SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PROLIFE who wrote (736033)4/9/2006 1:42:51 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
<GGG> You KNOW what they say about 'assumptions'....



To: PROLIFE who wrote (736033)4/9/2006 1:48:31 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Let Them Have Their Civil War

By Caleb Carr
Sunday, April 9, 2006; B01
washingtonpost.com

As the violence in Iraq has expanded, analysts have been asking: Are we witnessing the beginning of a formal Iraqi civil war? But far more important when we consider what role our troops might play in the extended fighting is the question: Does the United States have any right to forcibly stop such a war, when and if it begins?

Civil war, as defined by many generations of military theorists, shares characteristics with insurgencies and revolutions, but there are distinct differences, too. Although insurgencies are contests of rival groups, insurgents need not control any appreciable territory to be effective. Civil wars, on the other hand, involve two or more armed groups, each controlling part of a country. And although civil wars, like revolutions, can be influenced by outside forces as well as ideological considerations, sometimes they are merely struggles for power. Still others -- like the American Civil War -- are contests over not just politics or power, but some high motivating moral principle as well.

No such principle would seem to be at play in Iraq, for one of the insurgency's glaring deficiencies has always been its lack of a coherent ideological rallying point for all Iraqis. Its aim, by contrast, has been simple: the return to power of the Sunni Muslim minority that held sway under Saddam Hussein, or, failing that, the kind of endless anarchy that will make any other government's rule impossible. The insurgents have succeeded at the latter: Although an Iraqi National Assembly and executive branch have been created and elected, the assembly has met only once and briefly, and Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari is widely viewed as ineffectual and corrupt. Americans, meanwhile, are voicing overwhelming condemnation of the war, creating a perhaps unbridgeable gulf between themselves and the Bush administration. This has always been a basic definition of insurgent success, as it tends to severely restrict the counterinsurgents' time frame for operations.

Thus, all the courage that went into organizing and carrying out Iraqi elections would seem to have produced a government unworthy of the sacrifices made to bring it into being. The resulting frustration is clear in the words and increasingly deadly actions of many Iraqis who appear to be giving up on a political solution to their country's problems. This means mainly the once-persecuted Shiites (who are showing dangerous signs of splintering into fighting sub-factions) and Kurds.

The more the Iraqi government and its U.S. advocates talk about "fairness" for the Sunni minority, the more the violence seems to escalate. The insurgents do not want their people seduced into participating in the new Iraq, while the Kurds and Shiites seem reluctant to afford true national power to the very people who not only made Hussein's genocidal rule possible, but are also leading the insurgency.

This may not be textbook civil war, but it is certainly shaping up to be the beginning of one.

If Americans ever had the power to stave off such a conflict, the past three years of misguided military policy have exhausted it. But military ability to stop a civil war is not the key issue. Nor should excessive concern for our own national security cloud our policy decisions: The first casualties of any expanded fighting will almost certainly be both Saddam Hussein (who has been kept alive thanks to U.S. insistence on his trial -- and thanks to U.S. guards) as well as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is now despised more than Hussein by many Iraqis. No, the real issue of importance for Americans with regard to any impending Iraqi civil war is: Are we morally justified in trying to prevent it?

Before answering, Americans should consider a few facts from our own national experience. Our Civil War was viewed as an exercise in horrendously destructive national suicide by most of the nations of Europe -- and an expensive one at that, for it cut off European textile mills from Southern cotton. Britain and one or two of her fellow members in the European balance of power considered intervening -- but intervention was averted, mostly through the careful warnings of President Abraham Lincoln and his diplomatic corps. They stressed that civil war in America was a more morally complex affair than the usual European grab for power. It was, at its heart, a contest to end the institution of slavery.

If the Europeans found its violence deplorable and horrifying, said Lincoln, that was understandable; so did he. But as he explained in his second inaugural address, in words that we revere so deeply that we have carved them into his memorial:

"If God wills that [the war] continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, 'The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.' "

Iraqis may refer to their Lord by a different name, but the principle in their case is the same. We are not dealing with several groups of roughly equal recent experience; we are dealing with one extreme minority, the Sunnis, many of whom have for years, under the leadership of the worst international tyrant since Pol Pot, persecuted and murdered the other two -- on a genocidal scale.

As Americans, we cannot condone mass murder as a form of vengeance. But every time an American official tries to tell the Shiites and the Kurds (along with the many smaller minorities in Iraq) that they are not entitled to the same judgments and justice as we ourselves received and wrought from 1861 to 1865, they make civil war in that country more -- not less -- likely.
Such statements reveal the blatantly paternalistic, even racist, opinion that what was necessary in the American experience is not something for which the Iraqis are ready or qualified.

Indeed, if polls in Iraq are reliable (and they seem to have been, thus far) then the American presence there is only increasing the likelihood that if civil war comes, it will be more vicious. The presence of U.S. troops, noble as their efforts at control may be, only fuels more rage, since they keep Kurdish and Shiite forces at bay while failing to stop the Sunnis from committing daily murder.

And where is the justice for those murders?
It does not emanate from either an assembly that has met once in three months or a U.S.-led coalition that continues to display an extraordinary level of concern for the Sunnis. It may well come, in the end, only from allowing the Kurds and Shiites to fight -- yes, to bloodily settle accounts -- with the Sunnis for themselves.

Not only is it impossible for Americans to stand in the way of an internal Iraqi balancing of the scales, it also reeks of hypocrisy. We went to Iraq, according to our president, to make Iraqis free. If that is so, and if their first decision as a free people is to declare war upon one another, just as Americans once did, where do we derive the right to tell them they may not?
We cannot, again, condone genocide (we can even cut it short by keeping land and air units in the region); but neither can we any longer delay justice -- even if it is to be forcibly dispensed.

Yet right now, that appears to be the unenviable position into which the Bush administration and Iraqi insurgents have thrust our troops. Those troops have fulfilled their primary mission of bringing down the Hussein regime, and they have done it well, but even they cannot create or enforce a just peace in a foreign country -- a laundry list of failed recent attempts in other nations should tell us that.

If the Iraqis wish to try it on their own, better that we allow them to use a mixture of their own militias and conventional forces -- the kind of combination that fought our Civil War. That way, we at least accord them the respect of equals. They may even remember, one day, that we did. And that memory may, over time, ease the bitterness created by occupation.

Caleb Carr is the author of "The Lessons of Terror: A History of Warfare Against Civilians" (Random House). He teaches military studies at Bard College.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company



To: PROLIFE who wrote (736033)4/9/2006 1:52:01 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Respond to of 769670
 
Official: 'Undeclared Civil War' in Iraq

By MARIAM FAM, Associated Press Writer
33 minutes ago
news.yahoo.com

A car bomb killed six people Saturday near a Shiite shrine south of Baghdad, and the death toll from the deadliest attack of the year rose to nearly 90. A senior official warned Iraq was in an "undeclared civil war" that can be curbed only by a strong government and greater powers for security services.

With sectarian tensions rising, U.S. Marines on Saturday beat back the largest attack in weeks by Sunni Arab insurgents in the western city of Ramadi — another sign of the crisis facing this country three years after Baghdad fell to U.S. forces.

The car bomb exploded at a small shrine in the Euphrates River town of Musayyib, 40 miles south of Baghdad. Police said most of the six dead and 14 wounded were Shiite pilgrims visiting the shrine.

Fears of more attacks are running high in Shiite areas following the Thursday car bombing that killed 10 in the Shiite holy city of Najaf and the suicide attack the following day against a Shiite mosque in Baghdad — the deadliest attack in Iraq this year.

The attacks on houses of worship have stoked tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims, especially after the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra, an act that triggered reprisal attacks against Sunni mosques and clerics.

Despite the violence, U.S. officials have discounted talk of civil war. However, a senior Iraqi official said Saturday that an "undeclared civil war" had already been raging for more than a year.

"Is there a civil war? Yes, there is an undeclared civil war that has been there for a year or more," Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal told The Associated Press. "All these bodies that are discovered in Baghdad, the slaughter of pilgrims heading to holy sites, the explosions, the destruction, the attacks against the mosques are all part of this."

His comments were echoed by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

"Civil war has almost started among Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and those who are coming from Asia. The situation is uneasy and I don't know how would Iraq be brought together," Mubarak said in an interview broadcast Saturday on Al-Arabiya satellite television.

Kamal said the country would still be spared from all-out sectarian war "if a strong government is formed, if the security forces are given wide powers and if they are able to defeat the terrorists."

"Then we might be able to overcome this crisis," he said.

The death toll from the Friday bombing of the Buratha mosque in north Baghdad rose to 85 because some of the wounded died, Dr. Riyadh Abdul Ameer of the Health Ministry said. Officials said the death toll could rise because of severe injuries among the 156 people wounded in the attack by suicide bombers, including one dressed as a woman.

Also Saturday, Sunni insurgents launched their strongest attack in six weeks against the Anbar provincial government headquarters in Ramadi, 75 miles west of Baghdad. There were no U.S. casualties, Marines said.

A U.S. Air Force F-18 fighter bombed insurgent positions, unleashing thunderous explosions that shook the city. U.S. Marines guarding the government headquarters fought back with anti-tank rockets, machine guns and small arms fire.

Sporadic shooting occurred around the government building after sunset, and an Iraqi soldier was killed Saturday in a separate fight in Ramadi, U.S. officials said. Three Iraqi soldiers were wounded in a clash with insurgents in Fallujah, about 30 miles east of Ramadi, police said.

The U.S. military reported Saturday that a U.S. Marine died from wounds suffered in hostile action the day before in Anbar province but gave no further details.

The New York Times reported in its online edition Saturday that an internal staff report by the U.S. Embassy and the military command rated overall stability of six of Iraq's 18 provinces "serious" and one "critical." The report was dated Jan. 31, the Times said.

The newspaper said provinces where overall stability was rated "serious" included Baghdad and oil-rich Basra, where Shiite militias wield considerable influence. Anbar province, which includes Ramadi and Fallujah, was rated "critical," the newspaper said.

"This report should be seen in the broader context of development in Iraq as it relates to the economy, governance and security," Dan Speckhard, the U.S. reconstruction chief for Iraq, said in a statement.

He said significant progress was being made in economic development and local governance after "decades of mismanagement" by Saddam Hussein's regime.

Efforts to form a strong, broadbased government including Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds have stalled over Sunni and Kurdish opposition to Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Shiite candidate to lead the next administration. Opponents accuse al-Jaafari of failing to stem sectarian violence.

However, al-Jaafari has refused to step aside, and his Shiite coalition has been reluctant to reconsider his nomination for fear of splintering their ranks. Shiite officials were to meet, possibly as soon as Sunday, to discuss the stalemate at the urging of the country's top Shiite leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

Al-Jaafari's allies suggested the meeting would be to affirm the prime minister's nomination, which he won by a single vote during balloting last February among Shiite lawmakers who won seats in parliament in the December elections.

"So far, we still have one candidate ... and that is Dr. Ibrahim al-Jaafari," Jawad al-Maliki, a key member of the prime minister's Dawa party. said. "If there is an opinion to be discussed within the alliance, then it must be discussed through ... democratic means."

Al-Maliki said he understood that al-Sistani wanted the alliance to resolve the crisis "but I did not hear a call" for al-Jaafari to step down. But he added that "anything is possible."

Khalid al-Attiyah, an independent member of the Shiite alliance, said several options were under discussion, including replacing al-Jaafari with Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi, who lost the February vote.

But al-Attiyah said al-Jaafari's party would oppose that. Abdul-Mahdi is a member of the largest Shiite party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Other proposals include naming another candidate from Dawa or someone not affiliated with either of the two big Shiite parties, al-Attiyah said.

In other developments Saturday:

• Police found four headless bodies showing signs of torture that were dumped on a farm about 20 miles north of Baghdad.

• A mortar round hit a house near the Education Ministry in central Baghdad, killing two men, police said.

_Gunmen killed a Shiite cigarette vendor and police found the body of a man killed by a roadside bomb near a highway.

___

Associated Press correspondents Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Baghdad and Todd Pitman in Ramadi contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.



To: PROLIFE who wrote (736033)4/9/2006 1:57:04 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Time Running Out for Rebuilding of Iraq

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
Sat Apr 8, 9:58 PM ET
news.yahoo.com

In their makeshift offices in a former Baghdad palace, a small army of American builders and engineers, oilmen and budgeteers is working overtime on last-minute projects to help reconstruct Iraq.

Their time is running short, their money running out.

After three years in which the U.S. government allocated more than $20 billion for Iraq reconstruction, a bill now making its way through Congress adds only $1.6 billion this year, just $100 million of it for construction — not for building schools or power stations, but for prisons.

Does the sharp cut in aid surprise and disappoint the planners here? "Probably both," said Michael P. Fallon, programs chief for the major U.S. reconstruction agency here.

But "the program in general has been very successful," he said in an interview — "with the caveat that it hasn't gone as far as we thought we'd be able to go."

The ambitions of 2003, when President Bush spoke of making Iraq's infrastructure "the best in the region," have given way to the shortfalls of 2006, in electricity and water supply, sanitation, health facilities and oil production. A University of Maryland poll in January found strong majorities of Iraqis hopeful about their country's future in general, but only one in five thought the Americans had done a good job on reconstruction.

Even after billions were spent on power plants and substations, electricity generation still hasn't regained the level it had before the U.S. invasion of 2003. When Fallon's experts keep the lights burning late, they're relying on emergency U.S. generators in their "Green Zone" enclave, since the rest of Baghdad gets power only a few hours a day.

Barely one-third of the water-treatment projects the Americans planned will be completed. Only 32 percent of the Iraqi population has access to clean drinking water now, compared with 50 percent before the war, according to the U.S. special inspector-general for Iraq reconstruction.

About 19 percent of Iraqis today have working sewer connections, compared with 24 percent before 2003.

Of more than 150 planned health clinics, only 15 have been completed, under a contract ending this month.

Oil production, meanwhile, has stagnated, averaging 2.05 million barrels a day in mid-March, short of the 2.5 million-a-day U.S. goal, and far short of Iraq's production peak of 3.7 million in the 1970s. Fewer than one-quarter of the rehabilitation projects for the oil industry have been completed.

Iraq's insurgency dealt a major blow to the rebuilding efforts, leading U.S. officials in 2004 to begin siphoning off reconstruction money to help train Iraqi police and military forces, build prisons and pay for private security for projects already under way.

Washington from the beginning also underestimated Iraq's needs, how badly its infrastructure had suffered from wars, the devastating looting of 2003, and neglect through years of U.N. economic sanctions and Saddam Hussein's rule. Now, says the special inspector-general, Stuart Bowen, the need for more aid "has reached a critical point."

But rather than sending more rebuilding money, the U.S. effort this year will shift toward "sustainability" — to an oversight role, to training Iraqis to maintain what has been built, and to urging others to fill the aid gap.

"I think we've been pretty clear that we never intended to fix the entire infrastructure," said Kathye Johnson, Fallon's boss as reconstruction director for the U.S. projects agency in Iraq, the Gulf Region Division-Projects and Contracting Office.

"Fixing" Iraq's infrastructure would probably cost at least $70 billion, experts estimate. Johnson and other U.S. officials say that money should begin to come from other foreign donors and the Iraqi government itself.

But prospects for that are uncertain.

More than two years ago, other foreign governments and international institutions pledged more than $13.5 billion in Iraq aid, but thus far barely $3.2 billion has been spent.

Donors continue to shun this dangerous country; the World Bank, front-line lender elsewhere, hasn't even opened an office in Baghdad. The Bush administration is pressing Persian Gulf states, in particular, to help their fellow Arabs in Iraq.

"The international community should step up and begin to provide some of that support," said Daniel Speckhard, the U.S. Embassy diplomat who oversees all Iraq reconstruction efforts.

As for Iraq's own money, lagging oil exports leave it with nothing to spare.

The U.S. Embassy estimates Iraq must export 1.65 million barrels a day just to begin accumulating funds for repairing more roads and leaking water pipes, laying sewer lines, rebuilding hospitals and making other capital improvements. But in early March its foreign sales averaged only 1.38 million barrels.

"It is unclear how Iraq will finance these additional requirements," U.S. congressional auditors said in a recent study.

That budget gap will cripple the Iraqis as they try to pick up where the U.S. government leaves off. They estimate they'll need $20 billion to rebuild the electricity system alone. On water treatment, Ghazi Naji Majid, director-general of the Public Works Ministry, says plans for six major plants are on hold "until the money becomes available."

Even where there's money, plans can stall. Majid said his ministry has stopped building a water-treatment plant in Abu Ghraib, just outside Baghdad, "because workers were being kidnapped and killed." Within a few days last month, in the northern city of Beiji, attackers killed 12 men — engineers and others — who worked for the important local oil refinery and power plant.

Insurgency, lack of money, widespread corruption, inadequate training, poor maintenance — all threaten to undercut even what's been accomplished. Congressional auditors, from the Government Accountability Office, went back to check completed water-treatment plants in Iraq and found that one-quarter of them were operating below capacity or not at all.

To preserve what's been done, to aid "sustainability," the 2006 U.S. budget allocates almost $300 million to operations and training at new or rebuilt power and water plants and other facilities.

"What you don't want to happen is for facilities to fail because they didn't know which part was broken, or they didn't have the part," said David Leach, in charge of capacity development for the U.S. projects agency.

Leach sees a "high risk with the investments we've made." Iraq's violence can make it difficult for trainers and trainees even to get to their work sites, he said.

"A lot of trips get canceled," he said.

One project, the Balad Ruz water-treatment plant 40 miles north of Baghdad, will become a test case in this transitional year. The Americans supervised the building and purchase of equipment for the plant, but after June 1 the Iraqis must install the equipment and lay 25 miles of pipe to deliver water to some 55,000 residents.

"It's meant to start to develop their talent for finishing projects," said Air Force Col. John Medeiros, project overseer. "It's a case of 'Let's give you something to galvanize yourself around.'"

The special inspector-general wonders, however, how well a Baghdad government will "galvanize." In his January report to Congress, Bowen recommended that instead the Americans should keep their hand in reconstruction for three or four more years.

Far from the halls of Congress and such budget decisions, the U.S. project managers here work with their spreadsheets and blueprints in the cavernous rooms of what once was a museum to Saddam. They haven't given up on possible major new infusions of U.S. money.

"We've just gone through a drill: If you get additional funding, what would you do with it?" said Tom Waters, deputy director for electricity. Fallon, a civil engineer and 30-year-plus veteran of the Army Corps of Engineers, said a contingency plan has been drafted that would "take us to the next levels."
,b>
But so far no one's showing them the money.

"The question is, when do you pull the plug?" Fallon said. "We stand that risk of maybe taking a step or two back if we walk out. I'm concerned."

If it's left to the Iraqis and the insurgency rages on, he said, "I don't know if they'll ever make it."

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.