Civil War in Iraq?
 

The situation in Iraq is escalating. Many argue that a civil war threatening the whole gulf region is already underway and the U.S. seem to have no means to confine the spreading violence.

What do you think? Was the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq a failure? Is there any chance for the newly formed democracy in Iraq to succeed? Should Jafaari step down to save the little stability left?

I think these events served as the groundwork for a civil war in Iraq.

Whoever bombed the Shiites shrines had that in mind. There is no other explanation.

CIA knew and warned the Bush admin but neocons said 'no fuck you we're going in'.

.. O....Kay...

Well, now that we got the idiot that all political palace threads get in them...

Personally, I think it just advanced what was bound to happen. Let's admit it, the Middle East has never been stable. If they aren't bombing places, they're.... bombing... places.

It was bound to happen in the next hundred years. I think that this just cut all the pussy-footing that'd happen beforehand out of the picture.

I sure hope so. Anything that make's it easier to get to the oil.

!

Honestly, I don't believe democracy ever stood a chance in Iraq. A new political system only works when the people themselves decide they need it, and sometimes that's not even enough. So, it doesn't suprise me that the situation is escalating.

I do believe it is very likely that Iraq could collapse into Civil War (the first chance they have at freedom, there is going to be splitting or a coup) and the US can't do much to prevent or stop it. It's up to the Iraqis whether or not their country remains stable.
If it does degenerate into Civil War, we could see a situation very similar to the evacuation of Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War.

I dont think the us invasion to iraq was ever actually needed... if it was for freedom as they say, then they should have had to invade Cuba, Iran and North Korea, as well as a few african and asian nations... bush's greed is being seen in full action in this senseless war

Actually the freedom argument only became the primary cause once word got around there was no WMD (or concrete links to Al-Queda).

Well, where's my logic going wrong? The CIA fulfils a geopolitical diagnostician role, among others, in its being a US government consultant. It's pretty obvious that the Bush administration's not completely on the same page, and that Cheney and company put inordinate pressure on Bush to persue certain factional agendas that can very well described as neoconservative.

Is it more that you just don't like the sound of my summary?

What I don't understand is why Bush has to make change. Iraq wasn't really theatening us with Saddam in power, our ports don't need to be sold to the United Arab Emirates. Why does Bush insist?

Maybe Saddam was a defective chink in the mail that bottlenecks Chinese oil access, thus delaying their becoming the second superpower on the block.

Well, not really defective, more unreliable, perhaps. Much safer to install a relatively predictable, goadable government. The Bush admin probably considered a few years of civil unrest a fair price in exchange for such security.

There was a recent article in the New York Times in regards to this topic. The problem is that neighboring arab nations may respond to the call of aid from the different ethnic groups. With the Shiite Irani people to the north and the Sunni Saudi people to the south, there is a lot of room for disaster in-between. For now, the best thing we can hope for is that Iran does not get a means of producing nuclear weapons as they would be one of the largest threats in the event of a full-scale middle east war.

Not from a military standpoint, but economically he was. Saddam made the mistake of opening a oil trading market in euros, threatening the supremacy of the petrodollar. He had to go. For more examples; See Iran.

It could be collateral. For a attack on Iran perhaps? Naw couldn't be. I don't know what possessed me to think of that!

Why did they need to be sold to the British?

It's actually probably best they end up in a civil war. These guys just got out of a totalarian government, and you expect them to up and move to democracy just like that? It seems the current administration is at least hinting at the efforts in Iraq akin to the American Revoultion, but there are key differences.

1) Americans wanted to change (see Acro-nym's post)
2) Americans didn't have a ton of factions who wanted to kill each other
3) Americans weren't Muslim

On point #3, what I mean is, does the Muslim religion even leave a chance for democracy? If someone disagrees with you religiously, he is an infidel and must be killed. Democracy is more or less based around the principles of freedom isn't it? Correct me if Im wrong, but I figure the religion the majority of Iraqi's hold to is just in-hospitable to a democratic system.

Even if they could pull a democratic system, even America had to go through a civil war eventually. If anything, a civil war will end up causing the various factions to see the mess they've gotten themselves into, and will only strengthen them and foster a new enviorment for a democratic system.

Or neighboring countrys could take advantage of it and attack. That's even more likely.

I think there are moderate Muslims out there. The US probably has a couple million of them and you don't see reporters getting kidnapped from the Fox News headquaters.

Sure there are, but the extremists seem to be getting in the way alot as of late.

I just don't see democracy happening over there untill the Iraqi's get up and start honestly trying to deal with the crap going on over there themselves. The Iraqi militia is a nice first step, but untill just about every Iraqi is actively doing something, such as tipping off American and Iraqi forces to insurgents and such, I feel were just stagnating the inevitable by staying over there crying, "Democracy, DO YOU USE IT" to the Iraqis.

I understand that countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, Mali and Senegal, among others, all have huge Muslim majorities and functioning democratic systems of government.

Democracy is based on the principle of governments being selected through the votes of an enfranchised segment of the population; freedom isn't a requirement.

I agree strongly with that. After you elect someone to power, who can take them down? Only others who are in power here. We haven't had a major coup in the US since the Civil War. It would be best if Iraq had chance to try things on their own, they do want to influence their future. Bombing Mosques and killing Shiites children is not the best way to do this though. What Islam could really use is a reformation of their faith like Christianity had in the 1500's. What was it like before than? Highly fundamental with mass killings in the name of the church common, much like where Islam lies today (coincidentally if the Christian reformation was 1500 years after it's formation, than the Islamic reformation shouldn't be far off...).

Yes, because that is the white man's burden no?

A minority of Americans wanted independence from Britain. Read a history book. Particularly about the first Continental Congress.

Which is why Loyalist Americans fought on the side of the British Monarchy. Or how about Shay's Rebellion? Whiskey Rebellion?

And the Iraqi Kurds were somehow able to govern themselves even under Saddam. Religion doesn't have much to do with these things.

Iraq is a set of lines drawn on a map by Western Imperialists about a 100 years ago. 'Iraqi's' of Kurdish descent, Shi'ite descent, and Sunni descent have very little in common.

If anything a civil war would cause Iraq to end up like Yugoslavia. Ethnic cleansing and all. But as I said in my first post; who cares. Whatever make's it easier to get to the oil.
.

In the case of a civil war, Iraq may end up like Yugoslavia but there is also the possibility of bordering nations attempting to annex or conquer a divided Iraq.

Whoever bombed that mosque obviously wanted to see Iraq split down the lines of religion and break apart in a civil war, (and I quote the Colbert Report on this) and a civil war is a war between two peoples, meaning we can't be involved with it, exit strategy anybody? After all if the insurgents start killing themselves then theres no real reason for us to be there right?

You're probably right. If the Kurds declared the establishment of their own country Turkey would have no choice but to invade. It's sizable Kurdish minority has already been stirring up trouble. Not to mention the territorial disputes the Kurds would start in Iraq itself.

Sure we can. A civil war doesn't necessarily have to between religous groups now does it? It could be the Iraqis that support occupation vs the Iraqis that don't support a Coalition Army stationing itself in the country.

Can we please stop with this exit strategy crap? It's okay for the average dipshit to gobble down these mind numbing soundbytes off CNN or Fox News, but aren't we all a little smarter then that? Withdrawl is not a strategy. It is a command. A command that'll be issued sometime around never.

Not in the middle of the killing no. Let's just let the brown people kill the brown people. Saves American lives after all.

But the civil war we're discussing here is between religious groups.

I hate to say it, but I think Iraq was better off with Saddam as president. He was brutal, but he kept order, the Iraqis had working utilities such as running water and electricity in far more parts of the country, and the country wasn't at it's own throat. Maybe he had such a hard government because that's what was needed.
I'm not about to say I like some of the things the bastard did, but the US works because Americans fought for it of their own free will, and the rest of us have either grown up accustomed to it or have willingly moved here. It's not a one-size-fits-all deal. No form of government is, as likewise if you tried a form of government like what Iraq used to have here in the US you'd have a full-blown revolution by the end of the day.

I don't know how much sense the rest of that makes to anyone else, it's just some speculation I was thinking about.

You know what form of government we could push that I'm sure would take rise in Iraq? Fascism. Let's see how they respond to a healthy dose of fascism.

So you're on the ground in Iraq and can tell me that for sure? I've read otherwise. In the Guardian (U.K. newspaper) there was a particularly interesting article that quoted Sadr as to saying that "No Sunni would do this" in relation to the demolition of a recently demolished Shi'ite shrine.

Cui bono?

The scale of a Civil War cannot be determined, but the likelihood that some form of sectarian conflict will break out is unequivocal. This civil war is clearly a result of the U.S. invasion (since the specter of a sectarian conflict was non-existent before the invasion) and the continued presence of predominately U.S. troops in the country does not mitigate that effect, and arguably exacerbates it by giving the impression that it is carrying out the will of the predominately Shiite democratic government against the Sunnis and, conversely, from the Shiite perspective, stoking the fires of the Sunni insurgency.

Here is a plausible solution: Withdraw from Iraq, arm the Shiites, and accelerate the prospect of a civil war that is already looming on the horizon. Here, we can gain political favor with the predominant political bloc and consolidate the power of the government of our choosing while distancing ourselves from the necessary actions they might take to solidify their hold on the country.

How many Iraqis have died since the US invaded Iraq? I know it's less than what Saddam killed over the same time period (albeit people killed by Saddam died a much worse death). I remember Bush ballparking it aound 30,000.

Let us remember that terrorists count as civilians because technically they are not affiliated with any military. Therefore when you see "Iraqi Civilian Death Toll" while some may be innocent a large number are also insurgents as well.

Let us also not forget that a vast majority of Iraquis are killed by foriegn muslim extremists trying to incite civil war in Iraq in an attempt to discredit America.

Source: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pub...g=zgp&proj=zme

Full Text (Direct PDF Download)

I found this to be a very interesting read that shouldn't go unnoticed.

Giving these people a timetable of when the US is leaving also leaves room for certain groups to plan attacks on other groups, possibly by using terrorist "allies" who are trying to provoke a civil war. At this stage, a timetable sounds like a bad idea in general. The US people want to know when their troops are coming home, I'd suggest that the government have a general list of goals that need to be accomplished and stick with that instead. Unless of course... that things end up costing way too much and the US finds that it can no longer afford the war.

Wouldn't separating the ethnic groups only make it simpler for them to end up in a nasty civil war? I would think that it'd be easier for me to not worry about accidentally hurting my friends if only my enemies were in front of me.

The sad reality is that these people aren't going to be happy with some territory or political representation. The Sunnis, the minority of the population, were once in control and decentralized goverment where the majority rules is not in their best interest... ever.

In my opinion what is needed in Iraq is integration, not separation. Unfortunately I largely doubt that the Iraqi people are at a stage where they can accept integration.

So what are the options? Integrate the population almost forcefully and they will be angered, upset, and violent. Split the population and they'll likely go to war and possibly drag other neighboring nations in the conflict with them.