Kissinger says victory in Iraq no longer possible

nytimes.com/2006/11/19/washi … nd&emc=rss

[quote]“If you mean, by ‘military victory,’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” Mr. Kissinger told BBC News.

…Mr. Kissinger, in the BBC interview, said the United States must open talks with Iraq’s neighbors, pointedly including Iran, if progress is to be achieved in Iraq. Mr. Bush has said the United States is ready for such talks, but only if Iran moves to halt its nuclear enrichment work. American officials say low-level talks with Syria have produced little progress.

But Mr. Kissinger also said that a hasty withdrawal from Iraq would have “disastrous consequences,” leaving not only Iraq but neighboring countries with large Shiite populations destabilized for years.

He said the United States would probably have to plot a road between military victory and total withdrawal.[/quote]

And McCain says that it is “immoral” to keep the troopers there under current conditions, which make victory impossible. His solution is to send in a LOT more troops to win it properly. Not sure that’s even possible given current numbers and deployment.

*btw, Vay, please shorten those links.

[quote]But Mr. Kissinger also said that a hasty withdrawal from Iraq would have “disastrous consequences,” leaving not only Iraq but neighboring countries with large Shiite populations destabilized for years.

He said the United States would probably have to plot a road between military victory and total withdrawal.[/quote]

Kinda like, stay the course, eh? More so if McCain was running the show.

And Vay, your title is misleading. Hank did not say what you claim him to have said.

[quote]
If you mean, by ‘military victory,’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” Mr. Kissinger told BBC News.[/quote]

If I want my news skewed, I’ll watch CNN. :wink:

[quote=“jdsmith”][quote]

And Vay, your title is misleading. Hank did not say what you claim him to have said.

[quote]
If you mean, by ‘military victory,’ an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” Mr. Kissinger told BBC News.[/quote]

If I want my news skewed, I’ll watch CNN. :wink:[/quote][/quote]

So you’re looking at a definition of victory where the Iraqi government doesn’t control the whole country, and civil war and sectarian violence are out of control?

Hey, you’ve got that now- declare it and go home.

It’s not his title, it’s the one given by the media. Since you like CNN so much :wink:

[quote]… that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” Mr. Kissinger told BBC News.
[/quote]

The press has categorized Iraq’s current state as a “civil war”. A civil war is a conflict among citizens for land or political power. Most of the killing being done is by unidentified militia who attack: a) security institutions, b) religious targets, and c) high-population areas.

Is “civil war” the best description for what is occurring? Was the USA in a civil war when Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City? For a civil war, I’d expect to see the “rebel” group’s political wing attempt to make its intentions heard to bolster public support and get people on its side. But instead the news describes revenge killings, marketplace attacks (terrorist’s modus operandi), and hits on police recruiting sites.

Where’s the civilian support for the “rebel” group’s objectives?

[quote=“Groo”][quote]… that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible,” Mr. Kissinger told BBC News.
[/quote]

The press has categorized Iraq’s current state as a “civil war”. A civil war is a conflict among citizens for land or political power. Most of the killing being done is by unidentified militia who attack: a) security institutions, b) religious targets, and c) high-population areas.

Is “civil war” the best description for what is occurring? Was the USA in a civil war when Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City? For a civil war, I’d expect to see the “rebel” group’s political wing attempt to make its intentions heard to bolster public support and get people on its side. But instead the news describes revenge killings, marketplace attacks (terrorist’s modus operandi), and hits on police recruiting sites.

Where’s the civilian support for the “rebel” group’s objectives?[/quote]

Merriam-Webster’s definition is broader. As for where the civilan support is for the insurgents’objectives, who cares? It is there somewhere and even if only one-tenth of one percent of the population was fighting the other ninety-nine and nine-tenths, can it not equally be called a civil war? There’s a fight between two groups and it ain’t gonna end soon. Those two groups are made up of Iraqis. I’d say that is a civil war.

The Trotskyite Neo-cons have been a success regarding Iraq. A huge success.
They’re following orders.
The agenda was to destroy what was once the leading Arab country in the middle east.
This is both beneficial to the US and Israel.
The control of oil is the other reason.
Through Artificial Scarcity James Baker and his backers have made the price of oil beneficial for no-one outside the oil industry.

Bush is destroying everything (Problem). Then they’ll say we need an alternative (Reaction) and the democrats or some friendly sounding ‘Republican’ will promise to clean things up (Solution). Except nothing will change. The same laws that would have the founding fathers backing a revolution will go through via the republicrats.

I also remember that Kissinger said Military men are dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns and that America doesn’t have friends, but interests.

cake,
your ramblings are beginning to remind me of someone…

[quote=“NeonNoodle”]
Main Entry: civil war
Function: noun
: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

Merriam-Webster’s definition is broader. As for where the civilan support is for the insurgents’objectives, who cares? It is there somewhere and even if only one-tenth of one percent of the population was fighting the other ninety-nine and nine-tenths, can it not equally be called a civil war? There’s a fight between two groups and it ain’t gonna end soon. Those two groups are made up of Iraqis. I’d say that is a civil war.[/quote]

This broad definition would seem appropriate for every conflict in the world, but for some reason it’s not used that often.

You describe the “rebel” group as insurgents. Merriam-Webster defines an insurgent as:
1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent
2 : one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party

So, insurgents attack the government/authority, but most of the attacks are on religious and civilian sites? Why do they keep hitting non-government targets? Insurgent is not an appropriate description for them.

Getting back to my point, this looks more like instigation than civil war or even insurgency. Are there really two sides fighting each other in a war? Or is one side killing indiscriminately while the other side tries to stop them? Can we say the Shiites and Sunnis are at war in Iraq? No, they have formed a government together, only a small percent of both groups are doing the revenge and sectarian killings.

In war, you really do need a reasonable part of the population to back you, otherwise your war-making abilities are not sustainable. Unless, your group is supported by outside entities, but then it’s not a real civil war. I think by calling it a civil war we are ignoring the bigger picture of what is causing the fighting.