NEWS: Civil War in Iraq now Official?

POLITICS: Civil War in Iraq now Official?

Even with the mounting death tolls from insurgent violence in Iraq, culminating in the Thanksgiving day massacre that left almost two hundred people dead, Iraqi and US officials have constantly denied that there is any "civil war" going on in Iraq. That may not be possible any longer, now that Shiite forces have essentially come as close as possible to making an official declaration of war today.

This may be the end of the "functional" government that has existed in Iraq almost two years, and even saw the election of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a prime minister who defied expectations by cobbling together a parliamentary alliance of the diverse ethnic and religious group that have historically, well, despised each other, enough to agree on something. Certainly an open declaration of war will not make his job any easier, and will likely reduce the man to being even less important as a figurehead than he already was.



This could also mean a new direction for Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric whose "mahdi army" has been a consistent thorn in the side of occupying forces since Hussein's government was toppled. Despite their boycott of parliamentary elections al-Sadr has wielded considerable political influence in the government, though strictly behind the scenes. That may be changing now, as a more overt attempt to gain power could signal that al-Sadr is looking to be the face of the new Iraq, with his personal army installing him in the position.



At the very least, this is some very bad news to top off what was already a bad week in Baghdad. And maybe now the world can stop deluding itself into thinking that these attacks are just bumps in the road on the way to a better place for Iraq. It looks like things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

Why did I assume this was gonna be a Marvel Comics thing...

Ain't nothin civil about this war. We need to pull back over the horizon but stay in the neighborhood to keep Iran and Syria at bay, and then clean up the pieces in 5-7 years. Yes, we broke the goddam country, our bad. But we ain't drilling holes in people's heads and shit. Let them kill themselves off - we gave them a chance for democracy but they prefer civil war. Oh well.

Wow, thanks for one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen here on the boards. You are competely ignorant of what happened in Iraq and should henceforth not speak what ever is in your mind.

Mission Accomplished!

!!!

fubar

America needs to pull out of Iraq ASAP

Somewhere there's an Inner city looking for a FINE future Police Officer just like you.

and this would accomplish.....what exactly?

I'm in agreement that America needs to withdraw from Iraq over a period of time. I also find it highly unlikely that we will entirely abandon the bases that we've established there, especially the air bases in Western Iraq.

I just don't see what a sudden departure would do for the problem of sectarian violence in the country.

It would end the foreign occupation which has been the catalyst for this civil war. It would accomplish an end of the anti occupation attacks.

It is also the one thing that the different Iraqi factions all agree on, they all want an end to the occupation, they all want the U.S. out.

Pulling out won't make Iraq a peaceful place overnight, but maintaining the occupation certainly isn't making Iraq any safer either.

we are not "occupiers" we are "Liberators" don't you know nuthin'

So, just out of curiosity, how many more, or less, people are actually dying over there compared to when Saddam was in power?
I just don't remember, 'how many people died in Iraq today' stories before, maybe we just didn't feel their pain enough back then to warrant a news bite.

guess i will be going back to "keep the peace". good luck to those who are there already and or going.

I think the catalyst was as much the fall of the Baathist regime, no matter who the occupying force would have been. and in case...as a catalyst, it's job is already done and the violence started in an endless wave of reprisals similar to the Isreali Palestinian conflict. removing the American military wouldn't negate that cycle. American operational tempo has slowed considerably alreadywith most operations being defensive in nature. No Operations like Al Fajar or even River Blitz of late. and it seems to either have had no effect or actually encouraged violence.

all the Iraqi factions want the US out? I believe that Al Sadr's Shiite militia and the Sunnis who would just as soon demolish any cooperative government would be on that list, but that's hardly everybody.

Pulling out of Iraq won't make it peaceful overnight...or likely anytime in the next five to ten years. A reduction in forces down to a projection of presence in the reigon is probably the most likely outcome.

The occupation was not a catalyst for the current round of conflict and violence. If you want to say it set the stage and got everyone armed, ok, but certain hardcore anti Sunni and anti Shiite groups are to blame for fanning the flames of sectarian hatred through, and to incite more, violence.

The perpetrators of anti-"US led coalition" violence are nationalists or in support of Iraqi nationalists.
The perpetrators of the current sectarian violence are genocidal maniacs ala the Sudan or Congo militias of some African countries.
I am not convinced they are all one in the same.

Snafu

that's pretty much what I meant. The fall of the Baathist regime and the failure to replace it with a stable government made the sectarian violence possible.
Originally most of the insurgents that we (by that I mean I ) saw were non-Iraqi militants attacking US Forces or elements of the newly forming government, police and new Iraqi army recruits etc. or Sunni insurgents who sympathized with the Baathist government and wanted to hold on to power.
the character of the insurgency now is very different from what it was in '03-late '04

At least from what I've read that's a pretty accurate characterization of what's going on there. Immediately following the fall of Hussein's government there was an influx of foreign fighters specifically trying to slow down any US progress in establishing order. But now it's essentially a reversion to pre-Hussein Iraq, with people who always hated each other finally able to assert those feelings militarily, something Hussein's brutally oppressive regime prevented. Not that I'm in any way supporting Hussein's style of government, it just pushed the problems underground and let them simmer.

what I find bizarre, is that, when I was in Western Iraq, most of the Iraqis that we came into contact with were eager for everything to settle down and return to some degree of normalcy. Most of them seemed to feel that their lives would not change much; they'd remain poor, but not without basic necessities and would continue to live as they had for a long time. There was no big animosity for one group or the other. Sunnis were concerned that the Shiites would take over and either leave them out of the decisions, or be somewhat vindictive for their treatment under Hussein. Then...less than a year and a half later all this Sunni v. Shiite violence breaks out. As near as I can tell, it is almost exclusive to Baghdad and the surrounding area. Maybe the other areas are each too dominated by one particular sect to make fighting there viable, but I have to wonder who is directing the thugs in Baghdad, on both sides, and what they hope to gain.
None of my friends serving over in Al-Anbar have reported anything like the attacks that are going on around Baghdad. Nor do you hear much like it coming from towns like Mosul or Basra.

Things began to get hairy over there back in February once Sunnis blew up the Askariya shrine in Samarra.

You may not appreciate the tenor of my post, but my analysis is spot-on, Chumley. Let me break it down for you:

1.

This point is self-evident

2.

This is one of the 'ways forward' on the table, and the one we WILL do: Phased withdrawl of most of our units, leaving behind advisors. However we will maintain substantial forces in the area to keep Iraq's neighbors from gettinng involved on the ground.

3.

again I was stating the obvious as a prelude to the blast which I believe offended your delicate sensibilities:

4.

Yes, this is a harsh statement. But do you care to argue the facts with me here? REvenge killings beget nothing but more revenge killings, and our brave troops are caught in the middle. Let them kill eachother, but not our boys and girls.

True dat based on the experience of the break-up of Yugoslavia, where Tito (i.e. Saddam) kept different ethnic groups together by way of dictatorship we should have predicted that Sunnis and Shiites would be at eachother's throats the second Saddam was gone. BUT THAT WAS STILL THEIR CHOICE.


...so keep taking those poli-sci correspondence courses. Either that or direct me to the link of your dissertation on the history of iraqi politics before and after Saddam, or anything you have written on regieme change and nation building. Until then, I will continue to bitch-slap anyone who attacks my 'tenor' rather than the substance of my well-crafted posts.