"Messy" for five to 10 years

Ariana & Company have pitched their tents on the old campground: "The Bush Admin. has called the violence 'sectarian' even though a growing number of Iraqis and Americans believe Iraq is on the brink of civil war," asserts The Huffington Post's "Daily Brief," juxtaposing Union Soldiers (above left) with jihadi warriors to emphasize their point. Our own animated giff overlay juxtaposing post-Civil-War Ku Klux Klan members with jihadis posing for the camera suggests an alternative comparison, as explicated by Varifrank -- and blogged here -- a year ago. The dynamics of the century-long turmoil in our own Southern states following the Civil War, wrote Varifrank, are identical to the dynamics of the "insurgency" following Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq today: "To maintain their honor and sacred heritage," not to mention the "malignant narcissism" of Hezbollah's Nasrallah.

"It's the inability to see what's before their eyes," says Retired General Barry McCaffrey on Fox News this afternoon, offering his assessment of the Administration's handling of post-OIF Iraq. You'd expect something like that from the former Clinton drug czar, but it isn't just Bush bashers who are talking gloom and doom. "Civil war is a more likely outcome in Iraq than democracy, Britain's outgoing ambassador in Baghdad has warned Tony Blair in a confidential memo," reports the BBC, who is to Blair administration confidential memos as the New York Times is to Bush administration confidential memos:

William Patey, who left the Iraqi capital last week, also predicted the break-up of Iraq along ethnic lines. He did also say that "the position is not hopeless" -- but said it would be "messy" for five to 10 years.

"The Patey memo is likely to get attention today in Washington when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appears with senior military officials testifying about Iraq before the Senate Armed Services Committee," noted the WSJs "Morning Brief" (email, no link):

Mr. Rumsfeld, who last appeared before the committee in February, originally sought to skip the hearing, saying his crowded calendar wouldn't allow him to make it, especially since a private, classified briefing was set for later in the day. But both Republicans and Democrats had implied that was insufficient, the New York Times notes, and under fire from Democrats who said the American people should hear him too, Mr. Rumsfeld agreed late yesterday to attend.

We loved the Secretary's response at a news briefing yesterday when asked whether he was reluctant to face questioning at the public hearing:

I mean, let’s be honest: Politics enters into these things, and maybe the person raising the question is interested in that.

During the hearing today, our own top brass sounded worried:

The top U.S. military commander in the Middle East told Congress on Thursday that "Iraq could move toward civil war" if the raging sectarian violence in Baghdad is not stopped. "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it," Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee . . .

A similar remark was offered by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told the panel, "We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war." He added that this need not happen and stressed that ultimately it depends on the Iraqis more than on the U.S. military.

. . . and Hillary! took the opportunity to showcase her Presidential cojones, browbeating the tough-as-nails Secretary with a shrewish dressing down:

Rumsfeld's steadfast defense of the administration's Iraq policy brought on a stinging attack from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who told Rumsfeld he was presiding over a "failed policy" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Under your leadership there have been numerous errors in judgment that have led us to where we are," the New York Democrat said. "We have a full-fledged insurgency and full-blown sectarian conflict in Iraq."

Needless to say, Rummy was not amused. We're hoping to catch the hearings, uninterrupted, in C-Span reruns later on. Meanwhile, is it as bad as they say? Not everybody thinks so, according to that WSJ "Morning Brief":

Just yesterday, Jalal Talabani, Iraq's Kurdish president [who may or may not be whistling in the dark], said his government is confident it can "terminate terrorism this year" and that "Iraqi forces will take over security in all Iraqi provinces by the end of this year gradually."

If all else fails, Pejman Yousefzadeh at TCS has a plan, worth a read for a thoughtful alternative to the prevalent hysteria:

Sometimes partition is preferable to keeping a country together despite all of the internal conditions that doom unity in the long run. In these cases, partition serves as a recognition of and response to the existence of long term instability within a country. Iraq currently labors under its internal divisions. Those divisions may not be resolved in a way that will allow the current state of Iraq to exist in the long term. A new path -- one involving partition -- may have to be taken.

While democracy -- "the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" -- was on display stateside, warts and all, for worldwide consumption, charismatic Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah was looking pretty in black in a carefully scripted TV appearance "over there," ridiculing yesterday's Israeli commando raid on Baalbek and calling it a "miracle" that his forces have held the Israelis back so far. We caught some of his harangue on Fox before it was rudely interrupted for something or other, probably Mel Gibson's loose lips. Too bad. If we agree -- and we do -- that you have to know your enemy to defeat him, what better use of air time than to put him on display in his own words? The body language, the choice of words, the attitude. Worlds of data to be mined there. The old boy is threatening to bomb Tel Aviv if the Israelis strike Beirut again. We think we heard something to the effect that history would prove George Bush to be the biggest terrorist of all time. Sound and fury signifying nothing, or does this dog's bite measure up to his bark?

Comments

[Teresa]

It's going to be impossible for the American troops to get the terrorists in Iraq because we've placed things like mosques on the "do not disturb" list. When you put such limitations on your troops when fighting a war, they can't do their job.

Now if the Iraqi security can go into these places and get these guys then they have a good chance of pulling the country together and averting a collapse. As usual - much depends on the elected government (theirs not ours). We've backed ourselves into a corner by trying to be the nice guys. In some areas it helps (such as dealing with local town leaders) - but in this way (meaning the "this is off limits" way) it really really hurts.

You will notice that the Israelis are not pussyfooting around. They are going after the Hezbollah wherever they hide. It's the only way to deal with them.

[Gayle Miller]

HRC's behavior toward Secretary Rumsfeld yesterday was unspeakably rude and displayed a level of hypocrisy that is almost stunning in its crass opportunism! Senator Clinton's husband is the one who eviscerated both the military AND our intelligence-gathering establishments, requiring GWB and company to rebuild almost from the ground up before dealing with 9/11! And she has the BRASS you-know-whats to chastise RUMMY?

I was impressed with his restraint. My first impulse when I watched that exchange was to get up, walk over the slap my television set!