It's civil war in Iraq...and the insurgents are likely to win, say experts

[LynnTheDem]

An unchastened insurgency sowed devastation across Iraq yesterday as experts here said the country is either on the verge of civil war or already in the middle of it.

"It's just political rhetoric to say we are not in a civil war. We've been in a civil war for a long time," said Pat Lang, the former top Middle East intelligence official at the Pentagon.

Other experts said Iraq is on the verge of a full-scale civil war with civilians on both sides being slaughtered.

"I think we are really on the edge," of all-out civil war, said Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor who worked for the U.S. coalition in Iraq.

"I have not seen any coherent evidence that we are winning against the insurgency."

"There is no evidence whatsoever that they (the insurgents) cannot win," said Feldman.

"Everything we thought we knew about the insurgency obviously is flawed," said Judith Kipper of the Council on Foreign Relations. "It was quiet for a little while and here it is back full force all over the country and that is very dark news," she said.

Now the 140,000-plus U.S. troops in the country are mainly "a nuisance" factor in the overall goal of preventing the new government from consolidating.

"They understand what the deal is here," Lang said, "to start applying maximum pressure to the economy and the government and make sure it will not work." Their road side bombs are intended to keep U.S. forces inside their bases, he said.

All the while the insurgents are gaining strength, he said. "The longer they keep going on the better they will get," said Lang, a student of military history.

http://www.lunaville.com/Blogging/default.aspx?hndRef=1463

bush's "darn good progress".

[Hobarticus]

1. All any rebellion or insurgency has to do is NOT LOSE...

So far, looks like they're going to keep the upper hand.

[gratuitous]

2. Nuh uh!

'Cause George W. Bush said we had 'em on the run, and Rumsfeld said they were just a bunch of dead-enders, and all the newspeople on teevee said the January 30 election was a real turned corner, and all those people at the State of the Union speech held up purple fingers, and George W. Bush is a great Christian, and God said George W. Bush could kill Iraq, and Paul Wolfowitz said the whole thing would pay for itself even if he doesn't want his IMF to set up shop in Iraq, and all those Generals said we were winning, and, and, and . . .

[AVID]

3. kick , nominate and a fuck you to gwb* and his chicken hawks

[blondeatlast]

4. Just what, pray tell, are we aiming for at this point?

I used to be in the "our mess, we gotta clean it up" crowd.

No more.

OUT. NOW.

[zippy890]

5. Look at the pictures, shut off the sound(propoganda)

in the news, and its as plain as day....

Civil War

[DrDebug]

6. The War We Can't Win

I read this article by the Liberal Anti-War Avenger. It states why it cannot be won.

Friday, April 22, 2005
The War We Can't Win

(...)

We have been in Iraq for two years. We emerged victorious from the initial thrust of the war within a couple of weeks, but since then, we've been under constant siege. The offensive war against the insurgents doesn't exist - it is a fantasy. As long as the endless supply of hidden weapons exists, we're caught in a game of reacting to guerrilla violence against which the only defense is safety in numbers. They're going to keep on blowing up Humvees, so we've got to make sure we've got plenty of them. Two years in and the country is more dangerous than it was in the weeks immediately following the collapse of Hussein's government.

No, Iraq isn't Vietnam, but those who look at Iraq with unflagging optimism about our military capability - we're the biggest and baddest army on the face of the earth - are ignoring Vietnam's most important and relevant lesson: The biggest and baddest army on the face of the earth spent 10 years fighting a guerrilla war in Vietnam, killed 2+ million Vietnamese and lost 58,000 of our own, and we still lost.

We will continue to be ineffective against the overall insurgency. No clearer example of this exists than Fallujah where we destroyed an entire city and killed several thousand guerrillas (and an unknown number of civilians) in order to "break the back of the insurgency" and the insurgency dutifully raged on without skipping a beat. If we were wholly unable to affect the insurgency at the cost of an entire city, what are our prospects for the future?

Iraqis will continue to be targetted by the guerrillas and thousands more will die pointlessly. The guerrillas will continue to attack coalition assets and we'll continue to burn through people (more than one million American servicemen and women have been rotated through Iraq already) and equipment (Humvees, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Blackhawk Helicopters, etc., don't last forever, particularly in the face of constant bombings). It is far less "costly" for the guerrillas to replace a fallen comrade than it is for coalition. The prospect of a never-ending supply of suicide bombers deployed against a very finite supply of American National Guardsmen is horrifying in of itself.
(...)
http://liberalavenger.com/2005/04/war-we-cant-win.html

Emphasis added

[Vincardog]

7. No you mean that invading and occupying a country of 23 Million

people who do not want anybody of another religious faith to even enter their country wasn't the best idea? On the bright side for aWoL if he can get them to fight themselves our troops do not have to kill them all.

I am shocked yes SHOCKED that their is violence as a result to the NeoCons well considered plot for world dominance.:sarcasm:

[LynnTheDem]

10. One woulda thunk the "so intelligent" neocons would have realized WHY

the Nuremburg Tribunal called invading a nation that hadn't been doing anything to anyone

THE SUPREME CRIME.

[Disturbed]

11. Another $83 Billion has been approve and then today..

Bush Junta requests yet another $50 Billion. Dems in Congress overwhelmingly vote for more $$$ to throw down the Iraqi rathole.

Did not the Bush Junta achieve it's goals regarding Iraq?

1) Saddam is not selling oil via Euros.

2) The U.S. has established permanent military presence in the ME where it can launch attacks on Syria &/or Iran.

3) No country that does not kiss Bush Junta ass will get Iraqi oil.

4) The Saudi and Multi-Corp Oil are enjoying huge profits.

[goodhue]

8. Indeed

And we allegedly can't withdraw for security reasons. :shrug:

[leveymg]

9. Divide and rule. Easier to depress oil production in Iraq split 3 ways

The multinational oil companies and other producers are making a fortune due to the added risk premium on Iraqi oil production. The perception of scarcity increases the value of oil stocks. They'd lose billions if there really was a central government that controls a stable oil flow.

:bounce:

[bvar22]

12. But...

We are STABILIZING Iraq by killing iraqis. All we need to do is kill ALL the Iraqis and then there will be stability!

If I knew then what I know now, I would still vote for the WAR!.