Iraqi Civil War

[A_Wanderer]

U.S. marines watching the skyline from their second-story perch in an abandoned house here saw a curious thing: In the distance, mortar rounds and gunfire popped, but the volleys did not seem to be aimed at them.

In the dark, one marine spoke in hushed code words on a radio, and after a minute found the answer. “Red on red,” he said late Sunday night, using a military term for enemy-on-enemy fire.

Marines patrolling this desert region near the Syrian border have for months been seeing a strange trend in the complex Iraqi insurgency. Insurgents, they say, have been fighting one another in this constellation of towns along the Euphrates, from Husayba to Qaim. The observations offer a new clue in the hidden world of the insurgency and suggest that there may have been, as American commanders suggest, a split between Islamic militants and local rebels.

link

 

[financeguy]

Thanks for your honesty, A_Wanderer.

Don't get fooled again.

 

[Judah]

If true, this trend would not be surprising. The same kinds of splits have been reported in Kashmir, between the Moslem Kashmiris, who want a political solution (i.e. their own statehood) and separation from India, and the Jihadists (mostly Arabs) who have come there to "support" the locals in their fights against the "infidel Hindus." More and more the Arabs/non-Kashmiris are seen as outsiders with a narrow agenda: to continue a violent Jihad against Indians. (This was initially backed by Pakistan, but since 9/11 and the fall of the Taliban, Pakistan has had to retreat from this kind of support.)

 

[Sherry Darling]

Every day I get more outraged by the willfull blindness of those who still support this war. An those of us who were always against it need to NOT back down! We need to remind folks at every turn that the civil war beginning in Iraq was not only predictable, it was predicted.

I'd also like to add an echo of Financeguy's to AWanderer.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I am actually very pleased about this; removing the foreign Jihadist movement from Iraq is a good thing. The elections, drafting of the Iraqi constitution and the moves by the Sunni leadership to get involved in the process are all signs that the envisioned civil war will always be just over the horizon.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Think of it as insurgent versus terrorist.

 

[financeguy]

Think of it as insurgent versus terrorist.

Maybe it's about time you put you're money where your mouth is.

You're happy to be a cheerleader for the neo-con oil wars, why don't you go over there and kill some 'insurgents'?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I have a decent ammount of time to do what I think is right.

 

[Dreadsox]

Every day I get more outraged by the willfull blindness of those who still support this war.

Yet another person I respect in here resorting to this style of posting.

We are blind for supporting the war?

Willfully....

 

[Sherry Darling]

Dread

It does seem like willful blindness to me. Death after death, car bomb after car bomb, and we're winning? I do not think that Iraq is a new Vietnam, but there is a parallel to the unwillingness of our leaders then to admit failure and now. I'm especially worried that the VP and other top civilian leaders have been contradicting what our top militiary guys and CIA have been telling us.

A certain civil war if we pull out, the serious risk of that if we don't. I would feel much better if those who support it in our admin could say, "Ya know, it's not going well at all, and it's important, we did it for good reasons, so we have to see it though." I would disagree, and maintain my stance that anyone who thought we'd have roses thown at us there should lose his or her job for sheer ignorance. But at least I could respect the honesty. They just keep repeating that we're winning as if it's a line they can sell but repeating it enough, and that scares me.

I stand by my point that what we're seeing now *was predicted* by those who opposed the war and by those who did not exactly oppose it but wanted more thoughtful process and planning. I can find plenty of op-eds predicting the low-grade civil war that's going on now from before we invaded, if you like.

I hope this clarifies where I'm coming from.

 

[Dreadsox]

Dread

It does seem like willful blindness to me. Death after death, car bomb after car bomb, and we're winning? I do not think that Iraq is a new Vietnam, but there is a parallel to the unwillingness of our leaders then to admit failure and now. I'm especially worried that the VP and other top civilian leaders have been contradicting what our top militiary guys and CIA have been telling us.

As a person who supported the war........

I question the VP.....and the President......

The Generals do not seem to be supporting their conclusions.

However, that has nothing to do with the reasons why I felt it necessary for war.

I think they are two separate issues.

I also think it important to recognize that a large part of the resistance is not coming from Iraqi's but from foriegn soldiers, that want nothing more than for Iraq to become an Islamic state.

 

[financeguy]

There was little or no terrorism of significance (unless you count state terrorism caused by Saddam) in Iraq before the invasion.

So the foreign insurgents/terrorists that have come in to Iraq - at the end of the day responsibiliy for the deaths caused by them must be laid at the door at those who led us into the war, and that means primarily Bush/Cheney/Blair.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Then they have a responsibility to the Iraqi people to stand by them against this threat until the Iraqi's can stand alone.

 

[Sherry Darling]

Dread, I'm glad to hear that you are questioning the Pres and VP--not enough ppl are. Hail, if we're going to do this, let's do it right.

One of the reasons I want us out now is that I don't see them even acknowledging the problems we seem to agree we're facing over there. I think that has deeply compromised our security--our military is tied up in something that we don't have a clear exit plan on.

See, where I get lost in your logic here--what I think is your logic--is that this war to me was ill-conceived to begin with. It was based on bad intel--and if we'd slowed down enough instead of listening to Bush's drumbeat, we would have discovered that. It was based on wishful thinking, also--that we'd be greeted as liberators, etc. I am outraged by how irresponsible the admin was in all of this. I'm angry that the Dems didn't fight it more. I'm angry that so many Americans just take what the admin says as face value (from the above, you don't fall into this category). Democracies can't function this way!

You correctly note that a lot of the fighters are foreign--but I don't take your point there. They're foreign. yes. So? That was predicted by those who have been questioning this war, also. Many of us pointed out that if we invaded Iraq, we'd end up fighting much of the ME.

A-Wander: I do basically believe the "you break it you buy it" approach, yes. But many of us believe it's our presense there that is much of the problem. Hence from that point of view, doing the right thing by Iraq would be leaving.

Of course, they're a "sovereign" nation now, so it's really up to them. LOL

 

[hiphop]

I think that has deeply compromised our security--our military is tied up in something that we don't have a clear exit plan on.

this war to me was ill-conceived to begin with. It was based on bad intel--and if we'd slowed down enough instead of listening to Bush's drumbeat, we would have discovered that.

I´ll go one step further and say intelligence gave the information the leaders wanted to hear. Whether this is the responsibility of intelligence or the responsibility of the US admin, is questionable (even if it would be difficult to prove that the admin knew intelligence was wrong/ infos manipulated).

I, for one, despise leaders who shamelessly and intentionally lie and then try to cover their ass by hiding behind intelligence.

 

[Sherry Darling]

Yes, indeed, Hiphop. It was a classic, textbook case of groupthink, which is what happens when the leadership is any org. creates an atmosphere of demanding (I'll put it kindly) loyalty.

 

[verte76]

I remember the stuff about the predicted civil war. This motivated me to attend a protest with a fever in February of 2003. I am not at all sorry I attended protests. I was protesting nonsense like the claims that we'd be met with roses and candy. We ended up with this mess on our hands.

 

[Judah]

I think everyone should read this by Peter Galbraith:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18150

Great insight on why Iraq is so set up for a prolonged civil war (and not just an "Iraqis vs insurgents" civil war...more of a Sunni vs Shiite vs Kurds civil war).

"There is, in fact, no Iraqi insurgency. There is a Sunni Arab insurgency. And it cannot win. Neither the al-Qaeda terrorists nor the former Baathists can win. Even if the US withdrew tomorrow, neither insurgents nor terrorists would be knocking down the gates to Iraq's Presidential Palace in Baghdad.

"Basically, the military equation in Iraq comes down to demographics. Sunni Arabs are no more than 20 percent of Iraq's population. Even in Baghdad—once the seat of Sunni Arab power—Sunni Arabs are a minority. To succeed, the insurgency would have to win support from Iraq's other major communities—the Kurds at 20 percent and the Shiites at between 55 and 60 percent. This cannot happen.

"While the Kurds are mostly Sunni Muslims, they have a history of repression at the hands of Sunni Arabs. A few dozen Kurds have been involved in terrorist acts, but al-Qaeda and its allies have no support in the Kurdistan population, which is one reason Kurdistan has largely been spared the violence that has wracked Arab Iraq.

"The Shiites are completely immune to any appeal by insurgents. Sunni fundamentalists consider Shiites as apostates, and possibly a more dangerous enemy than even the Americans. (The Americans, they know, will leave. The apostates want to rule.) For the last two years, Sunni Arab insurgents have targeted Shiite mosques, clerics, religious celebrations, and pilgrims—with a toll in the thousands. The insurgent goal is to provoke sectarian war, and they seem to be succeeding. In spite of calls for restraint by Shiite leaders, there are growing numbers of retaliatory killings of Sunni Arabs by Shiites."

 

[Judah]

And I thought this commentary by a Brit on Galbraith's points was intriguing (it's at markarkleiman.com):


"The Sunni insurgency has two components: secular Sunni ex-Baathists whose programme is more or less (a) "Bring back Saddam (or another Sunni Arab secular strongman), lording it over Kurds and Shia" and Sunni jihadis who want (b) "drive the infidel Americans out", and (unclearly) (c) "set up a Sunni theocracy. lording it over Kurds and Shia".

"Thought experiment: if the USA just quit tomorrow, what would the insurgents do? The jihadis would have achieved aim (b); since aim (c) is suicidally impossible, they would most likely declare victory and move on. That would leave the secular Baathists. The Kurds would stand on the sidelines while the Shia militias crushed them with Iranian help. Ethnic cleansing of defeated Sunnis would be a possibility. End-state: de facto partition of Iraq into two (think Belgium or Bosnia), with an ongoing low-level Sunni terrorist movement (think ETA, IRA) preventing economic recovery in the Arab part but not strong enough to change the regime. US bases? Privileged access to oil? Cosy reconstruction contracts? Forget it. More likely demands for rendition of Abu Ghraib players to face trial on torture charges.

"Second, minor thought: what is keeping British forces in Basra? They are only being seriously attacked, and then occasionally, by Sunni insurgents who have to travel down, without the local support needed to be effective. The net contribution of British forces to the security of the inhabitants of Basra province is probably negligible. So they are there to try to hold back Iranian influence, a hopeless task, and of course to fly the tattered figleaf of the "coalition". A waste of time, money and lives.

"In all the blogerfuffle over the Downing Street Memos, nobody seems to have asked the question why top-secret inner British Cabinet documents were leaked in the first place. Someone at the heart of the British security establishment is angry enough to break serious confidences, in a much more secretive administrative culture than Washington's. It's just posible it was done by a Brown ally to undermine Blair: but that would have been very dangerous if Blair had discovered this and reacted vengefully. More likely, it's just a step in the disintegration of the "special relationship".

"Subtext: We were used; never again. "

 

[VertigoGal]

I wonder what effect the finishing of the Constitution will have on the situation there...obviously certain elements will not so easily "go away," but we'd all like to hope that a constitution could successfully unify the country. I'm anxious to see what the Sunni religious leaders have to say about it, and I hope they realize that to some extent they hold the country's future in their hands. It'd be terrible if it went the way of civil war.

 

[Infinity]

Every day I get more outraged by the willfull blindness of those who still support this war. An those of us who were always against it need to NOT back down! We need to remind folks at every turn that the civil war beginning in Iraq was not only predictable, it was predicted.

I feel your anger and frustration Sherry. I really want that bush to come out and tell us the truth of everything about the war, it will make us feel better.