Dare we mention an Iraqi CIVIL WAR?

spillmind

Member
Sep 1, 2003
780
13
16
Palo Alto, Ca.
current link

Iraq May Be Slipping Into Civil War
Mon Feb 16, 7:56 AM ET

By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Sunni politicians speak angrily of U.S. bias toward their Shiite rivals. Kurds are more outspoken in demanding self rule — if not independence. And someone — perhaps al-Qaida, perhaps Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) loyalists — killed more than 100 people in recent suicide bombings.

Rivalry and resentment among Iraq (news - web sites)'s ethnic and religious groups have become much more pronounced since Saddam's ouster in April. And those tensions are rising as various groups jockey for position with the approaching June 30 deadline for Iraqis to retake power

The fault lines are emerging for a possible civil war.

Veteran U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, who just finished a visit to the country, pointedly warned Iraqi leaders they face "very serious dangers" if they do not put the interests of the nation ahead of those of their clans, tribes, ethnic groups and religious communities.

"I have appealed to the members of the Governing Council and to Iraqis in every part of Iraqi to be conscious that civil wars do not happen because a person makes a decision, 'Today, I'm going to start a civil war,'" Brahimi told a news conference on Friday at the end of a mission to discuss ways of setting up an empowered Iraqi government.

Brahimi, who helped mediate civil conflicts in Lebanon and Yemen, told Iraqis that civil wars erupt "because people are reckless, people are selfish, because people think more of themselves than they do of their country."

A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, agreed that civil war was possible, citing conflicts that erupted in the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union after the collapse of Communist authoritarian rule.

Even before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last March, some Western and Arab scholars predicted the country would plunge into civil war as soon as Saddam's totalitarian rule collapsed.

So far, many Iraqis insist they are determined to keep the peace, saying their nation is already worn down by three devastating wars since 1980, decades of dictatorship and nearly 13 years of crippling U.N. sanctions.

"We never fought each other," said Hamid al-Kafaai, spokesman for Iraq's Governing Council. "We are one nation and we will stay united."

However, unity has always proven difficult in Iraq, cobbled together from three separate Ottoman provinces by colonial Britain after World War I.

Saddam's Baath party held the rival clans, tribes, ethnic groups and religious communities together through a mixture of terror against its domestic enemies and patronage to those who remained loyal.

That formula held the nation together after Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War after Shiites and Kurds rose up, only to be crushed by Saddam's forces.

With Saddam gone, signs of social disintegration are emerging. The Shiites and Kurds believe they now have a historical opportunity to regain their rights — to the alarm of the Sunni Arabs.

Majority Shiites expect to translate their numbers — an estimated 60 percent of Iraq's 25 million people — into real political power.

The demands of their most influential spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, for an early election to choose a transitional legislature have pitted them against the Sunni Arab minority, who feel that such a ballot will further marginalize them.

The Sunni Arabs, bristling at the loss of their privileges under Saddam, have challenged the widely held view that the Shiites constitute a majority and accuse them of colluding with the Americans against them. Following Saturday's bloody attack against police and civil defense units in the Sunni stronghold Fallujah, rumors spread through the city that Shiite Muslim militiamen were responsible, although that seemed unlikely.

Sunni frustrations are behind the enduring anti-American insurgency in Baghdad and in Sunni-dominated areas to the north and west of the capital. Shiites have for the most part left the Americans in peace. The Shiite clerical leadership believes that it will inherit power as the Americans gradually withdraw.

"It flies in the face of Iraq's history of the past 80 years to imagine that the Sunnis will accept Shiite domination or allow them to rule," said Gareth Stansfield of the Institute of Arab & Islamic Studies at England's University of Exeter.

In a letter released by U.S. authorities Wednesday, an anti-American operative, believed to be Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, tells leaders of al-Qaida that turning the country's religious communities against one another is the best way to undermine U.S. policy in Iraq.

"The potential for a civil war is already in place," said Stansfield of Exeter University. "It does not need al-Qaida to encourage it."

The Kurds, believed to form 15-20 percent of the population, remain fixated on a single goal — preserving and expanding the self rule they have enjoyed in their northern regions since 1991.

Kurds are locked in a power struggle with Sunni Arabs over the limits of federalism in the new Iraq. Kurdish claims to Kirkuk have served to unite the oil-rich city's Arab and ethnic Turkish residents against them and have raised alarm bells here and in neighboring countries over the possible dismemberment of Iraq.

Worsening tensions come at a time of increased suicide attacks against Iraqis who cooperate with the U.S.-led coalition. Such attacks cast doubt on U.S. claims that Iraqi security forces can maintain order after the handover of sovereignty this summer.

Those doubts have encouraged key Iraqi groups to resist coalition demands to disband armed militias such as the Kurdish peshmergas, who fought with U.S. troops against Saddam's military last year, and the Shitte Badr Brigade.

Moderate Islamic writer Fahmi Howeidi has warned the power transfer could provide the catalyst for civil war.

"The possibility of a civil war breaking out cannot be ruled out if the withdrawal goes ahead against this backdrop of a huge void in central authority," he wrote in a recent article published in the London-based, pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat.


what next? we blame the british for creating a country that tried to incorporate different peoples that cannot live together??

i'm just suprised that we UNDERESTIMATED yet another huge aspect of the occupation.

here's another litte reference to the distinct possiblity:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/02/13/sprj.nirq.main/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3479991.stm

so much for stability- let alone a democratic model.... :( nobody else saw this coming miles away? :confused:
 
That is exactly why we need to keep our troops in the country. We wait till the Govt. of Iraq has it's own army to deffend itself and to supress insurgants. No civil war will break if 150,000 US troops are in the country.
A fedral system will work just great for the country. The Sunnis are just mad because they enjoyed great abundance under Saddam and now they get the shaft. Isn't poetic justice grand!!:D
 
Even before the war began, this was a reason I was opposed to the war. The civil war that will happen effectively cancels out our humanitarian cause to go to war. After a three-way bloodbath, many things could happen, but most likely the Shi'a will mimic Iran, the Sunni will raise a new dictator and the Kurds will go on to wage another war against Turkey, to reach the dream of all kurds living in a united Kurdistan.

That is exactly why we need to keep our troops in the country. We wait till the Govt. of Iraq has it's own army to deffend itself and to supress insurgants. No civil war will break if 150,000 US troops are in the country.

What gov't of Iraq? That Iraqi governing council is a joke. We can't keep 150,000 US troops in Iraq forever, we'll have to bail off the sinking ship sometime.
 
What gov't of Iraq? That Iraqi governing council is a joke. We can't keep 150,000 US troops in Iraq forever, we'll have to bail off the sinking ship sometime

This is exactly why South Vietnam feel to teh northern communists. Because people weren't willing to stick it out till the end. If we leave now we will never save face again. We could cure cancer for God's sake and we will still never be forgiven for starting a middle eastern Civil war(yes all the countries would get invoved. not just Iraq....WWW3)

It's like in 1939. Jsut before Germany invaded poland the world found out that this man had violated the treaty of Versali(spelling?) and the world did nothing. 6 years later 40,000,000 poeple were dead when this whole thing could have been stopped if some country had the balls to put Hitler to the knife. Now the US has put the middle east to the Knife. Are we going to back away, and let 100,000,000 die and come back in 10 years?
Not while Bush is in office.

Bush in '04.:clap:
 
1. I'm not sure how this constitutes that we underestimated the threat of civil war, even though you chose to post the article in bold. It certainly evidences external hostilities from its Arab League neighbours. The potential has always been there. The RoP is anything but peaceful. We are in for the long haul militarily.

2. I take this with a grain of salt that is in the article, which confirms what I have seen and heard so far about where the Iraqis are in terms of fighting each other:

So far, many Iraqis insist they are determined to keep the peace, saying their nation is already worn down by three devastating wars since 1980, decades of dictatorship and nearly 13 years of crippling U.N. sanctions.

It is not the desire or the energy of the 23,000,000 Iraqi people to start a civil war. The article attempts to counter that undeniable point with this deranged word of praise:
Saddam's Baath party held the rival clans, tribes, ethnic groups and religious communities together through a mixture of terror against its domestic enemies and patronage to those who remained loyal.

That formula held the nation together after Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War after Shiites and Kurds rose up, only to be crushed by Saddam's forces.

With Saddam gone, signs of social disintegration are emerging. The Shiites and Kurds believe they now have a historical opportunity to regain their rights — to the alarm of the Sunni Arabs.


Allah forbid the Shiites and Kurds should work together in a democracy, Saddam Hussein was a great and forgiving leader. Seriously spill, peace is the way is it not?
 
So what are you saying.....
That we should give peace a chance to slove these millenia old problems?
 
With Saddam gone, signs of social disintegration are emerging.

Hardly. This op-ed, like so many other left muck completely ignores or misinterprets the desperation of terrorists in the country. In fact the article claims that Zarqawi wrote that the situation was ripe for civil war:

"Zarqawi, tells leaders of al-Qaida that turning the country's religious communities against one another is the best way to undermine U.S. policy in Iraq."

The article then executes a typical misleading tactic by qouting some prof from exeter to complete a statement Zarqawi never made. Here is what
zarqawi actually said about the unity and desire for peace of the Iraqi people:

What is preventing us from making a general call to arms is the fact that the country of Iraq has no mountains in which to seek refuge, or forest in which to hide. Our presence is apparent and our movement is out in the open. Eyes are everywhere. The enemy is before us and the sea is behind us. Many Iraqis would honor you as a guest and give you refuge, for you are a Muslim brother; however, they will not allow you to make their homes a base for operations or a safe house. People who will allow you to do such things are very rare, rarer than red sulfur.

The entire letter argues that the only way to start a civil war is to inflict massive casualties against the Shiites and blame it on the sunnis. This will rely on the terrorist's ability to convince others that the it is ethnic infighting. If they are exposed as frauds, which this letter does, I think this makes their ability to create mistrust much more difficult. Without serious massive terrorism in the next month and a half heretofore unseen, Zarqawi writes, the prospect of ethnic hatred creating civil war is very, very dim:

if we fight them, that will be difficult because there will be a schism between us and the people of the region. How can we kill their cousins and sons and under what pretext, after the Americans start withdrawing? The Americans will continue to control from their bases, but the sons of this land will be the authority. This is the democracy, we will have no pretext.
...
we can pack up and leave and look for another land, just like it has happened in so many lands of jihad. Our enemy is growing stronger day after day, and its intelligence information increases. By god, this is suffocation! We will be on the roads again. People follow their leaders, their hearts may be with you, but their swords are with their kings. So i say again, the only solution is to strike the religious, military, and other cadres of the Shi'a so that they revolt against the Sunnis.
....
The suggested time for execution: we are hoping that we will soon start working on creating squads and brigades of individuals who have experience and expertise. We have to get to the zero-hour in order to openly begin controlling the land by night and after that by day, god willing. The zero-hour needs to be at least four months before the new government gets in place. As we see we are racing time, and if we succeed, which we are hoping, we will turn the tables on them and thwart their plan. If, god forbid, the government is successful and takes control of the country, we just have to pack up and go somewhere else again, where we can raise the flag again or die, if god chooses us.

Zarqawi's letter to Al Queda clause: I need a miracle, a prayer, a...


:cof:
 
Iraq has no mountains in which to seek refuge

The Kurds have been holding out in the Mountains of Iraq for ages. The higest point in Iraq is Haji Ibrahim at 3,600 m (11,810 feet). If that is not a mountain, then what is?
 
The Kurds have been holding out in the Mountains of Iraq for ages. The higest point in Iraq is Haji Ibrahim at 3,600 m (11,810 feet). If that is not a mountain, then what is?

I'm guessing he's being poetic. mountains would be safehouses, and forests would be civilians willing to provide human shields.
 
Are we going to back away, and let 100,000,000 die and come back in 10 years?
:laugh: nice figure, and such a simple perspective on life. must be nice.

I'm not sure how this constitutes that we underestimated the threat of civil war,
did you not realise the warring diversity of the region? did instability ever cross your mind? do you think history will suddenly shift gears with the coming of the american occupation- let alone our twisted idealism?? it was predictable to many with an unbais perspective.

We are in for the long haul militarily.
another fact we saw coming miles away. :rolleyes:

The article attempts to counter that undeniable point with this deranged word of praise:
praise? your bias apparently severly limits your ability to see this: 'Saddam's Baath party held the rival clans, tribes, ethnic groups and religious communities together through a mixture of terror against its domestic enemies and patronage to those who remained loyal.

That formula held the nation together after Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War after Shiites and Kurds rose up, only to be crushed by Saddam's forces.

With Saddam gone, signs of social disintegration are emerging. The Shiites and Kurds believe they now have a historical opportunity to regain their rights — to the alarm of the Sunni Arabs. ' ...as ANOTHER UNDENIABLE POINT.

The entire letter argues that the only way to start a civil war is to inflict massive casualties against the Shiites and blame it on the sunnis. This will rely on the terrorist's ability to convince others that the it is ethnic infighting. If they are exposed as frauds, which this letter does, I think this makes their ability to create mistrust much more difficult. Without serious massive terrorism in the next month and a half heretofore unseen, Zarqawi writes, the prospect of ethnic hatred creating civil war is very, very dim:

very dim? with a country that should actually be broken up into smaller countries, you can rest assured that there will be, by and large, more and more attempts at suicide bombings and more attempts to disrupt the american's efforts at stabilizing the region. don't tell me you are holding your breath, waiting for the attacks to cease.

If, god forbid, the government is successful and takes control of the country, we just have to pack up and go somewhere else again, where we can raise the flag again or die, if god chooses us.

while he may sound deflated, i don't think it's fair to lump the feelings- let alone HAPPENINGS of a larger region with many different (some unseen) tiers of potential terror being underminded because of the interception of this single letter.

civil war is coming, so i suggest we are prepared, unlike our 'liberation' plans have been up till now.
 
O.K
civil war is coming, so i suggest we are prepared, unlike our 'liberation' plans have been up till now.

Well let's just wait and see. with 150,000 US troops in the area and a iraqi sercurity force of 70,000 well see if a Civil war breaks out. Because a civil war needs two sides. Both armed heavily. today in Iraq only one side has the military might to wage a civil war. The americans. A suicide bomber can be affective but it can't change the course of events in a Govt handover. And every american that dies in Iraq only strenghtens our reslove to finish the job. WHy do you think that all the recent attacks have been against Iraqies and not Americans. Becasue the terroists can't win an open wara with the US. As long as we are there no "CIVIL WAR" bewtween the major groups of Iraq will break out. However, if we follow your plan and pull out then i'm affraid that i'm going to have to agree with you.
 
How long do you think Bush will stay in Iraq? I'm willing to bet that if he and Rove believe we americans are against the war, and thus hurting his reelection bid, he'll pull out the troops. And I'm sure at the same time that happens, you'll be there patting him on the back spewing whatever Bush wants you to say.
 
Well let's just wait and see. with 150,000 US troops in the area and a iraqi sercurity force of 70,000 well see if a Civil war breaks out.

As long as we are there no "CIVIL WAR" bewtween the major groups of Iraq will break out.

excuse me??!! how do you expect to continue to finance this fangando??? :confused:

...this should be great! :laugh:

And every american that dies in Iraq only strenghtens our reslove to finish the job.
that comment is about as vague and unfounded as it gets. oh, the joys of simple bias! :laugh:
 
that comment is about as vague and unfounded as it gets. oh, the joys of simple bias!

What is vague about that comment. I'm pretty sure that the 500 plus americans that have died in Iraq will not die for no reason. We will not leave till the job is done, were not the UN.

I'm willing to bet that if he and Rove believe we americans are against the war, and thus hurting his reelection bid, he'll pull out the troops. And I'm sure at the same time that happens, you'll be there patting him on the back spewing whatever Bush wants you to say.

Hey look I'm not supporting this war because it was avocated by a republican. I support his war because I belive that what we are doing is right.
If bush pulled us out to early and caused a hudge bloodbath in iraq I would not pat him on the back.
Mabey you should listen to some of his speaches. and i bet if he did pull out right now every leftie would start sining the praises of Bush the merciful. LOL
Ha Ha as long as bush is in offoce the War on Terror will be a war of 1st strike and of supression. That is a tactic I'm in favor of, So was Joe Liberman, A Dem:confused:
 
excuse me??!! how do you expect to continue to finance this fangando???

Hey how about we quit spending money on social programs i.e medicare and S.S. Oh wait no we caint do that because that would mean that people would have to take care of themselves....Not in America:laugh:
 
originally posted by spillmind
another fact we saw coming miles away. :rolleyes:
___________ _____________
Okay spilly enough with the phlegm. as I said in my original post to this thread, this article hardly proves your addendum that we are only now considering the possibility of civil war. Can you prove that we haven't?

originally posted by spillmind
praise? your bias apparently severly limits your ability to see this: "'Saddam's Baath party held the rival clans, tribes, ethnic groups and religious communities together through a mixture of terror against its domestic enemies and patronage to those who remained loyal.

That formula held the nation together after Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War after Shiites and Kurds rose up, only to be crushed by Saddam's forces.

With Saddam gone, signs of social disintegration are emerging. The Shiites and Kurds believe they now have a historical opportunity to regain their rights — to the alarm of the Sunni Arabs. '" ...as ANOTHER UNDENIABLE POINT.[/b]

_____________ ______________

A point that has clearly been used in your article to essentially say that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam. Clearly it is in praise of a tyrant.

Another undeniable point is that the Iraqis are hardly in prime condition to be battling each other.

originally posted by spillmind
very dim? with a country that should actually be broken up into smaller countries,
___________ ________________

should actually be broken up into smaller countries? You know that would never work. No country in the Arab world wants to see a Kurdish state. The adjacent arab countries would inevitably annex the areas. Don't tell me you are such a naive protectionist....

originally posted by spillmind
you can rest assured that there will be, by and large, more and more attempts at suicide bombings and more attempts to disrupt the american's efforts at stabilizing the region. don't tell me you are holding your breath, waiting for the attacks to cease.

____________ _______________

ah yes, here is the crux of why you are wrong. The current bombing is not related to Shia-Sunni tensions but a foreign jihad attempting to bring about its cataclysm to bring it into existence. If that effort is exposed, it will be totally unconvincing in its efforts to cause infighting.


originally posted by spillmind
while he may sound deflated, i don't think it's fair to lump the feelings- let alone HAPPENINGS of a larger region with many different (some unseen) tiers of potential terror being underminded because of the interception of this single letter.
___________ ________________
Let's be fair. In the letter Zarqawi claims responsibility for 25 suicide bombings that have occured in Iraq in the past months. Clearly that means he represents a majority of the terrorism which has so far succeeded in casualties. Therefore he is a significant voice. You can't deny it even with your own reynolds factory working 24/7

originally posted by spillmind
civil war is coming, so i suggest we are prepared, unlike our 'liberation' plans have been up till now.
__________ __________________

As KCmcD has put it, with what army do you expect this to happen?
 

Forum List

Back
Top