Civil War of Denial – Moon of Alabama

November 27, 2006

Civil War of Denial

The White House is objecting this morning to descriptions of the Iraq conflict as a civil war. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "The violence is primarily centered around Baghdad and Baghdad security and the increased training of Iraqi Security Forces is at the top of the agenda when [Bush and Maliki] meet later this week."
NBC First Read, Nov. 27, 2006

—

In the three months since thousands of U.S. forces poured into Baghdad to quash escalating violence, far more American troops have died in the volatile western Anbar province than in the capital city.
More U.S. Troops Dying in Anbar Province, AP, Nov. 25, 2006

Posted by b on November 27, 2006 at 18:14 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Attack sparks fire at Iraq oil facility
– mortars on a pipeline filter station
– an F16 down
– Talibani in Iran
– and this:

police and witnesses said U.S. soldiers shot and killed 11 civilians and wounded five on Sunday night in the Baghdad suburb of Husseiniya. The U.S. military said it had no record of any American military operation in the area.
“We were sitting inside our house when the Americans showed up and started firing at homes. They killed many people and burned some houses,” said one of the witnesses, a man with bandages on his head who was being treated at Imam Ali Hospital in the Shiite slum of Sadr City. The police and witnesses spoke with Associated Press Television News on condition of anonymity to protect their own security.

Posted by: b | Nov 27 2006 18:50 utc | 1

I have this thought. The Mesopotamian disaster was bred by an MBA type of attitude: the attitude that preaches that labor, that is human activity is a cost that has to be avoided or at least reduced to the minimum possible or thinkable. So the use of soldiers, that is laborers, had to be reduced, while the expense in mechanisms of war that may be considered an investment and therefore not an expense but a growth of domestic product, had to be fostered.

Posted by: jlcg | Nov 27 2006 19:22 utc | 2

@jlcg – interesting thought – it certainly fits Bush

Posted by: b | Nov 27 2006 20:15 utc | 3

Interestingly enough jlcg’s #2 remarks resonate much with this:
Antonia Juhasz on “Structural Causes of War”
Her work very much lays out how the military industrial complex with help of our tax dollars and politicians/businessmen, is little more than a low wage labor company. One that is deadly for the laborers and indeed, others.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 27 2006 23:24 utc | 4

Of course, if the below is any indication, jlcg could be in league with the devil for merely suggesting such tripe…lol
Woman faces fines for wreath peace sign

DENVER – A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-
Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.

Jeff Heitz, of the association board, sent a letter to Lisa Jensen saying: “Loma Linda residents are offended by the peace sign displayed on the front of your house. …

Kearns ordered the [architectural control] committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn’t say anything. Kearns fired all five committee members.

Past peace sign overreactions include Peace’ T-shirt gets man arrested among other incidents…
There’ll be no “peace on Earth / goodwill toward men” nonsense this Christmas, young lady!
The first volley in the “War on Christmas” I predict.
Just wait ’till O’Really gets his falafel on this!
Peace = No profit!

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 27 2006 23:45 utc | 5

“Al-Jazeera satellite television showed videotape pictures of the wreckage in a field and what looked to be portions of a tangled parachute nearby. The broadcaster said the video included scenes of the dead pilot but that they were too graphic to air.”
The fact that the pilot did eject, but arrived on the ground in a condition that could not be broadcast, suggests he was hit by something. Of course we don’t know what.

Posted by: Gaianne | Nov 28 2006 2:48 utc | 6

Uncle$am #4–
Thanks for the Juhasz link. She’s very good.

Posted by: Gaianne | Nov 28 2006 3:22 utc | 7

He has given up – no merit down the road: Top Rice adviser on Iraq, Middle East steps down

One of US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice’s closest advisers on the Middle East and
Iraq, Philip Zelikow, is stepping down next month to return to teaching, a senior US official said.
Zelikow, 52, has served as counselor to the secretary of state since 2005, describing his job as a diplomatic troubleshooter tackling some of the thorniest issues that have faced the administration of President George W. Bush.
He made several trips to Iraq and wrote top secret memos to Rice warning that the United States was headed towards catastrophe if it did not come up with a coherent reconstruction plan for the country, according to the recent book “State of Denial” by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.

Posted by: b | Nov 28 2006 5:18 utc | 8

Anbar Picture Grows Clearer, and Bleaker

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda’s rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military’s mission in Anbar province.
The Marines recently filed an updated version of that assessment that stood by its conclusions and stated that, as of mid-November, the problems in troubled Anbar province have not improved, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday. “The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality” remain the same, the official said.

Posted by: b | Nov 28 2006 5:35 utc | 9

Who bloody cares any more what Americans in a White house say???
Things in Iraq are so bloody obvious that Americans discussing it at all, just make idiots of their selves…
AMERICANS CAN’T MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IN IRAQ ANY MORE!!! Nobody cares what they say. They are going to cut and run soon and will leave a terrific mess…like they did where ever they put their hands on…

Posted by: vbo | Nov 28 2006 6:10 utc | 10

Quote:
The first volley in the “War on Christmas” I predict.
——
Great! “War on Christmas”…good one!

Posted by: vbo | Nov 28 2006 6:18 utc | 11

Who bloody cares any more what Americans in a White house say???…
Possibly because they still control (among other things) three supercarrier battle groups, two wings of B-1 bombers, 100+ Tommahawk missles, and an undisclosed number of DoD covert operations personell crawling around western Iran.
They can also act like brain-dead sociopaths, but that’s just a charming bonus.

Posted by: Austin Cooper | Nov 28 2006 6:33 utc | 12

@ Austin Cooper:
You are right, but even being a bunch of idiots and criminals they wouldn’t hurt them selves and wouldn’t do anything that is against THEIR own interest…and I mean interest. If all of them in a White house are lunatics (this I doubt) I suppose there are a few doctors around a house to deal with them before they destroy everybody’s else interest in America…and I mean interest…in material way…In Iraq , they have done it for everybody else but them selves. It’s obvious…and about Iran and others we’ll see how pragmatic other Americans are. I am not worrying, last time I checked there was nothing more important for Americans as such as their INTEREST …and I mean interest.
In Iraq Americans are totally irrelevant. All they can do is kill CIVILIANS but even there they are not “successful” enough comparing to others in Iraq. So even there they failed.

Posted by: vbo | Nov 28 2006 7:38 utc | 13

In case Everyone didn’t see this. It’s Official Now – doesn’t get any more official than when it’s announced by Head of CFR in their own journal, Foreign Affairs, Era of US Dominance in ME is Over:
WASHINGTON — U.S. dominance in the Middle East has ended, giving way to a new era in the modern history of the region amid growing anti-American sentiment. This is the conclusion of a study by Richard N. Haas, president of the Council on Foreign Relations in an article titled “The New Middle East” published in the November/December 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs.
Expectations of a peaceful, prosperous and democratic Middle East based on the European model “will not be realized,” says Haas. “Much more likely is the emergence of a new Middle East that will cause great harm to itself, the United States, and the world.”
Haas writes that the most significant factor contributing to the end of this era has been “the Bush administration’s decision to attack Iraq in 2003 and its conduct of the operation and resulting occupation.”
…
In the Middle East’s new era the United States will be challenged by China, Russia and the European Union. “Iran will be one of the two most powerful states in the region,” says Haas. Iran “is the most powerful external influence in Iraq, and holds considerable sway over both Hamas and Hezbollah.”
link
Hmmmmm….wonder why that isn’t in WaPo/NYT – front page banner headlines, or at least front page…no…anywhere???

Posted by: jj | Nov 28 2006 7:45 utc | 14

Holy shit, this just in NBC calls conflict in Iraq a civil war. That leaves PBS Newshour and Washington Week still clueless by comparison, and they dont even have the “corporate” excuse.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 28 2006 9:03 utc | 15

Zeyad at Healing Iraqhas the neighborhood by neighborhood message board communications on (((civil war))) preprations in Baghdad. The shrine bombing in Sammara pales by comparison to whats been unleashed. The U.S. military has been reduced, by their political circumstance, to that of annoying tourist, hated by all, baited by all, exploited by all. And that alone is enough to cut off their funding and send them home.
The Nir Rosen interview on the other thread is right on, except on the possibility of a “strongman” coup, which although, as he points out will only exasperbate the civil war, he fails to see the endgame from the administrations perspective — which must make some credible attempt to stem the rise of Iran as a consequence of the whole debacle. Perhaps this was Cheneys hand holding mission to Saudi Arabia. Only two face saving options exist: bomb Iran, or dump the Shiite government in Iraq.

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 28 2006 9:50 utc | 16

AM (16)
There is another possible target for the Cheney mission to Riyadh: Syria.

From the Saudi point of view, the tribunal will inexorably lead to the unraveling of the Ba’athist regime in Damascus; the breakup of the Iranian-Syrian nexus in the region; the return of Syria to the mainstream Arab fold; the near-total isolation of Hezbollah within Lebanon, which in turn could pave the way for its eventual co-option (once it is cleansed of militancy and sanitized from Iranian influence); and the overall weakening of Iran’s standing as the Shi’ite powerhouse in the region, especially in Iraq.
Equally, the Saudis are displaying in Lebanon their true grit as a US ally in the region. They are showing that in countering Iranian influence they are prepared to dig in, no matter what it takes. Riyadh has cast aside its proclivity to remain on the sidelines while the Iraq crisis matured in the critical 2003-05 period, which led to its disastrous isolation (and Egypt’s).
Riyadh expects Washington to take note that Iran’s rising regional influence can still be arrested. Significantly, US Vice President Dick Cheney lost no time arriving in Riyadh on Saturday for a hurried two-hour meeting with King Abdullah. During the meeting, to quote the Saudi Press Agency, the two sides discussed “the whole range of events and developments on the regional and international scenes … the Palestinian problem and the situation in Iraq in particular”.

Note that it was Cheney, not Rice, who was sent. You know he hasn’t given up yet.
I haven’t encountered this take on these visits anywhere else, but the AT is – IMHO – way ahead of most other publications in analysing global affairs. The game is still on.

Posted by: lonesomeG | Nov 28 2006 14:13 utc | 17

Not sure if anyone has linked to this piece on this or another thread yet, but it’s interesting and very apropos.
A Matter of Definition: What Makes a Civil War, and Who Declares It So?

Posted by: Bea | Nov 28 2006 19:01 utc | 18

@Bea,
c’mon, everybody knows that a “Civil War” is when Johnny Reb and Billy Yank line up and fire volleys of musketry at each other while Generals ride up and down their lines on horseback, extolling their men to be brave and true.
And there ain’t a single Iraqi who can master the Rebel Yell, either, so there…

Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 29 2006 13:54 utc | 19

Note that it was Cheney, not Rice, who was sent. You know he hasn’t given up yet.
summoned may be more accurate. interesting that they(SA) went right to the top. why dillydally w/the puppets.

Posted by: annie | Nov 29 2006 17:58 utc | 20

Back to Main