WP Milbank: The Wagging of the 'Civil' Tongues

[grytpype]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/21/AR2006082101490.html

Is Iraq in a civil war? Depends on who you ask!

The Wagging of the 'Civil' Tongues

By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, August 22, 2006; A02

It's official: The Iraq Civil War has begun -- not necessarily in Iraq, but in Washington, where an all-out fight has broken out over whether what is happening on the Tigris can be called a civil war.

"You know, I hear a lot of talk about civil war," President Bush said at the top of a news conference yesterday. "I'm concerned about that, of course."

But not that concerned. An unusually gloomy Bush admitted with Carter-esque candor that he has been "frustrated" and that Iraq is "straining the psyche of our country." Civil war, however, was not part of his confession. "The security forces remain united behind the government," he said.

Two hours later, former ambassador Peter Galbraith presented a rather different view to the Middle East Institute in Dupont Circle. "There is a civil war, and it is a lot like Lebanon in the '70s and '80s," he declared. "The United States basically has a choice: Either we use our forces to stop the civil war, or we withdraw."

(much more at link, must read)

[struggle4progress]

1. What difference does it make whether we call it a civil war or not?

Cheney's energy task force studied maps of Iraq's oil fields.

The Republican White House then spewed a lot of crap about weapons of mass destruction, confiscated and censored Iraq's weapons declarations to the UN, warned the UN inspectors to leave, and bombed the crap out of everybody.

Following this, they "lost" billions of oil-for-food program dollars and further billions in US appropriations, in addition to whatever they squandered on unaccountable "rebuilding" projects that mysteriously never accomplished much and on high-priced mercenaries, while failing to provide our poor grunts on the front line decent armor or drinkable water.

After writing a mountain of pro-torture memos, implemented in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, the sh!theads floated the idea of a "Salvadoran option" for Iraq, and (amazingly!)death squads popped up everywhere.

If there's actually a "civil war" in Iraq, it's because the Republicans' Armageddon-enthusiasts set out to divide the country from the beginning by emphasizing anm idiotic sectarian view of the Iraqis as Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds -- in hopes of partitioning Iraq and ultimately being able to negotiate with smaller, weaker states for the oil. The Iraqis keep telling us we're the major cause of the violence there, and it's time to listen to them: they're the ones getting killed.

[Skittles]

2. if it's not civil war now

I'd hate to know what bush inc defines as a civil war

[yellowcanine]

3. The only way we can "stop" the civil war is to pick a dog and back it

to the hilt or Balkanize Iraq, including the ethnic cleansing that goes with such a move. Neither prospect is a happy one.