Powell on Iraq: 'It looks like, smells like and ... is a civil war'

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | December 7, 2006 | Bill Toland

[Tokra]

Pulling out gives you a 'realistic' jihadist caliphate between Iran and Syria... and no base of operations to deal with a psychotic, potentially nuclear Iran. Our conflict in Iraq is only one facet of the war we're fighting... wake up.

Couldn't have said it better.

[Cold Heat]

But it's getting a bit ridiculous to say it's going to 'fixed' isn't it? Along with the reasoning that Iraq will be used as a jumping off point for more regime change. No, this Wilsonian fiasco is over.

"Fixing" is not a term I would associate with Iraq.

The best quote I have heard thus far, is the one that says...."When Iraqi's begin to love their children more than they hate each other, the situation will begin to settle".

It can't be fixed, as some like to express. It has to be morphed into political dialog from kinetic response. It is also not a full blown civil war. The fact that Sunni's are a minority, makes this unlikely, and the fact that Sunni and Shia's are found within family and tribal groupings, is also keeping civil war from becoming a reality.

It is a power struggle, with Sunni's fighting for their right to exist, in some cases, and Shia's retaliating for past and current aggressions done by Sunni's. There is also a tribal element going on and these things have existed for centuries! It is the culture of these people.

Once a significant majority gains some faith in their central government, and the government is seen as necessary and fundamental to the future, the fighting will largely disappear and be replaced with political fighting. This takes time!

Time that unfortunately the American public is not willing to extend.

But the fact is that we have to give it to them, because if we leave prematurely, we will be forced to return and when we do this, we WILL become the enemy and they will turn all that animosity toward us. They are doing this to some extent now, and will be 100% engaged if we try to impose our will on them without permissions. This is why more troops are not required or wise to to do. It would be the biggest mistake this country ever made to leave this mess in it's present condition.

So the only option we have is to remain.

To some this may be seen as "stay the course". I think that stay the course is what we need to do, and continue to do for decades, not just months or years.

If we don't, we will one day be forced to destroy the Middle East, and subsequently, over a billion Muslims world wide, just to survive as a country and to maintain some semblance of a economy.

It would be as close to Armageddon as we have ever come, and may end civilization on earth as we know it today.

I don't think we could survive this politically, morally or realistically. We have to make some sacrifices to attain peace in the long term. It needs to be seen as a investment in the future, that without which will mean that there is no future.

[johnny7]

If you don't think that within a generation of US troops leaving, if not before, that the Iraqis will elect a theocratic form of government you're fooling yourself. And who will they turn to for assistance, for allies?

You call it a Wilsonian fiasco... I see it as part of a bigger war against radical Islam. In all honesty... I see it as a war for the survival of western civilization.

[johnny7]

...and subsequently(destroy), over a billion Muslims world wide, just to survive as a country and to maintain some semblance of a economy.

A minuscule portion of worldwide Islam follows its radical tenets. The 'essence' of radical Islam was born... and is cultivated in the middle-east. To eliminate the leading middle-eastern, jihadist state(Iran)... would snuff out Islamic jihadist fervor globally. Conversely, the longer Iran is seen as succeeding in its confrontational behavior with the west... the more status it will gain in the eyes of Muslims worldwide.

[Cold Heat]

would snuff out Islamic jihadist fervor

I'm not very confident of that. Currently they are not much more then a funder, or a sugar daddy with some say as to how their money is used in Hammas, for example.

Even if they were totally eliminated from the picture, you still have the entire Shia Islamist movement to deal with, and we are totally ignoring the Arab Islamist that originates in Saudi Arabia. It is their funding that perverts Islam in the rest of the world and in the U.S. by funding Islamic hate education. This is the sect that Osama comes from and they are equal to or more dangerous than the Shia.

I would also contend that if we were able to knock any one of these organizations down two or three more would emerge to replace them.

The planet is riddled with it! Iran is only one of the oil rich funding banks for one version of the disease.

To defeat this, we have to change their culture. We have to replace oil with other forms of energy as well..We have ignored them for some 50 years because it was too hard.

To do this, it will take democracy building, societal changes in the West as well (Oil), and this will take generations to accomplish.

We simply started with the easier of the options when we invaded Iraq.

The humorous aspect of all of this, is that this was the easy part.....The really easy part.....

[johnny7]

Currently they are not much more then a funder, or a sugar daddy with some say as to how their money is used in Hammas, for example.

They're more than a funder for Hammas. They're the weapons supplier of Hezbollah and without Iran... Syria is impotent. Without Iran as the warrior-state of anti-western... anti-Israel aggression... radical Islam as a worldwide threat, withers on the vine.

[Bonaparte]

Well, Colin, if it is a civil war then that would be all the more reason to stay on. Afterall, you don't leave until the place is pacified, right?

Why Bush ever tapped this back-stabbing loser for State is an enduring mystery to me. Maybe Bellafonte was right and Powell is a "house negro" -- to the democrats.