George Will: “This Is A Civil War”

[kpete]

George Will: “This Is A Civil War” »


Columnist George Will has been more critical of the Bush strategy in Iraq than most conservatives. But this morning on ABC’s This Week, he was just plain shrill:

STEPHANOPOULOS: What does civil war look like?

WILL: This. This is a civil war.

Later, Will even questioned whether Iraq can truly be said to have a government:

Now, does Iraq have a government? Let me just postulate the question. A government exists when it has a reasonable monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. As long as the militias are out there, the existence of an Iraqi government is questionable. Think of Los Angeles. If Los Angeles said the Bloods and the Crips are going to be tolerated, they’re going to be armed and police their areas and enforce the law in certain areas, what sense would Los Angeles have of government?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/26/george-will-this-is-a-civil-war

[MadisonProgressive]

1. So NOW can we bring the troops home?

[barbaraann]

2. Technically, isn't it a Sectarian rather than a Civil War? (Sunni vs. Shia

For the life of me I can't figure out how it can be stopped without either a) a brutal dictatorship , b) partition or c) genocide of one sect (excluding the possibility of both sects becoming secular). It seems to me that calling it a Civil War implies that after hostilites are over there can be peace based on a simple switch of civic allegiance by the defeated parties, but in the case of a Sectarian War it would require far more to insure peace.

[DefenseLawyer]

3. I think the sudden civil war talk comes directly from the White House

I see very little difference between in the nature of the unrest and the violence before the mosque bombing and after, but suddenly the term "civil war" is everywhere. I have a feeling that it is Rove's last ditch effort to get out of Iraq before the midterms. They have conceded that they can't bring stability. When it was "insurgents" attacking us, and the "legitimate" government to keep "democracy from taking hold", well, that was our fight and we couldn't "cut and run" blah blah blah. They had painted themselves into a corner on that one. But a civil war, that's different. That is the establishment fighting among themselves; factions of the government we created for them seeking political and military supremacy in their own country. It is fighting, not by insurgents, but by the very people we freed! Well, that is a totally different thing, right? We didn't sign on for that. We told them to cut it out and they didn't. Not our fault, we brought freedom to those ungrateful Iraqis but they just don't appreciate it. You know how those people are, always fighting... It is a way for Rove to sell getting out while still somehow claiming victory and blaming the Iraqis for the whole mess.

[RazzleDazzle]

4. So, the next question is -- is that a GOOD thing?

Dahr Jamail...."Who Benefits?"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x193106#193113
Link: http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000365.php

FAUX News: All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x510889
Link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200602240003

Many Iraqis Believe "Suicide" Bombings Done By US To Start Civil War (several good links)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5554171#5554406
Link: http://benfrank.net/blog/2005/09/17/suicide_bombers

For the record, I don't have the answer on this. I just have questions. I just keep remembering the British TROOPS who were caught doing things that they shouldn't have been doing (black ops), and then sprung from jail by other British TROOPS. I think the first link above has info about that.

[liveoaktx]

5. VIDEO

This Week