Posted on 03/07/2006 7:08:50 PM PST by blam
US envoy warns of Iraq civil war
Holy sites in Iraq are being protected after recent attacks
The US ambassador to Iraq has said that continuing sectarian violence there had the potential to turn into civil war. In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Zalmay Khalilzad indicated that the US had little choice but to keep a strong military presence in Iraq.
He added that the dangers of conflict would be lessened if Iraqis agreed on a national unity government.
But US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the media had exaggerated the severity of recent violence.
At a Pentagon briefing, Mr Rumsfeld also said there had always been the potential for civil war in Iraq.
'Building bridges'
Mr Khalilzad told the American newspaper, that the US-led invasion in 2003 had opened "the Pandora's box" of tensions in Iraq.
"The way forward, in my view, is an effort to build bridges across [Iraq's] communities," he said.
The envoy said that a continuing political stalemate over who should be the new prime minister in Iraq's first full-term government was complicating effort to form a broad-based cabinet.
Mr Khalilzad added that although the threat posed by the bombing of a Shia mosque in Samarra last month had now passed, Iraq remained vulnerable to insurgents' attempts to exploit political uncertainty.
"There is a concerted effort to provoke civil war," he said.
Mr Khalilzad warned that if the region erupted into sectarian conflict that "would make Taleban Afghanistan look like child's play".
Media 'exaggeration'
At the Washington briefing, Mr Rumsfeld said he did not believe a civil war was going on in Iraq, although admitted that such danger remained.
He said Iraq "was held together not by a constitution, not by a piece of paper, not by respect for the fellow citizens of different religious faiths, but it was held together through force and viciousness".
"And that's gone," Mr Rumsfeld said.
He also went on to attack the quality of reporting from Iraq, saying that much of it - both in the US and abroad - had exaggerated the situation.
Mr Rumsfeld also said Iranian forces had infiltrated Iraq - something, he said, they would look back on as being an error of judgement.
why I have this feeling that the ambassador was badly taken out context in his interview. I would like to read the whole interview and make my judgment on what he said.
Why? This admin has over and over cried wolf. No one buys any of it with respect to Syria, Iran and other neer do wells in that region. Why should they?
Jeff
http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng <---Correct link, apologies.
Exactly! / Bttt
All the envoy said was that a civil war could still happen. Thats been true since the invasion. Think about it, the controlling sect which was a vast minority was thrown out without any hope of regaining its power. A power it had held on to through violence. Of course a civil war would be a likely possibility in that kind of situation. And until everyone agrees and supports a government it will remain a possibility. But they have yet to go into a full civil war. And if the Iraqi army performs as it did in the recent violence in future incidents civil war will become less and less of a possibility.
Agreed.
Yawn, Iraq is lost. I have given up hope. Lets move on to bigger threats Iran and North Korea. Hopefully our contigency plans are well prepared... I think we are a bit gun shy now though.
We are winning the war in Iraq and eventually we will achieve the ultimate victory over the terrorist insurgency there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.