Mar 20, 2006

Allawi:"Civil War;" Bush: "Encouraged"

Share
Left: President Bush and former Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi

Former Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi offered a bleak assessment of conditions in the war-torn country yesterday.

"It is unfortunate that we are in a civil war. We are losing each day an average of 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more," he said. "If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is."

Allawi, long a staunch ally of the United States, believes the nation is at a turning point.

"Iraq is in the middle of a crisis," he said. "Maybe we have not reached the point of no return yet, but we are moving towards this point. We are in a terrible civil conflict now."

Meanwhile, President Bush and his advisors yesterday offered more upbeat views of the situation in Iraq.

"The Iraqi leaders are working together to enact a government that reflects the will of the people. I'm encouraged by the progress," the President said, who did not mention the word "war" in his remarks. "We are implementing a strategy that will lead to victory in Iraq."

Vice President Dick Ceney believes the media is partly responsible for the declining American support for the war.

"There is a constant sort of perception, if you will, that's created because what's newsworthy is the car bomb in Baghdad," the vice president said. "It's not all the work that went on that day in 15 other provinces."

11 comments:

mikevotes said...

I'm torn on the administration's stance. I'm not sure if the "everything is fine" spin is exactly that, an effort to smooth over US politics in an effort to buy more time.

Or, if they are really that detached from what the rest of us are reading. There's pretty good evidence that Bush gets distorted info from his advisors, and if he is actually making decisions based on on what he says he believes, then the whole Iraq policy is headed for a worse future than we are currently imagining.

I just can't tell how much is lying spin, and how much is real misunderstanding.

Mike

Dariush said...

I accidentally posted this in the thread below, when it was meant for this thread.


*********


For the record, there has never been a "Sunni-Shiite" civil war in Iraq. Never. Not in a thousand years.

In fact, the majority of the population of Samarra, including the guardians of the al-Askariyya Mosque, have always been Sunni.

Iraq is a tribal society, but tribal ties are not based on religious sectarianism. Mixed Sunni-Shiite families, clans, and tribes are much, much more common than most Western pundits seem to be willing to acknowledge -- noble exceptions like Robert Fisk noted.

So why is this happening now is the question.

That, and who does it benefit?

Stephanie said...

I don't see Bush's omission of the word "war" as a big deal. Certainly not the big deal the media is making it. They wouldn't like what he said no matter what he said.

However, his impression of the progress of the war is misguided. We are making progress. We are making more progress than the media likes to report. However, that does not mean we're making anywhere near enough progress.

Stephanie said...

"So why is this happening now is the question."

Because there are an influx of distabalizing elements. Our troops are one of those elements, (generally) working towards unity without really understanding how to go about and therefore bungling the effort (This is NOT the fault of the troops, but the fault of those who's responsibility it is to tell the troops what to do and how to do it.) The other main destabalizing element is the terrorists themselves, who do NOT want unity, who do NOT want democracy, who do NOT want freedom and will do anything, harm anyone, in order to ensure this endeavor fails.

"That, and who does it benefit?"

Islamic extremists benefit. Not only do they get to say they beat the United States of America (and our various allies), but they will also get control of Iraq.

Stefan Schmidt said...

The other main destabalizing element is the terrorists themselves, who do NOT want unity, who do NOT want democracy, who do NOT want freedom and will do anything, harm anyone, in order to ensure this endeavor fails.---Steph

LOL---Do you honestly believe that we want freedom and democracy to prosper in that region?

If freedom means globalization and an American puppet regime then yes--- we support freedom. ; )

However, if freedom means a Theocracy then expect some convenient assassinations. ; )

There is some sort of appreciable symmetry in this mess---we installed Saddam Hussein, sold him WMDs, and then removed him due to WMDs(not really but most Americans are caught in a orgy of flag waving and one-liners that they seem to hardly notice or care what the reason was).

Islamic extremists benefit. Not only do they get to say they beat the United States of America (and our various allies), but they will also get control of Iraq.---Steph

Why so exclusive Steph? Might as well include everyone such as the neo-cons/Zionists and IsraHell.

Divide and conquer--- not an old strategy.

Stefan Schmidt said...

BTW,

Government and freedom are not synonymous.

All governments whether ruled by a majority or a minority have rules and punishments---thus you are not free!

America is not a democracy---it is a Republic. Democracy and Republic are not synonymous either!

Stephanie said...

Stefan,

I've been sick, and thus my response is delayed, but...

"Do you honestly believe that we want freedom and democracy to prosper in that region?"

That depends on which "we" you are refering to, Stefan. If the "we" in question is the Bush administration, then no, I'm not that naive. However, if the "we" is in part me, then yes, that's what I want. If that means theocracy, then that's a shame and isn't real freedom, but that's their choice and they should have the right to choose that.

"Why so exclusive Steph?"

Because, right now the Islamic extremists are the ones making the war.

Stephanie said...

"All governments whether ruled by a majority or a minority have rules and punishments---thus you are not free!"

True, but the only other option is anarchy. Then, you're not free either, because you exist at the whims of the majority/most powerful without the hope of the law to balance in your favor. There is no such thing as true freedom, nor do I wish there to be.

"Democracy and Republic are not synonymous either!"

True, and Iraq is more likely to be a republic than a democracy. However, the word democracy is more recognizable (especially over there) than the word republic. Most people over HERE don't even realize we have a republic not a democracy.

Stefan Schmidt said...

Because, right now the Islamic extremists are the ones making the war.---Steph

I could have sworn that it was the USA that bombed and invaded Iraq. ; )

In all seriousness, Muslim extremists want civil unrest but not war since they would lose the endeavor.

Who stands to benefit?

Why, I will let you fill in the dots. ; )

Stephanie said...

Stefan,

There's a major flaw to your logic.

"I could have sworn that it was the USA that bombed and invaded Iraq."

Yes. However, there's two ways of looking at this. Either the insurgency that is being controlled, albeit loosely, by Al-Quaida came to Iraq after our troops kicked Baathist ass, and thus started up their own trouble, OR, they were there all along and Bush's justification that Iraq was involved in 9/11 was entirely valid. You cannot have it both ways.

The common, and thought most accurate, belief is that the Al-Quaida types came along later and stirred up trouble, in which case it was NOT the US that started the current "civil unrest," if you however hold to a different mindset....

(Hey, and look! This time there are actual dots! ;-p)

"In all seriousness, Muslim extremists want civil unrest but not war since they would lose the endeavor."

The majority of Iraqis don't want civil unrest and they don't want Al-Quaida in control of their country. So, in order for the Muslim extremists to meet their goals they will need war to place themselves in power. They do benefit, whether you see it or not.

Stefan Schmidt said...

There's a major flaw to your logic.---Steph

We shall see.

Yes. However, there's two ways of looking at this. Either the insurgency that is being controlled, albeit loosely, by Al-Quaida came to Iraq after our troops kicked Baathist ass, and thus started up their own trouble, OR, they were there all along and Bush's justification that Iraq was involved in 9/11 was entirely valid. You cannot have it both ways.---Steph

You forgot a third option. ;-P

Most of the insurgents are Iraqi civilians and not foreigners (i.e. Al Qaeda) but they were not in existence during Saddam. Most of them were only banded together as a last ditch effort to defend Baghdad, however, when that proved futile most stuck around as quasi-guerilla militias. Most of the insurgents fall under this category---ordinary civilians infuriated by the US invasion of their country.

Most people instinctively do not take well to a foreigner invading their country no matter how deplorable the conditions were in their country previously----unfortunately, in this case, the conditions have only worsened due to our invasion.

Personally I would re-install Saddam and get the hell out of there but at this point that might be impossible as well.