From AP News: 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 be descending 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.
A confidential report from Britain's outgoing ambassador to Iraq warned the country is sliding toward civil war and is likely to divide eventually along ethnic lines.
William Patey, who left his diplomatic post in Baghdad last week, predicted in the document that the situation in Iraq could remain volatile for the next decade. "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."
2006-08-03 13:46:07 · 13 answers · asked by That English Dude 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Well, it's hardly surprising seeing as the invasion was completely unprompted and the subsequent occupation unwarranted.
As another English dude, let's not forget that we invaded as well.
The fact is that the chaos of war has split the country down the middle. Whereas before the country was in two camps: The majority, opposed to Ba'ath party rule (Hussein's regime, for those who don't know), and the minority who were in favour of it. The chaos which resulted from the invasion has split the country apart. There is no cohesion whatsoever, and as always, extreme conditions beget extreme factions. As Iraq is basically an ungovernable state at the moment, these factions can and do behave however they wish.
I read a quote from a very experienced war correspondent a couple of months ago. He had been to Vietnam, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, the Iran/Iraq war, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola and just about every other major conflict in the last 40 years. He said, and please forgive me if I'm paraphrasing here: "Baghdad, now, is the worst place I have ever seen."
2006-08-03 13:57:54 · answer #1 · answered by Entwined 5 · 11⤊ 4⤋
Iraq has been in a civil war for decades. It just didn't appear to be a war as the Shia and Kurds were losing so badly. They were being systematically slaughtered and starved to death by Saddam. Obviously a civil war is the worse possible scenario for the US; however, this is not license for people to pretend that Iraq was peaceful before the US invasion. If you leave out huge facts in your argument (which the argument that Iraq was a mistake is a plausible one) than you lose credibility. The Democrats (or liberals) will continue to lose with statements like this. Let's talk about the problems as they were, as they are and find solutions. If you state or imply a premise that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam you've lost the argument on the facts before it started.
2006-08-03 21:23:57 · answer #2 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dude, Iraq is seperated into 3 mainly distinctive people: Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Kurds and Arab Sunnis follow Sunni beliefs while Arab Shiites follow Shiitism. I am positlivly sure that America would know what it is doing there and if they don't, then hey! Iraq will be 3 countries. (Kurdistan; finally a land for Kurds, Shiite Iraq, and Sunni Iraq. Also, Afghanistan is done. So, America should bring their troops back to America and call it a day. There will be peace between the 3 and if there isn't, then I Do NOt Know
2006-08-03 20:54:29 · answer #3 · answered by Suliman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know of anyone who thinks that civil war in Iraq is a good outcome! I do know that the violence continues against our soldiers and we all hope that it is contained. I believe that the people of Iraq have to be at the heart of the government, not just the terrorists for it to work. Freedom won't come free.
2006-08-03 20:51:42 · answer #4 · answered by JULIE J 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Officials will always err on the side of caution. They are both wrong. Iraq has been in Civil War for the past year. Period. When you have a town in which 100 people a day, minimum, are killed on the basis of race or creed, you have Civil War.
2006-08-03 20:53:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you actually watch the Committee's broadcast? They said that it might, might become a civil war. They also stressed that it does not have to come to that. They gave many points that support a plan not to allow a civil war to break out. This whole thing has been blown way out of context.
2006-08-03 21:09:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Civil war never is a good thing. Those who said it is good is just a cold hearted bastardo. Who caused it? Who broke the civil and social structure of Iraq? Who singlehandedly dismantle the Iraqi legal government? Who bring chaos to Iraq street?
Usually in a shop, if we break something, we bought it. In this case, you broke it, you handle it.
2006-08-03 20:55:45 · answer #7 · answered by maxorian 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it shows the war was a a total failure. Iraq's people were being killed under Sadaam, and Iraq's people are being killed by terrorists now. Billions spent on the war. Thats our tax dollars hard at work folks!
2006-08-03 20:54:31 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course its not a good outcome. No one in the USA wants to see Iraq not work out. We all want to see Iraq become a nice place.
2006-08-03 20:51:55 · answer #9 · answered by Charles D 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was like this before we invaded except only Saddam had the power to kill anyone. The shiites are taking their revenge.
2006-08-03 20:49:20 · answer #10 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋