The uncivil war in Iraq

Maj.Gen. William Caldwell IV:

-- I don't see a civil war in Iraq. I don't see a constituency for civil war. The vast majority of the people want hope for their families, not to massacre their neighbors or divide their country. A poll conducted in June by the International Republican Institute, a nonpartisan group that promotes democracy, found 89 percent of Iraqis supporting a unity government representing all sects and ethnic communities. No wonder no "rebel army" steps forward to claim credit for vicious car bombs and cowardly executions of civilians.

I see debates among Iraqis -- often angry and sometimes divisive -- but arguments characteristic of political discourse, not political breakdown. The Council of Representatives meets here in Baghdad as the sole legitimate sovereign representative of the people, 12 million of whom braved bombs and threats last December to vote. No party has seceded or claimed independent territory.

I see a representative government exercising control over the sole legitimate armed authority in Iraq, the Iraqi Security Force. After decades in which the armed services were tools of oppression, Iraq is taking time to build an army and national police force loyal to all. There have been setbacks, but also great successes. In Fallujah, a city almost lost two years ago, I have seen the cooperation between the local army commander, a Shiite, and the police chief, a Sunni.

I don't see terrorist and criminal elements mounting campaigns for territory. Al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn't use roadside bombs, suicidal mass murderers and rocket barrages to gain and hold ground. Extremist Shiite death squads don't shoot people in the back of the head to further their control of the government. I do see random executions seeking to instill fear and insecurity. I don't see a struggle between armies and aligned political parties competing to rule.

I studied civil wars at West Point and at the Army Command and Staff College. I respect the credentials and opinions of those who want to hang that label here. But I respectfully -- and strongly -- disagree. I see the Iraqi people suffering from overlapping terrorist campaigns by extremist groups combined with the mass criminality that too often accompanies the sudden toppling of a dictatorship. This poses a different military challenge than does a civil war.

...

None of the factions have the military capacity to take and control territory much less to seize government power. As I have noted before they have the power of the cockroach to make a mess in a house but not to build and maintain a house. Al Qaeda is executing its chaos strategy in hopes of dispiriting the US and Iraqis. The Iranians also have an interest in chaos in Iraq and are feeding factions that they support. What the US needs to do is help the Iraqis defeat both factions. Al Qaeda has clearly lost the hearts and mind battle in Iraq and is under attack from the Sunni sheiks in Anbar province which it hoped to use as a base. Al Qaeda is still able to attack non combatants mainly in Baghdad Shia neighborhoods which in return provoke the Iranian supported militia to send out its death squads to attack Sunnis. These attacks present the illusion of chaos, but what is not noted is that none of these attacks directly challenge the government forces.

What should be clear from this situation is that the enemy is not winning in Iraq. He maybe winning in the Democrat caucus and the anti war caucus, but he is not able to carry the day in Iraq by force of arms. When Gates says we are not winning he is talking aobut it in terms of achieving our objectives. What is left out of that statement is that the enemy is even further from achieving its objectives in Iraq than he is in Washington.