Talk about useless gits…
Both right and left are engaged in what is quite possibly the silliest, the stupidest, the most ridiculous debate on the war to date.
And that’s saying a lot.
Is Iraq now “officially” at war with itself? Is there “civil war” in the streets of Baghdad and elsewhere?
According to the left, Iraq has been “sliding into civil war” or there has been a “de facto” civil war” in Iraq at least 7 different times since Saddam’s statue fell. Of course, they were laughably wrong. Just as their warnings about imminent disaster in Iraq over the last three years were wrong as well. Their reading of what was actually happening in that country was so consistently off target that any accuracy that can be ascribed to their analysis to today’s Iraq might be placed in the realm of blind luck. Keep repeating the same Cassandra-like warnings of disaster over and over and over and eventually when the explosion happens, you can pretend that you weren’t so unalterably wrong for three years running.
For my fellow conservatives, I’ve also just about had enough of this nonsense. Whether the nomenclature “civil war” should be used to describe what is happening in Iraq is not the issue. The issue is dead people. Lots of them. Not just in Baghdad but all over the country. They are dying because they are Shias or because they are Sunnis and for no other reason. They are being dragged off the streets and tortured and shot or being blown up in massive car bomb attacks. People are terrified. Militias from one side are ordering people from the other side to leave or be killed. There is chaos. The rule of law and civilized society no longer exist. Whatever tenuous bonds existed between the people and their government has been ripped to shreds and it is a mystery at this point whether or not those bonds can be re-established no matter how many militia men we kill or how many insurgents are eliminated.
Call it whatever you want. “Civil War” is a handy enough descriptive but I’m not picky. Just don’t call it “progress” and don’t try and convince yourself that things aren’t as bad as what’s being reported. Things are that bad. And no amount of fauxtography, stringers who pass along disinformation, biased reporting, or outright lies will change the reality that Iraq has slipped beyond anyone’s control and only a massive effort – probably costing thousands of more in civilian casualties – will be able to bring the violence down to a level that will allow us to leave.
These dead people are not the inventions of a biased press. They are not the imaginings of idiot lefties who are so desperate to see America humiliated in Iraq that they are willing to abandon the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis – just like they were perfectly willing to abandon many, many more South Vietnamese – to whatever fate awaits them after we leave. Our enemies are winning in Iraq partly because of this refusal by both sides to see the reality of what was happening and formulate tactics and policies to confront the problems. Instead, we got a partisan food fight for three years while our enemies – roundly and soundly defeated on the battlefield day after day – directed their efforts to maximize their propaganda in order to sap the will of the American people to stick it out for the long haul.
Now we have American paralysis in Iraq as the Administration scrambles to change gears from managing the conflict to exiting the country. This paralysis has emboldened all sides and the results are there for all to see; death, chaos, and a government teetering on the edge of absolute irrelevancy.
We are about to go hat in hand to Iran and Syria, begging them to allow us to leave with some dignity intact rather than giving the American people a replay of the last helicopter leaving our embassy in Saigon. The price we pay for the help of these two terrorist enabling and supporting states will be steep – bet on it. It may involve further betrayals – not just of the people of Iraq who placed their trust in the United States not to abandon them to the forces of chaos and darkness but also friends elsewhere in the region like Lebanon and perhaps even Israel. Bargaining with despots and fanatics will always be a crapshoot. And there will be absolutely no guarantee that they will live up to any bargain we strike with them.
So stop this silly assed argument about whether Iraq is in a state of “civil war” or not. There’s enough stupidity on either side of this debate to fill the monthly quota of blogosphere angst over absolutely irrelevant issues. Best now to concentrate on what we can do to salvage something out of the Iraq mess rather than lefty “I told ya so’s” about something they’ve been wrong about 7 times over the last three years or righties seeing Iraq through rose colored glasses regarding the reality of the butchery that’s taking place.
Maybe y’all could start writing about something really important…like Brittany’s divorce or Michael Richard’s hypocrisy. At least then you wouldn’t have to pretend that you’re arguing about something important.
8:05 am
Annan Says Iraq Is Close to a Civil War
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan Says Iraq Near Civil War As Members of Study Group Meet
8:31 am
You are right, so lets write about something real important. I just saw the first commercial about the upcoming season of 24. THAT is real important stuff. I have been spending some time thinking about how Jack gets away from the Chinese. Hopefully we do not get some gloss over where the story line does not pick up from his abduction.
8:35 am
You’re right. I’m counting the days. I think what this country needs is some good old fashioned escapist entertainment.
I’ll start the countdown on December 16 – 30 days before the series starts.
8:59 am
It does matter if Iraq is in the middle of a ‘civil war’.
It’s one thing to to go into Iraq to get rid of Hussein, or to defend Iraq from foreign threats. It’s another thing entirely to stick around in the middle of an intramural gang fight – a gang fight driven by such hatred we shouldn’t even dream of thinking we have the ability to stop it.
That is why bush’s continuing to inject al qaida into the mix, like he did yesterday, is a sorry attempt to keep from having to recognize the current fighting for what it is. it seems that he thinks if he keeps saying al qaida over and over again that the american people will not see that the violence there is less the result of outside influences than good old family squabbles…. a country wide hatfield and mccoy type of thing.
They’re going to keep on killing each other- and no matter how many troops we send in we’re not going to be able to really stop it. And given my druthers, I would much rather have our troops safe at home than getting killed trying to keep one set of crazies from killing another set of crazies.
9:02 am
Steve:
My point was that it doesn’t matter semantically. People are dying and,as you correctly point out, there’s nothing we can do to stop it.
To argue over semantics while the country is burning to a crisp is silly. That was my point.
9:34 am
Rick, you didn’t give your opinion of what we ought to do.
While none of us wants to go ‘hat in hand’ to the Iranians and Syrians other options are slim.
9:38 am
If I had my druthers I’d either do everything that it would take to turn the situation around (including the option advanced by some that we shoot anyone who looks sideways at us or the government) and waving goodbye and skedadling while wishing Syria and Iran luck in containing the violence on their borders.
10:22 am
Rick,
You are So right about wasting time and lives with the semantics game – man I HATE that! Why do our politicians waste so much time doing such things? It really makes them seem terribly stupid. Surely they can’t be that dumb?!
Keep up the good work – I really enjoy reading your blog.
11:01 am
Rick
Excellent post as always. I find myself in agreement with everything you have written in this post. I’m with you on comment # 7, however, I figured out long ago that the current group of politicians we have in Government are not going to do everything it takes to turn the situation around.
The bottom line is America got itself into trouble when its rhetoric ddid not match what it was willing to commit. It would be unethical of American leaders to ask Israel or Lebanon’s March 14th forces to pay the price because America miscalculated.
Having a representative democracy in Iraq probably would have had a huge benefit to us. We will never know, if it could have worked. It never got the resources it would have needed to give it a reasonable chance to work and the commitemnt does not appear to be forth coming.
The top priorities at this point need to be containing Iran and Al Qaeda, while keeping a close eye on Russia and China. If we are going to negotiate, we can negotiate with Russia and China to get them to withdraw support from Iran. If we can do that, Iran becomes much easier to contain. After our withdrawl from Shia and Sunni areas of Iraq we will need a strong Israel to help act as a buffer between us and the terrorists. Also, an allied Lebanon could be helpful here too. Attempting to appease Iran and Syria will likely end about as well as appeasing Hitler did prior to WWII ended.
11:01 am
Rick,
I agree that whether the turmoil in Iraq is a “civil war” or not is immaterial. However, the use of the term is not. Although we have been militarily involved is civil wars ourselves (had 2 on our own territory as I recall) the media meaning of the term appears to have changed. In today’s newspeak, “civil war” = “unwinnable quagmire”, and the term is used as justification for the “cut and run” policy. That is why I get annoyed at all of the attempts to label the Iraq “conflict” as a “civil war”.
11:53 am
your entire article is absurd. you realize that Rumsfeld was in charge, and had taken the “stay the course” philosophy right up until the Republicans lost the house and senate, right? and even under his control the problems and beginnings of civil war were brewing.
what’s going on now is a discourse on how to handle the situation. obviously “staying the course”, which bred this situation, and which planted the seed and even allowed said seed to grow, is not the right plan. they’re figuring things out, not saying “i told you so”, as hard as it might be for you to understand.
12:13 pm
When a Terrorist Offers to Help- Do You Accept?
Ahmadinejad’s idea of help though is like asking a murderer to shoot you in the head instead of the heart, either way you are dead, but by giving in to your request, the murderer helped huh? A deal, where only one person is acting in good faith is no…
12:38 pm
rick: I don’t think it’s silly semantics. the key to dealing with any problem is to come up with a clear assessment of just what the problem is. how do you expect Bush to come up with a plan to deal with the violence if he can’t figure out what is going on, if he keeps thinking of this as us against al-qaida rather than what it is, an iraqi-on-iraqi civil war?
12:41 pm
If Bush is in that kind of self denial, then there is precious little hope that anything will improve and that, in fact, things are liable to get much worse.
I see your point but at this point, I just don’t think it matters. People are dying in droves and the country is torn asunder. Whatever you call it, the situation is bad.
1:03 pm
Media War is Not War Reality
For 3 years the Media has planned our surrender. Yet for 10, the diligent work of over 26 Nations continues to protect freedoms across the globe; and help allies share strategies to prevent & root-out terror. (VIDEO!)
4:57 pm
What’s in a name?
The topic du jour today seems to be the transition that some major news media outlets are making towards using the words “civil war†in describing conditions in Iraq:
WASHINGTON — NBC’s “Today Show” host Matt Lauer yesterday…