"this is not just a civil war -- by historical standards, it's a relatively large scale civil war."

[ProSense]

CNN:

Is Iraq in civil war?

Yes......93%.........27015 votes
No..........7%...........1989 votes
Total:....................29004 votes

Out of control

August 3, 2006
Excerpts from "Administration Sending U.S. Troops into Crossfire of Escalating Civil War"

As prepared for delivery

Mr. President, yesterday I was at Arlington National Cemetery for the funeral of Lance Corporal Geoffrey R. Cayer, a 20 year old from Massachusetts, and I was struck by the number of funerals taking place and the number of new headstones bearing the inscription "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and "Operation Enduring Freedom."

Mr. President, with the violence in Iraq growing worse by the day, it was stunning to hear Secretary Rumsfeld come before the Armed Services Committee this morning with a laundry list of excuses and denials about what is happening there and its consequences for the region. General Abizaid candidly acknowledged that the "sectarian violence is as bad as I've seen it," that he's rarely seen the situation "so unsettled and so volatile." He warned of coming civil war, and that "failure to apply coordinated regional and international pressure ... will further extremism" and could lead to a widening and more perilous conflict.

With at least 2,578 Americans killed, over 19,000 wounded, and no end in sight, we simply cannot sit idly by as more of our kids die for a policy that isn't working. And we cannot be silent while this Administration continues to deny reality and repeat the same mistakes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: this Congress has a constitutional responsibility and a moral obligation to hold this Administration accountable for making the right choices for our troops and our country.

In the first six months of the year, 14,338 Iraqi civilians were killed, mostly in sectarian violence. Prime Minister Maliki acknowledged last week that an average of 100 Iraqi civilians are being killed every day. Just think about that for a second: 100 people killed every day. And the violence has only been getting worse: 2,669 civilians were killed in May, and 3,129 civilians were killed in June. That's nearly 6,000 Iraqi civilians killed in the last two months alone. And since the February 22nd bombing of the Shia mosque in Samarra, the government reports that 30,359 families -- or about 182,000 people -- have fled their homes due to sectarian violence and intimidation

Mr. President, this is not just a civil war -- by historical standards, it's a relatively large scale civil war. In fact, a recent academic analysis published in the New York Times showed that the median number of casualties in civil wars since 1945 is 18,000. Estimates of total casualties in Iraq vary, but the number is probably at least twice that many. Larry Diamond, a former consultant to the provisional authority in Baghdad, has put it simply: "In academic terms, this is a civil war, and it's not even a small one."

The Iraqis from all sides understand what's going on in their country -- and they're not afraid to speak the truth. Haidar al-Ibadi, a prominent Shiite legislator, said that "Certainly, what is happening is the start of the civil war. Saleh al-Mutlak, a Sunni legislator, also described the recent violence as "the start of a civil war," and another leading Sunni, Adnan Dulaimi, recently said "It's nothing less than an undeclared civil war."

Now, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, the Administration denies that there's a civil war. Who do they think they're kidding? Why not just level with the American public? Because this is one more inconvenient truth they'd prefer not to deal with. In fact, Secretary Rumsfeld said just a few months ago that if civil war did break out, Iraqi forces -- not U.S. troops-- would be the ones dealing with it.

Yet not only are our U.S. troops now caught in this civil war -- we're actually sending more of them into the crossfire. That's right: the Administration doesn't want to talk about it, but we are actually sending more U.S. troops into Iraq.

When the President announced his plan last week to increase the U.S. troop presence in Baghdad, he said the troops would come from other areas of Iraq. He did not mention that additional troops have been sent into Iraq from Kuwait, and that current deployments were being extended as new troops arrived. He did not mention what both the Washington Post and New York Times have reported: that the total number of U.S. troops in Iraq is going to increase by several thousand. And he did not mention that recently-announced deployment schedules could bring the number of U.S. troops in Iraq even higher in the coming years.

Finally, he did not explain why this strategy will work when similar efforts have just failed. The fact is that a few months ago, U.S. and coalition troops in Baghdad increased from 40,000 to 55,000 -- and the violence has only gotten worse. Now, the President says we are going to send a few thousand more U.S. troops into Baghdad. Why is this going to be any different?

If the Iraqis are standing up, as the Administration is telling us, why are U.S. troops not standing down? Because the President's mantra that "as Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down" is not a plan - it's misleading rhetoric that now rings as hollow as "we'll be greeted as liberators", and "mission accomplished." And given how bad the situation has gotten, does "stay the course" really sound any better?

This bottom line is that this approach hasn't worked because its underlying assumption -- that more troops are the real solution to the problem -- is fundamentally flawed. As our generals, the Iraqi leaders, and the Secretary of State herself have told us, there is no military solution to the insurgency. And just today, Secretary Rumsfeld acknowledged that there's no military solution to the sectarian violence. In fact, all can agree that the only hope for salvaging a measure of lasting success in Iraq is finding a political solution that all of the Iraqis can buy into.

[threadkillaz]

1. Code Name: Sectarian Violence

nt

[ProSense]

2. 1,000 Iraqis a Day Flee Violence, U.N. Group Finds

1,000 Iraqis a Day Flee Violence, U.N. Group Finds

Refugees Cite Lack of Security Along With the Growth of Armed Militias and Criminal Gangs

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 24, 2006; Page A13

More than 1,000 Iraqis a day are being displaced by the sectarian violence that began on Feb. 22 with the bombing of the Shiite Askariya shrine in Samarra, according to a report released this week by the Geneva-based International Organization for Migration, a U.N.-associated group.

This increasing movement of Iraqi families, caused by the lack of security and by the growth of armed local militias and criminal gangs, is adding to the already chaotic governmental situation in Baghdad, according to U.N., U.S. and non-governmental reports released over the past weeks.

When families who fled from Baghdad to Qadisiyah, a fairly safe district south of the capital, were questioned by the IOM about why they left their homes, "almost all said it was due to direct threats to their lives . . . letters, anonymous calls, graffiti on their homes or in their neighborhoods." All were Shiites.

The internal refugees are creating a growing humanitarian crisis that, the IOM report says, will primarily affect single women, children, and the sick and elderly as winter approaches. Security fears appear well-founded: A report Wednesday by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq said the number of Iraqi civilians killed in October reached 3,709, a monthly high.

Many residents, especially professionals, are fleeing the country in larger numbers. The U.N.'s High Commissioner for Refugees said earlier this month that up to 2,000 Iraqis a day are going to Syria and an additional 1,000 a day to Jordan. Overall, the High Commissioner estimates that since the war began in March 2003, 1.6 million Iraqis have been displaced internally and up to 1.8 million are living outside the country.

more...

[Imagevision]

3. Bush couldn't care less about civil war, only the oil reserves

Iraq, second largest oil reserves in the world.

[TayTay]

4. This is the truth

Sen. Kerry spoke about the civil war back in April, as did others. We have been dithering over whether or not Iraq meets the technical definition of a civil war since Feb when the Grand Mosque in Samarra blew up.

It is in civil war. As Sen. Kerry said, it is not even a small one, but a real, full-blown, bloddy, intractable civil war. And we need to start to withdraw from it.

[kentuck]

5. If it spreads beyond the borders of Iraq...?

it would be uncontrollable...maybe it is already?

[Guaranteed]

6. Stupidest thing our country has ever done. nt

[ProSense]

7. Bush admin still in denial:

He also repeated the administration’s insistence that Iraq was not in a civil war. “We’re constantly asked that question, and while the situation is serious, Prime Minister Maliki and President Talabani have said they do not believe it is a civil war,” he said.