Posted on 08/03/2006 12:29:53 AM PDT by HAL9000
Civil war is the most likely outcome in Iraq, Britain's outgoing ambassador in Baghdad has warned, in a confidential memo to ministers obtained by the BBC.William Patey, who left the Iraqi capital last week, also predicted the break-up of Iraq along ethnic lines.
He did also say that "the position is not hopeless" - but said Iraq would remain "messy and difficult" for the next five to 10 years.
The Foreign Office said it did not comment on leaked documents.
However, it added: "Every day the capacity of the Iraqi security forces to manage their own security is growing.
"A process has begun of progressively handing over responsibility for security in Iraq's provinces."
The bleak assessment of the country's future was contained in Mr Patey's final e-cable, or diplomatic telegram, from Baghdad.
The distribution list included the UK's prime minister, foreign secretary, defence secretary and House of Commons leader, as well as senior military commanders in both Iraq and the UK.
Mr Patey wrote: "The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy.
"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."
Talking about the Shia militias blamed for many killings, Mr Patey added: "If we are to avoid a descent into civil war and anarchy then preventing the Jaish al-Mahdi (the Mahdi Army) from developing into a state within a state, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon, will be a priority."
BBC correspondent Paul Wood, who has seen the document, said although it does not contradict government denials that civil war is imminent, "it is a devastating official assessment of the prospects for a peaceful Iraq, and stands in stark contrast to the public rhetoric".
The cable says that "the next six months are crucial" - an assessment which is shared by the coalition's military commanders.
Senior military sources told the BBC it was "make or break" time in Iraq. The Americans are sending thousands of extra troops to Baghdad, starting next week.
The Conservative Party's head of policy, Oliver Letwin, called on ministers to be more honest about the situation.
"It's very difficult to offer the constructive support which we want to offer and for the public to understand what's going on if the government doesn't give a very clear and frank account of the assessment," he said.
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Michael Moore said there needed to be a clear strategy for Iraq, including the engagement of neighbouring countries such as Iran, Syria and Turkey.
"Unless we seriously and radically rethink our approach, as the ambassador warns, we will run the serious risk of a descent into civil war," he said.
The BBC has also learned, from military sources, that British troops in Basra are planning to dramatically step up operations against Shia gunmen.
Mr Patey urges the government to ensure that Iraqi troops are brought into this effort as the British forces "can't confront the militias alone".
On Wednesday, President Jalal Talabani said Iraqi police and troops would be taking the security lead throughout the whole country by the end of the year.
solution = take out Iran
It's more likely that Iran to be attacked than Iraq coming to a civil war.
I am so sick of this treacherous crap.
Lucky for THIS Michael Moore he is apparently, like his fellow-named American, a liberal. Imagine all the jokes if he was a conservative.
Is this really the worst thing that could happen in Iraq?
Hope this civil war doesn't happen of course but I bet BBC and all the rest of MSM/radical left are getting excited - looks like they've been hoping for this for a least a year now.
Most international analysts are right now predicting a civil war in Iraq. What I think they don't seem to understand is the Iraqi militia leaders like Sadr, Hakim, and others are cowards and will always hedge their bets. They don't want to go all in and risk losing everything so they will continue playing this sick game that gets Iraqis killed, but stops short of a civil war.
Sadr and company are cowards who don't have the nads to put their throats on the line and these scum putting their throats on the line would be a main requirement for a civil war.
Interesting take on this.
Civil War is not mechanically possible in Iraq. Iraqis are nowhere near mentally and emotionally capable of embracing the concept of a civil war. The average Iraqi is worried about feeding his children on a daily basis. No one is in the mood or position to turn to their wife and say "Honey, I'm just going to stop caring for everyone and pick up a rifle and go with a militia that doesn't exist to a place I can't get even get to, because I'm ticked off at those pesky Shiites today!" We control the highways - the countryside is untraversable for large bodies of people - the supposed enemies couldn't even get to each other to fight if they wanted to. There are no large bodies of armed men, no huge caches of weapons and munitions easily distributable to armies and militias that might even magically appear one morning to fight each other. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644762/posts
Well over 10,000 have already been killed this year in violence in Iraq (which includes Shia on Shia militia violence) along with the violence the media spends more time on like the suicide bombings and the Shia/Sunni violence. And, I will tell you that as bad as the media might present it to the US public it could get many many many times worse if it were not for leaders like Sistani as well as the presence of the US Army.
As bad as the media might portay it all we have right now is militias nipping at each other and nipping at the Iraqi people. An all out religious war would look quite different with religious leaders telling the masses to arm themselves and kill their fellow Iraqis.
This is what Iran wants to have happen. Iraq would be divided - the Kurds would get the north - Iran would take all the areas with oil - and the Sunnis would get barren dessert. Iran wants the old empire back - this is part of that plan. And dems will buy the idea. In the short run it's great. In the long run it's most likely a disaster.
Is this really the worst thing? If the Mullahs are overthrown, and the free people of Iran form a democratic country, it might be great. With the Mullah's in charge, it'll permanently keep the US out of the ME, put control of waaaaaayyyy too much oil in the hands of terrorists, and dramatically increases the power of the enemy. Yeah, that's the worst...
It could also mean the end of the Middle East. The Sauds and the Iranians could be drawn into the Civil War to protect their religious Brethren. That means a war between the Sunni's and the Shiites. Also combine that with the developing religious Judeo verses Shiite War and always simmering Judeo verses Sunni war. It would quickly escalate to a three way war. The Jews have the full spectrum of WMD. The Shiites have Chemical and Biological WMD and are on the verge of acquiring a nuclear WMD capability. The Sunnis have a Chemical WMD capability and may been developing a Biological WMD capability.
Oh, good freakin' grief; here we go again with the civil war talk.
Fortunately, there doesn't appear to be one on the horizon.
Give us your take on this, Allegra. What's happening in Iraq and how long before it settles down?
"Fortunately, there doesn't appear to be one on the horizon."
Oh no! The Beeb will be disappointed!
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.