Thursday, March 09, 2006

Who is holding back the civil war, part 2

Now Rumsfeld himself has said it. Our troops are not in Iraq to prevent a civil war.
"That is true, Mr. Secretary," Mr. Byrd persisted. "Is there any plan to respond to a civil war in Iraq?"

"The plan is to prevent a civil war," Mr. Rumsfeld said, "and to the extent one were to occur, to have the — from a security standpoint — have the Iraqi security forces deal with it to the extent they're able to."
Rummie's comments about the Iraqi security forces hardly evoke confidence
Mr. Rumsfeld said Iraqi forces "at least thus far" have been able to deal with security problems "for the most part," and that the real foundation for stability is a government that will unify the country — the kind of government that is still a new concept for the people.
As a result they "sorta" have prevented catastrophe "at least for now" and "maybe" will make Iraq "not the worst place on Earth."

By the way, what exactly is the line between "sectarian violence" and "civil war"? Does civil war require religious militias to directly engage each other in house to house fighting? Is it “sectarian violence ” when the bodies are found later and filmed by reporters and “war” when we get actual combat footage?

No comments: