Posted on 08/27/2006 1:07:14 PM PDT by SandRat
WASHINGTON, Aug. 27, 2006 – Iraq is not now and will never be in a civil war, the country’s prime minister told Wolf Blitzer today on “CNN Late Edition.” Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, speaking from Baghdad, praised strides being made in Iraq on the political, economic and security fronts and said that despite news reports to the contrary, violence is on the downswing and Iraq’s new government is succeeding.
Maliki insisted that a spirit of reconciliation is taking hold in Iraq. “The violence is not increasing,” he said. “Iraq is not in a civil war. Iraq will never be in a civil war.”
While declining to specify exactly how long Iraq will need coalition forces to reinforce its own security efforts, Maliki said the believes it “won’t be long,” possibly “within a year or less.”
“I don’t want to commit to a certain time or a certain period, but I want to have my best efforts to decrease this time for a year or less, or a few months,” he said.
But Maliki emphasized that he’s not anxious to see the coalition leave until the Iraqi security forces are prepared to handle the job alone to ensure progress already made can continue.
He noted that Iraq’s security forces are slated to take control of all provinces by the year’s end and said they’re gaining in both numbers and capability every day. “Our security ability is increasing,” he said.
Meanwhile, Iraq won’t allow its neighbors, including Iran, to interfere in its affairs and disrupt this progress, Maliki said.
It's funny, the media has been predicting a civil war for a while now, it's almost as if they are WISHING for a civil war to occur. Yet time and time again there seems to be no outright civil war. I'm not saying that there isn't sectarian violence, but still.
This is a kick in the stomach to the lamestream media who have been pinning their hopes on chaos in Iraq in time for the mid-term elections.
I don't want to sound negative, but he would have to be damn stupid to say there IS a civil war, even if there was one.
Mate, I was at a function over this past weekend and, over cocktails the discussion inevitably led to the war in Iraq. My viewpoint was and is that the liberation of Iraq was absolutely essential to the WOT. My liberal-and-somewhat-inebriated (but otherwise perfectly OK) mate exclaimed:
"What! Do you seriously mean to say that Iraq is better off now than it was under Saddam Hussein???"
"Yup." says I.
"But what about all the people who have been killed? What about the carnage?" says he, bug-eyed and outraged.
"Mate, Saddam Hussein and his psycho sons were Bad-Heads and Scroats who desperately needed to be removed from power. Now, the good people of Iraq have a Vote. Used to be they didn't need one. We can thank the Yanks for that. And the good people of Iraq will fight to keep their Vote, by civil war if that need be the Price. And when they are done, they'll hang Hussein and his mob from lamp-posts as an example to encourage the others."
Somehow, he just didn't get it.
I'd prefer the point of kick impact to be about a foot lower.
An Iraqi civil war is a creation of the MSM, same as the "quagmire".
Murtha, eat your words!
I have no intention to go over definitions again. I still think this sectarian violence bears a striking resemblance to the ideological violence in Spain from 1936 to 1939, but then again, I've never been down there and I don't really care anyway.
It was more than we Yanks, your Nortern cousins that did it. You Diggers had a big hand in it too as well as the Free-Polish Forces, and the Queen's Own all helped. Funny, those who love real freedom, be it dreived from the Magna Carta, our Constitution or some other document, were and are there as MEN doing a MAN's job.
It would not be stupid to speak the truth about civil war.
If there is one, then it is necessary to marshall ones allies for the struggles.
In our own civil war, there were not too many whose fear extended to "announcing" the existence of a war. Their fear was their capital city being taken by the opposing force in some Napoleanic grand, decisive battle.
Yeah, but the announcement of civil war would probably rather lead to lost allies than to reinforcements this time. This conflict has been played down since that statue fell. But time plays for you I'd say. Chances are democracy will be established.
> ...were and are there as MEN doing a MAN's job.
(Embarassed silence)
New Zealand should have been there, too: our troops are in Afghanistan, including our elite NZ SAS. They should have been allowed to go to Iraq.
Possibly the NZ SAS are there, too -- who knows where the Lads get posted or seconded? Probably not even our Prime Minister. But in an official capacity, NZ is absent from Iraq.
We can thank our Prime Minister for that oversight.
Cheers to the countries who went and made it happen in Iraq. Heroes and patriots all!
*DieHard*
I think this will be the key, if border control will finally become the high priority it should have been from the start.
We'll see.
I understand your point and it's definitely a strong one.
But there comes a time when a leader has to be honest about a war going on around him. At least...if he wants to stay in power.
True. Securing the Iraq-Iran border will probably be a priority for the Coalition by now anyway, with that Iran conflict looming ahead.
I guess HE need time more than anything else. I'm not one to believe there's no majority for democracy in Iraq. I just believe a majority for democracy that is well-trained, well-organized and well-armed needs all the time the Coalition can buy them.
Time for the MSM to move on to the issue of the '08 elections in hopes that their directive can find a ray of hope in coming to be.
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.