Posted on 08/22/2006 8:04:21 AM PDT by jdm
WASHINGTON - The British deputy to the top U.S. commander in Iraq said Tuesday the country's sectarian conflict is not a full-blown civil war but could be described as a "civil war in miniature."
"In my judgment, we are not in a situation of civil war," British Royal Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Fry told reporters at the Pentagon in a video-teleconference from Baghdad. He added, "I know what a civil war looks like."
He said there is no mass migration out of Baghdad, where the sectarian violence is worst; the central government is functioning; and the country's security forces are answerable to the government.
"So what I think we have is something which is, at the very best, civil war in miniature, at the very best. But I don't think it actually even meets that definition," Fry said.
Murders and other acts of violence have declined substantially in Baghdad in recent weeks, Fry added, and most other parts of the country are relatively peaceful.
Fry is deputy commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq, headed by U.S. Army Gen. George Casey, and is the senior British representative in the country. Britain has about 7,200 troops in Iraq, mostly in the southern provinces.
The role of U.S. and coalition forces now is to "hold the ring" and wait for the Iraqis to reach a political settlement that will end the sectarian strife and build the foundations for economic recovery, Fry said.
"We can continue to conduct military operations in order to separate the two sides of the sectarian conflict - and we will do that," he said. "But that of itself does not bring about a solution. What brings about a solution is a process of reconciliation which only the Iraqis can conduct - and they are in the process of conducting that now."
Fry said it was important that the conflict not be described as "civil war."
"It is inflammatory language," he said. "It is implying that the situation is worse than it is. It therefore encourages - among other things - adventurous media reporting" and "could encourage a certain degree of despondency in the political constituencies of both of our countries. But above all, I simply don't think it's an accurate statement of the situation that we're currently involved in."
Well, then what's his point???!!!
lol
I thought his point was rather clear. Did you read past the headline?
I love visual puns.
Civil war is a generic term that means factions within a country are using military grade weapons against the government. There is nothing illogical about having different degress and intensities of warfare.
The author's point is that Iraq is stabilizing, not degenerating.
Ronald Reagan used to scoff at the term "civil war" being applied to Vietnam. In his radio spots, captured in Reagan, In His Own Hand he said North and South Vietnam had been separate countries for hundreds of years. Most of his radio spots were well-researched so I'd go with the Gipper.
The british in general, including its military, have been utterly brainwashed into defeatism & "white liberal" guilt complex by its liberal media.
Watch the BBC news for a half hour and you want to slit your wrists. Its the most depressing news report and every problem is alway projected as the fault of white people opressing minorities.
Everytime I hear a british officer open his mouth for interviews since the war began, its been nothing but bashing the US military for its policies or complaining about how badly the war is going.
Civil war in miniature? BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAA!
Well, I guess you could say that about the Crips and the Bloods, too.
Isn't it cuuuuute?
"No, full blown civil war was Antietam."
"Well shoot, this ain't nothing but some feuding, between kin."
And Freepers are complaining because?
Well said
Read the smegging article
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.