General Petraeus just said that Iraq was "on the brink of civil war" eighteen months ago, from which brink it's now been brought back. Now it seems to me that if we'd had a large pitched battle in Chicago or Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago, we would say that the United States was currently in a state of civil war.
« McCain's Maximalism | Main | Netroots Nation »
On The Brink
08 Apr 2008 09:54 am
Comments (20)
They lie. Simple as that. Sorry, General. You chose to go that route. Pitch defileth.
The whole stupid word game they play over "civil war" is just part of their endemic dishonesty.
Is Petraeus lobbying for his particular battle, while the bigger war on terror has no strategy? I'm concerned that we're dumping all this money in Iraq, based on Gen. Petraeus' goals for his venue, when we could be using it for more important security issues.
It all seems rather parochial, fighting for troops for particular neighborhoods where militia gangs are feuding.
I can't watch the hearings so I have to ask if anyone called him on that dumb statement.
I'm not watching either, but--do you really even have to ask?
General Petraeus is a smart guy. I'm not privy to his sense of humor. Wouldn't it be great if he told Congress another F.U. was needed to assess affairs in Iraq?
Don't you know that turf battles between gangs in the United States are frequently settled with mortar fire?
Now it seems to me that if we'd had a large pitched battle in Chicago or Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago, we would say that the United States was currently in a state of civil war.
Actually I'm not so sure that we would. Oppositional politics are very effectively marginalized and delegitimized in our political discourse. Harry Reid could lead an armored assault on the Capitol, and Wolf Blitzer would have Mark Fuhrman and some ex-Black Panther on his show to talk about urban violence.
Petraeus is a careerist like any other general. He was always noted as the guy who could make things work in Iraq if only he was given more responsibility. So he got more responsibility. Now he's got to make sure everything sounds great until the moment he moves up the next rung of the ladder.
Yglesias said:
Now it seems to me that if we'd had a large pitched battle in Chicago or Los Angeles a couple of weeks ago, we would say that the United States was currently in a state of civil war.
A battle between gang members and the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), strands thousands and shuts down dozens of blocks of Northeast Los Angeles for nearly six hours on Thursday.
dry_fish,
You forgot to mention the rest:
According to witnesses, after shooting the man and driving off, several people who knew the victim started shooting at the fleeing car, a white Nissan sedan, carrying the gang members.As police attempted to stop the suspects about 10 blocks away from where the original shooting took place, three out of the four of the gang members jumped out of the car and two of them started firing at the police. One of those men were firing at the police with an AK-47 rifle, he was shot and killed by the police.
The cops trying to catch 4 gang members, and people staying indoors for a few hours to avoid any additional casualties, seems to be a very different thing than two rival armies going at each other for a few days. One guy with an AK-47 is not the same thing as thousands of guys with AK-47s.
cactus, that actually goes to my larger point which is that civil war requires a bit more than simply "pitched battle" in a city somewhere. Obviously, neither does it require an echo of Grozny or Beirut. The "pitched battle" has to be a part of a much larger struggle for political control. That's why the violence in Iraq is indicative of a civil war.
I freaking HATE when politicians and generals quote Osama Bin Laden to corroborate what the US should and shouldn't do. I wish, just once, somebody in these hearings would quote back to whatever asshat used Bin Laden to support their view the million crazy ass blood thirsty things that Bin Laden has said and ask "Do you agree with that too? No? Then STFU with the Bin Laden quotes."
Only in Matt-World is this true:
18 months = a couple of weeks back
Dried_fish is right. Pitched battles that occured between blacks and whites in Reconstruction times in the South AND North that kiled thousands, did not rise to "Civil War". Nor the racial battles in the North 1905-1920 that also killed thousands. Nor blacks burning and killing in over 100 US cities between 1965 and 1969 constituted a Civil War.
Nor todays battles in LA where Hispanic gangmembers responding to their communities demands are killing and ethnically cleansing black thugs out of their neighborhoods and high schools. Many, before demographics shifted, that blacks ruled for decades. No more. But, killing and pushing out blacks to reduce crimes done on hispanics in their community and school does also not rise to "civil war".
Same in Iraq. In Civil War, you are on safe ground calling it such if organized forces are filling 1000+ body bags up a week. Not dinky sneak mortar launches that kill a handful or light skimishes between regular forces and criminal factions. A couple years ago, Al Qaeda drove Iraq close to civil war with hundreds of deaths a week..but not quite there..
Chris Ford, Chris Ford, Ol One Eye is on yer case. I'm shadowin ye, collectin eveidence, buildin a file er yer vileness. An one day ye'll be sittin there aopnst yer clammy, boil-rich buttocks, fiddlin and fumin at yer keyboard about the black man and viet nam and Sherman, an suddenly, there I'll be. I'll lay it all out for ye in a powerpoint, tie ye up an force ye to see yerself for what ye are. Fer I beleiev no man could live with a self as corrupt, sad, an bitter as yers, without commitin vast psychological evasion as to the actual nature er oneself.
To what end? The hope is to cure. I've gone back on me thinkin er the previous week an me offer to assist in yer suicide is recinded. It were not up to me usual stadards er comportment. No, I now aims to cure ye, to make ye into a normal citizen. To spatula ye out er yer chair there in front er yer computer an bring ye blinkin and stumblin from yer aged parents house an out into the sunlight. An then I'll take ye down to the Family Table fer a meal er real food instead er the packets er slimfast powder ye suck down dry (I imagin). I'll remake ye, maybe even take ye sailin.
So prepare yerself, Chris Ford. THe breeze er change is blowin through the scraggly strands er yer combover.
As always, the Iraq analogies of "Chris Ford" are dead-on correct! The recent "disturbances" there are no more and no less a "civil war" than were our own urban "disturbances" during the 1960s.
After all, the White House and Congress were heavily damaged by well-aimed mortar fire from the Black Panther Militia which controlled the DC slums, and when we tried to send our troops in to suppress the batteries, several battalions revolted and refused to fight, backed by their senior commanders. Fortunately, the President was able to quickly enlist Virginia's heavily-armed KKK Militia, and after fierce house-to-house fighting against their bitter enemies, the Panther mortars were finally silenced.
Meanwhile, in Los Angeles, a series of heavy airstrikes broke the morale of the Brown Beret Militia, and allowed the army tanks and APCs to win the battle without any need to request reinforcements from the Bircher Militia of Orange County.
Yep, seems just like old times in today's Iraq...
From Anthony Beevor's "The Battle for Spain":
"A coup d'etat does not need a positive creed, just an enemy. A civil war, on the other hand, demands a cause, a banner, and some form of manifesto."
There is a power struggle going on in Iraq which, given the stakes and the shambles left by decades of Saddam and his overthrow, is hardly surprising. But there is nothing like a genuine insurgency with cadre, infrastructure, an ideology, and a plan for governance, much less artillery, tanks, and major territorial sanctuaries. All of the significant players in this fight are already represented IN THE GOVERNMENT. It's a sorting out process that could at some point develop into a civil war, or not. It seems to me that as long as we're there, the odds are "not".
Ford is a complete fucking lunatic.
He blames "Al Qaeda" for the thousand of deaths per month last year, and ignores the 700 or so injuries in one week between two (or more) rival Shia factions.
Christ, what an asswipe.
Meanwhile, another one of the usual nitwits weighs in:
"But there is nothing like a genuine insurgency with cadre, infrastructure, an ideology, and a plan for governance, much less artillery, tanks, and major territorial sanctuaries. All of the significant players in this fight are already represented IN THE GOVERNMENT. It's a sorting out process that could at some point develop into a civil war, or not. It seems to me that as long as we're there, the odds are "not"."
You're a complete moron, Powell. Insurgencies almost never have artillery and tanks, you idiot, or most of the other stuff you cite. Sadr's group certainly has cadre, infrastructure, and ideology. While they also have some ministers in the government, I believe they're currently not represented in Parliament - although I could be wrong since they've been in and out several times.
Also Sadr's group specifically said last week that they now have easier access to things like logistics, financing, and weapons due to increased support from Iran - who have evidently decided that the Badr and Dawa groups have no "street cred" and thus cannot stabilize Iraq to Iran's advantage.
And your notion that it won't develop into a civil war because US troops are there is stupid. It's still hanging by a thread right now in Baghdad and the US troops are a proximate cause because they are backing the less credible factions against the one with the most poor Shia population support.
Was the US in a civil war after the Rodney King trial? After MLK Jr.'s death? How about Shay's rebellion? I think not.
Very smooth, Hack. No one with any confidence in his own intelligence would depend as much on calling everyone else in the world (except Scott Ritter, I guess) "morons".
Let's see--we're going to attack Iran any minute; Sadr is going to win the next elections with the help of Iran; and US troops are going to be irrelevant because they aren't supporting your guy.
Is it possible that if within the next six months none of this will have proven true that you will take your own advice and STFU?
Comments closed April 22, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I can't watch the hearings so I have to ask if anyone called him on that dumb statement.
Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 8, 2008 10:00 AM