http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/03/D8J90L601.html

Quote :

"Generals Raise Fears of Iraq Civil War By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON The top U.S. military commander in the Middle East told Congress on Thursday that "Iraq could move toward civil war" if the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad is not stopped. "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it," Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said the top priority in the Iraq war is to secure the capital, where factional violence has surged in recent weeks despite efforts by the new Iraqi government to stop the fighting. Abizaid, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top military officers testified Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee amid fresh reports that said up to two-thirds of the Army's combat units are unprepared for wartime missions because of the strain of operations in Iraq. The Pentagon is trying to convince lawmakers, divided over the war in Iraq, that the mission is not breaking the Army and that extending the tours of some troops is necessary to quell increasing violence in the region. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, echoed Abizaid's observation when he told the panel, "We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war." He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military. "Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other," Pace said, before the tensions can be overcome. "The weight of that must be on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government." President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have steadfastly refused to call the situation in Iraq a civil war, although Rumsfeld at a news conference on Wednesday acknowledged that the violence is increasing. Rumsfeld had said Wednesday he essentially was too busy to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee and would instead attend a private briefing with the entire Senate on Thursday. He changed his mind after hours of criticism and pressure from Senate Democrats, including Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who said the Pentagon chief should be accountable to the public by answering questions on the war. The Pentagon offered no reason for Rumsfeld's change of plans. Earlier, it had said the defense secretary has made an aggressive effort to meet with lawmakers regularly, including testimony at an appropriations hearing earlier this year and at other classified briefings. Rumsfeld's relations with Congress have been testy at times and he occasionally has resisted testifying publicly on contentious subjects, including the debate over whether high-level officials should be held accountable for the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. The Pentagon this week announced its decision to extend the tours of an Alaskan Army brigade to bolster security around a volatile Baghdad and push troop levels to roughly 135,000 _ dashing the Bush administration's hopes of dropping the figure by tens of thousands by the fall congressional campaigns. On the Net: Pentagon: http://defenselink.mil Senate Armed Services Committee: http://armed-services.senate.gov "

Tens of thousands killed or wounded and hundreds of billions of dollars later, the Pentagon tells us that in order to end the sectarian strife as part of the Long War, Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, War on Terror, or whatever new euphemism they have for the latest excuse for war mongering: "Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other."

Maybe we ought to bring them some flowers and candy, and call it a day.

8/3/2006 4:29:01 PM

I'm going to be honest, I don't care about Iraq in the least bit.

What saddens me the most is that we've stretched our military and shown our foes that we can't occupy a nation as backward and downtrodden as Iraq.

8/3/2006 5:57:21 PM

that's because they're not wearing uniforms and standing in large groups like the nazis did

[Edited on August 3, 2006 at 6:00 PM. Reason : .]

8/3/2006 5:58:59 PM

This is the new face of warfare.

We could have planned to account for this, and ended any chance of the insurgency occurring from the begining.

We still could, in fact, end it.

8/3/2006 6:01:41 PM

when exactly has unilateral nation building worked out well in the past 50 years?

8/3/2006 6:17:34 PM

japan

8/3/2006 10:24:00 PM

^do your math. also, there was no nation building in japan. There was nation destroying, there was "suck it you slanty-eyed monkeys," and there was "oh shit, korea."

[Edited on August 3, 2006 at 10:36 PM. Reason : dfvd]

8/3/2006 10:36:13 PM