by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright August 4, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

estifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Commander of U.S. Middle forces Gen. John P. Abizaid uttered the unthinkable “C-word,” that Iraq could be sliding into civil war. “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've ever seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war,” jolting the Bush administration less that three months before midyear elections. Since Cruise missiles hit Baghdad March 20, 2003, the White House has been reluctant to use “civil war,” describing the violence, anarchy and chaos, preferring “sectarian strife” to describe unending bloodletting between Iraq's rival factions. Back in 1991, during the first Gulf War, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin L. Powell warned about toppling Saddam, fearing a power vacuum causing anarchy and civil war.

      Thirteen-years later in Sept. 2004, four months before Iraq's national elections, with violence spiraling out of control, Powell agreed with a CIA's National Intelligence Estimate predicting Iraq's instability at best and a worst-case scenario of civil war. Powell said the CIA's report “wasn't terribly shocking. It was something I could have written myself.” Powell predicted Iraq's national elections would placate insurgents contributing to violence and instability. Abizaid branded the CIA report as “overly pessimistic” but acknowledged the possibility of instability and civil war. In the Aug. 3, 2006 hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked Chairman of the Joint Chief's of Gen. Peter Pace whether he anticipated this situation a year ago. “No, sir,” replied Pace, pretending her forgot two years earlier about Abizaid's fears of civil war.

      Admitting to civil war acknowledges U.S. failure in Iraq. With President George W. Bush's poll numbers plummeting because of Iraq, the White House and Pentagon must deny Iraq's civil war. “So the question is, am I optimistic whether or not Iraqi forces, with our support, with the backing of the Iraqi government, can prevent the slide to civil war? My answer is yes, I'm optimistic that that slide can be prevented,” said Abizaid, trying to rehabilitate his prior answer. Abizaid doesn't recall his concerns in 2004 about civil war, telling Sen. McCain that he didn't expect today's deterioration. Abizaid splits hairs on word “civil war” but doesn't deny that Iraq is already besieged with sectarian strife, spiraling violence and growing anarchy. Extending the tours of more reserves and GIs and deploying 3,700 troops to Baghdad, places more U.S. troops in harm's way.

      Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, taking cheap shot at Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, accused the White House of incompetence, calling the Iraq policy a failure. “Yes, we hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios, but because of the administration's strategic blunders and, frankly, the record of incompetence in executing, you are presiding over a failed policy,” prompting Rumsfeld's meltdown, ironically not disputing Clinton's rebuke. Rumsfeld has been the administration's biggest cheerleader, promising the Iraqi army was getting ready to take over for the U.S. military. CIA reports estimate that 40% of Iraq's new army and police is infiltrated by insurgents with loyalty to terrorists fighting the U.S. mission. Massive anti-U.S. and anti-Israel demonstrations Aug. 4 in Baghdad's Sadr City suggest more sympathy for militants fighting Iraq's U.S-backed government.

      Questions about whether Iraq is sliding to or actually in a civil war go to heart of the U.S. propaganda war. Recent polls show that over 60% of the American public believe the U.S. is losing in Iraq. When Al Qaeda's alleged Iraq chief Abu Musab Al Zarqawi was killed April 8, the White House overplayed the significance, hoping for reduced violence. When violence spiked, it became clear that Al Zarqawi was a minor player in Iraq's insurgency. “The prospects of low-intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy,” BBC correspondent and diplomat William Patey briefed British Prime Minister Tony Blair, delivering the bad news.. Patey views Iraq as “messy and difficult” for the next decade, calling for more wasteful U.S. and British blood and treasure.

      White House and Pentagon officials spend far too much time quibbling over whether Iraq is sliding to or in civil war. U.S. and British soldiers caught in the crossfire don't care whether “sectarian strife” or “civil war” causes the anarchy and violence that adds to the body count. Talk about troop reductions no longer occupies the front burner as 3,700 U.S. troops re-deploy to Baghdad's dangerous streets. “It's possible to imagine some reduction in forces, but I think the most important thing to imagine is Baghdad coming under control of the Iraqi government, “ said Abizaid, trying to find a silver lining to the current mess. White House and Pentagon officials have imagined for too long about Iraq's government taking over for U.S. and British troops. Instead of “imagining,” it's time face reality that at least 40% of Iraq's army is dedicated to sabotaging the U.S. and British mission.

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.