UK Ambassador - Iraq civil war "more likely"

William Patey, Britain's outgoing ambassador to Iraq, sent a last cable to Tony Blair which is severely at odds with the Bush/Blair official line, according to the BBC today.

Mr Patey wrote: "The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy.

"Even the lowered expectation of President Bush for Iraq - a government that can sustain itself, defend itself and govern itself and is an ally in the war on terror - must remain in doubt."

Talking about the Shia militias blamed for many killings, Mr Patey added: "If we are to avoid a descent into civil war and anarchy then preventing the Jaish al-Mahdi (the Mahdi Army) from developing into a state within a state, as Hezbollah has done in Lebanon, will be a priority."

The cable says that "the next six months are crucial" - an assessment which is shared by the coalition's military commanders.

He did also say that "the position is not hopeless" - but said Iraq would remain "messy and difficult" for the next five to 10 years. That "six months", by the way, is acceptable spin for "God only knows if this will ever work", as Jeffrey Shaffer of the CS Monitor noted a week ago. It's the compromise between "timetable for pulling our troops out" and "staying as long as it takes" and various supporters of the Iraqi war from both sides of the pond have been adding "six months" to the timetable any time it suited them for ages now.

The Foreign Office wouldn't comment other than to offer the standard spin: "Every day the capacity of the Iraqi security forces to manage their own security is growing."

Which is why, no doubt, the same BBC report has this:

The BBC has also learned, from military sources, that British troops in Basra are planning to dramatically step up operations against Shia gunmen.

Update U.S. military commanders, Gen. Pace and Gen. Abizaid, have joined those warning of an incipent full-on civil war. They say they are optimistic it won't happen but that:

"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war,"

Then again, they also said that they didn't foresee a year ago that sectarian violence would be as high as it is now.

The Bush administration and it's appointees seem to be particularly expert at not forseeing the f*cking obvious, don't they?