Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Powell: Iraq in “Civil War”

By

I realize that his reputation has taken a hit, but I still like Colin Powell.  Perhaps his loyalty to his President as Secretary of State caused a myopic view of Iraq at the beginning of the war, but he isn’t allowing that to cloud the vision of Citizen Powell:

“I would call it a civil war,” Powell told a business forum in the United Arab Emirates. “I have been using it (civil war) because I like to face the reality,” added Powell.

He said world leaders should acknowledge Iraq was in civil war.

Matt Lauer’s opinion is one thing, but Colin Powell’s is another thing altogether.

For an administration struggling to maintain public support for its conduct of the war – and a President who insists that Iraq is not in civil war – Powell’s remarks will further shake public confidence.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. but it fizzled out.  This has been a civil war for some time now.  The reason the White House is still pushing the other side is because they cannot use the “we’re fighting terrorist” BS line they have been shoveling down out throats.

  2. A great post at DailyKos explains what Fareed Zakaria has reported

    <

    p>

    “If you want to understand the futility of America’s current situation in Iraq, last week provided a vivid microcosm. On Thursday, just hours before a series of car bombs killed more than 200 people in the Shia stronghold of Sadr City, Sunni militants attacked the Ministry of Health, which is run by one of Moqtada al-Sadr’s followers. Within a couple of hours, American units arrived at the scene and chased off the attackers. The next day, Sadr’s men began reprisals against Sunnis, firing RPGs at several mosques. When U.S. forces tried to stop the carnage and restore order, goons from Sadr’s Mahdi Army began firing on American helicopters. In other words, one day the U.S. Army was defending Sadr’s militia and, the next day, was attacked by it.”

    The problem here is that al-Sadr’s party holds at least 30 seats in the Iraqi Parliament and is part of a coalition that holds 128 seats in the Iraqi Parliament.  And in “BREAKING NEWS”, Sadr loyalists are now boycotting the Iraqi government because of Prime minister Nouri al-Maliki’s summit with Bush.  But putting all that aside for the moment, if our troops are being shot at and attacked by militia associated with someone who holds influence in the Iraqi government, as well as those who are fighting against said government, what does that say for our troops and “the mission”?

    <

    p>
    It’s becoming increasingly unclear just who the enemy is. How we fight this war, and for what purpose, needs to be clearly articulated so that everybody can understand why we’re there. And we have to reclaim the moral highground. But there’s no  way to do that, at least not with Bush in charge.  And there’s no way to win, it seems, when we’re being attacked on all sides.

    • Iraq appears to be so chaotic that it cannot even have a proper civil war.  It is progress, though, that NBC has decided to call it a civil war — and, in fact, to call it something different from what the White House says it is.

Archives