Hugh? There're already in a civil war. If that's the best the military
leadership can come up with, no wonder we lost.
---
August 4, 2006
The Military
U.S. General Says Iraq Could Slide Into a Civil War
By THOM SHANKER
WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 — The commander of American forces in the Middle East
bluntly warned a Senate committee on Thursday that sectarian violence in
Iraq, especially in the capital, Baghdad, had grown so severe that the
nation could slide toward civil war.
The commander, Gen. John P. Abizaid, also acknowledged that since the
security situation remained so unstable, significant reductions in
American forces were unlikely before the end of this year.
Asked by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the
Senate Armed Services Committee, whether Iraq risked falling into civil
war, General Abizaid replied, “I believe that the sectarian violence is
probably as bad as I’ve seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if
not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.”
In March, General Abizaid told the Senate Appropriations Committee that
sectarian violence in Iraq was replacing the insurgency as the greatest
threat to security and stability.
But the tone of the testimony at the Armed Services Committee’s
three-and-a-half-hour hearing was strikingly grimmer than the Pentagon’s
previous assessments, which have sought to accentuate the positive even
as officials acknowledged that Iraq’s government was struggling to
assert authority and assure security amid a tide of violence.
The general spoke during a sometimes contentious hearing that drew
attention after Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at first declined
to testify, but, under criticism from Democrats, decided to attend.
Mr. Rumsfeld, sitting between General Abizaid and Gen. Peter Pace,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, took notes and did not contradict
their assessments of the shredded security situation in Iraq. But he
emphasized that the war must not be lost.
The harshest criticism of Mr. Rumsfeld and the administration’s
war-fighting policy came from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat
of New York, who said: “Yes, we hear a lot of happy talk and rosy
scenarios, but because of the administration’s strategic blunders and,
frankly, the record of incompetence in executing, you are presiding over
a failed policy.
“Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your
assurances now?”
Mr. Rumsfeld responded with a trademark colloquialism. “My goodness,” he
said.
“First of all, it’s true, there is sectarian conflict in Iraq, and there
is a loss of life,” he said. “And it’s an unfortunate and tragic thing
that that’s taking place. And it is true that there are people who are
attempting to prevent that government from being successful. And they
are the people who are blowing up buildings and killing innocent men,
women and children, and taking off the heads of people on television.
And the idea of their prevailing is unacceptable.”
General Pace added his voice to General Abizaid’s somber assessment of
the increasing sectarian violence, in an exchange with Senator John
McCain, Republican of Arizona.
Senator McCain: “You said there’s a possibility of the situation in Iraq
evolving into civil war. Is that correct?”
General Pace: “I did say that, yes, sir.”
Senator McCain: “Did you anticipate this situation a year ago?”
General Pace: “No, sir.”
Before the session ended, the two generals made a point to offer
relatively upbeat predictions.
While civil war in Iraq is possible, General Pace said, “I do not
believe it is probable.”
General Abizaid said: “So the question is, am I optimistic whether or
not Iraqi forces, with our support, with the backing of the Iraqi
government, can prevent the slide to civil war? My answer is yes, I’m
optimistic that that slide can be prevented.”
After a subsequent closed-door session for members of Congress with the
defense secretary and the two generals, Senator Clinton for the first
time called on President Bush to accept Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation.
The security situation in Iraq was described in even starker terms by a
senior British diplomat in Baghdad, according to British news reports.
He contradicted the official stance in London and Washington by
concluding that Iraq was closer to civil war and partition than to
democracy.
In a confidential telegram seen by a BBC correspondent in Baghdad, the
diplomat, William Patey, who finished his tour in Iraq last week, told
Prime Minister Tony Blair that “the prospect of a low intensity civil
war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this
stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy.”
The situation in Iraq “is not hopeless,” he wrote, but he said that, for
the next decade, Iraq would remain “messy and difficult.”
In a news conference on Thursday in London, Mr. Blair responded to
questions about the description, saying that Britain was committed to
fighting for a “vision of the Middle East based on democracy, liberty
and the rule of law.”
“That is what we are doing and however tough it is, we will see it
through,” he said, “and actually if you read the whole of the telegram,
that is precisely what William is saying.”
American commanders have described the violence in Iraq as being caused
variously by a mix of foreign terrorists, Sunni loyalists to Saddam
Hussein, Shiite radicals and criminals. After the bombing of a Shiite
mosque in February, officers coalesced in their views that sectarian
violence — Sunni on Shiite, and Shiite on Sunni — had become the biggest
threat to stability in Iraq.
In recent weeks, thousands of additional Iraqi and American troops have
been ordered into Baghdad from other areas of Iraq, and an Army brigade
has had its 12-month tour extended by 90 days to join the security
effort in the capital.
Senator McCain said the orders to move troops from one violence-plagued
part of Iraq to another was no better than playing a game of “whack-a-mole.”
The senior American commander in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., had
spoken over recent months of significant reductions in troops this year,
if conditions on the ground warranted. With sectarian violence raging,
General Abizaid on Thursday sought to tamp down expectations that large
numbers of America troops might come home this year.
“Since the time that General Casey made that statement, it’s clear that
the operational and the tactical situation in Baghdad is such that it
requires additional security forces, both U.S. and Iraqi,” General
Abizaid said. “It’s possible to imagine some reductions in forces, but I
think the most important thing to imagine is Baghdad coming under the
control of the Iraqi government.”
From President Bush on down through his advisers, a more sober
assessment of the situation in Iraq has been presented by the
administration, with officials stressing the difficulty of
counterinsurgency as well as the importance of preventing Iraq from
descending into chaos and becoming a haven for terrorists.
Alan Cowell contributed reporting from London for this article.
.
|
