PDA

View Full Version : BUSH Say it's going swell but before congress the Generals say



BIG IRISH
08-05-2006, 12:08 AM
WASHINGTON - Two of the Pentagon's most senior generals conceded to Congress on Thursday that the surge in sectarian violence in Baghdad in recent weeks means Iraq may descend into civil war.

"Iraq could move toward civil war" if the violence is not contained, Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it," he said, adding that the top priority in Iraq is to secure the capital, where factional violence has surged in recent weeks despite efforts by the new Iraqi government to stop the fighting.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the panel, "We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war." He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military.

"Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other," Pace said, before the tensions can be overcome. "The weight of that must be on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government."

President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have steadfastly refused to call the situation in Iraq a civil war, although Rumsfeld at a news conference on Wednesday acknowledged that the violence is increasing.

Talking to reporters aboard Air Force One Thursday as Bush flew to Texas, press secretary Tony Snow said the generals had "reiterated something we've talked about on a number of occasions, which is the importance of securing Baghdad, which is why ... you're going to see more and more of a troop presence in Baghdad. ... Obviously, sectarian violence is a concern."

Asked specifically to state the White House's reaction to the statements about a possible civil war, Snow replied, "Ok, well, I don't think the president is going to quibble with his generals on their characterizations."

The commanders' remarks about the threat of a civil war came just three months before congressional elections in which Bush administration policy in Iraq looms as a defining issue. Many voters have tired of the 3-year-old war, which has cost more than 2,500 U.S. lives and more than a quarter trillion taxpayer dollars.

They also come at a time when thanks to the high level of violence in Baghdad, administration hopes have diminished of significantly reducing the U.S. force in Iraq, which Rumsfeld said currently totals 133,000. Last year, Army Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed hopes of significant troop cuts this year, comments that Abizaid seemed to temper on Thursday.

"Since the time that General Casey made that statement, it's clear that the operational and the tactical situation in Baghdad is such that it requires additional security forces, both U.S. and Iraqi," Abizaid told Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the committee.

"It's possible to imagine some reductions in forces, but I think the most important thing to imagine is Baghdad coming under the control of the Iraqi government," Abizaid said.

Later in the hearing, the general expressed confidence that the Iraqi government is moving in the right direction.

"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," Abizaid said.

Later in the hearing Pace told the committee that his comment about the possibility of civil war did not mean he expects one. "Speaking for myself, I do not believe it is probable," he said, because the Iraqi government and the Iraqi military are not breaking apart.

Asked whether the United States would continue to have a military mission in Iraq in the event that civil war did break out, Rumseld declined to respond directly, saying that it could give the impression that he presumes there will be a civil war. "Our role is to support the government. The government is holding together. The armed forces are holding together," he said.

Bush last week approved an increase in the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad as part of a new effort to help Iraqi security forces get a grip on the sectarian tensions.

Abizaid also said under questioning that it was possible that U.S. casualties could rise as a result of the battle to contain sectarian violence in the capital.

"I think it's possible that in the period ahead of us in Baghdad that we'll take increased casualties - that's possible," he said.

Rumsfeld, who testified alongside Abizaid and Pace, did not comment directly on the prospect of civil war but said Iraq's future lay in the hands of Iraqis, beginning with a reconciliation process that has yet to get under way.

"Ultimately the sectarian violence is going to be dealt with by Iraqis," Rumsfeld said.

And under tough questioning by Sen. Hillary Clinton about previous appearances before the committee, he denied that he had ever "painted a rosy picture" of the situation in Iraq.

Pace said he did not anticipate one year ago that Iraq would now be in danger of plummeting into civil war. Abizaid said it was obvious a year ago that sectarian violence was on the rise, and that Iraq's police forces did not develop as well as U.S. officials had expected.

"It's vital that we turn this around," the general said.

Pressed about the prospect of reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq, Rumsfeld stuck to his usual assertion that it depends on conditions and on the ability of the Iraqi government to suppress sectarian tensions. He said the Pentagon is seeking a careful balance between having too few troops and having too many.

"That's a fair tension there," Rumsfeld said.

Nbadan
08-05-2006, 12:29 AM
Yeah, we've turned yet another corner in Iraq!

:spin

Nbadan
08-05-2006, 12:36 AM
Pace said he did not anticipate one year ago that Iraq would now be in danger of plummeting into civil war. Abizaid said it was obvious a year ago that sectarian violence was on the rise, and that Iraq's police forces did not develop as well as U.S. officials had expected.

What would Col. Hackworth say about Rummy's prefumed princesses running the Defense Department now?

The incredible part in all this Rummy has to go talk, which is obvious to the rest of us in reality-world, is that today on local station KTSA, four Conservatives could not come up with one reason between them why Rummy has to go other than because it would hurt Bush.

:lol

BIG IRISH
08-05-2006, 01:04 AM
What would Col. Hackworth say about Rummy's prefumed princesses running the Defense Department now?

The incredible part in all this Rummy has to go talk, which is obvious to the rest of us in reality-world, is that today on local station KTSA, four Conservatives could not come up with one reason between them why Rummy has to go other than because it would hurt Bush.

:lol

Hackworth is dead, but I'm sure He is rolling over and pulling his hair out.

Rummy has so much baggage left over from his last stint as SD. He
did not get better with age.

Simply put-Rummy needs to go because he is not qualified.


Pace said he did not anticipate one year ago that Iraq would now be in danger of plummeting into civil war

A lot of the posters on this board could have told him because we
discussed it. I believe even Manny said it :lol

WOW MANNY Could be a General :drunk

RandomGuy
08-08-2006, 05:04 PM
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/images3/snake_oil.jpg

Extra Stout
08-08-2006, 05:12 PM
I thinks RG locateded him a website on the internets.

RandomGuy
08-08-2006, 05:17 PM
I thinks RG locateded him a website on the internets.

What would Random Guy be without random pitchurs?

heh.

Old american century is one of my stock favs.

I am satire, hear me roar... :P

boutons_
08-08-2006, 06:31 PM
http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/08/08/po060808.gif


http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/08/08/wpswi060808.gif

Civil War? What Civil War?
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, August 8, 2006; A21


Among the various awards to government officials -- presidential medal, etc. -- let me offer one of my own: the Oveta Culp Hobby Award for a truly dumb statement. I have twice before cited the late Mrs. Hobby, the nation's chief health official back in the Eisenhower administration, because she somehow managed to remain oblivious to the polio panic that struck each summer. When the government ran short of the new and downright miraculous Salk polio vaccine, the rich and fortunate Mrs. Hobby offered the following explanation: "No one could have foreseen the public demand for the vaccine."

For sheer inanity, the remark is almost impossible to beat. Yet three times in the past week I reached for the Hobby Award, thinking she had at least been matched. The first came when Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by Sen. John McCain whether a year ago he anticipated that Iraq might be on the verge of civil war. "No, sir," the general said.

Next McCain posed the same question to Gen. John P. Abizaid, who is in charge of everything in Iraq. He knew a year ago that tensions were high, he said. But "that they would be this high, no."

Finally, we have the remarks of Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, spokesman for the American military in Iraq. He was not at the Senate hearing, but he caught its flavor and then some. When asked by the New York Times if the United States had moved too quickly to replace American troops with Iraqis, he said, "I don't think we moved too quickly. I don't think anyone could have anticipated the sectarian violence."

Oveta, move over.

Can these high-ranking military officers possibly mean what they said? Even before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the term "civil war" was being bruited about. This was because even a casual viewer of the Discovery Channel or some such thing knew that Iraq was an artificial creation of Britain -- Gertrude Bell, Winston Churchill, et al. The casual viewer also knew that a minority of Sunnis had governed a majority of Shiites through the application of violence and a not inconsiderable amount of torture. Why this country would hold together once the locks were clipped is a question whose answer we are now seeing: It's not.

The high-ranking officers cited above are neither stupid nor ignorant of Iraq's history. I can only conclude, therefore, that like countless others before them they feel compelled to say things that fit the political ideology and delusions of their civilian bosses in the Bush administration. The official line there, of course, is that Iraq is not and will not and could not descend into civil war because, well, that would aid the evildoers.

Whatever the case, we now have to understand that uttering the word "Iraq" does to Bush administration officials what a touch of tequila does to Mel Gibson. I could spend the rest of this column quoting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others on what would happen when GI Joe got to Baghdad or why the war had to be fought in the first place. The collected quotes are funny in one context, sad and infuriating in another: the playing of taps, the folding of the flag and the required lie about "a hero's death."

I dutifully read the news about Iraq. But I recognize most administration statements as lies or, if by accident the actual truth, a mere snapshot of a moment that will change over time. More troops one day, fewer the next. We have this town one day, we don't the next. Iraqi troops are up to snuff; oops, no they're not. This is the babble of chaos, the telltale rhetoric of defeat.

I share the concern of what would happen to Iraq if the United States pulled out precipitously. I share the concern over what will happen if the United States stays. I share the concern of those who say that no matter whether it stays or goes the outcome will be the same. I especially share the concern of those who say that the Bush administration does not have a plan to disengage and that rather than confront the immensity of its mistake -- I pity Donald Rumsfeld if he should ever lose the gift of denial -- it thinks that this or that adaptation to new conditions will somehow change the outcome. It will not. The end was set at the beginning. It is better that it come sooner rather than later.

[email protected]


© 2006 The Washington Post Company