Rashomon or Lies? Both, but neither.

NYT:
Iraq has moved perilously close to civil war. Everyone who knows anything about the tortured history of that country, cobbled together from disparate parts by British colonial officials less than a century ago, has always dreaded such an outcome.

Ralph Peters (from Iraq)
March 1, 2006 -- THE reporting out of Baghdad continues to be hysterical and dishonest. There is no civil war in the streets. None. Period.

Terrorism, yes. Civil war, no. Clear enough?

Buckley's recent caterwaul argues for the former
Hanson, JUST BACK from Iraq argues for the latter
Kristol hasn't changed a note
Kaplan (R of the WaPo) argues they can't do democracy, we should go for 'normalcy' (what the hell is THAT? I can't even figure out what that means in my own life)

It doesn't matter
What's real?
Well here's my view .. A very intelligent Al Qaeda has in the same week(s) attempted to foment a civil war aided (functionally if not explicity) by Sadr and the Iranian Pasdaran in Iraq, nearly simultaneoulsy they have attacked Abqaiq in KSA. This OFFENSIVE CAMPAIGN in the war on terror by the murderers, is an effort to :
1) Regain the initiative, for the next step(s)
2) Cripple the economies of the west, making it far more difficult to carry on ANYWHERE far from home
3) Create civil war in Iraq for the purpose of creating a failed state in the Sunni triangle to have another - Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan. Both the highly Shia south and Kurdistan would be functional states with a key natural resource in excess, and one of them somewhat inimical to the USA. The Sunnis would have but one resource, and one export .. suicide murderers for Islam.

Whether we like it or not, Iraq is and has always been just one campaign in a world war. A war fomented by others, a war they say must be, a war begun they say by the immutable words of god against the whispering satans of free will, licentiousness, and material wealth. It leads to the end point as much as Peleliu lead to the Brandenburg Gate, as much as Anzio lead to Tokyo Bay, as much as Guadalcanal lead to Dresden. We can argue about WMD, Shia and Sunni hate (or not), not enough men, they are too brutish to govern themselves ... it's all angels on a pinhead.

The war is to kill the jihadis of salafism, and reduce to ashes the philosophy of Islamic Domination through **Jihad and intimidation and violence**. That the latter must occur by indirect means is indisputable, unless we just unleash ourselves without any moral compunction. However, that is not who we are today.

But as Geraghty pointed out, and as many others including myself have argued repeatedly, the next attack here in america will find a very different mindset in the aftermath.

What does that mean about civil war in Iraq?
It means that if there is a civil war, and 3 states result, the citizens of Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi etc should expect relentless long range warfare via technical means from above.
Bet on it. No failed state can be allowed to exist, and if we by cowardice, or Hamlet-izing allow it, the murderers actions will merely bring about this result after the death of (#?) americans. The murderers have no choice, you see.

Only we do.