From The Outed Anonymous Iran Briefer...

[WillyT]

Major General William Caldwell

<snip>

BAGHDAD -- I don't see a civil war in Iraq. I don't see a constituency for civil war. The vast majority of the people want hope for their families, not to massacre their neighbors or divide their country. A poll conducted in June by the International Republican Institute, a nonpartisan group that promotes democracy, found 89 percent of Iraqis supporting a unity government representing all sects and ethnic communities. No wonder no "rebel army" steps forward to claim credit for vicious car bombs and cowardly executions of civilians.

I see debates among Iraqis -- often angry and sometimes divisive -- but arguments characteristic of political discourse, not political breakdown. The Council of Representatives meets here in Baghdad as the sole legitimate sovereign representative of the people, 12 million of whom braved bombs and threats last December to vote. No party has seceded or claimed independent territory.

I see a representative government exercising control over the sole legitimate armed authority in Iraq, the Iraqi Security Force. After decades in which the armed services were tools of oppression, Iraq is taking time to build an army and national police force loyal to all. There have been setbacks, but also great successes. In Fallujah, a city almost lost two years ago, I have seen the cooperation between the local army commander, a Shiite, and the police chief, a Sunni.

I don't see terrorist and criminal elements mounting campaigns for territory. Al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn't use roadside bombs, suicidal mass murderers and rocket barrages to gain and hold ground. Extremist Shiite death squads don't shoot people in the back of the head to further their control of the government. I do see random executions seeking to instill fear and insecurity. I don't see a struggle between armies and aligned political parties competing to rule.

I studied civil wars at West Point and at the Army Command and Staff College. I respect the credentials and opinions of those who want to hang that label here. But I respectfully -- and strongly -- disagree. I see the Iraqi people suffering from overlapping terrorist campaigns by extremist groups combined with the mass criminality that too often accompanies the sudden toppling of a dictatorship. This poses a different military challenge than does a civil war.

<snip>

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501128.html

And this opinion is from December 2006!!!

We're supposed to trust this guy on the authenticity of the smuggled-in Iranian weaponry???

I don't think so.

:wtf:

[Richard Steele]

1. In Dec 2006, he claimed Iraq was HAVING A POLITICAL DEBATE?

"arguments characteristic of political discourse, not political breakdown"

DE-frickin'-LEUSIONAL!

"I don't see a struggle between armies and aligned political parties competing to rule.

Delusional.

[librechik]

2. hmm, extremist criminals...why are we fighting them with the military

instead of police investigation and arrests? Do we destroy whole neighborhoods to kill a handul fo "enemies"

This is sick and absurd.

[originalpckelly]

3. International Republican Institute is a conservative organization:

" * U.S. Senator John McCain, Chairman
* Peter Madigan, Vice Chairman
A powerful lobbyist with ties to the Republican party
* J. William Middendorf, II, Secretary - Treasurer
* Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, III
* Gahl Hodges Burt
Nacy Reagan's social secretary at the white from '83-'85
* U.S. Representative David Dreier
* Lawrence Eagleburger
* Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.
Former Chairman of the RNC
* Alison Fortier
^^^Alison B. Fortier is Vice President of Missile Defense at Lockheed Martin’s Washington Operations
* Mayor James Garner
^^^Former Republican Mayor
* Janet Mullins Grissom
^^^Chief lobbyist for Ford
* U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel
* Cheryl Halpern
Corporation for Public Broadcasting's Chairman, a well known and active Republican
* William Hybl
Friend of G.W. Bush and former adviser to Ronald Reagan
* The Honorable Jim Kolbe
For those who don't know, he's one of the Republicans in Congress who were into kids
* Michael Kostiw
Known as the Bacon guy because he was caught stealing bacon from a supermarket, worked for Porter Goss (Republican)
* Stephan M. Minikes
Bush Pioneer (big donor)
* Constance Berry Newman
Donated to Michael Steele and GW Bush
* Alec Poitevint, II
Chairman of the Georgia Republican party
* John F.W. Rogers
FEC says Mr. Rogers donated to John McCain's campaign, he's on the board of Goldman Sachs, just like it says in the FEC entry
* Randy Scheunemann
Neo-con lobbyist
* Joseph Schmuckler
Donated to Republican John Thune
* Brent Scowcroft
* Margaret Tutwiler
Has a long history with Republicans
* Olin L. Wethington
Donated to the Republican party of Virginia and other Republican causes/candidates
* Richard S. Williamson
Donated to Spencer Abraham, Republican
* Robert B. Zoellick
Fmr. US trade representative, and has donated to Republicans


That's not a non-partisan organization. So if Caldwell is lying about that, then his credibility comes into doubt in other areas.

[originalpckelly]

4. I did research to back this up by the way...

I googled all of those names and looked through the FEC's database of campaign contributions to find this out.

[TahitiNut]

5. We seem to have a very perverted view of what a "Civil War" really is.

The (so-called) "Civil War" in the United States is, I believe, more aptly called "the War Between The States." Like most Americans, it never occurred to me until recently, after long thought seeded by the alternative name ("War Between The States"), that ours was, at most, a very unique kind of "civil war." When I studied the English Civil War, I knew there were no internal political boundaries ... and that the war was competing political claims over the entire country. Likewise, the civil wars in Africa and the Western Hemisphere weren't geographically-based. It is perplexing to me that states, who can through a vote of the citizens of those states, choose to JOIN a 'Union', cannot by the same peaceful and democratic process, choose political self-determination as separate and sovereign nations. It seems to me that the overarching principle is political self-determination. In what we regard as "civil war" elsewhere, there exists little democratic process to begin with and no geographic political subdivision. In the only examples that come to mind where disaffiliation (akin to the "War Between The States") of separate political subdivisions was sought, it was peacefully achieved. Those examples include Canada's autonomy from the British Commonwealth, the independence of the former states of the Soviet Union, and the separation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Iraq IS engaged in a civil war and the General, despite his claims to study of civil wars at West Point, is full of American propagandistic bullshit.

I once marched in unthinking lockstep regarding Lincoln's "saving the Union." I now regard that as nonsense. I must now think of it in terms of two results - one positive and the other contrary to other principles I hold dear. I'm not really certain that the two results had to be inseparable.

[originalpckelly]

6. I completely agree...

people ought to be able to do as they wish. I believe in the right to revolution or separation, because governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.