Civil War v. Open Civil Warfare

A new idea was born Tuesday, by an Associated Press reporter who probably didn’t know it when he or she was doused with a bucket of divine inspiration.

Mar 15, 3:52 AM (ET)
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraqi authorities discovered at least 87 corpses (Monday and Tuesday) - men shot to death execution-style - as Iraq edged closer to open civil warfare.

Some of the bloodshed appeared to be retaliation for a bomb and mortar attack in the Sadr City slum that killed at least 58 people and wounded more than 200 two days earlier.

It may not have been Tuesday that this term “open civil warfare” came into existence, maybe it’s just new to me.

But it shows, at least, that the players in this most miserable game have begun considering that it isn’t President Bush who gets to decide if Iraq will have a civil war.

Admitting that civil war has broken out, many dozens of corpses ago, is tantamount to conceding defeat. It would illustrate why the U.S. backed a urinal cake like Hussein in the first place: to maximize profit, it takes a monster to enforce the arbitrary borders of Iraq, and most of post-colonial Earth.

The civil war will cost many more Iraqi lives, and after the government caves to public pressure and pulls out, Iran and its new nuclear bombs ultimately step in to lend a helping hand.

The sad irony of this horrible aspect of Bush’s re-election campaign is that now Iraq has a better chance of becoming the deployment point of a Tel Aviv-bound nuclear weapon than before the invasion/occupation.

In the fuzzy world of the Bush Administration, steeped in a healthy blend of incompetence and corruption, civil war is something that hasn’t happened. Somebody should have told the men who were shot in the back of the head last week and buried in their underwear. Maybe the whole thing could have been avoided.