As reported here last Friday, General John Abizaid, the top U.S. military commander in the Middle East, sent shock-waves through the administration and the press when he admitted to Congress on Thursday that "Iraq could move toward civil war".
This nearly frozen blogger filled in a few of the missing details, explaining that there is already a civil war in Iraq, and that it is happening largely because the Pentagon has been so busy setting up death squads there. The Iraqi death squads are modeled after the death squads set up in El Salvador in the early 1980s, in what has been described -- I am not kidding -- as our "democratization" of that unfortunate Central American country. And now Iraq is unfortunate enough to be the newest victim of our so-called "democratization".
The administration is not about to admit that creating a Civil War in Iraq was part of the plan, nor will it admit that it never had any intention of winning a war in Iraq. But actions speak louder than words, and now it has become abundantly clear that their goal all along was to become embroiled in a long and difficult war there. In case you hadn't noticed, this is exactly what has happened.
But in the administration's eyes, there still needs to be a veil of propaganda thrown over the whole sordid tale, and our Secretary of State did her best to maintain that veil when she explained why -- in her opinion -- there is no civil war in Iraq.
"Our civil war began quite dramatically when the South opted out of the United States of America," Dr Rice explained in an interview with Time magazine.Let me get this straight: Since the Iraqi Civil War is not the same as the American Civil War, it's not a civil war?
"Well, the Kurds haven't opted out of Iraq. The Shia haven't opted out of Iraq."
...
She said the tell-tale sign of a civil war was a breakdown of "institutions of unity" and they, in her view, were still functioning in Iraq.
"People haven't opted out of a unified Iraq. People haven't opted out of the democratic institutions," Dr Rice said.
How ludicrous can she get?
As a matter of cold hard fact, the term "civil war" refers to "a war between factions or regions of the same country". Nothing about secession. Nothing about the breakdown of "institutions of unity". Just "a war between factions or regions of the same country". Period.
Do you want an example of a civil war in which no side wanted to leave the country? There are plenty of historical examples to draw from, including Russia.
Why Russia? Condoleeza Rice is known as an expert on Russia and the former Soviet Union. She knows that nobody opted out during the Russian Civil War. And she knows that it was a civil war nonetheless. But this fact is mighty inconvenient for her nowadays. So she simply ignores it.
If she is willing to stoop this low to deny that there is already a Civil War in Iraq, how much lower will she go to deny that the USA started it?
We may never know. But maybe she was hinting at something important when she added:
"There are some people outside the system who seem to be intent on trying to cause the breakdown of those institutions.""Outside the system"? Just exactly who is "outside the system" and trying to cause "the breakdown of those institutions"? Other than the "geniuses" in the Pentagon?
I can't wait to find out.