civil war in iraq...

[bishop]

do you think there will be a civil war in iraq?


one thing to pay attention to is the fact that the kurds are trying to acquire kirkuk, an oil rich city. and, the shi'ites live in all the other oil-rich parts of iraq.

the sunnis, who represent approx. 20% of iraq, have no known oil fields in the areas where they live. these people are legitimately concerned about their fate in the new iraq. i believe these people will be the primary catalyst for civil war in iraq. in response, the shi'ites will be just as ruthless and will commit atrocities of their own.

all of this will happen because bush decided that it would be a good idea to invade iraq. apologists will frequently talk about how our invasion saved future lives from saddam's brutal rule. in kind, i wonder if they'll attribute the future civil war to our intervention?


thoughts?

[RickSp]

Obviously, we can all only guess. My gut feeling is that civil war can be avoided for a number of reasons.

- Iraq has been secular since it was created after WWII. Notwithstanding Sunni dominace, the Shi'ites as led by Ayatollah Sistani are more secular than the Iranian Shi'a or Muslims in general in the Middle East. Sistani is a conservative, to be sure, but not a fundamentalist. On balance the Shi'ites gain more from a democratic unified Iraq than from a partitioned Iraq.

- The Kurds are effectively autonomous already. The Kurdish regions are reasonably peaceful and well governed. As long as they are allowed to retain a degree of autonomy, they are much better protected in a unified Iraq than in an independent Kurdish state, where they might be vulnerable to invasion or at least military action by Turkey. So far the terms of the draft government give the Kurds at veto power. That could be enough to keep the Kurds supporting a unified Iraq.

-The Shia who were the administrators under the Ottoman Empire and then were given the same power by the British occupiers and took power under the Baathist party, have the most to lose. Under Saddam the Baath party had three million members across the country. Who knows how many would actively oppose a democratic Iraq. Estimates are that half the insurgents are jihadists and half are Baathist. It is unclear how many are simply nationalist. How many will lay down their arms or even switch sides when the infidel occupier finally leaves the country? The longer we stay the greater the justification that the insurgents will have to continue fighting. Once the infidel is gone, the insurgents may lose traction.

As long as the Shi'ites and the Kurds have an incentive to stay in a unified Iraq they may be able to buy off the Sunnis with some sort of power sharing arrangement. I think the wild card is the occupation. The US so completely screwed up the early stages of the occupation by stupidity and incompetence, that we may yet foul things up sufficiently so as to make a unifed Iraq impossible.

Of course nobody knows. Time will tell.

[bishop]

i wonder how long sistani will live, given that many of his religious brethren have been assassinated already.

[RickSp]

One of his senior aides was assassinated a week or so ago. Even if Sistani dies, my guess is that the other Shia' Ayatollas are of the same relatively moderate school of conservative Twelver Shia's. I understand that Sadr is far more in the Khomeni school which is more aggressive and millenial. Sadr, neverthless, is not an Ayatolla and would not have been a major player if Dumber-than-a-sack-of-rocks Emir Bremer hadn't shot down his newspaper and targeted his miltia. If it weren't for Bremer, Sadr would be just a young hot-head with some status because he had a famous and revered father. That is my take on it anyway.

The Iraqi Shi'ites are traditional Twelver Shi'ites, which is to say that they are waiting for the twelfth Imam to return as the Mahdi. Until the Mahdi comes, the Twelver Shi'ites don't believe that their clerics ought to be involved in government. The Khomieni theocracy in Iran is a definate break with the traditional Shi'ite beliefs. This is another reason why I think the Iraqi Shia would prefer a united Iraq. The traditional Shia of Iraq might want to retain independence to from the more radical Iranian Shi'ites.

[bishop]

if the kurds manage to control kirkuk, the sunnis will have no control over oil whatsoever. the majority of the problems in iraq relate to disaffected sunnis, and kirkuk in kurdish hands will further strengthen their feelings. there they'll be, in some of the worst parts of iraq, with no political voice, no oil for wealth/power, and al qaeda exploiting their plight. as for the kurds, i question just how much they really do care about keeping iraq whole. seems to me that they want their power and could care less what happens to the rest of the country.

as for sadr, he seemed to be a problem a couple months ago, but he seems pretty tame nowadays. however, he commands a sizeable force, and i don't believe his political ambitions have died.

It is unclear how many are simply nationalist. How many will lay down their arms or even switch sides when the infidel occupier finally leaves the country? The longer we stay the greater the justification that the insurgents will have to continue fighting. Once the infidel is gone, the insurgents may lose traction.

there is mass unemployment in iraq, and horrible humanitarian situations (energy, water, etc.).. many of those who have taken to battle, imo, have done so because there is nothing else for them (in their view). the situation is similar to the civil war in afghanistan, where poverty fueled continual warfare.

the "wild card" as i see it is what happens when we leave? right now the sunnis attack anyone seen aiding the occupiers - this list includes humanitarian workers unaffiliated with our government or the iraqi regime we're propping up. will these people stop once we leave? i doubt it. seems to me that they will simply seek out new targets, and since we will still be part of the picture, they will continue to claim to be fighting against the infidel (and its collaborators). maybe this won't constitute a civil war in some peoples' minds, but it does to me, because it will be one internal group versus another.

[RickSp]

The insurgency is estimated to be 50% Baathist and 50% jihadist. These groups are traditional enemies united by their opposition to the US occupation. If the US withdraws they may turn against each other and are, at least, far less likely to present a unified front. If the newly elected government requests US withdrawal and the US does indeed withdraw it could strengthen the new government's legitimacy. All of which is not that say that violence or the myriad range of problems will end with the end of the occupation. Nevertheless, the occupation is part of the problem not the solution.

[bishop]

do you have a source for these estimates?

i'm primarily concerned about the sunnis, since i see them as the catalyst for potential civil war.. there seem to be both baathists as well as jihadists amongst them. of course, remember that saddam spent a couple years indoctrinating the baathists into islamic fundamentalism. i wonder if they'll team together against the shi'ites, or fight amongst themselves...

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop do you have a source for these estimates?

The 50% Baathist - 50% jihadi comes from Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohamed Abdullah Shahwani. He estimated that in early January there were 40,000 hardcore fighters and over 200,000 part-timers and volunteers. He estimated that the Baathists had roughly 20,000 hard core fighters. Iraqi Insurgency Groups

The insurgency is highly fragmented united only by an opposition ot the US occupation. I find commentary from the Source Watch to be interesting.

"With so many motives and goals, no single strategy will stabilize this situation, and a military solution alone will never work. Political and social strategies must be coordinated with military operations if Iraq is to achieve social order. Measures that deal effectively with the ex-Baathists, for example, will not work with the religious oppositionists. "Even among the religious opposition, philosophies and actions differ. Many Sunni Arabs are convinced that America is there to obliterate Iraq's identity and turn it into an economic colony. Some have chosen to confront these alleged U.S. machinations politically. Others have chosen the route of insurgency. "The Shiite populace and clerics have shown a more subtle approach. At the national level, Shiite clerics express joy that the oppressive Saddam regime is gone, but are ambivalent about the U.S. presence in Iraq. The statements of senior Shiite clerics can essentially be summed up as, 'Thank you for getting rid of Saddam -- now please go.'" "The insurgency lies -- at present -- somewhere between a gut-level resistance to the occupation and a classic guerrilla war."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Catch 22]

I personally think Iraq has 30 percent chance of full scale civil war. My gut feeling is that the kurds will definitely try to secede from the rest and run their own things. I think that’s a good idea actually as they’ve been running their own things for a while now and done a half way decent job. Plus it would deprive the US government of recruits for those new death squads they’re looking at implementing. The only problem with kurdish secession is like rick said it might cause a Sunni uprising since they’ll have little to no oil reserves in their area of control.

[bishop]

only hitch with that one is that the turks have said that they'd invade if the kurds try to get their own state.

[RickSp]

I don't think any group in Iraq benefits from partition. The Kurds would threatened by the Turks. The Shi'ite south might be threatend by their Persian neighbors, and the Sunni middle doesn't want to be an island floating between the northern and southern oil fields.

The Sunnis have ruled Iraq for centuries are would like to continue to do so. The Sunni minority was put in power by foreign occupiers - the Ottoman Turks and then the British. Sunni domination isn't realistic anymore but argues more for negotiation than necessarily armed conflict.

The Shi'ite see their opportunity to claim a rightful role in governance, and at least so far seem careful not to overplay their hand. The Kurds, paradoxically may just want an improved continuation of the status quo. They have had several years of near-autonomy and may want only a bit more sharing of oil revenes but to be otherwise left alone.

Civil war may yet break out, but it doesn't benefit the major parties involved.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop do you think there will be a civil war in iraq?

I think that Iraq has the grounds for a civil war. Having in mind Iraq's today situation, that is "not applicable", yet.
If it appears to be a "neccessity", then Iraq should be partitioned. That would minimize the impact on civilians and/or eventaul casualties, at least.

[rmnunez]

I doubt Iraq will be partitioned any time soon. There are some strong arguments against this happening; it would clearly be seen as a failure and add instability to the region; none of the neighboring countries want a partition (which could set a precedent their own minorities might find attractive); if partition resulted in ethnically homogenous enclaves, the Sunnis would get no oil; partition would produce smaller entities which probably would be pitted against each other by manipulating neighbors.

[Rainbow]

rmnunez

I agree, but :
- if the objective is to stabilize a state while there is no sufficient force to provide it, then a smaller (in size) territory gives a much better chance to accomplish that task.
Additionally, less people would suffer, which is the main goal.

[Scribbler1]

If there is a civil war it will be devastating for the Bush administration, as it will show just how little thought was put into this.
Of course, if a civil war DOES happen and the administration can sucessfully blame it on outside terrorist activity, Bush is off the hook.

2 days left and I'm dying to see how this turns out.

[Rainbow]

Scribbler1

The election in Iraq today, is not that important as the outomes tomorrow.
The election itself is the initial step foward in that whole process. I do not expect a state to be built over night. It takes years, decades, or so.

[Scribbler1]

I agree Rainbow, and I posted that to Mr. Vicchio in another thread. I want to see how the vote turns out, that's all. Then we have another process BEFORE anyone is inaugurated and then they have to prove themselves up to this extremely tough job (which I doubt they will). Iraq will NEVER be the kind of democracy Bush is selling us. They are not of the same mind as the westerners and those insurgents wilol NOT go away as if by magic when the votes are counted. I believe the job is too tough for any serious and patriotic Iraqi to handle and the system will sink into the same cesspool of corruption and poor government that many similar nation have.
The only alternative is for us to run their government from behind the curtain and if that happens it will just be another administration lie in a seemingly endless line of lies designed to cover up other lies.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Iraq will NEVER be the kind of democracy Bush is selling us. They are not of the same mind as the westerners and those insurgents will NOT go away as if by magic when the votes are counted. I believe the job is too tough for any serious and patriotic Iraqi to handle and the system will sink into the same cesspool of corruption and poor government that many similar nation have. The only alternative is for us to run their government from behind the curtain and if that happens it will just be another administration lie in a seemingly endless line of lies designed to cover up other lies.

I am not a "mind-scanner" :-))) then I do not know what type of pro-democratic state may dwell into Iraqis heads.
What I found out that Iraqis neither want any Saddam-alike returns, nor any form of pro-Islamic republic. That is obvious that those people will need to speak again on some additional critical (to that state) issues and vote, in order to shape its state.
We may speculate on Iraq's final political shape or pro-democratic shade, however I think that women will play key role on Iraq's political field. Initially not treated as "real political competitors" but presenting a strong voice, Iraqi women become a factor.

I think that every "normal" state has its own unique form of democracy, so Iraq is going to develope its one, as well. In order Iraq to become a (future) major ally for U.S., its political system needs to cover political and ideological fundaments that match U.S.'s ones.
I am not much interested about political figures, as long as it moves into that way, while
in politics - as it use to be practiced - figures behind a"political iron curtain" rule.

You seem to overlooked my previously submitted posts and replies.
The Truth, Ethic and Morals do not exist on main page in political menu. They are being listed somewhere at the end pages. That is why I do not care much what politcian may say, but what his/her objectives and how it may influence others as the final result(s).

In case of "insurgents", they are finished, both politically and physically. That is a matter of time.

[rmnunez]

The elections were a resounding success, turnout was clocked at better than 60% (not bad considering the alleged prevalence of the insurgency and their regard for voters as collaborators). The interim PM says he thinks this should mean the gringoes can go home in about 18 months (they don't want to leave until they are sure the local forces can handle the insurgency). It will be a few days before the votes get counted but I'd expect massive Shia and Kurd participation guarantees both of these will be well-represented. The Sunnis participated less, partly out of opposition to the process, but also due to fear for their lives. I wonder what effect low Sunni participation may have. Possibly the Sunnis will get the same number of parliamentary representatives as had they voted, just that their representatives won't be as often their own choice. The high Kurdish turnout guarantees they will be able to adequately protect their autonomy and perhaps even gain more when the new constitution is drafted. The insurgency has suffered a fatal blow, clearly what motivates them is not foreign occupation, its loss of power.

[bishop]

The insurgency has suffered a fatal blow, clearly what motivates them is not foreign occupation, its loss of power.

has it really? the elections JUST HAPPENED. how about seeing what happens in the next two weeks before announcing success? this is kind of like how bush announced success on the aircraft carrier, then we experienced our hardest fighting of the war (the guerilla war).