| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ubiquitous" |
| Date: |
30 Nov 2006 06:47:27 AM |
| Object: |
Re: NBC News: It's a "civil war" in Iraq |
wrote:
As of Monday, November 27, 2006 (8 AM Central on MSNBC), NBC News, after
consulting with military types, has called it: It's a "civil war" in Iraq.
The real enemy in Iraq is not a "civil war."
Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
President Bush is in Jordan today for meetings with Iraqi Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki, and the most important message the two leaders could send
would be to reaffirm their common commitment to their antiterror fight.
That task has clearly been complicated by recent events--including more blood
in Baghdad and the Republican wipeout in Congress caused in part by
frustration with the Iraq war. There's also this week's spectacle of the
wannabe Walter Cronkites at outlets like NBC News and the Los Angeles Times
patting themselves on the back for declaring that the Iraq conflict is a
"civil war." Mr. Cronkite is often credited with helping turn public opinion
against the war in Vietnam, and today's media point seems to be to declare
the war unwinnable, as if this were actually desirable.
To his credit, Mr. Bush refused to give ground to such defeatist rhetoric
during meetings with NATO leaders yesterday. No doubt many critics will
continue to snicker at his alleged lack of realism, but public confidence is
crucial to avoiding disaster in Iraq. We're clearly at a hinge point in Iraq,
with Mr. Bush himself saying there's a need for "fresh eyes" and James
Baker's Iraq Study Group poised to report next month. Among the policy
options being considered are redoubled military efforts against the
insurgents and diplomatic outreach to Syria and Iran. But even supporters of
reaching out to those regimes must realize that U.S. negotiating leverage
will be zero if they sense the U.S. is ready to cut and run.
As for the talks with Mr. Maliki, let's hope Mr. Bush resists the pressure he
will face from some Arab leaders (and his own State Department) to push Mr.
Maliki to make concessions to Baathist and Sunni Islamist insurgents. Such
tactics have been tried a number of times in recent years, with no
discernible reduction in the insurgency.
That failure in turn has fed suspicions among the majority Shiites that the
U.S. would secretly prefer that Iraq be led by a new Sunni strongman.
Jordan's King Abdullah didn't help matters recently by hosting Harith al-Dari
of the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars--a terrorist front group--only
days ahead of the Bush-Maliki summit.
One reassuring sign is that the President fingered Sunni extremists as the
root cause of the violence during his press conference yesterday in Estonia:
"There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place--fomented, in my opinion,
because of the attacks by al Qaeda causing people to seek reprisal." The
point here is to define who the main enemy in Iraq continues to be, and that
is the Baathist and al Qaeda insurgents. They are the source of the car bombs
that continue to go off in Shiite neighborhoods and that have inspired Shiite
reprisals. The undearly departed Musab al-Zarqawi's explicit strategy was to
fan such sectarian attacks precisely so the Americans would lose patience and
leave.
Mr. Maliki will, in turn, have a far easier time building political support
for disarming Shiite militias such as the Mahdi Army once Sunni bombs stop
killing Shiites. Mr. Maliki reportedly wants more control over the Iraqi Army
and better weaponry to tackle Sunni insurgents, and we hope Mr. Bush listens
to what the Prime Minister has to say.
Which brings us back to the alleged "civil war." The term seems to have
acquired a totemic meaning in Iraq, although the U.S. has intervened
successfully in civil wars before: the Balkans and Afghanistan, most
recently. Regarding Iraq, the goal of the "civil war" chorus seems to be to
delegitimize the war by painting what is a false picture of the balance of
power and legitimacy between the Iraqi government and the terrorists.
The sectarian violence is a horrible problem. But by any reasonable
definition, a "civil war" implies at least two militarily strong factions
with a popular claim on political leadership. Neither of those conditions
exists in Iraq.
The country's elected, pan-sectarian government and its several hundred
thousand security forces remain the only legitimate power center. The Sunni
insurgents, meanwhile, are a mix of Islamists and Baathists who enjoy little
support and are capable only of terrorist-style attacks. They hold sway only
through murder and intimidation in areas where the government lacks enough
troops to assure public safety. Shiite militia leaders are also divided and
what support they enjoy is due to the perception among ordinary Shiites that
the government has been unable to protect them. Few Shiites would be eager to
see Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric, in Mr. Maliki's chair.
The next Iraqi or American official to be asked about "civil war" might want
to reply by asking the journalist who, precisely, is fighting whom, and why
Iraqi security officers of all backgrounds continue to risk their lives for
the elected Baghdad government. The truth is that the enemies of Mr. Maliki's
government are terrorists and thugs. Mr. Bush could help give Mr. Maliki the
confidence he needs for the tough fight ahead--first against the Sunni
terrorists, then against the Shiite revenge killers--by assuring him that
U.S. policy will be based on this fact.
--
The trouble with American journalism, in short, isn't that it's too
skeptical, but that it's too willing to throw skepticism to the wind when
it suits the agenda of proclaiming every war a Vietnam and every
Republican president a Nixon.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NBC News: It's a "civil war" in Iraq |
23 Jan 2007 04:12:58 PM |
|
|
Ubiquitous wrote:
kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net wrote:
As of Monday, November 27, 2006 (8 AM Central on MSNBC), NBC News, after
consulting with military types, has called it: It's a "civil war" in Iraq.
Uhh, yeah.. a little late to the party, aren't we, GE? (oh- I mean
NBC)
Too bad it's BEYOND a civil war and slipped into complete chaos.
Meantme, the lapdog, Bush-friendly U.S. media (aka: Voice of The
Pentagon) have also slipped into "complete joke" status.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: NBC News: It's a "civil war" in Iraq |
01 Feb 2007 06:41:04 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:
kwicker1b_nospam@comcast.net wrote:
As of Monday, November 27, 2006 (8 AM Central on MSNBC), NBC News, after
consulting with military types, has called it: It's a "civil war" in Iraq.
Uhh, yeah.. a little late to the party, aren't we, GE? (oh- I mean
NBC)
Too bad it's BEYOND a civil war and slipped into complete chaos.
It never was a civil war in the first place.
Meantme, the lapdog, Bush-friendly U.S. media (aka: Voice of The
Pentagon) have also slipped into "complete joke" status.
No doubt you believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy too.
--
The trouble with American journalism, in short, isn't that it's too skeptical,
but that it's too willing to throw skepticism to the wind when it suits the
agenda of proclaiming every war a Vietnam and every Republican president a
Nixon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: NBC News: It's a "civil war" in Iraq |
02 Feb 2007 12:33:18 PM |
|
|
On Feb 1, 7:41 am, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
It never was a civil war in the first place.
Of course not; the Bushies presided over its degradation into one.
"A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to
President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an
increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little
control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration,
according to sources familiar with the document.
"The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq
remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence
as the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to
U.S. goals."
- Iraq at Risk of Further Strife, Intelligence Report Warns
Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus
Washington Post
February 2, 2007
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "tomcervo" |
|
| Title: Re: NBC News: It's a "civil war" in Iraq |
30 Nov 2006 07:38:46 AM |
|
|
Ubiquitous wrote:
Or rather copied, the usual right wing drivel to the effect that
The real enemy in Iraq is not a "civil war."
No, it's the weakness of lazy, stupid Americans, particularly
democrats, who can't stay the course.
This coming from a cabal of neocons who have never done a hard day's
work in their lives, and who, without their fathers and mothers making
a few phone calls, would be cold-calling for stocks and/or timeshares.
I'll take the call for sacrifice and toughness more seriously when it
comes from men whose idea of a battlefield is drawn from something
other than a movie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ubiquitous" |
|
| Title: Re: NBC News: It's a "civil war" in Iraq |
23 Jan 2007 07:13:29 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:
The real enemy in Iraq is not a "civil war."
No, it's the weakness of lazy, stupid Americans, particularly
democrats, who can't stay the course.
The New York Times reports on an outbreak of ethnic bloodletting in a
city approximately the size of Baghdad:
The Latino gang members were looking for a black
person, any black person, to shoot, the police
said, and they found one. Cheryl Green, perched
near her scooter chatting with friends, was shot
dead in a spray of bullets that left several other
young people injured.
She was 14, an eighth grader who loved junk food
and watching Court TV with her mother and had
recently written a poem beginning: "I am black and
beautiful. I wonder how I will be living in the future."
"I never thought something like this could happen
here in L.A.," said her mother, Charlene Lovett,
fighting tears.
Cheryl's killing last month, which the police said
followed a confrontation between the gang members
and a black man, stands out in a wave of bias-related
attacks and incidents in a city that promotes its
diversity as much as frets over it.
We're still waiting for NBC to declare it a "civil war," though.
--
The trouble with American journalism, in short, isn't that it's too
skeptical, but that it's too willing to throw skepticism to the wind when
it suits the agenda of proclaiming every war a Vietnam and every
Republican president a Nixon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
