Dude, Where's My Civil War?

sparty86

Banned
Dec 19, 2005
173
0
0
March 5, 2006 -- BAGHDAD

I'M trying. I've been trying all week. The other day, I drove another 30 miles or so on the streets and alleys of Baghdad. I'm looking for the civil war that The New York Times declared. And I just can't find it.

Maybe actually being on the ground in Iraq prevents me from seeing it. Perhaps the view's clearer from Manhattan. It could be that my background as an intelligence officer didn't give me the right skills.

And riding around with the U.S. Army, looking at things first-hand, is certainly a technique to which The New York Times wouldn't stoop in such an hour of crisis.

Let me tell you what I saw anyway. Rolling with the "instant Infantry" gunners of the 1st Platoon of Bravo Battery, 4-320 Field Artillery, I saw children and teenagers in a Shia slum jumping up and down and cheering our troops as they drove by. Cheering our troops.

All day - and it was a long day - we drove through Shia and Sunni neighborhoods. Everywhere, the reception was warm. No violence. None.

And no hostility toward our troops. Iraqis went out of their way to tell us we were welcome.

Instead of a civil war, something very different happened because of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. The fanatic attempt to stir up Sunni-vs.-Shia strife, and the subsequent spate of violent attacks, caused popular support for the U.S. presence to spike upward.

Think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi intended that?

In place of the civil war that elements in our media declared, I saw full streets, open shops, traffic jams, donkey carts, Muslim holiday flags - and children everywhere, waving as our Humvees passed. Even the clouds of dust we stirred up didn't deter them. And the presence of children in the streets is the best possible indicator of a low threat level.

Southeast Baghdad, at least, was happy to see our troops.

And we didn't just drive past them. First Lt. Clenn Frost, the platoon leader, took every opportunity to dismount and mingle with the people. Women brought their children out of their compound gates to say hello. A local sheik spontaneously invited us into his garden for colas and sesame biscuits.

It wasn't the Age of Aquarius. The people had serious concerns. And security was No. 1. They wanted the Americans to crack down harder on the foreign terrorists and to disarm the local militias. Iraqis don't like and don't support the militias, Shia or Sunni, which are nothing more than armed gangs.

Help's on the way, if slowly. The Iraqi Army has confounded its Western critics, performing extremely well last week. And the people trust their new army to an encouraging degree. The Iraqi police aren't all the way there yet, and the population doesn't yet have much confidence in them. But all of this takes time.

And even the police are making progress. We took a team of them with us so they could train beside our troops. We visited a Public Order Battalion - a gendarmerie outfit - that reeked of sloth and carelessness. But the regular Iraqi Police outfit down the road proved surprisingly enthusiastic and professional. It's just an uneven, difficult, frustrating process.

So what did I learn from a day in the dust and muck of Baghdad's less-desirable boroughs? As the long winter twilight faded into haze and the fires of the busy shawarma stands blazed in the fresh night, I felt that Iraq was headed, however awkwardly, in the right direction.

The country may still see a civil war one day. But not just yet, thanks. Violence continues. A roadside bomb was found in the next sector to the west. There will be more deaths, including some of our own troops. But Baghdad's vibrant life has not been killed. And the people of Iraq just might surprise us all.

So why were we told that Iraq was irreversibly in the throes of civil war when it wasn't remotely true? I think the answers are straightforward. First, of course, some parties in the West are anxious to believe the worst about Iraq. They've staked their reputations on Iraq's failure.

But there's no way we can let irresponsible journalists off the hook - or their parent organizations. Many journalists are, indeed, brave and conscientious; yet some in Baghdad - working for "prestigious" publications - aren't out on the city streets the way they pretend to be.

They're safe in their enclaves, protected by hired guns, complaining that it's too dangerous out on the streets. They're only in Baghdad for the byline, and they might as well let their Iraqi employees phone it in to the States. Whenever you see a column filed from Baghdad by a semi-celeb journalist with a "contribution" by a local Iraqi, it means this: The Iraqi went out and got the story, while the journalist stayed in his or her room.

And the Iraqi stringers have cracked the code: The Americans don't pay for good news. So they exaggerate the bad.

And some of them have agendas of their own.

A few days ago, a wild claim that the Baghdad morgue held 1,300 bodies was treated as Gospel truth. Yet Iraqis exaggerate madly and often have partisan interests. Did any Western reporter go to that morgue and count the bodies - a rough count would have done it - before telling the world the news?

I doubt it.

If reporters really care, it's easy to get out on the streets of Baghdad. The 506th Infantry Regiment - and other great military units - will take journalists on their patrols virtually anywhere in the city. Our troops are great to work with. (Of course, there's the danger of becoming infected with patriot- ism . . .)

I'm just afraid that some of our journalists don't want to know the truth anymore.

For me, though, memories of Baghdad will be the cannoneers of the 1st Platoon walking the dusty, reeking alleys of Baghdad. I'll recall 1st Lt. Frost conducting diplomacy with the locals and leading his men through a date-palm grove in a search for insurgent mortar sites.

I'll remember that lieutenant investigating the murder of a Sunni mullah during last week's disturbances, cracking down on black-marketers, checking up on sewer construction, reassuring citizens - and generally doing the job of a lieutenant-colonel in peacetime.

Oh, and I'll remember those "radical Shias" cheering our patrol as we passed by.

Ralph Peters is reporting from Forward Operating Base Loyalty, where he's been riding with the 506th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/64677.htm
 

Cinema Face

New member
Mar 1, 2003
3,636
2
0
The Middle Kingdom
The news media are in the business of selling news papers. They print whatever sells. They also have an anti-war bias so anything that makes the war look bad is good copy.

The Shiite leaders are urging for calm in spite of their holiest site being blown up. I can understand that they might be really pissed at this but most of them realize that they need to make this government work and a civil war is in nobody’s best interest except for these few murderous lunatics.
 

Mcluhan

New member
A couple days ago I started a thread on the update from the well known girl River blogging from Baghdad, who said essentially the same thing, the shia and sunni residents are living as one, but the militias, driven by the mullas are tying to stir up a conflict. In other words, no civil war in her eyes. The thread content was never discussed because a bunch jumped on the argument that how could she be posting when her electricity is out, and she's probably from New York etc.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,499
4,904
113
How can there be a civil war while 200,000 heavily armed foreigners are occupying the country? But when they leave...............
 

maxweber

Active member
Oct 12, 2005
1,296
1
36
Like, wow!

Boy, oh boy! Ralph Peters is, like, so right! I just looked out my window, and I didn't see one single sign of an Iraqi civil war! Not one! It's all just a bunch of liberal propaganda! Didn't the Pentagon explain that to us already? And, besides, the President of the United States himself declared "Mission Accomplished!" Of course, that was a few years ago now; but I'm sure it still applies. They would have told us if it didn't. wouldn't they?

MW
 

Mcluhan

New member
Just from what I am reading from a variety of sources, there is no 'civil war' about to unfold in the near future between Sunni and Shia. The spunk for it is not present among the general population. The religious factions, i.e. read political, because there is no difference, are trying to create one. This seems to be directed solely at getting the US out, plus, no doubt many private vendettas are playing out.
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
And so yet another anti-Bush media hoax (is it even possible to keep count) fizzles out into oblivion, and the pious and humane wishes of the various haters, jinxers, and crackpots are dashed once again.
 

Mcluhan

New member
Not civil war, but chaos

This view seems to be an accurate one, based on what I read from a variety of sources...it's not civil war, it's civil strife.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/02/28/iraq_preparing_for_the_worst.php

Third, the security environment in Baghdad and surrounding provinces is worse, and more terrifying, than it has ever been. On SundayThe Washington Post reported :

The streets of the capital feel as unsafe as at any time since the 2003 invasion. As one U.S. major put it, Baghdad now resembles a pure Hobbesian state where all are at war against all others and any security is self-provided.

It's a Mad Max world. It's rule by mob, by militia, by gangs and warlords and renegade mosque leaders. The Independent , the British daily, says that as many as 1,000 Iraqis are being tortured to death or executed, largely by Shiite militia forces and rogue police, army and Interior Ministry units, citing as its source the United Nations' former human rights chief in Iraq.
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,499
4,904
113
The Geneva convention requires an occupation force to provide essential services, including safety, to the civilian population.
 

maxweber

Active member
Oct 12, 2005
1,296
1
36
step right up!

Truncador said:
And so yet another anti-Bush media hoax (is it even possible to keep count) fizzles out into oblivion, and the pious and humane wishes of the various haters, jinxers, and crackpots are dashed once again.
Trunc, you actually believe this guy? That his offhand observations are sufficient proof that no civil war is imminent? I'm not saying it is, by the by, and I devoutly hope it isn't. But the prospects are ominous. And smarmy spin like this doesn't do a damn thing to dispel those prospects.

MW
 

assoholic

New member
Aug 30, 2004
1,625
0
0
..gee so chickenshit while riding around in a military convoy saw no signs of civil war. He was in the convoy of cousre because otherwise he would have lost his head to the non-existant violence.Its amazing what some of you will believe.
 

Mcluhan

New member
maxweber said:
Trunc, you actually believe this guy? That his offhand observations are sufficient proof that no civil war is imminent? I'm not saying it is, by the by, and I devoutly hope it isn't. But the prospects are ominous. And smarmy spin like this doesn't do a damn thing to dispel those prospects.

MW
Am I to assume I'm the guy you are smearing with the smarmy-spin paint brush, is that correct Max?
 

TOVisitor

New member
Jul 14, 2003
3,317
0
0
From: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060305/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq

General's Assessment of Iraq Questioned
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer 46 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's top general acknowledged Sunday that "anything can happen" in Iraq, but he said things aren't as bad as some say. "I wouldn't put a great big smiley face on it, but I would say they're going very, very well from everything you look at."

The comments drew criticism that Gen. Peter Pace is glossing over problems in the three-year-old U.S. campaign.

"Why would I believe him?" asked Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a major critic of the Bush administration's handling of the war. "This administration, including the president, (has) mischaracterized this war for the last two years."

Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited political progress such as holding elections and writing a constitution as well as military progress like training Iraqi security forces.

"No matter where you look — at their military, their police, their society — things are much better this year than they were last," Pace said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Observation by TOV:

Much better this year than last???

Hmmm. Last year, I seem to remember that Bushco told us that there were several Iraqi divisions that could fight without the help of US forces. Last week -- we are told that there are NONE, zero, zip.

With BS like this, how can this guy say with a straight face that things are much better this year than last?

More truthiness.
Murtha, responding to Pace in an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation," said that Iraq has 60 percent unemployment, oil production below prewar levels, and water service to only 30 percent of the population.

American troops are doing everything they can militarily but "are caught in a civil war," said Murtha, a former Marine who has called on the administration to bring U.S. troops home.

"There's two participants fighting for survival and fighting for supremacy inside that country," he said of ethnic divisions. "And that's my definition of a civil war."

Murtha added: "The rhetoric is so frustrating — when they keep making statements which are very optimistic, and then it turns out to be the opposite. ... And the public has caught on to that, and they're very pessimistic about the outcome."

Pace and Murtha spoke as Iraqis continued a stalemate over forming a new government, a delay that has prevented parliament from meeting since it was elected Dec. 15.

Pressure mounted Sunday on Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari to give up his bid for a new term amid anger over the recent surge in sectarian killings that has complicated already snarled negotiations on a new Iraqi government.

Pace said the violent firestorm that followed the bombing of a revered Shiite mosque two weeks ago had forced Iraqis to look into "that abyss" and realize "that's not where they want to go."

"Anything can happen, I agree," Pace said, then added: "I believe the Iraqi people have shown in the last week to 10 days that they do not want civil war."

Ending the insurgency depends not only on military efforts but also on whether the Iraqi government can give the people what they want, Pace said. He said the number of people in the insurgency will drop if people see that the new government can come through with jobs and services
 

maxweber

Active member
Oct 12, 2005
1,296
1
36
and none of what you hear

Mcluhan said:
Am I to assume I'm the guy you are smearing with the smarmy-spin paint brush, is that correct Max?
No, I meant the author of the pasted article, the genius who trusts his own eyes, and where the military sends him..

MW
 

Truncador

New member
Mar 21, 2005
1,714
0
0
maxweber said:
Trunc, you actually believe this guy? That his offhand observations are sufficient proof that no civil war is imminent? I'm not saying it is, by the by, and I devoutly hope it isn't. But the prospects are ominous. And smarmy spin like this doesn't do a damn thing to dispel those prospects.
The author was trying to make the point that if there was any immediate danger of civil war it would have happened already.
 

Mcluhan

New member
maxweber said:
No, I meant the author of the pasted article, the genius who trusts his own eyes, and where the military sends him..

MW
Thanks, I wanted be clear on that, because I was about give my opinion in clear, non- uncertain terms.

Here it is anyway. There is no civil war in Iraq yet. The media is quick to jump on that. Why? Are they Bush Bashing? Have they suddenly gone anti-war? Or is it part of a cluster-fcuk. One never knows for sure who is getting at who these days.

There is civil strife in Iraq. Some appear to want a civil war? Who are they? Most of the civilians have been dreading it. Now that British Press is saying it's official, both US and Brits are out in one year. (Mar 5th)

Bush obviously doesn't want to leave, its against his posture. Are they in Washington sitting back hoping for a civil war? (I'm asking the question)
 

maxweber

Active member
Oct 12, 2005
1,296
1
36
Mcluhan said:
Here it is anyway. There is no civil war in Iraq yet. The media is quick to jump on that. Why? Are they Bush Bashing? Have they suddenly gone anti-war? Or is it part of a cluster-fcuk. One never knows for sure who is getting at who these days.
I think this might be a chicken/egg question. Folks, including the press, are quick to pounce W, because he has a record of disastrous decisions, obfuscation, and poorly thought-out policy. When you invade a country and depose its government on what turns out to be a completely specious basis, that makes everything that happens subsequently directly your fault. The bombing of the Shia mosque is a very bad sign. Whether it portends civil war directly is a judgment call, and will soon be verified, one way or t'uther.

Bush obviously doesn't want to leave, its against his posture. Are they in Washington sitting back hoping for a civil war? (I'm asking the question)
I can't believe that even they are that evil.

MW
 

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,499
4,904
113
The Geneva convention requires an occupation force to provide essential services, including safety, to the civilian population.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,531
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
danmand said:
The Geneva convention requires an occupation force to provide essential services, including safety, to the civilian population.

And the point is?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts