Iraq

They're the last two words that President Bush wanted to hear, said Jim Rutenberg in The New York Times. But last week, talk of 'œcivil war' in Iraq was rife on Capitol Hill. 'œThe sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it,' Gen. John P. Abizaid, commander of U.S. military operations in the Middle East, told the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'œWe do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war.' Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace echoed that grim assessment, as did Britain's outgoing minister to Iraq. 'œThe prospect of a low-intensity civil war,' wrote William Patey in a memo, 'œis probably more likely at this stage than a successful transition to democracy.' Taken together, the downbeat talk 'œrepresented a tacit acknowledgement that there was no use spinning this conflict.'

And yet this White House keeps on spinning, said Richard Cohen in The Washington Post. When the dreaded phrase 'œcivil war' leaked out, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Bush retreated into their usual lofty rhetoric about our 'œglobal struggle against violent extremists.' Their facts, though, seem to change from day to day: 'œWe have this town one day, we don't the next. Iraqi troops are up to snuff; oops, no they're not. This is the babble of chaos, the telltale rhetoric of defeat.' Once again, the media isn't telling the whole story, said syndicated columnist Cal Thomas. Abizaid said he's 'œoptimistic that the slide can be prevented,' and Pace said that all-out civil war wasn't even probable. Victory over the terrorists in Iraq will be difficult, but Rumsfeld and Bush are right: If we withdraw our troops now, it 'œwill mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere.'

But our current strategy just isn't working, said Thomas Friedman in The New York Times. Despite America's best efforts, Iraq is 'œa lawless mess,' with sectarian militias, death squads, and terrorists slaughtering 100 Iraqis a day. It's time for Bush to face reality, and call an international conference like the one that was assembled when Bosnia was disintegrating. All nations with a vested interest in avoiding an Iraqi implosion—countries such as India, Japan, Russia, and China—should be invited, and all options should be on the table. That includes partitioning Iraq into three largely autonomous regions to keep the Sunnis and Shiites from each other's throats, and replacing U.S. troops with a truly international force. We should not keep squandering American lives in Iraq if the Iraqis won't stop killing one another. Sad to say, the only choice left us is to 'œdisengage with the least damage possible.'

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up