Generals Fighting Iraqi Civil War Tell Senate Iraqi Civil War is Avoidable

This journal first used the words “civil war” in connection with the Iraqi mess in September 2003. Yesterday, General John Abizaid, the top US commander in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “Iraq could move toward civil war.” General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified, “we do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war.” Reality is creeping in if the generals who are fighting the Iraqi Civil War are being forced to admit there could be such a thing as an Iraqi Civil War. Now, they need to call a spade a spade.

Of course, the Busheviks have a vested interest in not calling the conflict a civil war. To do so would be tantamount to admitting a defeat for its democracy-building project, the latest pretext for the initial decision to go to war in Iraq and for the continuing occupation. Thus, while mentioning the possibility, General Abizaid said, “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.” General Pace was more succinct, “Speaking for myself, I do not believe it [an Iraqi Civil War] is probable.”

They did accept that there was some violence in Iraq. General Abizaid said, “I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it.” He also said, “I think it's possible that in the period ahead of us in Baghdad that we'll take increased casualties -- that's possible.” General Pace added, “Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other. The weight of that must be on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government.”

Field Marshal Donald von Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defense, also testified, "Are there setbacks? Yes. Are there things that people can't anticipate? Yes. Does the enemy have a brain and continue to make adjustments on the ground requiring our forces to make adjustments? You bet. Is that going to continue to be the case? I think so. Is this problem going to get solved in the near term about this long struggle against violent extremism? No, I don't believe it is." The Field Marshal's socratic dialogue with himself means there'll be more fighting for a long time.

Meanwhile, the British government is in agreement. Britain's outgoing ambassador to Iraq, William Patey sent a memo to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, which found its way to the BBC. In it, His Excellency wrote, “the prospect of a 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. Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq -- a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror -- must remain in doubt.”

During America’s Civil War, which ran 48 months, the death toll averaged 3,846 a month for the Union and Traitor armies combined according to Louisiana State University’s Civil War Center. Civilian casualties were relatively few in number due to battles being fought in remote areas (Gettysburg wasn’t much of a town, and the Wilderness Campaign took place in . . . the wilderness). According to Iraqi government sources cited by the UN, the death toll in Iraq for civilians in May and June was over 100 a day. Thirty days in a month means 3,000 dead monthly. The US had a population of 34.3 million (North and South combined) in the 1860s. Iraq’s is smaller, at about 26 million. The Iraqi death toll is proportionately what America’s was. This is a civil war, and not one of low-intensity. It’s as bad as the American Civil War, and it will last longer. Shouldn't someone tell the Pentagon?

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home