Rumsfeld: Not a Civil War...Yet

In testimony before Congress, Rumsfeld opined that Iraq has not quite descended into civil war, but that sectarian violence has indeed worsened. The mere fact that anyone in the Bush administration has even acknowledged that things are not as good as they were is a bit of a surprise, as the administration has remained absurdly optimistic even in the midst of the worst violence. But what's more intersting is what Rumsfeld had to say about what would happen if civil war in fact does break out:

"The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the _ from a security standpoint _ have the Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to," Rumsfeld told the committee.

Rumsfeld certainly is not one to speak without qualification. Quite a bit can be read into this single comment. As we mentioned, there is no admission that civil war exists (which is not surprising, given how much disagreement there is over exactly what a civil war would look like). Yet, there is a subtle admission of the possibility of civil war, though he qualifies that by saying "to the extent one were to occur" (I suppose it's arguable that civil wars come in various sizes.) Then he tells us that while the Iraq security forces would deal with it, they would do so only "to the extent that they are able to." And beyond that extent would be...American forces, I presume. The implication then is that the Bush administration acknowledges the possiblity of civil war, and the possibility that our forces will remain even in the midst of it. If you think that such a role is impossible to imagine or carry out, I'll say to that: Biddle's plan, Biddle's plan, Biddle's plan.