I think it's pretty clear that a civil war in Iraq isn't just a possibility, it's already happening and it's been going on for awhile. It may not have reached maximum violence potential, but you don't need to have traditional, large scale battles like Antietam or Gettysburg to have a civil war . . . especially when a large scale, American Civil War-style conflict is basically impossible there at the moment (no one side of the Iraqi sectarian conflict is presently capable of fielding a "traditional" army of hundreds of thousands), and guerilla tactics have proven to be more effective then conventional warfare, anyway.
More below the fold . . .
Just read the excerpts from the article linked-to below and think about the fact that most of the attacks mentioned, the vast majority of the violence, is Iraqi-on-Iraqi. Further, consider the fact that all the Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence mentioned in said article happened in a single day in a nation with a population barely larger than New York State's - and that the day in question wasn't unusually violent by Iraq's standards.
The bottom line is that the Republicans have failed to prevent a sectarian conflict from breaking out in Iraq and that the Republicans are, unfortunately, losing the war there. Thanks to their stunning ineptitude and warped, fantasy-land dreams of empire we are well on our way to losing a "war" for only the second time in our history.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
The top commander of the Iraqi army division in Baghdad was killed Monday when his car came under small-arms fire while traveling through the capital, the U.S. military said.
Maj. Gen. Mubdar Hatim Hazya al-Dulaimi was one of the highest-ranking members of the new Iraqi army to be killed in insurgent violence. Under his leadership, the 6th Iraqi Army Division has been gradually assuming control of parts of the capital from U.S. forces.
His killing could set back security efforts in Baghdad, particularly following the recent outbreak of sectarian violence, according to a senior U.S. commander who worked closely with him.
"It could be a blow that takes a long time to overcome," said Maj. Gen. William G. Webster Jr., commander of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, who oversaw U.S. troops in Baghdad for a year ending in January. "Losing a strong commander for even a little while in Baghdad could cause a further power shift toward what looks like the Shia control of the city."
. . .
Elsewhere in the capital on Monday, at least four car bombs exploded, killing four people and injuring 24, police said. Another four people were killed and 10 wounded when three car bombs detonated in the town of Mahmudiyah, about 15 miles south of the capital, security officials said.
In the worst attack of the day, seven people, including five children, were killed and 17 were injured when a car bomb exploded in a crowded market in central Baqubah, about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, police said.
A U.S. military statement said the explosion occurred near the office of the mayor, who was meeting with community leaders at the time to discuss ways to improve security. The statement blamed the attack on insurgent attempts to "incite sectarian violence within the community."
Five policemen who rushed to the scene were reportedly injured in a secondary bombing that targeted them.
The U.S. military reported the death of a U.S. soldier "due to enemy action" in the western province of Anbar on Sunday. Additional details were not available.
The bodies of a father and two of his sons were found Monday in the city of Hawijah, about 35 miles southwest of the northern city of Kirkuk, according to police. They said the victims were Shiite Muslims who appeared to have been shot execution-style, presumably by the Sunni-led insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq.
An offshoot of the group recently distributed leaflets in the town demanding the expulsion of Shiites in retaliation after Sunnis fled their communities around Baghdad.
Fearing sectarian violence, some Sunni families abandoned their homes following the destruction of a revered Shiite mosque in Samarra on Feb. 22. Attracted by the rich agricultural land around Hawijah, many Shiites had moved to the area during the rule of Hussein, residents said.
Oh yeah - and Britain plans on completing the withdrawal of all its troops by 2008:
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/...
Now, the big question is, does Bush/Cheney hope to bug out by around then, too? They've already all but lost this war and maintaining current troop levels in Iraq is putting an enormous strain on the U.S. military. How long can a force of 130,000 or more be maintained there without a draft - especially under daily combat conditions (along with the resulting casualties and equipment damage/destruction)?
The massive, massive foul-up in Iraq by Bush/Cheney and the right-wing is bleeding Bush's Presidency, and the Republican Party, dry. The mounting U.S. casualties; the constant news of one Bush/Cheney screw-up after another over there; the failure to have even one single Iraqi army brigade ready to fight on its own 3 years after the invasion; the constant reports of massive corruption, embezzlement and cronyism among Bush's occupation authorities; the fact that basic services like electricity and economic indicators like oil production are actually getting worse, not better; etc. all lay bare, on a daily basis, the arrogant incompetence of Bush and the right-wing, and the surreal, fantasy-land nature of the right-wing's entire foreign policy ideology.
So, I would not be at all surprised if, within the next couple of years, Bush/Cheney decide to cut Iraq loose in a way that they can try to spin. Say, by pulling out a significant number U.S. troops, and basing the remainder in heavily fortified, permanent bases (if U.S. troops were present in much smaller numbers, and if their profile was much lower as a result of them not being out and about in the streets anymore, U.S. casualties would likely drop significantly, and Bush could point to this as evidence of "improving conditions"). Now, I'm not talking about a complete withdrawal - I don't think they ever intend to completely leave Iraq - I'm talking about pulling maybe half the troops there out, and basing the remainder in fortified permanent bases.
The right wing may then declare a hollow victory and falsely claim that they never said they'd rebuild Iraq or create a stable, successful democracy there, (or they'll just lie and claim that they did rebuild Iraq and that they did create a stable, successful democracy there).
They'll claim "mission accomplished" all over again, pointing to elections as "evidence" that all is well.
They'll gloss over the fact that economic indicators in Iraq, like oil production and unemployment rates, are abysmal; that basic services, like the availability of electricity, are below pre-war levels; and that Islamic sects, many allied with outside forces hostile to America, like Iran and al Qaida, now largely control that country.
They'll claim that decreased U.S. casualty rates show conditions have improved over there, ignoring the fact that casualties will be lower because significant numbers of U.S. troops have been pulled out and because the troops still there spend more time holed up inside fortified bases, and less time patrolling.
And of course, the Republicans/right-wing will blame their loss of this war - and the ensuing damage to our military, economy and international reputation - on the people who were right all along about their folly in starting it to begin with ("we would have won except for all you dissenters!") - ignoring the fact that the Republicans have been in control of every branch of government, of the military and of every aspect of the war's prosecution from day one of the invasion.
It's important for us all to remember (and to make sure that everyone else remembers) that the Republicans lost this war.