Wednesday, July 26, 2006

This is a reason?

Rumsfeld on why Iraq isn't in the middle of a Civil War. Really:
Oh, I don't know. You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, this is really very different. If you think of civil wars in other countries, this is really quite different. There is -- there is a good deal of violence in Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there's very little violence or numbers of incidents.

So it's a -- it's a highly concentrated thing. It clearly is being stimulated by people who would like to have what could be characterized as a civil war and win it, but I'm not going to be the one to decide if, when or at all.
A bunch of things here:

1) Yes, the Iraqi Civil War is very, very different from the American Civil War. Similarly, the American Civil War was very different from the English Civil War of the 1640s.
Confederate General Don Rumsfeld: President Davis, we really shouldn't be talking about the "civil war". Really, we aren't seeing any beheadings and pikes. Now, if you started calling yourself Lord Protector Davis, then we'd have a civil war!
There's a little thing called linear time, and I know conservatives have a hard time with that idea, so we'll let this pass for now.

2) The "2 or 3 provinces" that are in chaos are the same "2 or 3 provinces" that have been in chaos since, oh, April of 2003. And the US Army has been trying to sell this "most of the country is calm" line for just as long. Fact is, most of the "calm" provinces are either controlled by the Kurds or the Shia. The US Army gets the remainder of the provinces, and controls none of those.

3) Rumsfeld gets one thing right: He doesn't get to decide when the war started. Emphasis on the past tense.

No comments: