Fox News is reporting escalating sectarian violence, exploited by insurgents and not yet seen in the Iraqi campaign.
Is an Iraqi civil war certain?
Printable View
Fox News is reporting escalating sectarian violence, exploited by insurgents and not yet seen in the Iraqi campaign.
Is an Iraqi civil war certain?
I dont think anything is certain,but i think its very highly possiple.There are just too much tension between the religious and ethnic groups.But it should be high priority for also others then the US and her allies to stop it if possible.In case such a conflict would start it could escalate on the area very rapidly becouse the neighbouring states would contribute on it to benefit their own national intrests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
It doesnt benefit the normal people of Iraq if the international community just continues its policy "You created that mess,you fix it".So i think it would be best for US to ask help from UN and a multinational peace keeping force should be sent to Iraq.
Is an Iraqi civil war certain?
Well Kurdish Iraqis have been fighting other Iraqis for decades , thats a civil war isn't it .
The Marsh arabs uprising , that was a civil war wasn't it .
People of the same nationality are killing each other over ethnic , tribal , religeous , political differences ....thats a civil war isn't it .:shrug:
Having kept a bit in contact with the guys that replaced my unit the worry about a civil war is there but for the most part (in their sector at least) it's fairly calm(other than the normal attacks) but very tense.
A lot of the Iraqis that I did get to have good talks with (some via translator) don't really want the US there but at the same time understand the need for us there. More than enough times on patrol have we been thanked by the people of who's vehicle we just searched.
I'm just hoping for the better...
I don't think a full scale civil war will erupt, but there will be a lot of violence for a decade or two. We will see.
there is already a "de facto" civil war going on......does that count as "Imminent"? :book:
Imminent?
Iraq has been a powder keg ever since the Ottomans and the British played “Empires”.
Today, I guess that all that stands between Balkan-scale civil war is the foreign occupation force. However, that same foreign occupation force is being blamed for the whole sectarian mess by the Iraqi leaders (not the puppets), the clergy, and the average guy and girl on the bloodied streets of Baghdad.
As many have suggested - this is civil war. If soldiers and insurgents fighting and bombing each other daily doesn't count as civil war - what does? Do you want field battles and dress parades?
That would count. What we see now is tension and good old terrorism, may become war though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
I think we are still seeing what might be seen as "Civil Strife" or "unrest."
War requires at least two coherent sides with leaders. Admitedly there are sides and leaders but neither are coherent.
Nothing like the Provisional IRA and the Army Council.
I'll agree with Wiggy on this. Civil strife at present, could devolve into outright civil war -- though I hope it trends the other way.
i voted yes. it seems like they are already in the middle of a disfunctional civil war. in MTW terms they need a leader with a high influence.
This is the modern world. If you want to wait for something akin to Waterloo until you call it a war then you are going to wait a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
Now that is a good one :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
i can't see it happening very soon but in the next few decades i can imagine great violence as the people grow weary of american influence in the region and start warring with each other despite the us force. i can't see it as a conventional war but a war with guerillas fighting guerillas, enemies everywhere and nowhere, mosques being blown up, massive power grabs by clerics and finally a massive uprise against sunnis by shi'a and kurd which will lead to thousands of innocents dieing...only speculation of course.
I can't say anything for certain since no one can predict the future, but I think it is very likely that the civil war has already begun.
Gah!
I'm not waiting fro Waterloo, I'm saying that Civil War needs factions that are more than just mobs. At the moment all you have are mobs doing killings, also it is still only involving a minority of the populace and there seems to be only small tacit support, wars have figure heads, there aren't any in Iraq with clout yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Also in a war you have an objective, these mobs are just after petty revenge. No one is really thinking big over there yet.
I'd like to add item number 2 to my list of bad moves by the coalition. (fyi: #1 was disbanding the military in its entirety). That would be letting Al Sadr go- I think he's the driving force behind much of the Shiite reprisal attacks. We had him holed up with much of his militia beaten and relented on several occasions, but didnt want him to be a matyr.
Yeah, he should have had an "accident" after the cease fire.
well, the very first signs of an open civil war would be that the Iraqi Army/ Security Forces will either starting disbanding in large numbers, or split apart and start killing each other. Obviously the insurgents and hardliners aren't doing very well and keeping the peace, but the heart of the Iraqi Conflict is maintaining it's Police and Security forces. If the Iraqi Army doesn't dissolve then it'll just be civil strife and unrest, if the Iraqi Army dissolves it will be utter chaos between a 100 (at least) Different Warlords all striving to become the next Saddam Hussein. Welcome to Iraq: Total War.
This is my guess:
The Iraquian government will increase their forces (military, police and special task forces). They will cut civil rights (like free press ...). The task forces will be allowed to arrest and torture anyone they like to. There will be one dominant party which makes the president.
The US troops will reduce their presence and will be less visible. Of course they support the Iraqian government with equipment, training, intelligence amd air operations. This is enough to put any riots down but not to end the unrest. The unrest will force the president to keep troops in Iraq. Of course the US military will protect the US industry and their interests in Iraq.
The US industry, or at least a small part of it, will control the oil business. They rebuild the infrastructure. In return they get the licenses and do not have to pay taxes. Most of the gain that comes from the oil will stream to the bosses of some American oil companies. The rest will be spend for the special forces and the luxury of the ruling class.
All together the situation is much better than before the war, at least for the US and the other western countries. The common Iraqi people will not see much differences.
In a decade or so there will be a general riot. The US will leave the country and the civil war will begin.
I know that this sounds very pessimistic; of course I could be wrong and I honestly hope so. However this is my best guess.
What is your prevision?
Mate, you haven't got a clue. i bet you couldn't even name any of the factions areas or leaders in Iraq. You are just regurgitating half misheard comments from Fox News.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall
In related, al Sadr news: Iraq's Prime Minister Vows to Fight OusterQuote:
Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump
.....Quote:
Iraq's prime minister and his radical Shiite backers vowed Thursday to fight a bid by Sunni Arabs and Kurds to oust him, threatening to plunge the country into political turmoil, delay formation of a new government and undercut U.S. plans to begin withdrawing troops this year.
Again, it's a real shame that this guy is still allowed to be a player when we had him totally beaten and let him off.Quote:
A coalition of Sunni, Kurdish and secular parties formally asked the Shiite bloc Thursday to withdraw its nomination of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari for another term. The prime minister's adviser, Haider al-Ibadi, insisted the bloc would stick by its candidate.
Many Sunnis blame al-Jaafari for failing to rein in commandos of the Shiite-led Interior Ministry. And Kurds accuse al-Jaafari of dragging his heels on resolving their claims around the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.
Al-Jaafari won the nomination by a single vote during an election Feb. 12 among Shiite lawmakers who won seats in the Dec. 15 parliamentary election. He defeated Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi in large part because of the support of radical, anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
The idea of a prime minister who owes his position to the young radical has alarmed not only Sunni Arabs and Kurds, but also several key figures in the Shiite alliance. Abdul-Mahdi was the candidate of Shiite Alliance leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, who often is at odds with al-Sadr.
But the alliance does not know how to resolve the problem without risking a huge fight with al-Sadr, who is revered among impoverished Shiite militias and who has an armed militia allegedly behind many attacks against Sunni mosques last week.
Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim at odds with Muqtada al-Sadr? Well duh, he most likely blames the death of his brother (this guy) on al-Sadr.
I also guess that al-Sadrs trip around the Arab world went unnoticed by the western media. He was in Saudi among others.
so are we saying that the situation is too chaotic to be civil war because the factions aren't coherent enough? :inquisitive:
it's a pretty indistinct line... But i actually think that the definition we currently have, or an 'insurgency', is spot on at the moment. Technically full scale conventional battles are required for civil war.
Though Fallujah came closest to a conventional military engagement, i don't think it counts.
because the US can squash any force that stays in one place long enough, i think we can't say civil war until the coalition leaves.
Not that arguing over semantics makes the dead any more alive...
https://i2.tinypic.com/qnwenp.jpg
[rolleyes], indeed.
I don't watch Fox news, I am aware that there are leaders and Factions, I am aware that whole areas are run by religious para-militaries led by Mullahs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
My point is that none of these leaders is having a really big effect, they're all quite petty. Added to which there aren't any really loud Sunni leaders, who need at least two sides for a war.
Guys running around with AKs are not armies and Religious fanatics mouthing off are not leaders. Then there is the question of the largely intact security forces, until they fracture and take sides en masse there will be no war.
So far only a very small percentage of the populations is really involved.
LOL
http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/...ists/64677.htm
Dude, where's my civil war!?!?!?:laugh4:
Iraq is a nation (region) that has traditionally been ruled by a strongman for over 300 years .... it has been the only force that has previously held the competing factions from slaughtering each other (though the "strongman's" faction tends to fare better than the others).
With out a crystal ball, no one can predict what will happen in Iraq for certain. However, if the past is an indicator the likely hood of a new improved "Saddam" in the near future is a probable outcome. Especially if things at the social level continue to deteriate at the expotential rate that they are. Can anyone name a nation with 65% unemployment or at starvation wages that is a democracy?, or that does not have a dictator?, or that is considered stable by western standards? Iraq may have to have a civil conflict, but it won't be amongst two sides (as ours was). It has started as a division of racial, ethnic and religious seperationists (plus, outside instigators - Iran, Syria, etc.), but it may well evolve into a two sided affair once the struggle of the new Saddams' find their voice for the challenge of power.
Maybe, we should threaten to put Saddam back in power .... J/K ... but, it might wake up the majority of Iraqis to the reality of what a civil war would bring. "Hail to the new BOSS, same as the old Boss." Shame is, that maybe what Iraq needs. After all, when did they ever ask for democracy? [Oh, they did have that one little uprising after the Gulf War ..... remember? The one BushI ignored, after promising to send aid if they revolted against Saddam.]
Still, one must remember - "It's about the oil, stupid!" The idea of spreading democracy to the region was just the spin used to justify it. Then again, BushII seems to think that Pakistan is a democracy - who'ld a thunk it. :wall:
I believe that people are ignoring the demographic that will not allow for a civil war. the 60% population of Shiites have nothing to gain by sectarian violence - they will hold the most power in a democratic iraq. the extra 3-5% of religious minorities will contribute to this need for stability. This part of the population has been urging restraint as it tends to be in its best interests.
The Sunni problem is not as big of a problem in my opinion. The majoirty of the 37% Sunni population is Sunni Kurd (20%). The Kurds are, across the board, participating in the democratic process (with radical exceptions in the minority). Jalal Talabani is a major Kurdish figure who is the Current President of Iraq. These people have been persecuted by the Sunni Arabs for years under Saddam. I'm sure that they would rather try their hand in an Iraq whwere they are the second largest power sharer rather than one where they are the most opressed.
This means that nearly 80% of Iraq is not only participating in the budding democracy, but have much to lose by any return to the "way it was".
16-17% of Iraqis are Sunni Arab. These people are consolidated in the center of the country and in the major northwestern cities (always with exception).These people are posing an impediment to democratic growth in the country (generally speaking). How many are actually interested in a war between muslims in this camp? this is a good question.
Sunni Arab's are a minority in Iraq. They are fighting to reclaim their superior status and will not succeed because of poor numbers.
it will be hard to halt a war by saying "stop, this is only hurting yourselves" plus i doubt the religios leaders and there fanatic cohorts care much about the well being of the Iraqi masses.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Quote:
Originally Posted by master of the puppets
what i'm trying to illustrate is that the population is too small to start a civil war that would benefit them at all. It is my opinion that many people believe that the country is evenly split when, in reality, the amount of people who want iraq to go back to the way it was is very small.
if the various tribes of shiite arabs and sunni kurds would share power, the sunni arabs who wanted to stay out of the government would find themselves outnumbered by a vast majoirty.
there will be insurrection, but no civil war
my point is small, but i just do not believe that there will be a civil war due to the small part of the population who would have anything to gain.
and yes, i beleive that when faced with a civil war many people will ask "is it in my best interests to support this" (except for the fundamentalists who support it in principle). i believe that it is not in their best interests and they know it (both the people and the vast majority of politicians).
Bingo, religious leaders and fanatics, Joe average Iraqi doesn't want a war, as has been said. There is no significant proportion of the population engaged in violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by master of the puppets
This spike in US support should be used properly, if there is any more pointless brutality then the perpetrators should be handed over to the Iraqi courts.
https://i2.tinypic.com/qzhris.jpg
This is *not* a Photoshop