From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
time to face facts...
Published on November 28, 2006 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In Current Events
The White House won't admit it, but it is a civil war in Iraq. Despite the administration's rhetoric and whining about everybody but them being "politically motivated and biased" the facts are now clear. the Iraq War meets the technical definition of Civil War. And there is no denying it at this point.

How is Civil War defined? Well, if you look it up, it is a noun and defined as "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." And Iraq certainly qualifies as that. The White House needs to acknowledge this. It is the only way we can move forward.

But if we acknowledge this, what do we do now? Are we now to expect our too few troops in country to absorb the brunt of a civil war that they cannot control or escape? Will "doomsday" scenarios and rhetoric squelch the unfortunate but necessary demands that we protect our own troops from an unwinnable and undefined mission for which there is no chance for any sort of "victory" for us? In Vietnam, war supporters constantly clammered about southeast asia falling into inescapable communist hands if we left. Then they would all gang up on us and come over here. Last week's Presidential visit to the former war torn country proved that didn't happen. Southeast Asia, with the exception of North Korea has steadily become a more capatalistic and more democratic and free region of the world since we took our guns home and let our ideas flourish. The domino theory was hogwash.

Again in Iraq, our leaders insist on trying to engineer other societies as if it could be done. We must leave Iraq in the military sense and get on with the business of supporting the Iraqi people in other ways. We must let them build their society. If they need money or advice, we're their ally and friend. If they need us to come in and covertly or overtly smash a terrorist network growing in the country, we will be there. But day to day, on the streets, they must run and govern their own country exclusively. Yes it will be messy. No it might not go the way we want it to, but they have the right to choose and control their own destiny. If they want ot ally with Iran in the south and Turkey in the north then so be it. We might not like it, but it is their right as a sovereign nation to choose their own friends and allies. Maybe, if we start to stop doing their dirty work of patrolling their bomb and RPG laden streets they might get their act together. Maybe the administation will learn that what was needed was deadlines and so forth all along. Maybe things will happen, good or bad, that no one predicted. It doesn't really matter what happens in the future. What matters now is that we start to bring our men and women out of a civil war that is not in our interest nor our responsibility to officiate and die for.

We have missed the opportunities to do anything else. It is too late to go to other countries to ask for military help. Much of the money pledged to help even never came in the mail from many who said they would help. To expect them to support an escalation of the several hundred thousand troops it would take to even have a shot at stabalizing the country is unrealistic. The world has made their position clear. We simply don't have the troops to add to the country's roster, so we can't do it on our own. It is simply not an option to escalate this war as some like the good Senator McCain have suggested.

We can not continue the current situation. Rumsfeld's "lean and mean i.e.- do it on the cheap" methodology have proven to be dead wrong as more than a few warned of including Colin Powell, author of the "Powell Doctrine" which did hold water when tested.

That means the only option is to withdraw militarily. We cannot ask our soldiers to endure our leader's mistakes and incompetence and die for it any longer. Regardless if one was for or against the initial invasion, the only course forward is clear. We must strategically redeploy our forces to fight another day. We must let Iraq decide it's own destiny insead of recklessly trying to engineer their society.

Of course, now we must ask the following questions as well. Why did the administration ignore the advice of the people with actual war experience who told them not to try to win this war without total and overwhelming force? And more fundamentally, if this administration really believed asait insisted, that Iraq was "the battle of our time" and a "vital front on the terror war" then why didn't they fight this war like it was? Why was the approach that of there are a few people in the "inner circle" who can dictate everything that can and will happen and everyone else should just sit down and shut up? Why didn't they call on the American people to be fully engaged in this war instead of playing the insignificant role of involuntary cheerleader? This President could have done so much more since 9/11 when he had the support of over 90% of this country and the vast majority of the governments and peoples of the world. Instead they chose to treat Afghanastan like a redheaded stepchild when the war drums of Iraq started to beat. Instead they chose to try to fight Iraq on the cheap and lean denying troops vital tools and equipment and making them rely on family and friends for things like body armor. The administration fought a "faith based" war in a "reality based" world and now over 25 million Iraqi people are suffering every day for it.

And they will continue to suffer every day in the future as long as the administration continues to play it's political games. The American people see billions upon billions now being spent to protect a policy that was flawed and doomed from the start as many warned. Billions that could be spent at home. Billions that could have been spent on actually protecting THIS country instead of carrying out impossible and unrealistic neoconservative foreign policy agendas.

Iraq is now in a destable state of civil war. At this point they must finish it and decide what happens next. There is no pratical way we can do that. We can help in many ways. But putting our troops in the middle of the fire with no clear plan or strategy is the one thing we cannot continue to do. We got our man, and it's time for us to go.

Comments
on Nov 28, 2006
I agree that it's time to seriously re-evaluate what our role is in Iraq. What is our objective now? I believe the objective was to keep our country safe from terrorist attack. Can that only be accomplished by having a stable democracy in Iraq? Is a stable democracy in Iraq even possible? And is that worth the cost not just in dollars but in American soldiers lives?
on Nov 28, 2006
The situation in Iraq is very complicated. It is exascerbated by in-fighting between Shia and Sunni factions and the insurgents who "creep" into the country via Syria (a country bent on the de-stabilisation of any Arab country under US influence). The modern Al Quaeda is an organisation that is in sectional pieces but which has members who will join any thrust against the USA. The Al Quaeda philosophy is quite simple: Disrupt, attack, maim, kill and sow distrust so that the US looks bad and feels pain.

So, if you ask me, the civil war in Iraq is already in progress. The US is not fighting one enemy--there are many. I do not lay the blame at anyone's door but it seems that this dirty war is a no-win situation.
on Nov 29, 2006
thanks for the comments:)
on Nov 29, 2006
Here is my take.

You say its a no win situation. Some politicians and news agencies say its a no win situation. So "we" the American public believe it.

However, I've only seen a very few high ranking officers and troops who believe this. Seems to me the people actually there have a better idea than we do.

Face it. Our troops don't want to be there away from their families. They'd rather pack up and go home, yet when actually asked, they say almost without fail, we NEED to finish. They see progress, despite set backs, and believe they can achieve whatever goals are set.

The military generals have no reason to lie. It's not like they will lose a job if we aren't in Iraq. But they (for the most part) believe what they are seeing every day is progress. And being there is worth it.

When a lot of ranking military members start talking about civil war and it being a lose lose situation, then we should leave. Until then, we are playing armchair quarterback with the by plays being given to us by a second party who probably didn't see the game either.

on Nov 30, 2006
You say its a no win situation. Some politicians and news agencies say its a no win situation. So "we" the American public believe it.


no, that's not accurate and is a shallow, flip way to put it. there were many of us, including 21 senators that did not buy into the "mushroom cloud" scare tactics before the invasion. there were those of us who remembered the warnings of the 1st gulf war that going to baghdad would be walking into a "hornet's nest." and those of us who did not believe the administration from before the invasion have seen what we thought, felt and knew to come further into light.

However, I've only seen a very few high ranking officers and troops who believe this. Seems to me the people actually there have a better idea than we do.


it's more than "a few" people saying it. and everyone knows that an active officer has a much harder time being critical than you or i. but it seems every time a general retires, they start talkin truth instead of the "company line."

The military generals have no reason to lie. It's not like they will lose a job if we aren't in Iraq. But they (for the most part) believe what they are seeing every day is progress. And being there is worth it.


on the 1st part, see above.

and show me the last report of progress in Iraq.

When a lot of ranking military members start talking about civil war and it being a lose lose situation, then we should leave. Until then, we are playing armchair quarterback with the by plays being given to us by a second party who probably didn't see the game either.


again, lots of generals do speak out, but they can't speak freely as long as they are active and subject to military code and protocol. and yes they can be demoted or be drummed out of the military (like some have) if they do speak up.



on Nov 30, 2006
it's more than "a few" people saying it. and everyone knows that an active officer has a much harder time being critical than you or i. but it seems every time a general retires, they start talkin truth instead of the "company line."


Where are you hearing this Sean? On the tv? On the radio?

I live with an active military officer, talk to others every single day. These men have all been to Iraq and Afghanistan in real ranking leadership positions and none of them are saying what the tv does, in public or private.

So I have to ask myself...why the discrepancy?

You'll excuse me if I don't look back and moan about why we are there....the point is WE ARE there and most likely will be for a long time to come.

If we left today, we'd be right back in there in a few years. The country would fall into chaos, then terrorists would be back to training and living there because WHO could stop them? And it would be a hundred times worse.

Just being there physically gets us more information than trying to get it from safely sitting in the US. You think terrorists aren't trying to re establish big ties in Iraq? The only thing that is disrupting that attempt is our troops.

Pulling out is like allowing roaches to have one room in your house. Eventually they come into your space, and the longer we leave them to grow on their own, the more terrible their invasion, the more devastating the consequences.

We should leave the art of war to the people fighting it. Not CNN.

on Nov 30, 2006
lots of generals do speak out, but they can't speak freely as long as they are active and subject to military code and protocol. and yes they can be demoted or be drummed out of the military (like some have) if they do speak up.


Please provide a source and/or link.
on Nov 30, 2006
If we left today, we'd be right back in there in a few years. The country would fall into chaos, then terrorists would be back to training and living there because WHO could stop them? And it would be a hundred times worse.


sounds like the bogus domino theory part II to me...that is pure speculation based on no evidence or precident whatsoever.

Please provide a source and/or link.


cmon,,,you are asking me to provide sources and links to countless hearings, interviews, books and so on...you know damn well many generals have testified or written on the subject once they have become free of the military protocols and regulations. don't play dumb and try to "lawyer" this...that's one thing that got us in this mess in the 1st place.

and you are hardly the only one who knows people who have been there, including officers.
on Nov 30, 2006
I'll let Gen. Abizaid and the commanders on the ground make their evaluations and fight the war based on those. After all, the biggest "lesson learned" from Vietnam was, you can't fight a war from Washington.
on Nov 30, 2006
If we left today, we'd be right back in there in a few years. The country would fall into chaos, then terrorists would be back to training and living there because WHO could stop them? And it would be a hundred times worse.


Much like what we were saying back in 91 when we left Hussein in power. But all we were looking at then was Hussein killing Kurds and torturing and starving his people... This would be a lot worse. The heros of Mikey Moore, Bahu and Cindy Whatsername would be free to rape and kill at will. So yes, much, much worse.
on Nov 30, 2006
and you are hardly the only one who knows people who have been there, including officers.


I never implied I was the "only" one. And for the record, I am giving MY opinion and not that of any specific branch.

You obviously have never served in the military or you'd know how unrealistic the "they can't give their opinion or they'll be...." statement is.

It's true, military members of ANY rank, can't get on tv and spew their opinion. But you are fooling yourself if you believe military members don't talk about it amongst themselves.

The public may not know for example what a commander thinks about the war, but I GUARANTEE you those working directly for him know well, whether he openly states it or tries to hide it.

Sure, there are some who are against it. But "most" of them are NOT people who are actually THERE on the ground. That's the reason I asked for sources Sean. The people I've heard say things about running away are either wanting to get out of going, or were there, but now retired, and have a political agenda to further. (Which shouldn't surprise you. You're basically saying they stayed in a job and did things they felt were "wrong" to further their career(talking General level here...once a General, there's enough time in service to walk). Why not retire and do the further the political agenda?)

If you believe leaving will solve the problem I don't even know what to say. Yes, leaving will get our troops out of Iraq. But then that's NOT the problem. They leave and then what? Think those terrorists who are trying to set up camp there now will just go away? Think they aren't gonna come looking for payback?

I wonder how long you'd feel removing troops from Iraq is the right thing to do, when terrorists can organize there, then come here and start killing your loved ones. The intel alone is reason enough to stay.

It's war, worse, its war with maniacs. There is only one way to defeat them. Annihilation, and last time I checked, running away wasn't in the definition.


on Nov 30, 2006
I'll let Gen. Abizaid and the commanders on the ground make their evaluations and fight the war based on those. After all, the biggest "lesson learned" from Vietnam was, you can't fight a war from Washington.


Exactly.
on Dec 05, 2006

But you are fooling yourself if you believe military members don't talk about it amongst themselves.


i never said they didn't. but i hear and hear of differnt conversations than you i guess.

If you believe leaving will solve the problem I don't even know what to say. Yes, leaving will get our troops out of Iraq. But then that's NOT the problem. They leave and then what? Think those terrorists who are trying to set up camp there now will just go away? Think they aren't gonna come looking for payback?


just like the domino theory, right?

what the gung-ho part of the military and it's supporters don't seem to get is that there is NO military solution to this situation. there never was. people have warned against going to baghdad since before we went to kuwait. we are sending our boys to die and have caused massive death and chaos for nothing, i'm afraid. people are dying at a rate higher than that of saddam's 33 year reign. and those numbers are only escalating. that is not progress.

please understand that i feel terrible for what our boys are being sent to do and the chaos we have caused. while some claim that us who have been against this war since before the invasion are all happy about it, the opposite is true for at least most of us. i can appreciate your position and faith in the military. they are good men for the most part. and most of us were for the afghanastan invasion and the pursuit of osama and his cronies. but invading iraq was and is the wrong way to do it. i can appreciate your fear in the islamic extremists coming to get us, and yes, we are at war with them and must defend ourselves against it. but us in iraq does nothing to stop them from invading here. our presence there and their desire to attack us here are really irrelevant to each other.

i expect they will try to get us again at some point in the future. and like after 9/11, after it happens, i will still beleieve in the ideals of america. i truly believe a "takeover' of this country by anyone is virtually impossible. i believe that for many reasons, not leastof which is that this country is armed to the teeth, thanks to the NRA. i'm not the NRA's biggest fan, but on that level, they have ensured that an effective "house to house" takeover could never happen. think there is an insurgency in iraq? see what would happen if anyone had the gaul to try to take us on directly. beyond that, any terrorist attack , while tragic, would be tactically ineffective. it would change nothig as far as we are concerned. we would all be united against whoeverdared threaten us.

remember reagan's "peace thru strength" mantra? this war has really damaged that. it has exposed the limitations of our military. we are in an unwinnable situation, and sticking around and hoping the violence quells is ridiculous. but it is essentially the mode we are in now. it cannot continue.

tactics wise, it would be smarter to pull back, build intelligence, continue fighting the war on these bastards (al quaeda) thru covert methods and finally "finish the job" in afghanastan, a winnable situation that is slipping away. if and when someone has the balls to attack us again, hopefully our intelligence machines will stop it, and if not, i believe our next invasion of wherever these guys are getting safe haven will be far more swift and severe than anthing we have ever seen. depleting resources in iraq only hinders that future inevitablility.

we cannot continue to use our military as a political pawn in Iraq. they are far too valuable to our nation's future to have them being used by an administration that cannot admit is was just plain wrong on so many levels.
on Dec 06, 2006
The "domino theory" you refer to has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq. Completely different set of issues, completely different circumstances and not what has been used as a rationale for our presence - that's how foes of the administration have chosen to characterize it, for the phrase's perceived propaganda value.
on Dec 12, 2006
The "domino theory" you refer to has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq. Completely different set of issues, completely different circumstances and not what has been used as a rationale for our presence - that's how foes of the administration have chosen to characterize it, for the phrase's perceived propaganda value.


nonsense!

the domino theory was basically a doomsday scenario in which if we didn't aggresively attack the communists and stay in vietnam, they would spread all over south east asia and eventually come to america to attack.

nothing to do with the situation in iraq? i totally disagree.

and it's not propoganda,,,it's analysis.