Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
UK Ambassadors's Honest & Bleak Assessment of Iraq
Topic Started: Aug 2 2006, 10:57 PM (615 Views)
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Mr. William Patey, who left as Great Britain's Ambassador to Iraq last week, has sent a stark and bleak secret assessment of the situation in Iraq to his government. It was in a confidential memo which has been leaked to the BBC.

Here is the BBC story on the memo:

Civil war in Iraq 'most likely'

Civil war is the most likely outcome in Iraq, Britain's outgoing ambassador in Baghdad has warned, in a confidential memo to ministers obtained by the BBC.
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 Iraq would remain "messy and difficult" for the next five to 10 years.

The Foreign Office said it did not comment on leaked documents. However, it added: "Every day the capacity of the Iraqi security forces to manage their own security is growing. A process has begun of progressively handing over responsibility for security in Iraq's provinces."

On Wednesday at least 12 people, many of them children, were killed in bomb attacks while playing football in west Baghdad.

'State within a state'

The bleak assessment of the country's future was contained in Mr Patey's final e-cable, or diplomatic telegram, from Baghdad. The distribution list includes the UK prime minister, foreign secretary, defence secretary, leader of the House of Commons, and senior military commanders in both Iraq and the UK.

Mr Patey wrote: "The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy.

"Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq - a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror - must remain in doubt."

Talking about the Shia militias blamed for many killings, Mr Patey added: "If we are to avoid a descent into civil war and anarchy then preventing the Jaish al-Mahdi (the Mahdi Army) from developing into a state with a state, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon, will be a priority."

Overall, says BBC correspondent Paul Wood, "it is a devastating official assessment of the prospects for a peaceful Iraq, and stands in stark contrast to the public rhetoric".

The cable says that "the next six months are crucial" - an assessment which is shared by the coalition's military commanders.

British troops

Senior military sources told the BBC it was "make or break" time. The Americans are sending thousands of extra troops to Baghdad, starting next week. The BBC has also learned, from military sources, that British troops in Basra are planning to dramatically step up operations against Shia gunmen.

Mr Patey urges the government to ensure that Iraqi troops are brought into this effort as the British forces "can't confront the militias alone".

On Wednesday, President Jalal Talabani said Iraqi police and troops would be taking the security lead throughout the whole country by the end of the year.

Last month Mr Patey told the BBC he moved between optimism and pessimism for the country, but the situation was not hopeless.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
So you now admit that you are wrong when you claim as you do over and over again that civil war already exists. You have just proven two things - there is no civil war in Iraq, and one guy holds the opinion that one will happen.

Thanks for admitting that. From now on, every time you post one of your propaganda pieces where you reguritate the same lie about civil war in Iraq, I will remind you of this.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Rick's previous hyperbole aside, this is a pretty worrying article. In addition, I don't see anything there which is clearly wrong.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
From ABC News:

Generals Raise Fears of Iraq Civil War
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY

WASHINGTON Aug 3, 2006 (AP)— Two of the Pentagon's most senior generals told Congress on Thursday that the surge in sectarian violence in Baghdad in recent weeks raises the possibility of Iraq descending into civil war.

"Iraq could move toward civil war" if the violence is not contained, Gen. John Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it," he said, adding that the top priority in Iraq is to secure the capital, where factional violence has surged in recent weeks despite efforts by the new Iraqi government to stop the fighting. President Bush last week approved an increase in the number of U.S. troops in Baghdad as part of a new effort to help Iraqi security forces get a grip on the sectarian tensions.

Abizaid later in the hearing expressed confidence that the Iraqi government is moving in the right direction.

"Am I optimistic whether or not Iraqi forces, with our support, with the backing of the Iraqi government, can prevent the slide to civil war? My answer is yes, I'm optimistic that that slide can be prevented," he said.

Abizaid also said under questioning that it was possible that U.S. casualties could rise as a result of the battle to contain sectarian violence in the capital.

"I think it's possible that in the period ahead of us in Baghdad that we'll take increased casualties that's possible," he said.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 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.

"Shiite and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other," Pace said, before the tensions can be overcome. "The weight of that must be on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government."

Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have steadfastly refused to call the situation in Iraq a civil war, although Rumsfeld at a news conference on Wednesday acknowledged that the violence is increasing.

The commanders' concessions about the threat of a civil war came just three months before congressional elections in which Bush administration policy in Iraq looms as a defining issue. Many voters have tired of the 3-year-old war, which has cost more than 2,500 U.S. lives and more than a quarter billion taxpayer dollars.

Rumsfeld, who testified alongside Abizaid and Pace, did not comment directly on the prospect of civil war but said Iraq's future lay in the hands of Iraqis, beginning with a reconciliation process that has yet to get under way.

"Ultimately the sectarian violence is going to be dealt with by Iraqis," Rumsfeld said.

Under questioning by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Pace said he did not anticipate one year ago that Iraq would now be in danger of descending into civil war. Abizaid said it was obvious a year ago that sectarian violence was on the rise, and that Iraq's police forces did not develop as well as U.S. officials had expected.

"It's vital that we turn this around," the general said.

Pressed about the prospect of reducing U.S. troop levels in Iraq, Rumsfeld stuck to his usual assertion that it depends on conditions and on the ability of the Iraqi government to suppress sectarian tensions. He said the Pentagon is seeking a careful balance between having too few troops and having too many.

"That's a fair tension there," Rumsfeld said.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Yet another report that confirms that Iraq is not, at this point, in the midst of a civil war. This must be quite a setback for you, Rick.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
JBryan
Aug 3 2006, 01:58 PM
Yet another report that confirms that Iraq is not, at this point, in the midst of a civil war. This must be quite a setback for you, Rick.

Let's hope he continues to be wrong.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
And that makes two on the right who choose to point out how wrong Rick was rather than address the substance of his post.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Both articles would indicate that there's a fair danger of the whole shooting match going down the toilet, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor. It's hard to know what can be done, other than keep plugging away, and hoping that civil war doesn't happen.

Anyone else got any bright ideas? In case anyone is wondering, just saying 'we're doomed' does not constitute a bright idea.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
On the otherhand, it could be argued that since its inception in 1919, Iraq has been in a state of civil war characterized by periods of relative calm owing to foreign occupation or Sunni led tyranny.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Number 6
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Rick has been predicting Civil War in Iraq for a long time. These articles just add credibility to his earlier claims.

(and to Dave, I don't think John D'Oh qualifies as being on the right - though he is frequently correct)
Number 6: Who are you?
Number 2: The new Number 2.
Number 6: Who is Number 1?
Number 2: You are Number 6.
Number 6: I am not a number, I am a free man.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Aug 3 2006, 10:19 AM
Both articles would indicate that there's a fair danger of the whole shooting match going down the toilet, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor. It's hard to know what can be done, other than keep plugging away, and hoping that civil war doesn't happen.

Anyone else got any bright ideas? In case anyone is wondering, just saying 'we're doomed' does not constitute a bright idea.

I don't. However, David Broder seems to be entertaining the idea of pulling out and that it might not be the disaster many assume it would be:

The Washington Post

Doubling Two Bad Bets?

By David S. Broder
Thursday, August 3, 2006; A27

If you think there is an echo in the air when officials discuss the twin crises in Iraq and Lebanon, you're not hearing things. In both cases the argument for carrying on the destructive current policy comes down to a claim that "we can't afford to let the other guy win."

President Bush says over and over that cutting short the occupation of Iraq would turn that country over to the terrorists and embolden them to carry their wicked plots ever closer to our shores. He also endorses -- implicitly -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's view that an early cease-fire with Lebanon would strengthen Hezbollah and make its prime sponsor, Iran, even more of a threat to its neighbors. That political support enables Olmert to wage the kind of campaign he has in Lebanon.

In both cases, the argument is not that continuing on the present course will necessarily or probably yield a positive result. On the contrary, it is basically a claim that it is unacceptable to change -- because the other side will claim a victory.

But if Hezbollah in Lebanon and the insurgents in Iraq really are deadly threats to Israel and the United States, respectively, then those nations should have used their full military might -- which is overwhelming -- to deal with the menace.

For Israel, that would have meant a large-scale ground and air offensive aimed at driving the Hezbollah forces far from the border and eliminating their missile sites. But Olmert stopped short of making the full commitment to eliminating the enemy, instead waging an effort largely from the air, using U.S.-supplied munitions, that is wreaking havoc on the civilian population of Lebanon.

For the United States, it would have meant moving into Iraq with a large enough force to control the country after Saddam Hussein was toppled, not the pared-down deployment that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted would be adequate. And, as Tom Ricks of The Post describes in deadly detail in his book "Fiasco," it would have meant serious planning for the occupation. That planning never took place, making it impossible for Iraqis to live their lives with hope.

In both cases, the leaders of government failed to make the kind of commitment that could have produced a lasting victory.

Now they are reduced to saying that they cannot accept defeat. That is a terrible turn.

But once the hope for victory is gone, the issue remains: What do you do? The answer from Bush and from Olmert is: Carry on. Do not waver. And do not question the logic of prolonging the agony.

History suggests that is not always the right answer. The United States has failed to achieve victory in two of its recent wars -- with very different results.

In Korea, we settled for a stalemate, a line dividing North and South Korea, after Gen. Douglas MacArthur's rush northward brought the Chinese into the fight and led to a terrifying retreat by American forces. No one would claim that has been an ideal solution. North Korea remains a communist dictatorship, and its nuclear ambitions and missile development are a continuing problem for the United States and North Korea's Asian neighbors.

On the other hand, North Korea has not moved against South Korea for more than 50 years; the peace has held.

The other war was in Vietnam. (I know there are still people who believe it was lost in Washington, on Capitol Hill, when it could have been won in the jungles. But the fact is that we withdrew, and Saigon fell.) It is hard to remember now, but at the time, we were told that if Ho Chi Minh prevailed, communism would roll south through Malaysia and spread to the Philippines and threaten Australia -- to say nothing of American influence in the Pacific. We took those warnings seriously, and so it was a bitter moment when the Viet Cong occupied the old American Embassy in Saigon.

And today the embassy is again open -- in Hanoi -- and the United States is trading freely with a united Vietnam.

The point is that history and economics have their own logic. A military mission that fails to yield a victory does not always presage disaster. Today, virtually no one argues that we should have continued fighting the North Koreans or the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese.

Can we think about the costs of carrying on, without an end in sight, against Hezbollah and the insurgents in Iraq?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Number 6
Aug 3 2006, 10:23 AM
Rick has been predicting Civil War in Iraq for a long time. These articles just add credibility to his earlier claims.

(and to Dave, I don't think John D'Oh qualifies as being on the right - though he is frequently correct)

I speak of JB and Larry. Mr. d'Oh seems closer to my political stripe, whatever that may be.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Number 6
Aug 3 2006, 01:23 PM
Rick has been predicting Civil War in Iraq for a long time. These articles just add credibility to his earlier claims.

(and to Dave, I don't think John D'Oh qualifies as being on the right - though he is frequently correct)

No, he has not predicted civil war. he has been stating it as a given for months now. If I tell you it is raining and it is really sunny yet it rains tomorrow that does not make me right and it sure doesn't make me right if all that can be said is it might rain tomorrow.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Number 6
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
Dave, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

JB, whether it is raining now, or it rains tomorrow, the fact remains that somethings going to get wet. Your argument, though sematically correct, does not diminish the truth of what's happening in Iraq.
Number 6: Who are you?
Number 2: The new Number 2.
Number 6: Who is Number 1?
Number 2: You are Number 6.
Number 6: I am not a number, I am a free man.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Dave Spelvin
Aug 3 2006, 01:26 PM
Number 6
Aug 3 2006, 10:23 AM
Rick has been predicting Civil War in Iraq for a long time. These articles just add credibility to his earlier claims.

(and to Dave, I don't think John D'Oh qualifies as being on the right - though he is frequently correct)

I speak of JB and Larry. Mr. d'Oh seems closer to my political stripe, whatever that may be.

I am curious, Dave. What sort of "response to the substance" do you want from me. I have never believed nor stated that things could not go badly or get worse than they are now in Iraq. There has always been the potential for meltdown and these articles are not encouraging. What they are is an honest assessment of where things could end up. In neither article is it stated that there is no hope of averting civil war. Quite the contrary in fact. So, if it makes you feel better I will wring my hands for a few minutes and go back to hoping that the Iraqis can pull this thing out. Rick has been wringing his hands steadily and insisting that civil war has existed for a long time now.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Number 6
Aug 3 2006, 01:33 PM
Dave, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

JB, whether it is raining now, or it rains tomorrow, the fact remains that somethings going to get wet. Your argument, though sematically correct, does not diminish the truth of what's happening in Iraq.

Yes, but it has not rained yet and it is not a foregone conclusion that it will. The fact that is is not raining now while someone is insisting that it is while simultaneously posting support for the belief that it is not seems to be lost on you.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
John D'Oh
Aug 3 2006, 10:19 AM


Anyone else got any bright ideas? In case anyone is wondering, just saying 'we're doomed' does not constitute a bright idea.

May I suggest dusting off this proposal:

T.E. Lawrence Peace Map
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Quote:
 
What they are is an honest assessment of where things could end up.

That's the stuff. Sometimes I wonder whether the right and left are living on the same planet. I'm pleased that you acknowledge that these articles aren't spin from the liberal media or negative thinking but honest assessments. Not that it's your job to give me what I want, but, for what it's worth, I'm so much happier to hear what you think about Iraq than what you think about Rick.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
With all due respect my concern about whether I am making you happy is pretty much nil.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
JBryan
Aug 3 2006, 03:02 PM
With all due respect...

OT, but this phrase always makes me laugh out loud. In particular, the third word.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
JBryan
Aug 3 2006, 11:02 AM
With all due respect my concern about whether I am making you happy is pretty much nil.

Ah, but you cared enough to ask me this:

Quote:
 
What sort of "response to the substance" do you want from me.


And I told you. Evidently you cared enough to ask, for which I'm flattered. (Make that duly flattered.)

And regardless of how much you care or however nicely you ask, I won't go out on a date with you. I'm a married man and I don't cheat.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OperaTenor
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
John D'Oh
Aug 3 2006, 11:04 AM
JBryan
Aug 3 2006, 03:02 PM
With all due respect...

OT, but this phrase always makes me laugh out loud. In particular, the third word.

Are you talkin' to me?

;)



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
OperaTenor
Aug 3 2006, 03:18 PM
John D'Oh
Aug 3 2006, 11:04 AM
JBryan
Aug 3 2006, 03:02 PM
With all due respect...

OT, but this phrase always makes me laugh out loud. In particular, the third word.

Are you talkin' to me?

;)

I just spent 10 minutes trying to figure out what you meant. D'Oh!

:lol:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Dave Spelvin
Aug 3 2006, 02:17 PM
JBryan
Aug 3 2006, 11:02 AM
With all due respect my concern about whether I am making you happy is pretty much nil.

Ah, but you cared enough to ask me this:

Quote:
 
What sort of "response to the substance" do you want from me.


And I told you.

Actually, no you didn't. You simply responded positively to what I believed to be substantive but I don't want to get too nit-picky.

Quote:
 
Evidently you cared enough to ask, for which I'm flattered. (Make that duly flattered.)


You are easily flattered indeed.

Quote:
 
And regardless of how much you care or however nicely you ask, I won't go out on a date with you. I'm a married man and I don't cheat.


Not much danger of that. I am also married and don't cheat but there is much more to it than that.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
I have maintained and still maintain that Iraq is in the state of civil war and has been since the attack on the Shiite shrine early this year. The fact that those who are required to play the PR game in such situations are now using the term as a possibility is, to me, nothing more than preparing the American people for a public acknowledgement of what has been reality for a long time.

But as has been pointed out by several posters, the issue is not what I think; the issue is the reality on the ground and what are we to do about it. For close to two years, now, we have been assured by posters here that progress is being made, the situation is improving. They always include the caveat that it "might" get bad, so that they can cover their asses. Unfortunately, their assessment continues to be shown as being wrong as the situation in Iraq deteriorates day by day, week by week, month by month.

When asked what to do about it, all they can say is stay the course, because we just can't leave and besides, they keep assuring us, progress is being made.

We are now at a point, things are so bad, that even the PR side of the Administration can no longfer deny the "possibility" of a civil war. At the very least, this is an admission of just how bad things are.

Now, the right on this Board can spend their time arguing my comments. They can say these articles prove I have been wrong. This is their right to focus their comments on me, but it makes no difference whatsoever whethgr my assessment has been right, wrong, premature or whatever.

What matters is the American troops are beng killed, billions of American dollars being spent, American influence in the region destroyed, 100 Iraqis a day being killed, more and more Iraqis being kidnapped each day, the country's social, political and physical and infastructure continujing to be destroyed.

THIS is the real issue.

I have been very consistent in what I have said for a long time now. I have said this is now an Iraqi problem with a long history and we cannot solve it for them and that it will continue to get worse and we cannot control it. It appears, I have been correct.

I have also said I believe it is best for us to get out of there, let them do what they are going to do to solve the problem and then we reach out to them to help rebuild trheir country because we destroyed it.

Now that we are at a point where the politicians, the diplomats and the military are using the term civil war -- even if only as a potential -- I ask both those of you on the right who have supported this war as well as those of you who may have opposed the war but felt we could not just abandon the Iraqis after what we have done the following:

Do you see a problem here that has to be addressed in a different way than we have been addressing it? Do you see a need to do anything significantly different than what we have been doing ? If so, what do you propose we do?

Or do you continue to argue that all we need to do is to maintain the present course, maybe rearrange where the troops are once in a while and refocus their activites, but we basically stay the course?

[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1