Iraq May Be Slipping Into Civil War

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=13&u=/ap/20040216/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_civil_war_2

Iraq May Be Slipping Into Civil War

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 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.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Don't worry, the same people who told us there are WMD's in Iraq are going to tell us everything is going great.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
So we should leave and that would make it better or we should stay and that would make things better? Which side are you arguing???
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
So we should leave and that would make it better or we should stay and that would make things better? Which side are you arguing???

We need a new set of eyes to look at the problem. Not the same set that created it.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
So we should leave and that would make it better or we should stay and that would make things better? Which side are you arguing???

We need a new set of eyes to look at the problem. Not the same set that created it.
Saddam is gone....we have a new set of eyes looking at the problem.

 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
So we should leave and that would make it better or we should stay and that would make things better? Which side are you arguing???

We need a new set of eyes to look at the problem. Not the same set that created it.
Saddam is gone....we have a new set of eyes looking at the problem.
That "new" set of yes is the one that made it OUR problem.
Saddam was doing fine preventing a civil war. You may not like his methods, but they were pretty effective.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
So we should leave and that would make it better or we should stay and that would make things better? Which side are you arguing???

We need a new set of eyes to look at the problem. Not the same set that created it.
Saddam is gone....we have a new set of eyes looking at the problem.
That "new" set of yes is the one that made it OUR problem.
Saddam was doing fine preventing a civil war. You may not like his methods, but they were pretty effective.

And the crime rate in pre war Nazi Germany was damn near zero. Your point?

If you really want to see who created the problem of Iraq....do a little reading...here's a snippet.

On capturing Baghdad, General Maude proclaimed that Britain intended to return to Iraq some control of its own affairs. He stressed that this step would pave the way for ending the alien rule that the Iraqis had experienced since the latter days of the Abbasid caliphate. The proclamation was in accordance with the encouragement the British had given to Arab nationalists, such as Jafar al Askari; his brother-in-law, Nuri as Said; and Jamil al Midfai, who sought emancipation from Ottoman rule. The nationa- lists had supported the Allied powers in expectation of both the Ottoman defeat and the freedom many nationalists assumed would come with an Allied victory.

During the war, events in Iraq were greatly influenced by the Hashimite family of Husayn ibn Ali, sharif of Mecca, who claimed descent from the family of the Prophet Muhammad. Aspiring to become king of an independent Arab kingdom, Husayn had broken with the Ottomans, to whom he had been vassal, and had thrown in his lot with the British. Anxious for his support, the British gave Husayn reason to believe that he would have their endorsement when the war ended. Accordingly, Husayn and his sons led the June 1916 Arab Revolt, marching northward in conjunction with the British into Transjordan, Palestine, and Syria.

Anticipating the fulfillment of Allied pledges, Husayn's son, Prince Faisal (who was later to become modern Iraq's first king), arrived in Paris in 1919 as the chief spokesman for the Arab cause. Much to his disappointment, Faisal found that the Allied powers were less than enthusiastic about Arab independence.

At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, Iraq was formally made a Class A mandate entrusted to Britain. This award was completed on April 25, 1920, at the San Remo Conference in Italy. Palestine also was placed under British mandate, and Syria was placed under French mandate. Faisal, who had been proclaimed king of Syria by a Syrian national congress in Damascus in March 1920, was ejected by the French in July of the same year.




 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
So we should leave and that would make it better or we should stay and that would make things better? Which side are you arguing???

We need a new set of eyes to look at the problem. Not the same set that created it.
Saddam is gone....we have a new set of eyes looking at the problem.
That "new" set of yes is the one that made it OUR problem.
Saddam was doing fine preventing a civil war. You may not like his methods, but they were pretty effective.

And the crime rate in pre war Nazi Germany was damn near zero. Your point?

I wonder what yours is.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
I actually have no problem with Saddam being gone just the way the war was presented and how it was planned with very little thought of what troubles we would face after the war. It is very obvious that those in charge of this war never gave any fore-thought at the ethnic/tribal/religious demon's in the Iraqi Pandora's box that was being held back by Saddam. We must realize that Saddam was put in place and allowed to gain power because in the past the U.S. felt that he was the only person strong enough/brutal enough to control a country with such divisions.

Another good example of what I am talking about is what happened after the former state of Yugoslavia was freed of it's yoke after years of oppression, which had a side benefit of getting people who normally would not work with each other to work together and under-control. Do you really think that we are going to get groups that have hundreds of years of history of killing and fighting each other to live with each other in 1-10 years of occupation ? These rivalries and hatred have been going strong since the days of Muhammad's death. Unless you are willing to have U.S. troops permanently based in Iraq and then have the populace eventually unite against these soldiers then explode in an orgy of blood and violence toward them. Even then we are just only putting off the unavoidable which is a civil war after we leave in either case.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
So we should leave and that would make it better or we should stay and that would make things better? Which side are you arguing???

Let's put it like this.....Iraq is a double-edged sword. Which side do you want to be cut with ? Which would be easier to watch on CNN ? A civil war where Iraqis are killing Iraqis over religious and tribal rivalries or a popular revolt in which Iraqis in Iraq unite to kill U.S. soldiers and drive us out only to eventually fall into their own bloody civil war afterwards.
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: shinerburke
So we should leave and that would make it better or we should stay and that would make things better? Which side are you arguing???

Let's put it like this.....Iraq is a double-edged sword. Which side do you want to be cut with ? Which would be easier to watch on CNN ? A civil war where Iraqis are killing Iraqis over religious and tribal rivalries or a popular revolt in which Iraqis in Iraq unite to kill U.S. soldiers and drive us out only to eventually fall into their own bloody civil war afterwards.

The extremists causing these problems are made up of two groups.

One group are the loyalists to Saddam, less than a 1000 of them left.

The other group is made up of people being sent in from Iran and Syria to stir up trouble.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
One group are the loyalists to Saddam, less than a 1000 of them left.

And you know this how? Head count?


No offense man, but you seem to claim to know quite a bit on exactly what is happening on the ground in Iraq for someone sitting in Oklahoma
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,112
1
0
Originally posted by: Insane3D
One group are the loyalists to Saddam, less than a 1000 of them left.

And you know this how? Head count?
Watching some of the military analyst talking heads on the various news channels. Intelligence reports indicate there are less than 1000 Saddam Loyalists left.

 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: shinerburke
So we should leave and that would make it better or we should stay and that would make things better? Which side are you arguing???

Let's put it like this.....Iraq is a double-edged sword. Which side do you want to be cut with ? Which would be easier to watch on CNN ? A civil war where Iraqis are killing Iraqis over religious and tribal rivalries or a popular revolt in which Iraqis in Iraq unite to kill U.S. soldiers and drive us out only to eventually fall into their own bloody civil war afterwards.

The extremists causing these problems are made up of two groups.

One group are the loyalists to Saddam, less than a 1000 of them left.

The other group is made up of people being sent in from Iran and Syria to stir up trouble.


Actually you are forgetting the one important group, the nationalist who want a foriegn power off their land and not telling them what to do when to do it and who don't like having their homes being raided by foriegn soldiers.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Ohhhh..intelligence reports..

That's comforting...

rolleye.gif
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Insane3D
One group are the loyalists to Saddam, less than a 1000 of them left.

And you know this how? Head count?
Watching some of the military analyst talking heads on the various news channels. Intelligence reports indicate there are less than 1000 Saddam Loyalists left.



Are these the same talking heads who went along with the "Iraq has WMD's" ??
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Too soon for civil war.

I would think that is after the US installed govt takes over in late June. Give it about 3 or 4 months afterwards. That's time enough for various forces to strike against it, and the US forces retaliation to protect that govt.

People will then escalate hostilities, but don't look for a civil war to be recognized as such in the US. It will be spun as terrorists activities (and yes, terrorists organizations will do the best to promote this), and the US forces will crush unrest in a very effective manner, since we have carte blanc to attack anything or anyone we call terrorists or terrorist assets.

Iraqis will comply, or we will kill them all if necessary.

Of course, if the Americans have a bellyfull of this, then we might withdraw after removing whatever Bushoids inhabit the White House and Congress, but I would think that will take a long time and thousands or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Shades of Tito & Yugoslovia.

Remove a dictator who rules with an iron fist and everybody wants a share of the pie.
Those that supported the boss are now shaking in their boots at the fear of retaliation.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Shades of Tito & Yugoslovia.

Remove a dictator who rules with an iron fist and everybody wants a share of the pie.
Those that supported the boss are now shaking in their boots at the fear of retaliation.

This was a given. Intel supported the possibility (and indeed probability) of fragmentation based on ethnic populationsm which is by no means the only reason for division. Bush should have known this too.
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,526
605
126
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: shinerburke
So we should leave and that would make it better or we should stay and that would make things better? Which side are you arguing???

We need a new set of eyes to look at the problem. Not the same set that created it.
Saddam is gone....we have a new set of eyes looking at the problem.
That "new" set of yes is the one that made it OUR problem.
Saddam was doing fine preventing a civil war. You may not like his methods, but they were pretty effective.

And the crime rate in pre war Nazi Germany was damn near zero. Your point?

If you really want to see who created the problem of Iraq....do a little reading...here's a snippet.

On capturing Baghdad, General Maude proclaimed that Britain intended to return to Iraq some control of its own affairs. He stressed that this step would pave the way for ending the alien rule that the Iraqis had experienced since the latter days of the Abbasid caliphate. The proclamation was in accordance with the encouragement the British had given to Arab nationalists, such as Jafar al Askari; his brother-in-law, Nuri as Said; and Jamil al Midfai, who sought emancipation from Ottoman rule. The nationa- lists had supported the Allied powers in expectation of both the Ottoman defeat and the freedom many nationalists assumed would come with an Allied victory.

During the war, events in Iraq were greatly influenced by the Hashimite family of Husayn ibn Ali, sharif of Mecca, who claimed descent from the family of the Prophet Muhammad. Aspiring to become king of an independent Arab kingdom, Husayn had broken with the Ottomans, to whom he had been vassal, and had thrown in his lot with the British. Anxious for his support, the British gave Husayn reason to believe that he would have their endorsement when the war ended. Accordingly, Husayn and his sons led the June 1916 Arab Revolt, marching northward in conjunction with the British into Transjordan, Palestine, and Syria.

Anticipating the fulfillment of Allied pledges, Husayn's son, Prince Faisal (who was later to become modern Iraq's first king), arrived in Paris in 1919 as the chief spokesman for the Arab cause. Much to his disappointment, Faisal found that the Allied powers were less than enthusiastic about Arab independence.

At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, Iraq was formally made a Class A mandate entrusted to Britain. This award was completed on April 25, 1920, at the San Remo Conference in Italy. Palestine also was placed under British mandate, and Syria was placed under French mandate. Faisal, who had been proclaimed king of Syria by a Syrian national congress in Damascus in March 1920, was ejected by the French in July of the same year.

Oh there were crimes in Nazi Germany...If you were Jewish, if you harbored or supported Jews. If you spoke against Hitler, if you spoke against the fatherland..etc...etc...

Your punishment? you were taken away...never to be seen again.

Stalins Soviet Union was similar
Husseins Iraq was similar

Dictators suck

How fortunate we are that we can go from President to President without too many problems.

Americans should be thankful for how blessed they really are.

 

myusername

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2003
5,046
0
0
How fortunate we are that we can go from President to President without too many problems.

Americans should be thankful for how blessed they really are.

or president to an unpresident who has implicitly stated on many occasions that he would like to be a dictator ..

 

SViscusi

Golden Member
Apr 12, 2000
1,200
8
81
Originally posted by: shinerburke
On capturing Baghdad, General Maude proclaimed that Britain intended to return to Iraq some control of its own affairs. He stressed that this step would pave the way for ending the alien rule that the Iraqis had experienced since the latter days of the Abbasid caliphate. The proclamation was in accordance with the encouragement the British had given to Arab nationalists, such as Jafar al Askari; his brother-in-law, Nuri as Said; and Jamil al Midfai, who sought emancipation from Ottoman rule. The nationa- lists had supported the Allied powers in expectation of both the Ottoman defeat and the freedom many nationalists assumed would come with an Allied victory.

During the war, events in Iraq were greatly influenced by the Hashimite family of Husayn ibn Ali, sharif of Mecca, who claimed descent from the family of the Prophet Muhammad. Aspiring to become king of an independent Arab kingdom, Husayn had broken with the Ottomans, to whom he had been vassal, and had thrown in his lot with the British. Anxious for his support, the British gave Husayn reason to believe that he would have their endorsement when the war ended. Accordingly, Husayn and his sons led the June 1916 Arab Revolt, marching northward in conjunction with the British into Transjordan, Palestine, and Syria.

Anticipating the fulfillment of Allied pledges, Husayn's son, Prince Faisal (who was later to become modern Iraq's first king), arrived in Paris in 1919 as the chief spokesman for the Arab cause. Much to his disappointment, Faisal found that the Allied powers were less than enthusiastic about Arab independence.

At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, under Article 22 of the League of Nations Covenant, Iraq was formally made a Class A mandate entrusted to Britain. This award was completed on April 25, 1920, at the San Remo Conference in Italy. Palestine also was placed under British mandate, and Syria was placed under French mandate. Faisal, who had been proclaimed king of Syria by a Syrian national congress in Damascus in March 1920, was ejected by the French in July of the same year.
I remember reading a little bit about Britain's role in the Middle East after WWI and how they f-ed it up royally.

Isn't it amazing how nearly every major problem we've faced throughout the 20th (and into the 21st) century from Nazi Germany, to the Communist threat, to the middle east, can be traced back to the most pointless war of all time WWI?
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Don't worry, the same people who told us there are WMD's in Iraq are going to tell us everything is going great.

LOL. As I was reading that I was thinking the same thing. Oh well........
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
"Iraq May Be Slipping Into Civil War"

May Be?

That Horse has long left the Barn.

Anyway, good, let it go to hell which it is anyway, get our boys out of there and let the UN do something for a Dam change.