In that case we should imagine around *90* stories like this everyday

-Dave Adams-

 Hey Jon, what's up? New research?

I don't think it's a good idea to admit that you fell for the bolded print before you read the introductory paragraph. Frankly, it doesn't sound like your usual clinical self a bit.

Cheers, yer old 'pal' Bee 

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

And if some three years before, Brooklyn was periodically bombed from the sky, had foreign troops appear on its city streets, America would really freak out.

And you all know it.

Larry, your blog reminded me of a column by Molly Ivins I just read over at the creators.com website. Here is a little cut and paste (the blog Gestapo can shoot me).

“AUSTIN, Texas -- It was such a relief to me to learn we are making "very, very good progress" in Iraq. As the third anniversary of our invasion approaches, I could not have been more thrilled by the news reported by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on a Sunday chat show. Vice President Dick Cheney's take was equally reassuring: Things are "improving steadily" in Iraq.

I was thrilled -- very, very good progress and steady improvement, isn't that grand? Wake me if anything starts to go wrong. Like someone bombing the al-Askari Mosque in Samarra and touching off a lot of sectarian violence.

I was also relieved to learn -- via Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, so noted for his consistently accurate assessment of this war -- that the whole picture is hunky-dory to tickety-boo. Since the bombing of the mosque, lots of alarmists have reported that Iraq is devolving or might be collapsing into civil war. They're sort of jumping over the civil war line and back again -- yep, it's started; nope, it hasn't -- like a bunch of false starts at the beginning of a football play.

I'm sure glad to get the straight skinny from Ol' Rumsfeld, who has been in Iraq many times himself for the typical in-country experience. Like many foreign correspondents, Rumsfeld roams the streets alone, talking to any chance-met Iraqi in his fluent Arabic, so of course he knows best.

"From what I've seen thus far, much of the reporting in the U.S. and abroad has exaggerated the situation," Rumsfeld said. "We do know, of course, that al-Qaida has media committees. We do know they teach people exactly how to try to manipulate the media. They do this regularly. We see the intelligence that reports on their meetings. Now I can't take a string and tie it to a news report and then trace it back to an al-Qaida media committee meeting. I am not able to do that at all."

No horsepoop? Then can I ask a question: If you're able to monitor these media committee meetings, how come you can't find Osama bin Ladin?”

Well when in doubt I head for ye olde collegiate dictionary by Webster and looked up “civil war” and here is what they say. “Civil war n: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.” I would say that describes what is happening in Iraq despite what Rummy says.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Via Juan Cole

Young Shiite nationalist leader Muqtada al-Sadr said Monday that Iraq is in a state of civil war. He responded to guerrilla provocations against Sadr City, with bombings and mortars having killed over 50 persons there Sunday, by ordering his Mahdi Militia not to engage in reprisals.

Like many Iraqi and Arab observers, Muqtada was shocked when US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said last week that the US military would not intervene in an Iraqi civil war, leaving that to Iraqi forces.

' "May God damn you," Sadr said of Rumsfeld. "You said in the past that civil war would break out if you were to withdraw, and now you say that in case of civil war you won't interfere." '

Cole: I have to admit, it is hard to see what use it is to have US soldiers in Iraq if they won't be deployed in a genuine national emergency.

I have to 'fess up as well - I thought that's why were still there - to stop a civil war!

Bush is responding to the implosion of Iraq by doing what he typically does - ignore it change the subject.  Now we are told he has himself all worked up into a lather about regime change in Iran.  Anything to take the mind of the Big Baby-in-Chief off all the bad news.

And the serial bullshitters in his administration have a new one:  Iran we learn, "has been responsible for at least some [my emphasis] of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability [my emphasis again] to build improvised explosive devices in Iraq."

Bush said that there was evidence that some components in the most powerful IEDs came from Iran, and that coalition forces had "seized IEDs and components that were clearly produced in Iran."

 
The problem is that IED's are fashioned out of mainly non-military components, so the "components that were clearly produced in Iran" could be all sorts of innocuous things, like nails, parts of garage door openers, steel plates, etc.  If Bush has the dirt on Iran, why doesn't he come right out and say which components?  Because he is an inveterate liar and flim-flam artist, that's why.

 
By the way, this latest statement was is in a speech at American University in Washington - not in a press release to Al Jazeera, for example.  So they can't plead that this crap is just unintended blowback into America from overseas psychological warfare.  Isn't there actually some law against propagandizing the American public?  I hope our media has the nerve to ask tough questions about this, and that some members of Congress do as well.  I am so sick of the daily stream of bullshit we are forced to put up with, and the usual Washington complacency about it.

Once again, this IS NOT a civil war YET.  IF and ONLY IF the Sunni's form their own government with the intent of usurping the coalition government can this be considered a civil war.  As it stands now, the Sunni's are not attempting any sort of coup.  Aside from their demands that Al Jafaari be replaced as Prime Minister, the violence is retaliatory against the majority Shia.  By definition, that is sectarian violence.  This view is by no means intended to back or support the rhetoric being promoted by the White House.  Indeed, regardless of the terminology used the situation in Iraq is extremely dire.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

But in point of fact, Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds have established governnments in cities  and towns that have no connection to the central government, are hostile to it, and run by tribal leaders, policed by insurgents.  It is the government in Baghdad that is a fiction for it has no resources to allocate; no control of the means of coercion, no adminisstration to allocate the scarce resources and virturally no acceptance by the population in allocating scarce resources

I don't know how else you would describe something which has people from one community systematically attacking the other,"

Well Larry, I believe that would be called Sectarian Violence.  And Jexster, I did not make anything up.  For something to be considered a civil war, two groups must be vying for control of a central government.  That is simply not happening yet in Iraq.  Maybe it will fairly soon...

What is becoming ever more apparent is, rather than the terrorists being in the 'final throes' of their insurgency - it is the Bush Administration is in its 'final throes' of any credibility in this coiuntry. We all know that denial has been the M.O. for this administration since 9/11 - now the M.O. simply looks pathological and in demand of some very serious clinical attention.

I believe Iraq is in a civil war and each day that passes simply puts us in an even more helpless position. Unless, or until, the international community really comes to the aid of the political process, this is going to devolve even further. The military option has been a complete failure. It is time to do something dramatically different or to get the heck out of dodge (note I'm using a phrase that cowboy President Bush will understand). Civil war is already there. Until the administration works its way through their denial, they will not be able to proceed any more successfully than they have in the past three years.

Beware of the fanatics, they never see gray.

Bryan

Perhaps the Bush Administration is not as concerned about the situation in Iraq as many here are.  After all, the vast majority of our forces are hunkered down in the Green Zone and maybe they should stay there.  If the Iraq War was for oil (which I believe it was), it truly isn't terribly important to the U.S. who eventually controls the country.  As I said last week on a similar topic, the representative government favored by the U.S. may have been something of a pipe-dream from the beginning (as many regional experts were saying at the outset of the war in 2003).  Had it worked, it would have been a feather in Bush's cap.  If it fails, oh well, we'll still have access to Iraqi oil without having to support or deal with Saddam Hussein.  Either way it is a win/win situation (at least in Bush's eyes).  Should we leave Iraq?  Probably.  I would say once the midterm elections are over you will see a significant draw-down in U.S. forces in the country. 

Calgacus

You would be correct if you were looking at the U.S. Civil War from the Confederate point of view.  From the Union perspective, however, the Confederate government was impeding the power of the Federal government in Washington.  For his part, C.S.A. President Jefferson Davis merely wanted his new "country" to be "left alone" by Washington.  They felt they had the Constitutional right to seceed from the Union and found their own nation.  Indeed, many southerners saw their cause as a Second American Revolution and were, in fact, continuing the work started by the likes of George Washington.  When the Union Army encroached upon their soil, it was dubbed "The War of Northern Aggression."  Since no nation major nation ever acknowledged the Confederate States of America (Napoleon III in France desperately wanted to because he had his eyes on parts of Mexico and such an alliance would have served his interest, but alas, his hands were tied without British support), that "government" was seen officially as a rebellion against the United States government in Washington.

As I have said, the Sunni's have no government.  Many here have opined  that there are local authorities who are more or less free to rule their small community (or canton) as they see fit.  But that is hardly indicative of a threat to the floundering coalition government in Baghdad.  Indeed, if that isn't proof enough that it is not yet a civil war in Iraq, I would once again remind you that the Sunni demand that Shiite Prime Minister Al Jafaari be replaced with a moderate is an admission that the Sunni's still wish to participate in the coalition government if their demands are met.  Such "negotiations" or "demands" would not be possible in a state of civil war.  I am not saying a civil war will not happen in Iraq--in fact, I believe they are inching very close to one...but not quite yet.

"Hack" post, it's all over the Iraqi streets that the blowing up of the Golden Mosque in Samaara was NOT the work of shias (or )sunnis, rather it was the work of Israelis and other? outside agents.  Even if suspect, the fact that a lot of Iraqis believe it makes the situation in that country even more complex. Also, nobody's as yet figured out what to call the war in Iraq, let alone civil war/no civil war.   

Duh, there is no government in Iraq. There are a bunch of guys in the Emerald City greenzone, and militias, jihadists, dead enders, insurgents... and warlords in the provinces.

The state of Iraq is destroyed, and the country is now like an Taleban Afghanistan on steroids. Let's hope the neighboring countries are not drawn in when Bush declares victory and exits.

 Since you brought me into this, and apparently misunderstood the meaning of my post, let me break it down to main-stream reportage for you:

When I referred to al Sadr, I meant this guy:

"Young Shiite nationalist leader Muqtada al-Sadr said Monday that Iraq is in a state of civil war. He responded to guerrilla provocations against Sadr City, with bombings and mortars having killed over 50 persons there Sunday, by ordering his Mahdi Militia not to engage in reprisals."

 

See, he's a "general" and he's got a militia, and he's on one side of the power struggle, and a bunch of other guys are on the other side.  So if a general says it's a civil war, it's probably a civil war to the people getting shot and blown up.

But not to our military experts.  Maybe because they haven't picked a color for their uniforms.  Maybe Rummy was channeling Eddie Izzard's riff on the Spanish conquerors in South America and was asking "but do you have a flag?" 

So, after you've read the REPORTING, come back here and we'll DISCUSS it and share OPINIONS backed up by FACTS. 

That's what we do here.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada

If Dubya wants to have the proverbial 'snowball's chance of surviving in Hell as far as GOP majorities go, he should exit Iraq immediately on the grounds that U.S. Forces should not get caught in a 'sectarian-based' war (civil-war or otherwise). 

 Bush should then re-structure our Afghan forces by bolstering the numbers with those withdrawn from Iraq, put added pressure on Musharraf, go on an all-out drive to locate and eliminate Osama bin Laden and Yawahiri,,,and, presto!...his political fortunes are saved....just in the nick of time.

If he can bring Osama's head on a platter to the election-year banquet table, his 'poll numbers' will improve immensely...and that will be the case, even if the entire Middle-East erupts in civil war. 

If three bombs went off in Brooklyn, America would freak out.

Yeah, for a little bit, we'd all want revenge, then the politically correct police would start complaining about us "doing too much" or "going too far". Then some politicians would look around and try to find ways to attack the incumbents by saying "we're not doing enough" and the press would harp about "Vietnam" and all the old protesters would think it was their time again and hit the streets protesting just to protest. Then all the kids who were too young to protest before would follow cuz it's cool to protest when you're young, and you get out of class. And eventually most everyone would forget about the 3 bombs and go right back to the way they were...after all, was it so long ago that the 3 planes hit?

"Pull out now" is the battle cry of the left, if Bush did that would you vote for the Republican candidate? I didn't think so, caving in to preasure from the left would be a disaster for the Republican party. 1 of 2 outcomes will materialize. They will descend into civil war or they will form a coalition government and take control of their future. Do you think the immediate withdrawl of US and British forces will lead to the former or the latter? The Republican die is cast for 06, it's up to the Dems now. Do they stake out their territory, promote their ideas, propose their plans for the future? Something tells me that they will again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in November. Next year they'll once again be trying to figure out how to simplify their message so it will "play in the Red States," not realizing that "Bush Sucks" is a simple enough message, it's just not a reason to vote for anyone.

SFC, I'd suggest joining something like the local vegan club, where you can learn more about liberal humor . . . . I spend most of my fall hanging out in hunting camps, so I can sometimes even make Republicans laugh . . . .

The comment was meant to convey the paradox of Larry Johnson’s contention. Three bombs going off in Brooklyn presumes that Brooklyn is in a state of normalcy. Three bombs going off in Bagdad is vastly different, most especially since that city has already experienced varying degrees of chaos over the prior three years.

Gettysburg, thanks for the following line.

 One of the great tragedies of this entire ordeal is that Iraqi people, no matter which sect they belong to, are simply not privy to accurate information.

 The irony cracked me up. Why don't they just tune in to Voice of America?

Comment for the Management: Has there ever been any thought of giving a "reader's choice" spot on the side of the front page? You know, like the "Overheard in the comments section," where a "reviewer"" is chosen eack week or month and they can tag the biggest BS conspiracy and it pops up on the front page...kind of like the comics or something (See above):.Basrah police capture three British wearing Arabic garb

and y'all call me a nut... 

Target! Cease fire!...driver move back!

SFCWallace asks "if you would vote for a Republican candidate then?"...meaning if they exited Iraq.

It appears that maybe 50% of Republican candidates are up to their ears in the cesspool of Abramoff's and other crook's  bribery corruption and that very few voters will "be voting for them".

The previous reference to Voice of America and Air America as 'propaganda tools is, of course, correct...however Iraqi civilians are also apt to be misled by the Pentagon-financed distribution of fake "news", the purpose of which is difficult to find.

 Whether the killing and mayhem underway in Iraq today is defined as 'civil war', insurrection, riots, sectarian violence, or whatever, it is the result of manipulated and faulty intelligence, flawed political performance, short-sighted planning for the aftermath, and badly botched prosecution on the part of the D.O.D. and Pentagon...and EVERY element that makes up this monumental failure is rightly attributed to Dubya (the coward's) desire to burnish his image as a 'war-president' being led into these idiotic policies by greedy oil barons and the worst element of our AIPAC-led Jewish citizenry, whose main aim is to keep America's military might employed in furthering the aims of the hard-rightwing elements of the Israeli government.

Murtha is absolutely correct in his call for immediate with-drawal and re-alignment of our forces.

SFCWallace:  You flatter yourself in assuming that some apology to me is in order...nothing which originates from your keyboard could affect my 'feelings' in the least...I just consider the source and the ample evidence that, as a rule, you have no idea what you're talking about.

As for cowards, it is evident that many who should speak out in support of a new direction in Iraq are, indeed, afraid of the propaganda machine of the GOP demonizing them as "non-supportive of the troops'.  With almost 2/3 of the American public now supporting a timetable for an immediate reduction of our forces in Iraq and total with-drawal with-in 6 to 12 months, I would not be surprised to see more spine develope among Democrats in Congress.

The REAL cowards, sir, are the cravenly chicken-hawks who have never spent a moment in uniform, let alone combat, urging this war on with characterizations of the victims having 'died in a noble cause'...a platitude that is becoming more and more hollow with the arrival in Dover of each new casket.

...why did the Dems run scared when [Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal] came to a vote? False premise. SeeDee's characterization of Murtha's withdrawal position is false (he didn't call for immediate withdrawal); I believe you knew this, yet you proceeded to bash the Dems anyway based on this false premise. If you did not know this basic fact, you need to start checking out Web sites like mediamatters.org.

[The Democrats] are worse than cowards, they're the guys that stand around the play ground hoping a fight starts, egging on the participants and then run and get the teacher when it starts. It's kind of sad. Mischaracterization. Yes, the Dems appear to be cowards but this "get the teacher" playground analogy is simply a baseless insult that obviously doesn't make you the least bit "sad."

chicken-hawks who have never spent a moment in uniform,

Well, er...there is an exception to that.  didn't Dubya put on a uniform and get expensive training as a pilot, but then went AWOL to help a politician?  And then didn't he put on another uniform (with tennis balls in the crotch) and pose in front of a "Mission Accomplished" sign?  I would (RESPECTFULLY) amend your  words to read:

 even chicken-hawks who spent a moment or two in uniform...

The truth is that someone like Bush or Cheney who know what is like to be too scared to go to war themselves, are the absolute worst of all, because they cavalierly do it to OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN!

Jan Knaus

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Allawi Says Iraq in Middle of Civil War

25 minutes ago

Iraq's former interim prime minister said the increasing attacks across his country can only be described as a civil war, and that the United States and Europe could be touched by spreading violence, according to an interview aired Sunday.

"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," Ayad Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

Allawi, who heads the Iraqi National List, a secular alliance of Shiite and Sunni politicians, said the violence in the country was moving toward "the point of no return."

He said not only that Iraq could "fall apart," but added that "sectarianism will spread throughout the region, and even Europe and the United States would not be spared all the violence that may occur as a result of sectarian problems in this region."

British Defense Secretary John Reid said during a visit to Iraq on Saturday that although there was "a greater degree of sectarian violence," he didn't believe civil war was imminent.

"I don't think any of us would deny that that is a problem, but not a problem to the degree that we think civil war is imminent or inevitable," he said on the second day of a three-day visit to Iraq.

Iraq's newly elected Parliament was seated on Thursday, and representatives of its Shiite Arab, Sunni Arab and Kurdish blocs have been meeting in an effort to overcome deep divisions and agree on the makeup of a new government.

Allawi said the formation of a national unity government was the means the country needs to achieve the goal of a peaceful country.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Someone up thread told me that the entire premise of this thread was made up.

After pasting him, I checked the EyeRak n Roll section of my home page.

Made up! MADE UP??!?!? ROFLMAO

Rumsfeld: leaving Iraq like giving Nazis Germany

1 hour, 13 minutes ago

Leaving Iraq now would be like handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a column published on Sunday, the third anniversary of the start of the Iraq war.

"Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis," he wrote in an essay in The Washington Post.

Rumsfeld said "the terrorists" were trying to fuel sectarian tensions to spark a civil war, but they must be "watching with fear" the progress in the country over the past three years.

In London, former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said on Sunday that Iraq is in a civil war and is nearing the point of no return when the sectarian violence will spill over throughout the Middle East.

"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day, as an average, 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," he told BBC television.

Rumsfeld's view was that the Iraqi insurgency was failing.

"The terrorists seem to recognize that they are losing in Iraq. I believe that history will show that to be the case," he wrote.

He said 75 percent of all military operations in Iraq include Iraqi security forces.

"Today, some 100 Iraqi army battalions of several hundred troops each are in the fight, and 49 percent control their own battle space," Rumsfeld wrote.

Thousands of anti-war protesters gathered in cities around the world for demonstrations on Saturday to mark the anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Doubts about the Iraq war have helped drive down President George W. Bush's approval ratings to their lowest level.

In a Newsweek poll released on Saturday, only 36 percent of Americans said they approved of his performance as president. Sixty-five percent disapprove of his handling of the situation in Iraq, once one of his strongest suits.

Bush used his weekly radio address on Saturday to urge Americans to resist a temptation to retreat from Iraq, but opposition Democrats pressed him to offer a plan for drawing down U.S. troops and said Iraq was moving closer to a civil war.

Rumsfeld wrote that if U.S. forces leave Iraq now, "there is every reason to believe Saddamists and terrorists will fill the vacuum -- and the free world might not have the will to face them again."

A recent Le Moyne College/Zogby poll showed 72 percent of U.S. troops serving in Iraq think that the United States should exit within a year. Nearly one in four said the troops should leave immediately.

Is there a civil war in Iraq? Let's imagine...

Hint: Everything after "Let's imagine..." is called "made up."

Imagine:

1. To form a mental picture or image of.
2. To think; conjecture: I imagine ...
3. To have a notion of or about without adequate foundation; fancy

Dude!! Not only are you wrong in your claim, you suggest that I "start checking out web sites like mediamatters.org." Well guess what? I did. You'll never guess what YOUR becon of truth said John Murtha called for:

"...immediate redeployment of U.S. troops..." Rhetoric busted!