by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 20, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

inking like a rock, public support for the Iraq war continues to plummet as carnage piles up and sectarian strife marks the three-year anniversary. Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig see a parallel to Vietnam where diminished public support and an unending guerrilla war make the prospects of victory bleak. President George W. Bush knows that without public support the window for the mission closes rapidly, pressuring the U.S. finish up or face public backlash. With midyear elections approaching, the president's team is in a full-court press to reverse negative public opinion now threatening the Iraq mission. Recognizing the high stakes, Bush sent Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Iraq's Senior Commander Gen. George W. Casey to Sunday-morning talk shows to buy more time.

      White House officials have forcefully denied that Iraq is in the throes of a civil war, making the mission untenable. All Bush's talking points dispute the idea that Iraq is in civil war and validate that Iraqi forces have made great progress taking over for the U.S. military. “It is unfortunate that we are in civil war,” former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp., noting the loss of 50-60 lives a day. Allawi's remarks are unwelcome by the administration, busy convincing the press that Iraq is still winable. Before Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron fist, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds had no interest in joining forces. Sunnis battled Shiites for Iraq's southern oil wealth in Basra, while Kurds battled both Sunnis and Shiites for control of Iraq's northern oil wealth in Kirkuk. While Bush wants integration of all groups, they prefer to live segregated

      Saddam's secular Baathist regime asserted tyrannical control over Iraq's disparate groups, maintaining order much the same way Soviet totalitarianism controlled Russia. Calling the current mess low-level civil war underscores the sectarian violence that has left Iraq in shambles. It doesn't help that Bin Laden's Iraqi point man Abu Musab Al Zarqawi operates with impunity, pitting Sunnis against Shiites. Without Al Zarqawi stirring the pot, Iraq's disparate groups have divergent economic, social and religious interests. Kurds have no interest in the Iraqi federation and wish only to claim Iraq's northern oil fields of Kirkuk and declare an independent Kurdistan. Shiites in the south also have no intention of surrendering Basra's oil fields to either Sunnis or Kurds. Pretending that Iraq is one big happy family totally ignores the long history of tribal conflict among Iraq's disparate groups.

      Sending Gen. Casey to sell Bush's war on Sunday-morning talk shows reflects quiet desperation. Disputing the idea of civil war seems absurd when you consider Iraq's long history of tribal squabbling. There's nothing outrageous about suggesting that without Saddam's iron fist, Iraq couldn't control its instincts of splitting the country into three parts. Casey insisted on CNN's “Late Edition” that Iraq was still “a long way from civil war,” ignoring indisputable facts-on-the-ground and established history of tribal conflict. “I suspect the it will remain fragile until we get a new government, a government of national unity,” said Casey, admitting that the delayed attempt to form a government has given terrorists and insurgents license for sectarian violence. What Casey and White House officials aren't acknowledging is that national unity remains a distant fantasy among warring factions.

      Acknowledging civil war, low intensity or not, represents failure to a White House too heavily invested in face-saving and propaganda, than admitting mistakes and finding a fix. Beyond Baghdad's fortified “Green Zone,” Iraq is a treacherous battlefield mined with explosives, replete with snipers and terrorists committed to ending U.S. occupation. Bush doesn't talk about insurgent infiltration into Iraq's military and security services, leaving a divided loyalty. Bending reality doesn't change Iraq's dangerous environment where only the “Green Zone” enjoys relative security. Vice Presdent Dick Cheney blames the liberal press for sabotaging White House efforts to paint Iraq as a monumental success. “Our troops are caught in a civil war,” said Rep. John P. Murtha on CBS' “Meet the Press,” echoing his prior sentiments that Bush should withdraw troops at the earliest possible time.

      Slinging propaganda with great authority, Rumsfeld went over the top equating Iraq with Nazi Germany. “Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis,” Rumsfeld told the Washington Post, insisting that the U.S. is winning the war. With all tangible facts pointing to failure, Rumsfeld's analogy stretches credulity to the breaking point. Not only was Saddam not moving against other Arab countries, he possessed no dangerous arsenal given as the original excuse for the war. “I think we have had a low-intensity civil war going on in Iraq certainly for the last six months, maybe the last year. Our own generals have told me that privately,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a vociferous critic of Bush's Iraq policy. There's something uncivilized about denying that Iraq is plagued by civil war.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.