Here you see the DOD’s Central Command’s take on the civil conflict in Iraq as of 18 Oct 06. The HB looked at this chart and said, “Bloody, hell! What does it mean?” Well, any chart coming out of the bureaucratic quagmire that is the Department of Defence, will necessarily be obtuse. So, Anon will ‘splain it all.

The symbols on the left are defined near the bottom of the chart. So, we can see first that the political/religious leaders are increase(ing) their publicly hostile rhetoric (toward other groups, toward the U.S.? They don’t say) has been “routine.” Okay, now that you’ve got that; let’s see if we can put this in plain English.

There has been a significant loss in the moderating influence by these same political/religious leaders over their own constituents. Also significant are the expanding role of militias in the security of the country, the ineffectuality of the police, rise in sectarian tensions and the subsequent internal displacement of Iraqis. What they mean by significance of “governance,” I truly don’t understand.

There are “irregular” provocative sectarian attacks and assassinations, ineffectuality of the army, neighbours enabling violence, sectarian conflicts between and within the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), refusal of ISF to take orders from the central government, acceleration of the Kurds’ moves toward secession and the annexation of Kirkuk.

In the “critical” column is low level violence motivated by sectarian differences. This last one is what is edging Iraq toward full-fledged civil war. As you can see, the index made from the factors considered is moving toward chaos. Peace is all the way over on the left and chaos edges ever closer.

Finally, at the bottom is a little blue box that gives a terse summation. No matter what is said publicly, this is what is being said within the walls of the Pentagon. After 7 November, ‘victory’ will be re-defined and we will start our advance to rear.

By the way, to say that if we had gone into Iraq using the “Powell Doctrine” (use of overwhelming force), is really a ‘straw man’ argument. This argument of overwhelming strength was used in various dissections of the war in Vietnam and it was just as false then. When it’s the wrong war, no amount of force can win. No revisionist dream can make it right. Vietnam was the wrong war, at the wrong time, against the wrong enemy, and so is the war in Iraq. How much blood and treasure must we spill before we finally learn this lesson? Or must every generation suffer again?

Please give what you can to Médecins sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders).

And, of course