Congress may need to re-approve troops during "all-out civil war" in Iraq

[Human Torch]

Exclusive: Iraq—Plans in Case of a Civil War

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14206642/

Aug. 14, 2006 issue - The Bush administration insists Iraq is a long way from civil war, but the contingency planning has already begun inside the White House and the Pentagon. President Bush will move U.S. troops out of Iraq if the country descends into civil war, according to one senior Bush aide who declined to be named while talking about internal strategy. "If there's a full-blown civil war, the president isn't going to allow our forces to be caught in the crossfire," the aide said. "But institutionally, the government of Iraq isn't breaking down. It's still a unity government." Bush's position on a pullout of U.S. troops emerged in response to news-week's questions about Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Warner warned last week that the president might require a new vote from Congress to allow troops to stay in Iraq in what he called "all-out civil war." But the senior Bush aide said the White House would need no prompting from Congress to get troops out "if the Iraqi government broke down completely along sectarian lines."

The White House prefers to focus on the more positive aspects of last week's testimony from Gen. John Abizaid, commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, and Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The generals gave a bleak assessment of the sectarian violence, but added that civil war was only a possibility, not a probability. In fact, the U.S. military in Iraq has completed several elements of contingency planning in case of civil war, based on lessons learned from Bosnia and Kosovo. The military's approach revolves around three principles. The first is to stop massacres by physically separating communities, moving minorities out of harm's way if necessary. The second is to stop the flow of paramilitary gangs across the country. And the third is to halt any incitement to violence on Iraqi TV and radio. Baghdad would pose the biggest problem, requiring a strict curfew and a ban on road traffic. The security measures would include widespread checkpoints and a ban on carrying firearms or explosives.

The administration hasn't made its definition of full-blown civil war explicit. But in March, when Iraq's former prime minister Ayad Allawi said the country was already fighting a civil war, Bush disagreed, noting the existence of Iraq's nonsectarian Army and government. If the country did someday meet the definition of civil war and the U.S. pulled out, military officials warn, the consequences would be disastrous. "All the neighboring powers would be drawn in," said one senior military official who has examined the scenarios and is not authorized to speak on the record. "It would become a regional war."

[Nickster]

1. Well see, I don't accept your so called definition of "Civil War", see

a Civil War means when you have two sides see. One side is the guys that wear the blue coats, and they call themselve Yankees. See on the other side, see, those guys wear the gray coats and call themselve "Reb'" so see how silly you are to ask whether there will be a civil war or not? Heh heh. Those Ay-rabs, sure aren't going to be wearing no wool jackets in that heat and calling themselves Yankess or Rebs, see? Heh Heh. You librul media types sure don't know anything about history. Heh heh

[spartan61]

2. They can't call it a civil war!

If they do, it has to go back to Congress for re authorization and I doubt the Congress critters who voted for the war will be that stupid again, especially if they are running for re-election. All they have to do is look to see what is happening to CT Joe and his support for this war. Isn't Senator Warner saying the same thing about this going back to Congress? Now I think I know why it's called "Death Squads," Insurgency, blah, blah, blah. "A rose by any other name, ..."

[thecrow]

3. "third is to halt any incitement to violence on Iraqi TV and radio"

Interesting... they would take over the media.
Sounds familiar.

[necso]

4. Circumstances may arise

where removing our forces from Iraq becomes impossible, at least in the sense of being able to appropriately deal with all our military materials there (including such materials as are damaged; perhaps a large item) -- if not in the sense of being able to extract essentially all personnel, military and non-military. (While the thought of abandoning war-profiteering scumbags to their fates is tempting, in practice the worst offenders typically take little-or-no physical risks -- and those actually-at-risk are, as I understand it, largely just people trying to make a living -- and many are poor people from poor countries, who are desperate enough to risk their lives for relatively small compensation.)

Moreover, waiting until the catastrophe can no longer be disguised from any but the most (functionally) brain-dead isn't a good idea -- because by then it may be too late to do much about it (neocon skills with propaganda are far greater than their skills in effecting ends in places other than American minds and politics) -- and it will almost certainly be too late to deal with the situation as effectively and efficiently as we might be able to do now.

Along this line, I seem to remember some "talk" recently of the military starting to make a serious effort to remove (excess, damaged, worn-down, etc) war materials, but I have also read something to the effect that air-resupply was being increasingly used (as a means of regular supply), because of the (increasing?) dangers of ground-transport. Of course, I don't know the accuracy of either of these bits of "information" (that which accurately informs -- but in this context may not inform accurately: ie, may not really be information; hence, the quotation marks).

In any event, removal of military materials is important because otherwise:
* This could result in these materials being used for violent ends by other parties;
* It could reveal technical details of our weaponry to potential adversaries and others who might copy these weapons;
* These materials will (largely) be replaced, and the cost of doing-so could well be greater than refurbishing conserved materials;
* Any necessitated abandonment or attempted destruction of large quantities of material (particularly in a hurried, harried timeframe) would be very bad for morale, and it could leave many units unready for service.

Furthermore, we'll be on our own in doing this, it'll take some time, and adverse conditions can reasonably be expected. So we must allow appropriate time for logistics -- and start on material-disposition immediately (one expects that this is already in process). (We also need to have good contingency plans (covering various contingencies, with the necessary resources being put in place) to extract our troops and assorted hangers-on.)

Now, I'm one to say that if our military is at some potential risk (even if this potential risk is in more "technical" areas, like being able to properly deal with military materials), then the public should be informed about this, so that we can bring pressure to bear.

Of course, given the culture of, and the laws governing, the High Command, one doesn't expect to hear much, if anything, directly from them. There are, however, other channels. And if we need to add "logistics-enhancement forces", "reaction forces", "relief forces", "strategic reserves", or other bodies of troops to the mix, then this should be made known.

(It should be possible by various temporary expedients to deploy (perhaps station nearby) such military-forces (even if somewhat marginally equipped), and there's no excuse for not pressing the case (if need be) in a timely manner. (Nb, using temporary expedients for longer than the short-term promises even greater disaster.))

Now, certainly, a cease-fire (followed by meaningful negotiations) would be helpful, but the only actions that it seems reasonable to expect from this misadministration are those actions that won't cause it to lose face -- and are consistent with the sort of heedless, delusional militarism and puerile, macho posturing that can be expected from those who don't have a clue about military matters, or matters of international politics and diplomacy -- and who are afraid of appearing childish, weak, weak-minded, out-of-touch, and out-of-control... especially because they are.

(I have no desire to abandon the Iraqis, and I wouldn't want to be anyone there -- especially a Sunni Arab -- when we leave, particularly if we leave without a working cease-violence. But within the limits of our resources -- and considering who's in charge here -- there's probably little that can be effected... except for some temporary facesaving and ass-covering, which "achievements" we risk paying a heavy price for.)

(Broader ceasefires and negotiations would also be a good idea, because for none of the major conflicts in the region (anywhere?) is a reasonable, total-cost worthwhile, long-term, net-positive (strictly) military-victory condition easily definable (in practice, detail, etc -- not in propaganda, which is easy), much less practically achievable.)

Indeed, I, for one, am so desirous of reasonable, workable solutions that I'd be willing to listen to the "victors" (ie, whoever makes this claim) endlessly triumph their "victories" (if it's good for all, then I'm personally unconcerned with who takes the credit -- or who claims that they are the (sole) "winners" -- at least as long as this posturing has manageable larger-world effects) -- with scarcely a mumbled word to the contrary. (Nor am I generally interested in laying blame -- rather my interest is in avoiding similar problems in the future. Although sometimes it's necessary to clearly identify the offenders and graphically describe their behavior patterns (and what underlying drivers can be abstracted from this behavior), relevant circumstances, etc, in order to avoid repetition of mistakes that they're responsible for -- particularly mistakes driven by their individual/group character/beliefs.)

But "workable" (in practice, long-term, etc) and "neocon" generally don't go together -- as long as lying, looting, manipulating the chumps, and the like, aren't the matters at hand. Moreover, the currents of violence, militarism, fundamentalism, sectarianism, suspicion, (etc) are flowing so strong -- and the "efforts" to "counteract" these currents are having such counterproductive effects (overall) -- that it's hard to see a way forward, at least in terms of practical (and to be expected from neocons) next steps.

Maybe we should try a coin-flip.