Most sensible people agree that when and if Iraq devolves into a full-blown civil war America will have nothing left to do but bleed. The term obviously has some flexibility – we don’t need Lee meeting Grant Meade (dumb mistake) at Gettysburg to know that things have passed a tipping point – but beyond that America’s interested parties have largely chosen definitions that suit them best. Many leftie bloggers believe that we are already there, which I think is a hair premature for reasons that I will get into momentarily. Of course we opinionsmiths have scant influence on the country at large, as opposed to the criminally negligent policymakers who refuse to acknowledge that words like ‘civil war’ have any meaning at all.
As I understand it the term ‘civil war’ refers to two or more defined sets of combatants fighting to carve out separate territories from a previously-unified nation, or else for one to politically subjugate the other(s). Are we there yet? I don’t think that we are, but looking at what I call my civil war checklist it doesn’t seem like we have much time left before we get there.
Step 1: Clearly delineated combatants. The importance of this step depends on the goals of the civil war. If one group wants to subjugate the other then physical separation of the two parties is not as critical, but when the parties are trying to carve out separate territories this point is crucial. India’s separation from Pakistan and the dissolution of Yugoslavia both required massive ethnic migrations before the new nations made any sense. Iraq like Yugoslavia started out as a relatively cosmopolitan country which, while it kept its geographic ethnic enclaves, would require massive population transfers to reach the necessary level of purity.
Sadly, that process began over a year ago.
The grieving families in this predominantly Shi’ite district had collected their dead — all Sunnis — on Friday amid fury at the execution-style murders of the men and terror at the spread of sectarian killings in the run-up to this Saturday’s referendum on a new constitution.
Many believe the killers’ aim is to drive them out in a campaign of ethnic cleansing that is polarising communities, casting suspicion on the Iraqi police and undermining confidence in the ability of the Baghdad government to maintain security.
Both Shiite and Sunni have gone about purifying neighborhoods in which they hold the majority. It is a thorny issue to separate cause from effect, whether these cleansings are specifically meant to facilitate a coming breakup or whether they simply represent a ‘neighborhood watch’ on steroids, but in the end I don’t have to. Whatever the intention, the ease with which the country can fall into a bloody ethnic breakup is directly proportional to the degree to which the ethnicities separate themselves.
Step 2: Organized militias under sectarian control. Everybody knows Shia militias such as Badr Brigades and SCIRI, many of which show military levels of discipline and coordination. We take it for granted that the dismissed Iraqi army and Mukabarat, Saddam’s KGB, went underground to serve Sunni interests. Al Qaeda in Iraq can also be considered a Sunni militia of sorts, although it is largely a foreign operation and I think that it would be an oversimplification to say that Zarqawi’s forces (under new management, although most likely still foreign) serve the Iraqi Sunnis in any meaningful way. The Riverbend blog offers a mixed message – even cosmopolitan suburbanites are forming their own militias for self-protection, but on a personal level many still refuse to accept the Shiite-Sunni split.
Hopeful talk aside, momentum is not with us:
The Times learnt yesterday that Tareq al-Hashemi, Iraq’s Sunni Vice-President, is forming a unit of the National Guard that will act as his personal bodyguard and fend off attacks against Addumiyah, a Sunni district surrounded by overwhelmingly Shia districts.
It will be the first official Sunni militia group and a counter to security forces that have been heavily infiltrated by Shia militias.
[…] A young Sunni from west Baghdad, who refused to be identified, said that recruiting had already started for Mr al-Hashemi’s group. The initial aim was to sign up 350 former army personnel who are to be trained as part of the Defence Ministry, which will also outfit and arm them. They were being offered $700 a month.
[…] One of the driving forces for the new militia, the Sunni source said, was the recent announcement by Abdelaziz al-Hakim, the head of one of the main Shia parties in government, of the planned formation of “public committees” to supervise neighbourhoods.
Many Sunnis fear that the committees will simply act as informants for Shia death squads.
The Sunni already have copious foreign financing, arms stockpiles and guerilla experience so a militia like this could serve as the nucleus for a much larger uniformed, sectarian force.
Picture the situation as it stands today: districts which are ethnically ‘clean’ and patrolled by uniformed, sectarian militias which have a deep, bloody animosity for one another. These uniformed militias will no doubt speed up the ethnic migrations from minority to majority regions, giving a positive feedback to Iraq’s slide towards chaos.
That means that we have an actual civil war, right? Not yet.
Step 3: The battle for land. In a civil war where one party wants to subjugate the other the contested ‘land’ amounts to the whole country, but I don’t think that is going on here. Rather the sects seem determined to pre-partition their country through intimidation and mutual migration, which means that when the real fighting comes the point will be to maximize each side’s geographic advantage in the final partition.
Eventually two factions will claim some seemingly-trivial piece of real estate which neither side wants to surrender by passive migration, say a sizable chunk of Baghdad, or the city of Baghdad itself, or an oil-rich patch of sand like Kirkuk. When that happens, and at this point it seems inevitable, the factional militias finally meet one another openly and work out who wants said patch of land more. The debate won’t end there, of course, and will grow to engulf every parcel of contested real estate and mixed-sect neighborhood in Iraq.
What does America do? What can America do? Inside Iraq we can do little to nothing. We keep most of our forces in Forward Operating Bases to reduce television stories about American casualties and cede daily security to the Iraqi forces, which most recognize not as peacekeepers but as sectarian agents themselves. If full-blown conflict breaks out we might as well get the hell out of Iraq rather than sit, bleed and lose our FOBs to resupply shortages (see here and here).
At the margins we can do plenty, and considering that we made this damned mess we have a no small obligation to do it. For the same reasons that neocons coveted Iraq like nothing else (it sits at the crossroads of the middle east!) an Iraqi split will draw a potentially dizzying array of players into the fight. Iran will both want to support their Shi’a allies and enter Kurdistan to put a lid on their Kurdish terrorist problem, where they will meet the Turkish army trying to do the same thing. Saudi Arabia will lend whatever support that it can to its Sunni allies and Jordan and Syria will have major border/refugee problems that may require mobilization of their own forces to deal with. We cannot allow this president to throw up his hands and walk away from this mess of his like he did with Harken energy and every other project with which he has ever been involved. If we do so it will not be his shame (the man is incapable) but ours.
Ozymandias
Thanks for laying out your thoughts on the matter, Tim. Well put.
Pb
Given the steps you outline, and how far along they are, I don’t know that it necessarily matters if they’re in a ‘civil war’ yet or not–it still might very well be past the point where we can effectively do anything about it. And in the meantime, incidents like this aren’t going to help things either.
Punchy
He can, and will. Forgot where I read it, but a senior Admin offical was quoted as saying they’ll announce this pullout–and blame it on “civil war”, so as not to look like cut-and-runners–just before the November elections.
It’s ALL about the party, and never about the country.
ThymeZone
Well written and thoughful post.
A few thoughts:
1) The checklist sounds like a list for something like the American Civil War. In Iraq, in the Middle East today, things are more subtle and more dangerous, it seems to me. The adversaries rub shoulders every day, and try to conceal their group identities. People carry false ID in order to pass as something else. This is a very different kind of civil war from organized militias and formal fights for ground.
2) The civil war started at least a year ago. It’s silly to talk about it as if it isn’t happening yet.
3) Your assessment of what America can do is just about spot on. Right now, we’re largely irrelevant in Iraq WRT to the civil strife. Our greatest responsibility is to our troops. To have them caught between these crazy people is absolutely not an acceptable use of the resource, nor is it fair to put them into that kind of harm’s way. Our troops are heroes and they do not deserve to be used as pawns in such a macabre scenario. Get them the hell out of there as quickly as possible.
Ancient Purple
I am not sure it matters anymore if we meet the philosophical conditions of “civil war” in Iraq anymore. Unless there is some unmitigated miracle, the only thing that America can look forward to is good money chasing after bad money and more coffins arriving at Dover AFB.
Your thoughts are very well laid out, Tim, and I give you many kudos for a poignant and necessary reminder. However, at this point, quibbling over the semantics of what is or is not a civil war is meaningless.
With the exception of toppling Saddam (which we could have done without invasion), Iraq is a failure vis-a-vis American involvement. That Dolt in the White House (er, Crawford) never had a plan to secure the peace.
It’s too late to close the barn door. The horse has left… about three years ago.
Punchy
Pb–
And then there’s incidents like these, while more minor in graphic-ness and insaneness, have infuriated the Shite-based PM…
Once the PM no longer trusts us and allows us to help them…
…our time is done.
Joel
I put Iraqi Civil War in the same category as Global Warming. We’ve already passed the point of no return on both issues, they will both be major disasters, and there’s not a damned thing anyone can do about them anymore.
If only we’d had better leaders a few years ago, when there was still hope . . . .
The Pirate
Grant didn’t meet Lee at Gettysburg. Meade met Lee at Gettysburg. Therefore your whole premise is false, natch.
Pb
Punchy,
And yet, somehow still involving more death and destruction, including the deaths of innocents:
Apparently it wasn’t *aimed* that well, if *at least* 67 fucking percent of the fatalities weren’t who you were allegedly fucking targeting.
You must be new here. Tell it to Jose Padilla.
mrmobi
Thanks, Tim. Very well written. I think we are already in a civil war, or in something which is going to create infinitely more dangerous circumstances for our troops.
Christ, what a mess! This is what you get when you elect a President you’d feel comfortable having a beer with, as opposed to someone with the ability to do the job. The man is criminally inept. He makes Cindy Sheehan look like a foreign policy expert. Last night Keith Olberman slammed the chimp repeatedly for “going on vacation” while the world situation deteriorates. Good for him, where is the rest of the media?
Also, what Thymezone said. Also, Thymezone, stop changing your name! I’m old and I can’t remember shit.
Pb
mrmobi,
That’s not what the “invade Iran first” crowd is saying, though–they think he’s doing a heckuva job. And I suppose he is, if “World War III” is your idea of a policy goal.
fester
Tim — I think you are overcomplicating your definitions to fit your conclusion here. Most civil wars since WWII did not meet your conditions but could meet the following definition:
1) Sustained violence against the state
2) Dueling loyalties among various subgroups
3) An attempt by one group to take political/economic/military power from an in-power group
4) Reduction of identity towards primary loyalties and away from higher concept identification (pan-group nationalism to single group nationalism to sect based identification to tribal/clan based identification)
Slide
The disasterous war in Iraq has had a profound effect on the electorate’s view of which party would do a better job of fighting the “War on Terror”
Nothing like a failed war to turned the public against you.
Demento
I saw no mention of the Kurds in the northern areas or the possession of the northern oilfields (in fact, oilfields weren’t mentioned at all). Will the U.S. leave the Kurds to the tender mercies of the combined Arab populations to the south as well as the Turks and Iranians who would like to do a little ethnic cleansing themselves? We used the Kurdish areas when enforcing the no-fly zones (remember those?) and enlisted Kurdish cooperation. I assume we’ll abandon them just like we did the Hmong after we crapped out in SE Asia.
Jim Allen
Fester, do you differentiate between a “civil war” and a “revolution”?
Otto Man
Pffft. You heard the president:
See? Nothing to worry about. I mean, if our civil war had been triggered by the presidential election of 1860, then maybe you could argue that an election doesn’t settle the problem but can, in fact, make it worse.
But, no. The Decider has spoken.
Tim F.
Fester, I think that you are perfectly right that I have chosen a convenient definition of civil war for the sake of polemicising. The reason why I feel justified in doing so is that I think that we will see a significant phase transition when the Iraqi parties turn their focus away from geographic separation by forced migration and towards settling border issues through direct combat between organized militias. The forced-migration phase that we are in now certainly qualifies as a sort of civil war, but I anticipate an entirely different flavor of civil war when the phase transition finally happens.
Zifnab
You’ll also want to take a good long look at the 16% who didn’t take sides. Perhaps (and this is just wishful thinking) there is a reasonable chunk of America that thinks the War on Terror in its entirity is a mistake. Maybe invading Middle-Eastern countries, threatening to nuke Iran, all while causally watching our closest ally bomb its northern neighbor to death, isn’t the best way to prevent the next 9/11.
I can only hope that in that poll someone was saying no one will do a “good job” of handling the U.S. campaign on terrorism because it was misconceived and bumblefucked from the start.
Tim F.
See:
And:
The Kurds may be pushing their own independence in the swirling morass of Iraqi politics, but from a strategic standpoint that can only end badly for them. Be careful what you wish for.
The Other Steve
Naw, they’re the ones who think we ought to nuke them from orbit. Because it’s the only way to be sure.
The Other Steve
“I hear people say `Civil war this, civil war that,’ ” Lincoln said at a news conference on the south lawn. “The Nation decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box.”
tBone
Is there any good outcome for the Kurds here? “Rock and a hard place” comes to mind.
mrmobi
Demento:
Imagine, Demento, if we had simply kept the no-fly zone in place and enforced the (admittedly poor) sanctions on Saddam. We’d have tens of thousands of un-injured soldiers, more than 2,500 who have died would still be with us, and billions and billions of treasury would be available.
Maybe Saddam would have killed hundreds of thousands of his own people during this period, but no one could blame the US for those murders. But no, Saddam was killing his people in droves and was a destabilizing force in the Middle East. So we pre-emptively attacked a sovereign nation smack in the middle of millions of undefeated muslims. Brilliant!
Gruppenfuhrer Darrell, come on in here and tell us how things are better in the Middle East because of what we’ve done in Iraq, won’t you?
Demento, I think if we follow pattern, the Kurds are on their own once we decide to leave. Sad, isn’t it? They cooperated with us, they are one of the only stable areas of the country, but fuck ’em! Once the decider makes up his mind, we’re gone! The next POTUS can figure this “shit” out.
There was a “My Kingdom for a…” post here a while back. How about this, “My Kingdom for a Parliamentary system, and a vote of NO CONFIDENCE.“
mrmobi
TOS:
If it was possible, this would be the Bush Foreign Policy.
Good quote from “Aliens” by the way.
Davebo
Hey! We are NOT LOSING!
And if we are losing, it’s only because of those damn “peacniks”!
windsofchange.net/archives/008908.php
Zifnab
And best of all, no Cindy Sheehan.
Ancient Purple
I hope that this debacle – once and for all – ends the garbage vote of people who say things like “I voted for him because he is just like me” or “I voted for him because he’s the type of guy I could sit in a tavern and have a beer with.”
Bush is not presidential material. Not then. Not now. He isn’t a leader. He is a disgrace.
Washington, Jefferson, Adams, T. Roosevelt, FDR, and JFK were not “just like me” or people you would just go and have a beer with. These were accomplished men with vision and pride, not the neighbor who lets you borrow his lawn mower on Saturday.
I don’t select my doctor or my attorney or my financial planner because they are “just like me.”
Neither should anyone do that with their elected leaders.
Pb
The Other Steve,
Heh. That’s cute, but it’s almost as unlikely as Bush saying this:
Andrew
What if we just call it a quite uncivil war?
srv
If you supported sanctions, you were objectively pro-suffering.
Saddam says he did what he had to do to keep Iraq ‘together’. Regardless of his standard, you shouldn’t invade made up countries unless you’re willing to be nastier than the last landlord.
To bad the Darrells of the world don’t get that. They probably think ideology won our civil war.
Punchy
Kurdistan? THAT’S what they came up with to name their “section” of real estate? Wow, these guys lack originality. Does that mean, as a white guy, I live in Crackerstan? Whiteyville?
They could have done SO much better…consider:
Cute, get-people-to-move-here monikers:
Sandy Heights
Arid Acres
Fewerbombsville
Bad-ass, dont’ mess with us names:
Kurd-muthafuckin-stan
Packin’ heat
United State of AmKurdica
The list of better names is endless…
p.lukasiak
Two phrases that signify that the individual in question is clueless about Iraq
1) “The next six months will be crucial” Supporters of this war have been saying this for over three years now. You know what …. those first six months WERE crucial, and we blew it. Everything since those first six months has been a downward spiral for the US (and Iraq) set in motion by those first six months.
2) “If Iraq descends into civil war…..” As others have noted, we’re already there. We’ve been there ever since that important shrine was blown up. What Tim defines as a “civil war” are the preconditions for a civil war, but those for a bloodbath and (probably) genocide/ethnic cleansing….
Paul L.
Here is another take on a Iraq civil war.
Where Are We Going?
“So, here is my prediction for Iraq: We will participate in subduing Baghdad, and destroying al-Sadr. We fought the same fight in the holy city of Najaf, and across eastern Iraq, and won it. We can do it again in his strongholds of Baghdad. We will pass a secure capital to Iraq as our parting gift.
But we won’t do another Fallujah-style campaign in al Anbar. When it is time to move again against al Anbar province, Iraq’s central government will do it themselves. They now have the capability to close the western frontier with the forts, and hold those forts against even serious infantry attacks. This will be a hammer-and-anvil movement, of the sort we regularly employed in Vietnam, but for keeps. Sunni tribes will be evicted and allowed to withdraw — forever — to Jordan or Syria, or destroyed, as the Central government prefers.
There will be no partition of Iraq. The Sunnis will comply, or leave, or be destroyed. We have given them the tools, and I see no reason to believe the government of Iraq would refrain from using those tools. I wouldn’t, humane though I hope to be. It would save lives in the long run.”
Pb
For those who are wondering WTF Paul L. thinks he’s quoting there, it’s from Black Five. You’re welcome.
Pooh
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Kill. More. Faster.
Paul L.
Thank you.
srv
Won’t work. Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia will fund/support the counter-strike for as long as that takes. And Turkey will support (or fragment) the Sunni to destabilize the Kurds.
It’s curious to me how everyone thinks Syria is an operating agent for the Iranians. Civil War in Iraq will not bring Syria and Iran closer together. It’ll split them apart.
Heh, maybe that’s the strategery.
srv
meant
“support the Sunni to destabilize (or fragment) the Kurds”
Andrew
Blackfive is written by a really, really drunk Tom Clancy, right? Right?
Pb
Andrew,
I think so. Judging from the piece, and the comments, and the author’s responses, it sounds like the fix is in on Iran (war is inevitable), and also we might see civil war in the US by 2008-2009 (read: sore loser Republican militants show their true colors), and we might just have to conquer (bomb) the whole Middle East to make it ‘stable’ again. That is to say, they’ve gone stark raving mad.
Tsulagi
What can America do? While this stupid-beyond-all-human-comprehension president takes up space in the Oval Office backed by Boner and Frist led rubber stampers, absolutely nothing can be done. Even if in November Dems managed to take over one or both houses of Congress, you can already hear the asshole of American history saying “Gonzales wrote an opinion that as wartime CIC I don’t have to listen to you guys so there.”
Actually, “Stay the Course” could be the best we can get from this dipshit. Really, would you want him to focus his laser-sharp level of competence on the problem? Be careful what you wish for. FUBAR could take on a depth and breadth never before imagined.
SeesThroughIt
Honkytown, honky.
DougJ
Sorry, Tim, but I’m not buying any of this. Has Ken Burns made an 8 part documentary about what’s happening in Iraq now? Nope. Are any slaves being freed? Has one of their generals marched to the sea, burning everything in its wake? Can’t you see how sill it is to call this a civil war when none of that is happening?
DougJ
No one is innocent in the War on Terror. No one.
John S.
Man do I love Paul “Tinfoi” L.’s comments.
Strong. Resolute. Clueless.
Tim F.
p. luk, you gave a great response to a post written on some other blog. First, on the day of the shrine bombing I pointed out that things would probably spiral out of control from that point on. Who knows, maybe you got that from me.
Second, I promise to find this imaginary blogger who argued that we should wait another six months and kick him in the imaginary nuts. Maybe you could point out to where I mistakenly argued that we currently have the wherewithal to make things better in Iraq. Another reading of the same post might be that I’m arguing that we should get while the getting is good and influence the things that we can influence. That is to say, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Jordan.
Third, you have smudged the meanings of civil war and genocide. Genocide Rwanda-style is what you get when one side has a virtual monopoly on force. Here we have two well-armed sides prepared to meet each other in a relatively fair fight, although ‘relative’ is a big word when the Shi’a have both numbers and Iran. That strikes me more as material for a bloody civil war than genocide per se. Ethnic cleansing yes, as I’ve pointed out that has gone on for over a year. But that’s different from what one would usually call genocide.
John S.
Indeed. Even babies are a threat. After all, we cannot allow the buds that grow on the Terrorist Tree to ripen into deadly fruit.
mrmobi
Pb, thanks for that link to Black Five. I know where to go once the nuclear war starts to get the “straight dope.”
This is from somone handled “Nike” in the comments on the linked post. Sounds like someone has already “attacked the brain” of this guy.
I happen to know more than a few Viet Nam veterans. As a group, I find them to be good people. Sure, there are a few guys who “eat bullets for breakfast” even after all these years. Some even buy into the swift boat nonsense. However, having been in circumstances that most of us can only imagine in our worst nightmares, I think it’s fair to say that most of them understand that war is (or should be) a solution of last resort. Not the primary strategy.
Herein lies the danger presented by our current government. They encourage a kind of reckless demonization of anyone who doesn’t support the “spreading of freedom.”
I’m perhaps not as well-read as some here, but I don’t remember reading anywhere, in all of my school years or since, that one of the primary goals of our government is the spread of democracy to other nations by force. Haven’t seen that. Did I miss a meeting?
Pooh
The Mustache of Wisdom quails in terror…
HyperIon
here’s a comment at Black Five
this moron wants MORE WAR.
we get the government we deserve.
if half the country still/again believes that SH had WMDs, what government do the citizens of that country deserve?
Pb
mrmobi,
Like I said, it’s time to invade China. In Bush world, at least.
Paul L.
I know the real reason that some anti-war lefties hate Black Five.
Can’t use the “Chickenhawk” meme on them.
srv
Not our founders, God.
This isn’t the American Mission, it’s Gods Mission. GW is just his instrument.
Pooh
What are you doing commenting on this blog when your mind reading skills would allow you to make a killing on Wall Street?
Pb
Well, these unnamed lefties on the jackalope preserve could use it, but it wouldn’t make any sense. However, that didn’t stop the (actual, documented) crazed George W. Bush syncophants when they smeared John Kerry and Max Cleland.
In short, then, your argument is that some anti-war lefties wish they could act like Karl Rove, but morals and reason get in the way. I guess that’s a good thing.
srv
Indeed, between his mind-reading and the consistent accuracy of BlackFive’s predictions over the last few years makes you wonder why they waste time with us neocon anti-fellaters.
He knows of what he speaks, particularly the hate part.
Paul L.
I have never heard anyone on the right use the term chicken-hawk. Draft-Dodger with Clinton.
unless you mean Glenn Greenwald who “claims” to be Libertarian.
What makes someone a “chicken hawk”?
BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!
Otherwise anti-war lefties would never use it:
Senator Lautenberg Blasts Republicans as “Chicken Hawks”
RECRUIT THE CHICKENHAWKS
LITBMueller
April 13, 1861. On a blustery, London day, the Prime Minister of Britain is asked questions by several members of the press:
“Mr. Prime Minister, what is you opinion of the civil war that has begun in the United States?”
“I hear people say ‘Civil war this, civil war that.’ The American people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box and voted for Abraham Lincoln.”
“Yes, but Mr. Prime Minister, the Confederates have attacked Fort Sumter! Isn’t that the first shot fired in a civil war?”
“Simply, no. This is not a classic civil war! This is a ‘regional political disagreement.’ We are confident that the democratic process in America will prevail.”
“But, sir, seven states have already seceded from the union!”
“They are merely dead enders who want to return to the days of the Articles of Confederation. These Confederates are in their last throws…”
Pb
Paul L.,
Way to miss the point. Now there’s probably a good reason explaining why they don’t use it. However, as I briefly mentioned, they have routinely done far worse in smearing those who *did* serve.
Also, I’ve never heard anyone on the left use the term ‘flyover country’, but that didn’t stop Joe Scarborough from making a cottage industry out of it.
fester
Tim — I think that you are still straining too hard to make a point as I really don’t see large scale infantry formations of Sunni Arabs and Shi’ite Arab Iraqis pounding on each other in pretty much any scenario. US airpower based in Kuwait or on carriers in the Gulf or Red Sea will be in the area even after the US withdraws at some point X (let’s leave X undefined to avoid comment wars) to pound on conventional Sunni Arab field formations.
I also think that you are missing the point that de facto boundary issues are being pushed today by soft and hard ethnic cleansing. The neighborhood in Baghdad that used to be a mixed neighborhood but is now a 98% Sunni neighborhood is most likely going to be considered Sunni Arab ground when things shake out.
Assuming the US does not Grozny Baghdad (a good assumption due to manpower constraints) the local defense militias backed up by better trained regional militias or insurgent groups can defensively hold their own homogenous neighborhoods against determined infantry attacks which is about all anyone else in the country excluding the US and UK can mount.
The facts on the ground for partition are being fixed now, and I believe that this is happening primarily without large scale field engagements between Shi’ite Iraqi government forces and Sunni insurgent forces.
Jim Allen — for the point of definitions, not a significant difference between a civil war and a revolution if the revolution involves large scale violence (counter example the Velvet Revolution as a non civil war)
ThymeZone
Once again, Pat Buchanan nails it.
We are in a world of crap up to our armpits. Ignore it at your peril.
Pb
How scary is that.
mrmobi
Paul L., unless I’m mistaken, Clinton had student deferments, didn’t he? Unlike the Decider, who had to specifically decline service in Viet Nam, which he did.
So, let’s see. One example is someone who was furthering his education, and the other is someone who signed up for service, was awol for most of it, and then declined to fight when asked. As I’ve said before, kind of makes you proud, doesn’t it?
Now as to your “examples.” First, please don’t link to Moore. Some of us here have a very low tolerance for bullshit, and respect the truth. You might as well have linked to Cindy Sheehan.
Second, the very scholarly piece by Glenn is, I think, an excellent analysis of the use of the term “chicken hawk.”
You should read the whole thing. Something might leak in.
Third, you cite Lautenberg’s use of the term, but this was in context of his friend Kerry being attacked by the swift-boaters.
You see, this is what you get when you have a president who couldn’t find his own ass with both hands and a map, and a chief political advisor who will do anything to undermine, attack or otherwise destroy his political enemies, regardless of their service to this nation.
So Lautenberg is bad because he responded to a vile attack on his friend, who is a decorated war hero? Rove gets to question heroic service, but please be nice when you respond, please don’t call us names! Fuck You.
I know a few of the kinds of guys who post on Black Five. They are examples of a type of person who can leave their conscience at the door when push comes to shove. They do NOT represent the American military. They are simply poor souls who have lost their humanity. In their ultimate example, they will rape a young girl, kill her entire family, and then burn the evidence. Thank Christ they are not policy makers. At least I hope not.
One final question, where do these guys on Black Five think we are going to get this army to fight WWIII or WWIV or whatever the hell they are calling it?
John S.
Paul “Tinfoi” L. always seems to miss the point.
He picks up the slack when Darrell and Mac go on holiday.
John S.
As Darrell pointed out the other day, it isn’t important whether we can back up our military option with manpower or materials, what is important is that we don’t take the fictional military option off the table.
Tim F.
Fester, it seems that we agreemore than we disagree. I observed in my post that passive migration (also known as ‘ethnic cleansing’ when a bit of violence helps move it along) will resolve the vast majority of geography questions in Iraq. You could say 90%, 95% or even 99% and I would gladly agree. But, the disputed region of Kashmir only forms a minimal fraction of India’s land. Neither does Shebaa amount to much of Syria. That last 1% may not look like much but when it comes to handing it over/winning it back from bitter rivals it can draw a lot of blood.
My feeling is that we have two phases here. The passive migration phase will settle almost everything and then the old-fashioned ultra-violence will settle the rest.
mrmobi
Pb
Pretty damn scary. You know, there’s a lot I don’t like about Pat B., but he seems to understand what’s going on in the world right now, and is one of the few conservatives willing to speak up.
I’ve never been more afraid for our troops than I am right now.
srv
Duh. Maybe Doug J is doing you today.
Obviously, the left has never seen a war it didn’t fanatically support. I mean, it’s seared into your memory the vast plurality of never-served leftist who were frothing for invading Vietnam, Lebanon, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran…
I mean, the streets were just brimming with leftist ranting for more. What spine the Republicans had, holding back from the obviously applicable retort of “Chicken-Hawks!”
Nutcutter
I laughed at the guy for years. Now, he is getting things mostly right. He got Iraq right back in 2002, when few were, and had the guts to say unpopular stuff. He seems to have some loyalty to the GOP and conservatism, but none to GWB, which makes great sense to me.
He’s a tough adversary, and I am sure that he will be an adversary to my side once again. But right now, he is on the beam.
He is focussed on what is in American interests and in our troops’ interests at the moment, as few are who wear the pundit hat.
fester
Tim — we probably are in 98% agreement, but much like Kashmir and Shebbaa Farms are not being resolved by mass clashes of conventional armies ( or at least have not since 1973) we’ll see proxy wars, assainations, economic strangulation and the creation of dead zones to settle the last couple percentage points of high value land.
HyperIon
Pat Buchanan was quoted as saying:
I would like more than mere allegations that citizens in Israel are either for OR against the current smashing. I see/hear folks on the right claim that polls show huge support for it and then I find the opposite claim on the left. Is there a fact of the matter? Can someone provide a link to a source?
Lots of poll results in this country indicate that most folks no longer “approve” of our war (Iraq). Of course it’s a much more theoretical question for us than for a country actually experiencing rocket attacks. We can laugh off the “fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” rhetoric; but that phrase must resonate with Israelis especially when “there” and “here” are only a few miles apart.
Israel is going to have to find a way out. Kill or be killed is not a long term strategy. Or rather is not a stategy that will work for Israel in the long run. They are surrounded. And their Arab population is growing.
Obviously I don’t have any constructive suggestions for how to deal with the smashing in Lebanon or the war in Iraq. But I don’t think the continued existence of the US depends on the outcome of either while the same may not be true for Israel.
So if you think the US is screwed (and I do), just pause for a moment to reflect on how screwed Israel is.
Please note that I am not implying (nor do I believe) that the US and/or Israel are screwed more than the citizens of Iraq and/or Palestine and/or Lebanon. I am focusing on two democratic governments that have managed to get themselves into REALLY deep doo-doo. The citizens of both need to understand this and effect change. Which I don’t see happening.
Pb
HyperIon,
I haven’t been keeping up with it, but my understanding is that the initial action by Israel was *hugely* popular amongst Israelis–with the sorts of 90% support levels we saw here in the US after 9/11–and as time goes on, some of that support is tapering off–but probably not that much of it.
demimondian
I wouldn’t use Alternet as a source for anything Israeli. For what it’s worth, Haaretz is very pro-war today (although they at least admit that the rockets might keep falling. If only the US press had been at least that aggressive).
HyperIon
Pb,
Your link is to the only poll results I have seen and they are a little stale at this point (July 21 2006). Plus the article seems to indicate the “hugely popular” take rather than “some of the support is tapering off”. I was hoping for something showing who is challenging the Olmert regime.
I’m thinking maybe Buchanan is projecting here. After all it took folks in the US years to escape from 9/11 groupthink. And I fear it would have been even longer if GWB was not such a total incompetent. Many still wanted to embrace groupthink but the abundance of in-their-face facts made it too hard.
Pb
HyperIon,
You’re welcome.
Actually I thought it was interesting considering that this all started on July 12th; then again, I don’t think they mentioned when the poll was fielded.
Both of those positions can be true, and I believe it implies what I stated:
Of course, the best way to find out is to find another poll:
p.lukasiak
p. luk, you gave a great response to a post written on some other blog.
no, I was simply trying to point out that your “if there is a civil war in Iraq” rhetoric is as hackneyed and off the mark as those who still think a “victory” in Iraq is salvageable, and that ‘the next six months will be crucial.’
HyperIon
Pb:
Sorry, I didn’t mean to be rude. I had already seen that poll…a couple of days after it was published. But thanks anyway.
But even the other link you provided (for which I am eternally grateful ;+0) does not support Buchanan’s assertion that “the Olmert regime is being challenged and even condemned by courageous Israelis”.
I’m sure there are Israeli’s that feel that way. I’d just like to know how big a segment of the population. Until it gets substantial, I expect no change in the regime’s approach.
SeanK
Punchy , You Are An Asshole You Know That? And I You Are Brain Washed Too! They Didn’t choose That Name, Thats What Called Since It Exists!
And Trust Me Turks Cant Do Shit About Independent Kurdistan! Kurds Have Their Peshmerga (They Call Them “Freedom Fighters” Sometimes) And They Can Defend Themselves, And If Turkey Tray To Attack Iraqi Kurdistan They Get Fuck In Five Different Ways! There Is Thousands Of Kurds In The Middle Of Turkey What Do Think They Gonna Do? Just Sit And Watch? I Don’t Think So!
BTW Turkey Cant Even Deal With The PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party)(Thousands Of Peshmerga Fighting For Free Kurdistan)And The Want To Mess With The Whole 40 Million Kurdish Nation?
Don’t Forget There Is Millions In Iraq Iran Turkey And Syria.