« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Gates: Iraq is Four Wars in One
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, like his infamously inconstant predecessor, still won't admit that Iraq is in a state of civil war, but that non-civil war is apparently, one of four ongoing wars in Iraq.
From today's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee:
There are four wars going on in Iraq right now, simultaneously: Shia on Shia conflict in the south; sectarian violence, particularly in Baghdad, but also in Diyala and a couple of other provinces; an insurgency; and Al Qaeda.
Advertisement
Comments (12)
jeff wrote on January 12, 2007 12:30 PM:i heard this...and THEN susan collins steps up and agrees 100% with the 4 wars analogy...
Jeff wrote on January 12, 2007 12:33 PM:as in...
'OH YAH I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING"
Actually, that's not a bad summation of the situation as I understand it. At least its an improvement over the more simplified view of his predecessor, terminology notwithstanding.
Jeff B. wrote on January 12, 2007 12:44 PM:Does this mean we get a fifth war (Iran) free?
Artie wrote on January 12, 2007 12:47 PM:You have to buy six to get one free, Jeff.
brianm0122 wrote on January 12, 2007 12:51 PM:There's a name for that- anarchy.
Robert Earle wrote on January 12, 2007 12:53 PM:What Jeff said - at least its not simple-minded George talking about the good guys vs. the bad guys.
Anonymous wrote on January 12, 2007 1:47 PM:I have always found wars cheaper by the dozen.
So far according to my calculations the war has cost every man woman and child over 1200 dollars.
It is an investment in our future ,.. for sure :(
Jeff wrote on January 12, 2007 1:55 PM:I was just looking at someting on CNN that said the cost of the war would build 35,000 schools. Even if I have that wrong, its a scary # by any definition.
Legalize wrote on January 12, 2007 2:16 PM:I didn't see the grilling, but I think this assessment is actually correct in principle (Gates might be ducking and weaving by not invoking the "civil war spectre"). I don't think we have a plain vanilla civil war going on here because the ultimate elements are not "state-ist" in nature; some of them are, and perhaps most of them are, but the ultimate goal, among the rank and file is not control of the state - more like settling old scores.
What I think, and what I think Gates is saying, is that we actually have a general state of lawlessness, where the state does not have a monopoly on the use of violence. There is nothing "civil" per se, in the nature of the violence. "The law" is in the hands of many non-state elements, i.e. militias, some of whom have infiltrated the state as a means of better access to those they wish to slaughter - all of whom have agendas they want to enforce, and vendettas they want to resolve - which go back decades, centruies even.
Either way, we are picking nits in trying to come up with a label, as the violence that the administration permitted to get out of control through his many blunders, is not the sort of violence that our military can counter.
I still argue for federalism, and U.S. forces drawing back to a border control position in order to (a) contain the violence, and (b) keep the other regional skunks out of the ring. If the Iraqis want their civil war, they have every right to it - just not at the expense of U.S. lives and capital.
dreamer wrote on January 12, 2007 3:12 PM:Enough of this, how about we all just refuse to pay our taxes until they stop the war and bring everyone home. Talk about power of the purse.
SkyHo wrote on January 12, 2007 3:29 PM:Any conflict will have among its many elements, groups of people attempting to stake out political territory before things get semi-frozen by a cease-fire. This black and white element easily gets blurred by other elements, settling debts, revenge, providing neighborhood protection (gangs), bolstering "leaders" egos and most important, repelling the invaders leaving our mentally challenged "leader" quite literally at a loss for words.
The hoops this administration goes through to avoid certain target phrases (civil war would be one) would be somewhat entertaining if people were not dying. That this administration plays word games during such a deadly enterprise is criminal and evil. I am against capital punishment but, I might look away this time.
Rod wrote on January 13, 2007 10:18 AM:Okay, so, according to the Secretary of Defense there are four wars going on in Iraq. It seems to me the next logical question for the Secretary is this: which of these wars are our American troops fighting, and which side or sides are we on? When the President flies around speaking of the enemy, who is he talking about? Clearly it's not just Al Qaeda. It's Al Qaeda and who else?