John Burns, Back from Baghdad: U.S. Effort In Iraq Will Likely Fail

A day after returning to the U.S., after another long term as bureau chief in Baghdad, John Burns of The New York Times said on Bill Maher's Friday night HBO program that he now feels, for the first time, that the American effort in Iraq will likely "fail."

Asked if a civil war was developing there, Burns said, "It's always been a civil war," adding that it's just a matter of extent. He said the current U.S. leaders there--military and diplomatic--were doing there best but sectarian differences would "probably" doom the enterprise. Burns said that he and others underestimated this problem, feeling for a long time that toppling Saddam Hussein would almost inevitably lead to something much better.

He called the Abu Ghraib abuse the worst of many mistakes the U.S. made but said that even without so many mistakes the sectarian conflict would have gotten out of hand. He also pointed to a key period coming up, as the top American generals decide over the next two weeks whether to go ahead with the planned "draw down" of U.S. troops starting this spring which, as it turns out, coincides with deteriorating conditions on the ground.

The problem is, he said, any U.S. withdrawals could lead to chaos there, with the Iraqi military not ready to take over, but not bringing troops home would prove to be a political disaster for the White House at home. Speaking from Cambridge, Mass., Burns observed that he had been on the ground for 24 hours and of all the people he had interacted with so far "no one supports this war." His most recent article from Baghdad appeared in The Times on March 5. He said he was heading to California next. Burns was one of the few Americans journalists who stayed in Baghdad during the U.S. attack on Iraq in March 2003, and has spent most of his time there since.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002157326

what is happening their now?

And we will just have to remind them that;

THEY control the House.

THEY control the Senate.

THEY control the Executive Branch.

and

THEY control the Judicial Branch.


Gunsaximbo

He's a fantastic reporter. He's been one of the people I've trusted most for information about Iraq. He's smart, wise and perceptive.

"..any U.S. withdrawals could lead to chaos there,.."

Further memo: The "effort" isn't "likely to fail", it has failed by every measure.

What else do they need, a formal declaration?

By the deniar's standards, we aren't really at war with terror, since there are no battles and tactical warfare on a daily basis.

of "feel-good" speeches about Iraq.

Now, I believe they have also figured this out in Washington. No doubt they know it's a lost cause. We can see that by the conflicting statements by Rumsfailed, "No, they are not in a civil war" and "if the iraqis slide into a civil war, we will not interfere", and "there's a possibility Iraq will go into a civil war".

At this stage, they are trying to figure out what to do. Should they leave? Should they stay? Should they keep up the charade of training Iraqi troops "so they can stand up so we can stand down" joke. They know only too well that the Iraqis might SEEM ready to take over, they are in fact loyal to each other. As soon as Big Daddy's back is turned, they will do what they want.

The fact is, the US does not have many options. All of them are negative. The truth is, we are stuck in Iraq.
a) pull out - they will probably never accept this willingly. Leave the treasure for someone else? Not on your life.
b) bring in more troops - this is a possibility, especially if violence goes through the roof.
c) have surrogate troops - see above.
d) pay off every Iraqi, with about $10,000 per person to settle the peace - now THERE's an idea.