IRAQ CIVIL WAR ? DON'T RUSH TO JUDGEMENT YET - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY
Throughout the past week while most eyes have been focused on the UAE ports deal and all of the possible implications that it constitutes another story has developed which has garnered attention but has taken second seat to the UAE. On Wednesday a bombing which destroyed the golden dome of the Shiite Askariya shrine in Samarra, set off protests and sectarian violence which resulted in the death of more than 130 people has begun speculation that Iraq is either on the verge of Civil War or it has already started. Throughout the end of the week revenge attacks against Mosks, Clerics and tombs of past prominent religious leaders had caused the Iraqi government to institute a daily curfew in order to stem the violence and quell the chaos that ensued. Many clerics from both sides have called for calm and during this weekend Iraq has been fairly quiet as opposed to the end of the week. Every news report that has surfaced in the media has posed the question as to whether this was the brink of Civil War and in some circles in the press it seems that there is almost a morbid anticipation that Civil War has begun which will give fuel to the fire that The United States has failed in helping the Iraqi people form a Democracy. A similar situation to marshal law has helped to control Baghdad where most of the violence has taken place. Iraqi officials have placed the blame for the bombing of the golden dome of the Shiite Askariya shrine which began the sectarian attacks on Al Qaeda as an attempt by the terrorist organization to disintegrate the country into Civil War in order to destroy the further democratization of Iraq. Will Iraq destroy herself by an all enveloping Civil War ? There are many who believe that it is inevitable because of the various differences between the factions that dwell in Iraq. Although there are zealots who will stop at nothing to fight for their religion in Iraq the majority of the country has not risen to arms with the recent bombing which would explain why the violence was quelled so quickly. Additionally much of the country is somewhat westernized and though devoted to their religious beliefs do not cater to the idea that killing another over religious disagreements is what Allah would want, which gives a democracy a rather strong foot hold in the minds of the people. Evidence this by the tremendous turn out in all of the Iraqi elections and the relative ease in which all of the factions came together to develop a Constitution and form both an interim and permanent government.
So is this the beginning of Civil War ? One aspect of Civil War which is not evident in the Iraqi situation is that once started NOTHING can stop it. Take for instance our own Civil War. Once the shots were fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, SC after the secession of South Carolina from the Union, emotions were so high and political disagreement so strong that Civil War erupted with a vengeance. The emotions and fervor for Civil War in this country could not have been quelled by marshal law nor by curfews. A majority of the citizenry actually wanted war and any type of government intervention to stop the war would have actually resulted in an escalation because emotions were so high. This emotionally controlled fervor is not evident in Iraq at this time. Some will argue that the example of our own Civil War does not apply because the religious aspect was not part of the conflict as the North and South fought over mostly political disagreements. Even though many Civil Wars have been fought over religion much of the basis of the conflict still had a political base of disagreement. Take for instance the Civil War that erupted in India after the British turned over governmental control of the country to self rule. India had mainly two religious factions in the country, Muslim and Hindu. There was tremendous disagreement in the forming of the government and it was decided that where Hindu or Muslim majorities existed then the majority would rule. Eventually this idea was dropped and the nation of Pakistan was the outcome which caused the displacement of large portions of the population with Pakistan being a Muslim state and India a Hindu state. The emotions over the displacement resulted in Civil War. Though religion played a vital role in the war political differences over establishing government gave birth to the war. This too is not evident in Iraq as evidenced by the establishment and election of a government that represents all factions within the country.
Though time will tell as to whether Iraq will disintegrate into Civil War , the emotional fervor that precedes Civil War does not exist in most of the populace. Most Iraqis are more interested in working and supporting their families and living a daily life in freedom that they never experienced in 35 years under Saddam Hussein. Will sectarian violence continue ? Most likely because as mentioned before there are religious zealots who believe that killing in the name of Allah is what they are destined to do. Will Al Qaeda or the insurgents continue to attempt to force Civil War through acts such as the bombing of the shrine in Samarra ? I am sure they will because their goal of using Iraq as a base of operations or returning it to its previous dictatorial state is the obvious plan that both have in mind. The difference being that the majority of the Iraqi people are not buying into their plan and the government of Iraq is still represented by the people.
Ken Taylor
So is this the beginning of Civil War ? One aspect of Civil War which is not evident in the Iraqi situation is that once started NOTHING can stop it. Take for instance our own Civil War. Once the shots were fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, SC after the secession of South Carolina from the Union, emotions were so high and political disagreement so strong that Civil War erupted with a vengeance. The emotions and fervor for Civil War in this country could not have been quelled by marshal law nor by curfews. A majority of the citizenry actually wanted war and any type of government intervention to stop the war would have actually resulted in an escalation because emotions were so high. This emotionally controlled fervor is not evident in Iraq at this time. Some will argue that the example of our own Civil War does not apply because the religious aspect was not part of the conflict as the North and South fought over mostly political disagreements. Even though many Civil Wars have been fought over religion much of the basis of the conflict still had a political base of disagreement. Take for instance the Civil War that erupted in India after the British turned over governmental control of the country to self rule. India had mainly two religious factions in the country, Muslim and Hindu. There was tremendous disagreement in the forming of the government and it was decided that where Hindu or Muslim majorities existed then the majority would rule. Eventually this idea was dropped and the nation of Pakistan was the outcome which caused the displacement of large portions of the population with Pakistan being a Muslim state and India a Hindu state. The emotions over the displacement resulted in Civil War. Though religion played a vital role in the war political differences over establishing government gave birth to the war. This too is not evident in Iraq as evidenced by the establishment and election of a government that represents all factions within the country.
Though time will tell as to whether Iraq will disintegrate into Civil War , the emotional fervor that precedes Civil War does not exist in most of the populace. Most Iraqis are more interested in working and supporting their families and living a daily life in freedom that they never experienced in 35 years under Saddam Hussein. Will sectarian violence continue ? Most likely because as mentioned before there are religious zealots who believe that killing in the name of Allah is what they are destined to do. Will Al Qaeda or the insurgents continue to attempt to force Civil War through acts such as the bombing of the shrine in Samarra ? I am sure they will because their goal of using Iraq as a base of operations or returning it to its previous dictatorial state is the obvious plan that both have in mind. The difference being that the majority of the Iraqi people are not buying into their plan and the government of Iraq is still represented by the people.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 9:18 AM
11 Comments:
Too late - they are already in a civil war and have been for some time. Webster's definition of civil war: "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Sure sounds like Iraq.
The Sunnis are fighting the Shiites. You have government run Shiite death squads roaming the streets killing Sunnis and you have revenge killings every single day. Literally thousands of Iraqis have been killed as a result of sectarian violence. If that is not civil war, I don't know what is.
This is not unexpected and should not be surprising. There were plenty of voices in the CIA and the defense department that said this would happen, but Bush and Rumsfeld would hear none of it.
Believe me, I take no pleasure in the mess that is now Iraq. It is a human catastrophe brought on by a complete failure of U.S. foreign policy. Iraq will be a worldwide problem for decades. It is taking American and Iraqi lives and limbs, it is bankrupting us, it has destabilized the Middle East, it has given power to the enemies of the U.S. such as Iran, al Qaeda, and Hamas, and it has greatly diminished our geo-political standing in the world.
"Hope for the best" is not a legitimate foreign policy. You can continue to support Bush's cliches like - "freedom is on the march" and we have to "stay the course" if you want. But sooner or later Bush's incompetence and horrible failures will dawn on you as they have many Americans.
Well you can take that literally, and by following that logic... The US has ALWAYS been in a state of constant civil war. Correct?
I am not saying this is good, but not all civil wars are bad. I wrote about this topic on another blog. Sometimes war is needed, no it isn't pleasant. But not everything in this world comes from marching with banners in the street. Sometimes war is the answer, as much as so many would deny.
I pray for the people of Iraq and hope the political pieces fit together before everything results in violence. No, I am not BS’ing I do care about my fellow mankind. I just happen to feel that some deserve care in the fashion of death, like Osama and Saddam.
I think it is fine to comment on what people perceive is going on, even though at times it may be flawed. What I cannot stand are those that run around with the theories that this is what the administration wanted. If you want to say it is a failure of policy, that is one thing. But when I read on other blogs that Bush wanted this to happen and it was the intent all along… It bugs me to say the least.
You say that it was a US failure in policy, very well. You are just talking on how you see things. I disagree but I think that is fair. My question is simple, you don’t think this is what the President wanted is it? (I understand that intention counts for little in many circles.) But you don’t think the administration planned to make this happen?
Rob is absolutely correct in his assertions. Independent media outlets outside of america have had interviews with photographers on the ground in Iraq, locals, and analysts who have been describing the situation on the ground as a civil war for years now.
The Kurds in Northern Iraq are almost independent and have been operating autonomously for quite some time. The enforcement of the northern no fly zone and congressional funding to encourage the Kurds to form their own political parties has created a somewhat stable geographical area for the potential creation of an independent Kurdistan. There is a very high likelihood there will be a Kurdish split from Iraq. The civil war being waged by Sunni and Shia and the al qaeda inteference all influence the fracturing of Iraq.
Rob raises the issue of how this war has been conducted thus far. It seems rather unlikely this civil war scenario was not seriously analyzed by the pentagon.
If the united states had gone in with 400,000 boots on the ground how would the situation today have been different?
Did the pentagon worry that eventually the area would be engulfed in civil war and better for it to happen sooner than later?
I still contend that the current battle plan was to encourage violence amongst Iraqi's and Muslims. So few troops on the ground encourages violence and is no where what is needed to keep the peace.
The pentagon is playing a game of world domination, clash of civilizations, battle against communism and socialism. The pentagon has been removing slightly left of center democratically elected governments at will.
A neoconservative could argue that the current course of action was designed to engage any extremist minded individuals to fight and die in battle now and not ten years down the road. A neoconservative would argue that it was necessary to inflame the tensions to attract and then eliminate the world of terrorists. You did hear mr bush inviting the terrorists to bring it on. You have heard bin laden claiming Iraq will be a killing field for americans.
A conservative democrat would argue that they should never have gone into Iraq, that you should have at least waited for your friends to push the UN for more pressure on hussein. But now that you insist on war the implementation of a force of 400,000 or more to really keep the peace would advance the country of Iraq through the stable transition to democracy and avoid potential Muslim on Muslim violence. It could be argued that the troops would be able to return home sooner. It could be argued that in doing so the pentagon would be freed to invest it's resources on other potential threats to america.
america had the entire world in the palm of it's hand. Nearly every person on the planet sympathized with america. The way in which the war on terror has been conducted doesn't do america proud. All of us know america is better than that. Over the next twenty years the implementation of american foreign and domestic policy has several directions it could take. There is more than one way to achieve a particular objective and america's decisions shape what happens around the world. The rest of the world likes it when you play baseball with that big stick. You can be secure and still play ball.
MDconservative - What warring sectarian factions are you referring to in the U.S.? But more importantly with respect to Iraq, what threshold needs to be crossed for you to call the sectarian violence in Iraq a civil war?
Did I say this chaos is what Bush wanted? No. Never. I don't think Bush is an evil man, I just think he is an incompetent idiot who took America to war without any real plan. The person who said this is what Bush wanted certainly is entitled to his/her view, but that is not a prevailing view shared by most Americans.
As for Bush, I think he took a big swig of ridiculously foolish neocon Kool Aid, put on a pair of rose-colored glasses and thought Iraq was going to magically transform itself into a land of democratic wonder and capitalist delight.
There was basically no plan other than somehow the cheering and adoring Iraqis were going to accept Ahmed Chalabi as their new leader and we were going to be reimbursed for our war effort with Iraqi oil revenues.
We still operate with no discernable plan other than we need to "stay the course" and "finish the job." Yet our soldiers are in the middle of a civil war and the Pentagon downgraded the one Iraqi battalion that was supposedly capable of fighting independently. Turns out there is not a single Iraqi battalion that can fight without American forces with them.
Pero's comments are about as studid as the person who thinks that Bush wanted the chaos to happen. He does not have a clue about geo-political realities of the Middle East.
“What warring sectarian factions are you referring to in the U.S.?”
-- You just threw in “sectarian faction” at the last moment. It’s a war between “opposing groups.” Think about it, law enforcement battles it out with MS13 daily as well as a variety of other criminal enterprises. Are they not groups?
“But more importantly with respect to Iraq, what threshold needs to be crossed for you to call the sectarian violence in Iraq a civil war?”
-- When there begins a sustained action of current destruction. If these curfews don’t do the job and by the end of the week the situation is no different, then I would be far more willing to consider that it is a civil war. Right now it most likely is not the case because I do not consider the bombing of mosques part of a war, it is a terrorist act. But like I said if the people are going to allow it to continue, and begin to participate in large numbers in violent means; yes it may be a civil war and one must commence the evaluation of what our place is.
“Did I say this chaos is what Bush wanted?”
-- I apologize, that read wrong. I was not addressing you directly, but others that try to make that point. However, I think you do yourself a disservice by calling the President an idiot. I know it means little, but in my opinion it really detracts from your otherwise legitimate argument…that I happen to disagree with.
“…we were going to be reimbursed for our war effort with Iraqi oil revenues.”
-- For a moment assume that things work out and over time a Government is formed and supported by the Iraqi people. At that point they make payment for the amount of resources we put in to fighting the war. (Yes I understand they cannot bring back our young soldiers.) Won’t all the left run out screaming we did it for oil? The political culture has been created in America so that the left will not take responsibility for voting for action, the left groups will say it was for oil and the Administration is greedy and evil. Why should the administration care what the left thinks, everything possible will be done to make a failure out of the situation completely regardless of the actual outcome.
It is not a war between just "opposing groups" but of "opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Law enforcement is not a "group of citizens" - they are the government - so a war between crime elements and law enforcement is not civil war. You have to have two opposing groups of CITIZENS pitted against one another (e.g., the sectarian violence between Sunni vs. Shiite). Take up Webster's definition with them if you have a problem with the definition.
From everything I see and read, it sure looks like Sunnis and Shiites are in civil war - we will see what happens.
We will just have to disagree on Bush being an idiot. Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that Republicans are idiots or conservatives are idiots. I should make the distinction that I do believe by the horrible policy decisions and failures to hold those responsible accountable, Bush has demonstrated to me non only incompetence, but outright stupidity - but like I said we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.
It is not going to work out that we leave a pro-American, or even just a secular democracy that allows for equality of all people. However, if pigs start to fly and Tinkerbell splashes some pixie dust over the country and it does happen I seriously doubt Iraq will ever repay the $400 billion we will have spent by the end of this year (it will likely be much more than that). They need the money to rebuild their own infrastructure and they have no legal obligation to pay the U.S.
If Iraq works out, we can all celebrate and Bush can take the credit. However, Bush is the Commander in Chief and he appointed the civilian leadership within the Pentagon. If Iraq fails (I would argue that it has already failed and will continue to get worse) it will be a disaster for all Americans (already is). Bush doesn't care what the left thinks already - nothing new there. Iraq is a failure - 2300 American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, $400 billion American tax dollars spent, civil war, haven for terrorists, no independent Iraqi military, electricity and water services not restored to pre-invastion levels, close ties to Iran, Saddam in a kangaroo court that has no real legitimacy. Other than that, I would say we are succeeding.
Well we finally have an adult writing for the conservative intelligence report. Other readers should take notice of the change of mdconservatives newly found skill set. There is more than one person writing under the identity of mdconservative. Welcome to the game. Compare the comments of mdconservative over the last week or so.
Shall we eliminate all the useless inflammatory rhetoric and get to the heart of the battle.
Many americans need to learn some cold hard truths. Almost everything you have been spoon fed are massive lies.
Pearl Harbor was not a surprise attack. Every aspect of the mainstream media, government, and schools have sold you a bill of goods that is no where near the truth.
This is a psychological battle and the sooner you get over Pearl Harbor not being a surprise attack the sooner you realize the media is not independent of the pentagon the sooner you begin to open your mind to the realities you choose to avoid. Yes I realize it is easier to kill someone and you are very good at it. This is the year 2006 and the idea is you have to be nice neighbors.
Under the corporate banner of the republican party are many distinct factions with various levels of command and control. At the top are plutocratic fascists, military corporations, and ultra neo conservative, World class murderers who would destroy the world to preserve americas domination for the near future. Further down the list of groups with control of the administration are neo conservatives. Then below that are religious conservatives like your current president. Then below that are fiscal conservatives. Somewhere way below that on the list of power holding power weilding republican americans are fiscally conservative liberally progressive republicans.
I love the way the military establishment has maintained control of america, it really is sinister, naziesque, orwellian and evil a great lesson to the world how not to behave.
A two party political system in a country that offers such a richness of variety of freedom? You all are being played.
Hey new md conservative do you want to come out and play?
How do american evangelical beliefs affect ultra neo conservatives influence in american politics? The power they yield is statistically larger than the population they represent in your democracy. Bring on the apocalypse?
Christianarchisti
anonymous... are you so ashamed of your opinion that you can't share your name? how long would it have taken you to fill in the "other" box with some legitimate name or website?
Thus I will tear into your nonsensical comments. First, what is a "conservative democrat"? I have never seen such a beautiful thing. (rarity increases the beauty right?)
Second, you seem a bit paranoid about media being controlled and PRESIDENT Bush secretly trying to annihilate the world. Make up your mind is PRESIDENT Bush too stupid to tie his shoes or is he so smart that he can run rings around you and the whole world?
Third, you say that the "military establishment" is controlling America. Have you noticed that we vote here in America? The military serves the people. If we voted next election to cut funding to the military we could. So this brings up the point you dodge at any cost... AMERICANS WANT TO BE DEFENDED!!
You say that when 9-11 happened everyone felt bad for us which was great but when we started going out with a COALITION to defend the free world we pissed the tyrants, communists, and fascists. This is apparently seen by you as a problem.
Excuse us while we try to prevent another 9-11 while you whine about how the terrorists, fascists, and beatniks feeeeel.
I am reminded of the old American flag with the rattlesnake on it that read "Don't Tread on Me!"
"Law enforcement is not a "group of citizens" - they are the government - so a war between crime elements and law enforcement is not civil war."
-- Yes, they are citizens of the US. But fine, make them "The Government."
But the Govt. is "We the people..." So if that is the case, then technically yes it is a civil war. Because the Government is made up of "us."
Look this is a dumb point to get caught on, my overall point is that when there is a war things may calm quickly or not. But I think the people that jump to saying it is a civil war are doing it because it sounds bad, and it helps promote the negative story. But you read my earlier post if the violence continues at a sustained or growing rate by the end of the week, I would be much more likely to agree and say it is a civil war.
PS- Anonymous: Same person, no one new. But I would love to know what this new "skill set I have found" is?
How many people here feel that the US Government knew about and allowed the attack on Pearl Harbor? (Just a little curious to see if I am in the minority that thinks that is insane.)
Your attempt to compare law enforcement actions with the definition of civil war is just wrong for the reasons that I stated. You can call it a dumb point if you want, but you are still just plain wrong because of your misapplication of the term "opposing groups of citizens of the same country."
As for the Iraqi civil war, it turns out that 1300 Iraqis died as a result of sectarian violence over the last couple of days. I am not calling it a civil war because I think it sounds bad, I am saying it is a civil war because there has been ongoing and growing Shiite vs. Sunni violence for months. Not only is this civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis likely to continue, it is likely to worsen.
Post a Comment
<< Home