After reading the article, I’d say that Iraq is at least a crisis state.
I don’t know that we will ever be able to expect traditional battlefield scenarios as a measure of civil war again.
elucidator, Condi was using the same ballot box argument against the possibility of Iraq’s being in a civil war. I was so relieved to be reminded that all is well because there had been an election.
Ah oh…
Well, that’s comforting.
I hear that W is only clearing brush for about 10 days this year. I’ve never quite understood the alure of clearing brush. Doens’t it just grow back again? Kinda like when we clear an Iraqi village of insurgents.
I really, really, really think that most of the Pubs in Congress were counting on us starting to draw down the troops by now. It’s going to be a rough November for them (if the NetRoots folks don’t screw things up for the Dems). Gotta love American politics these days!!
He should take a longer vacation. Hell let him stay in Crawford for the rest of his term. Then build a wall around the city and cut of all comunication and food supplies.
Well, the next six months will be critical…
luci, just wanted to say I enjoy your writing too. At the risk of spoiling the humour, please fill in the blanks for this country hick who’s a little slow today. What’s behind the phrase “The Man Who Fell Up?”
The allure of clearing brush comes from the Reagan era. Reagan liked to get photographed a lot clearing brush. It made him look macho and everyman, and the photographs polled well with the great unwashed. Whenever Bush makes it known he is out “clearing brush”, it is an attempt at a historical re-enactment of the Reagan era.
www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/photographs/large/c6640-4A.jpg
In the early 20th century it was sawing wood. Nicholas II did a lot of that while imprisoned in Ekaterineberg. (sp) Some other European monarchs amused themselves that way. A history major I new suggested that they were pretending that the logs were their ministers or other folks they had to deal with. “Take that, Kerensky!”
Speaking of W’s vacation, I have another rant.
What the fuck is this?
The Western White House, Crawford, Texas?
A.K.A. Bush’s ranch. He’s not on vacation see, he’s at the Western White House!
I don’t care that he’s on vacation, hell I wish he’d take a break until January 20, 2009, but don’t try to make it look like he’s not on his ranch with this Western White House horse plop.
The effortless grace with which he ascended to power by way of spectacular failure.
Uhm, S.O.P.?
(…chicken scratchy guitar background…)
"Yeah, my man Bush is a brush-clearing motherfu…Shut your mouth!!..But I’m talkin’ 'bout Bush!..Well, we can dig it!..
Can’t hardly buy any brush in Waco these days, all been cleared! With potentially disastrous effect on the habitat for the endangered jackelope and the ring-tailed vinagaroon.
What a shame that he won’t try to re-enact the Reagan era by, say, vetoing a bloated spending bill. For example.
Seriously, does anyone really believe that Iraq will ever be in a civil war prior to Jan '09? It will never be in a civil war because Bush & Co. will never admit it’s a civil war. Did you see them desperately trying to spin Abizaid’s testimony? Short of every single Iraqi citizen “declaring” civil war (1, 2, 3, 4, I declare a civil war…) they will never admit it. “It’s not a civil war! 95% of Iraqis are dead-enders in their last throes! They voted! Three times! Mission Accomplished!”
Why not? They’ve been having that kind of civil war in Sudan for years. And, within recent memory, in Zaire/Congo, Liberia, Yugoslavia, many others.
I think that, if it is never to be referred to as a civil war, it is only because were a “formal” civil war (that is, overt battles between forces of Shi’ites and Sunni) to break out, it would be over before it begun, since the Shi’ites far outnumber the Sunnis.
Hmm, I think it will never be referred to as a civil war because “civil war” doesn’t test well with focus groups. (Future Tony Snow quote: “Shi’ites today implemented a comprehensive plan to curtail redunancies in the Sunni population, while Sunnis’ similar bold plans to depopulate areas under Shi’ite control appear to have a long hard slog ahead.”) And also because people in the administration and the military know that if one were to refer to it as a civil war their career would be over, their reputation would be completely trashed, their wife outed as a covert agent, etc… (IMHO)
“Civil War” would also pose a conundrum-- which side would we be on? Hell, I couldn’t even tell you which side we should be on? I like the Kurds, though. They seem like very nice people.
I’m reading a book on Middle East political history now (I was reading it as I got my tires fixed yesterday; the mechanic looked at it, shook his head, and said, “That book’s way too thin”), and the author is now talking about the ethnic groups in Iran. Holy cow! If that place ever descends into Civil War, holy cow!
Daniel
It’s worse than that, Daniel. There are dozens (hundreds?) of tribal affiliations, too. And some of them cut across ethnic boundaries.
We’ll probably choose Clinton’s ‘third way’, and stand between them.
That way when the military gets shot to shit, we can blame it on the democrats.
But we can’t afford to be on the Kurds’ side – if they ever got into a civil war their only conceivable end-goal would an independent Kurdistan; which would destabilize the region even further and piss off our allies the Turks to no end.
