Can civil war in Iraq now be avoided?

[UndercoverElephant]

From my POV, Paul Bremer is rapidly turning into the latest "comical ali" (the Iraqi information minister who was telling the world that US troops had been ousted from the airport, even as US tanks trundled into the middle of Baghdad). When he says "the killers of US GI's will not go unpunished" (What will the US do? Nuke Fallujah) or "these protests will not be tolerated" (What will the US do? Nuke Basra and Najaf?) or calling a Shia Cleric capable of prompting a co-ordinated Shia rebellian "an outlaw" (WHO'S LAW?), he sounds to me increasingly like comical Ali. It looks to me like it is the presence of the US which is "not being tolerated". We have Bush re-affirming that power will be handed over on June 30th, US senators saying it is impossible, the British governers office in Basra being occupied by Shia rebels, and US soldiers being killed in increasingly open warfare in Shia as well as Sunni areas.

Has the US now effectively lost control of the agenda in Iraq?

Is there going to be a civil war?

Is it possible that the US could be forced out of Iraq without a stable government being put in place beforehand?

Or does the US have to stay in Iraq, even if it finds itself in the middle of a bloody civil war?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
From my POV, Paul Bremer is rapidly turning into the latest "comical ali" (the Iraqi information minister who was telling the world that US troops had been ousted from the airport, even as US tanks trundled into the middle of Baghdad). When he says "the killers of US GI's will not go unpunished" (What will the US do? Nuke Fallujah) or "these protests will not be tolerated" (What will the US do? Nuke Basra and Najaf?) or calling a Shia Cleric capable of prompting a co-ordinated Shia rebellian "an outlaw" (WHO'S LAW?), he sounds to me increasingly like comical Ali.


That's because you have no patience. It's important to recognize what the goal of the Fallujah violence was: it was terrorism, designed to provoke reprisals that would polarize the residents of Fallujah into violent opposition to us. We will not be dragged into that trap, we will not have another Blackhawk Down, but we are responding. It will just take some time to execute properly. The first stage is to set the terms for the conflict, which is being done: lock down the town, position forces, and plan out the counterattack. What will come next is a thorough sweep of the town to root out terrorists and insurgents, using overwhelming force. We will demonstrate to Fallujah that they are completely at our mercy, but that we can be merciful - we will capture or kill those responsible, but we will not kill innocents. We will demonstrate that they cannot sit on the fence in this conflict, and that the terrorists and insurgents WILL be on the losing side, so they had better get their act together and start cooperating or they're going to pay a price. That is how we will answer the Fallujah attacks. And similar responses will occur elsewhere.


It looks to me like it is the presence of the US which is "not being tolerated".


By a tiny fraction of the population. But we will not be disuaded.


Has the US now effectively lost control of the agenda in Iraq?

Is there going to be a civil war?


No and no. This is part of the ebb and flow of war, but we are not losing. Just as the German counteroffensive after Normandy didn't mean we weren't still winning.


Is it possible that the US could be forced out of Iraq without a stable government being put in place beforehand?

Or does the US have to stay in Iraq, even if it finds itself in the middle of a bloody civil war?

We do indeed need to stay in Iraq. But there is also no credible risk of being forced out. The only risk is a loss of will. That is what the terrorists and insurgents are hoping for, since that worked in Somalia and Lebanon. But we've learned our lesson, we know the stakes are too high, so I don't think even Kerry would be willing to back out before we finish the job.

[zenith-nadir]

More trouble is caused by F-O-R-E-I-G-N fighters than Iraqis. These foreigners are flowing in from Iran and Syria, suicide bombing Americans, or anyone else for that matter, is not an Iraqi 'thing' if you catch my drift.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
[B]

That's because you have no patience. It's important to recognize what the goal of the Fallujah violence was: it was terrorism, designed to provoke reprisals that would polarize the residents of Fallujah into violent opposition to us.


Isn't it becoming obvious that is the entire population of Fallujah which is "polarised in violent opposition" to the US? Those weren't "terrorists" who lynched the corpses of US soldiers from a bridge over the Euphrates - it was ordinary Iraqis - including children. What I am saying is that I cannot believe that anybody really thinks that it is just a "small anti-US contingent" that is "whipping up anti-US sentiment" in Fallujah. They don't need to "whip it up", because it is already there.


We will not be dragged into that trap, we will not have another Blackhawk Down, but we are responding. It will just take some time to execute properly. The first stage is to set the terms for the conflict, which is being done: lock down the town, position forces, and plan out the counterattack. What will come next is a thorough sweep of the town to root out terrorists and insurgents, using overwhelming force. We will demonstrate to Fallujah that they are completely at our mercy, but that we can be merciful - we will capture or kill those responsible, but we will not kill innocents.


But isn't the problem that "the innocents" support the activists? How do you tell who is the enemy and who is a civilian when the enemy is civilian?

And how can you demonstrate that Fallujah "is at the mercy of the US" apart from targeting the whole city? How do you selectively "root out terrorists"?


We will demonstrate that they cannot sit on the fence in this conflict, and that the terrorists and insurgents WILL be on the losing side....


Don't you think it is a bit late for that? If I was an Iraqi my opinion would be moving the other way. It is looking more and more likely that control is slipping away from the US, not the other way around. In other words, even Iraqis who once believed that an anti-US uprising would fail may now be beginning to think that the US is going to lose. By "lose" I mean being forced to withdraw from Iraq leaving behind either a civil war or an anti-US government in Iraq.


, so they had better get their act together and start cooperating or they're going to pay a price.


Yeah, so the US keeps saying. But that is why I mentioned comical Ali. The gap between rhetoric and reality has become a Grand Canyon.


Just as the German counteroffensive after Normandy didn't mean we weren't still winning.


It is a totally different situation. I do not see any valid comparison.


We do indeed need to stay in Iraq. But there is also no credible risk of being forced out. The only risk is a loss of will. That is what the terrorists and insurgents are hoping for, since that worked in Somalia and Lebanon. But we've learned our lesson, we know the stakes are too high, so I don't think even Kerry would be willing to back out before we finish the job.

So what if the current situation develops into an all-out shia/sunni civil war, with both sides seeing the US as their enemy? Would you say the US should still stay in Iraq, trying to stop two sides from killing each other whilst both sides are trying to kill the Americans? Or are you simply stating that you are not yet ready to seriously contemplate this outcome, even though the warning signs are there for anyone to see?

[ZeeGerman]

The main problem with foreigners in Iraq is that now as the "unifying" yoke of Saddam's dictatorship is gone, there are at least three major factions in Iraq who are foreign to each other, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, all promoting their own specific agenda. So there is this Iraqi 'thing' of course. I wouldn't rule out the strong possibility of civil war at all. The new constitution may be well conceived but it's still just a piece of paper until it becomes the will of the people.

Zee

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
More trouble is caused by F-O-R-E-I-G-N fighters than Iraqis. These foreigners are flowing in from Iran and Syria, suicide bombing Americans....


But didn't events in Fallujah expose this as not true? Those weren't Iranians and Syrians dragging the corpses of US soldiers through the streets. They were I-R-A-Q-I-S. And it isn't Iranians or Syrians who have been taking part in the co-ordinated uprising in the Shia areas. It is also I-R-A-Q-I-S.

I am getting the impression from both replies that people in the US are more interested in believing what they have been told by the White House than thinking critically about what is actually happening on the ground. You have to deal with the realities. Blaming "foreign fighters" for the recent troubles in Fallujah and Najaf is not going to lead to a solution, because it is a serious failure to accept the real causes of the problem. It is no use pretending this isn't happening, because it IS.


, or anyone else for that matter, is not an Iraqi 'thing' if you catch my drift. [/B]

I catch your drift, but I think you are dangerously wrong. I think you can forget trying to blame Iranians and Syrians. Even if you were right (and I do not believe for one second that you are) then what are you going to do about it? The US has neither the troops nor the money to invade Iran or Syria now, because its economy is starting to collapse and it is already sending soldiers with PTSS back into theatre. Blaming the foreigners is both denying reality and solution-less.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
But didn't events in Fallujah expose this as not true?Not at all. There are Iraqis who are resisting the change, as in Fallujah, and then there are foreign fighters arriving daily to martyr themselves and kill Americans for the Iraqis.


Originally posted by JustGeoff
Those weren't Iranians and Syrians dragging the corpses of US soldiers through the streets. They were I-R-A-Q-I-S. And it isn't Iranians or Syrians who have been taking part in the co-ordinated uprising in the Shia areas. It is also I-R-A-Q-I-S. You are reading what I said incorrectly. There are Iraqis who are resisting the change, as in Fallujah, and then there are foreign fighters arriving daily to martyr themselves and kill Americans.


Originally posted by JustGeoff
I am getting the impression from both replies that people in the US are more interested in believing what they have been told by the White House than thinking critically about what is actually happening on the ground. You have to deal with the realities. Blaming "foreign fighters" for the recent troubles in Fallujah and Najaf is not going to lead to a solution, because it is a serious failure to accept the real causes of the problem. It is no use pretending this isn't happening, because it IS.Who's pretending the real cause of the problem isn't former Baath party elite and Saddam-supporters? I am just illustrating that foreign fighters are arriving from Syria and Iran to support the Iraqis who are fighting the Americans. The Syrian and Iranian borders are about as secure as the border between Mexico and the United States.

[UndercoverElephant]

Who's pretending the real cause of the problem isn't former Baath party elite and Saddam-supporters?


I am sorry, but the Shia uprising in Basra and Najaf has nothing to do with Ba'ath party or saddam supporters. They are Iraqi Shias. And the massive crowds in Fallujah weren't Ba'ath party elite either. And the foreigners are the last thing you should be worrying about. It looks to me like you are concentrating on the issue of "foreigners" in order to avoid having to face the fact that most of the people the US finds itself in conflict with now are normal Iraqi civilians.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
The main problem with foreigners in Iraq is that now as the "unifying" yoke of Saddam's dictatorship is gone, there are at least three major factions in Iraq who are foreign to each other, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, all promoting their own specific agenda. So there is this Iraqi 'thing' of course. I wouldn't rule out the strong possibility of civil war at all. The new constitution may be well conceived but it's still just a piece of paper until it becomes the will of the people.

That's very true, Zee. "Civil war" has been fomenting in Iraq for years, kept down only by a brutal government. Sunnis had the upper hand for years, thanks to Saddam, but now that Saddam is gone, Shiites see their chance to regain power. Of course, to impress people, it is much more advantageous to any faction to attack the outsiders who may be supporting or protecting rival factions than to actually attack each other (although that happens too). Opposition to westerners seems to be the only common theme between rival groups.

What would it take to supress all of these different uprisings? What seems to have worked in the past is to rule with an iron fist. Execute leaders of rebel groups. If necessary, use horrific weapons like gas on places where opposition is the strongest. Sound familiar?

One of the reasons for my opposition to the Iraq invasion was that to replace Saddam, we might have to become like Saddam. Either that, or we abandon the Iraqis to "civil war" and tribalism and wait for the next strongman to emerge.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
I am sorry, but the Shia uprising in Basra and Najaf has nothing to do with Ba'ath party or saddam supporters. And what about Fallujah? Baghdad? Tikrit?

Originally posted by JustGeoff
And the massive crowds in Fallujah weren't Ba'ath party elite either. You are correct, the Baath party elite who are orchestrating the resistance in Fallujah and other parts of Iraq were not on the street in Fallujah that day dragging bodies.

Originally posted by JustGeoff
And the foreigners are the last thing you should be worrying about. It looks to me like you are concentrating on the issue of "foreigners" in order to avoid having to face the fact that most of the people the US finds itself in conflict with now are normal Iraqi civilians. I know there are radical clerics stirring up trouble amongst the Shiites and radical clerics stirring up trouble amongst the Sunnis. I also realize there are ex-Baath party people who are stirring up trouble in the rest of the country. I originally made the point that the suicide attacks are not Iraqis, they are due to radical foreigners bent on martyrdom who are coming into Iraq from Syria and Iran to kill Americans.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by zenith-nadir
And what about Fallujah? Baghdad? Tikrit?


The Baghdad problems are both Shia and Sunni. Tikrit and Fallujah the problem is Sunnis, but I don't think you can go on forever pointing to Sunni violence and saying "they are Saddam supporters." Saddam was a Sunni and under Saddam the Sunnis had a better lot than the Shia did, but that does not mean that the people attacking Americans in Fallujah and Tikrit are seriously expecting Saddam or the Ba'ath party to return. They are just pissed at the Americans for intervening in their country and removing from power a government which looked after their interests. It remains a fact that they are Iraqi civilians, not "foreign insurgents". Any future settlement in Iraq must include these people. It is no use blaming Saddam or the Ba'ath party now.


I know there are radical clerics stirring up trouble amongst the Shiites and radical clerics stirring up trouble amongst the Sunnis. I also realize there are ex-Baath party people who are stirring up trouble in the rest of the country.


But you don't recognise that the US, as an illegal foreign invader widely recognised as being in Iraq in order to secure oil supplies, has not played a role in "stirring up trouble".

You appear to want to blame everybody except the US for the trouble the US now finds itself in. It's Saddams fault. It's the Ba'ath parties fault. It's the fault of "Iranians and Syrians pouring into the country". It's OPECS fault. It's the French's fault for derailing the UN resolutions. It's the Spaniards fault for "appeasement".

Of course it has abbsolutely nothing to do with the fact that George Bush illegally invaded a country on a false pretence, against international support, with no recognisable post-war strategy?

When are you Americans going to accept the version of reality that everybody else subscribes to?

The US is viewed as an invader because it is an invader. The Iraq war had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda and everything to do with Iraqi oil. The Iraqi people do not believe the propaganda which is fed to (and believed by) the American public. They are resisting the occupation because they want the Americans TO LEAVE IRAQ. Nobody needs to "stir them up". They already despise the US.

Americans are not in control of Iraq. Sunni and Shia clerics are in control of Iraq.

[corplinx]

I hate to be pragmatic, but the best thing Iraq could have happen is for the extremist shias and the saddam loyalists to rebel and be put down. This will save a lot of trouble down the road.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx
I hate to be pragmatic, but the best thing Iraq could have happen is for the extremist shias and the saddam loyalists to rebel and be put down. This will save a lot of trouble down the road.

You don't think any ill-will would be borne as a result of 'putting down' 'rebels'?

Extremists flourish in oppresive conditions. For example, have a look at the extremists that blame a given country's economic woes on 'foreigners' and who then campaign to drive them out. Why not instead negotiate, work to improve conditions, and make extremism a less attractive option for Iraqis? Too touchy-feely?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Why not instead negotiate, work to improve conditions, and make extremism a less attractive option for Iraqis? Too touchy-feely?

Perhaps, but the problem as I see it is that you're assuming that poverty is the only root cause of extremism. Religious fundamentalism and the poor education that issues from it are a self-perpetuating source of that poverty and the violence, but I don't see that the two result are causal in themselves.

And it's not so much that we will think it's too touchy-feely, so much as THEY will consider it an encouraging sign of weakness.

Take a look at Spain and the new threats issued against them... one man's negotiation is another man's appeasement. Not that I recommend sholesale slaughter, but if a few bad apples need to be pulled from the barrel, so be it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
I hate to be pragmatic, but the best thing Iraq could have happen is for the extremist shias and the saddam loyalists to rebel and be put down. This will save a lot of trouble down the road.
I believe that "putting down" rebellions was Saddam's basic strategy. Of course he used gas to do it. We merely shoot them.

I must pragmatically ask, how far do you suggest we go in "putting down" a rebellion? What do you do with the enraged family members of the rebellion leaders who were "put down"? In a culture where revenge is the most powerful motivating factor and any injuries are remembered for centuries, How long do you expect to keep "putting down" rebellions?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Why do I get the feeling that we're creating a new Resistance movement?

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The label of 'terrorist' is as much a weapon as any other, and it's one we're not afraid to use. We should keep in mind that the reverse principle also applies: oppression breeds rebellion.

[Dorian Gray]

I originally made the point that the suicide attacks are not Iraqis, they are due to radical foreigners bent on martyrdom who are coming into Iraq from Syria and Iran to kill Americans. You have absolutely no evidence for this. It just serves your mindset to believe that the vast majority of Iraqis welcomed us with open arms and love us and want to be our friends and buy us Care Bears and dance with Barney. The reality is that Iraqis might have hated Saddam, but hate us also. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Also, I want to say that by waiting to invade Fallujah, our military is giving terrorists and insurgents time to escape and/or rig the whole town with booby traps.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
The only risk is a loss of will.
Don't overlook the risks of ineptitude / implausibility of task at hand (creating democracy in Iraq)...
Richard Lugar (R), Chairman Senate Foriegn Relations Committee:
You have the militia that have not been disarmed, and if in fact the worst situation comes, the militia begin to fight each other. That is civil war.
Josepth Biden, Senate Foriegn Relations Committee:
Something's got to happen between now and then [6/30 turnover date] ... or else we're going to end up with a civil war there. We're going to end up with the worst of all worlds.
Reuters article (http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=488521&section=news)

[Skeptic]

I am sorry, but the Shia uprising in Basra and Najaf has nothing to do with Ba'ath party or saddam supporters. They are Iraqi Shias.

Actually, yes, it does have quite a bit to do with foreigners. As Amir Taheri notes in his latest article (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/3198), Sadr recieves support from Iran, Hizbullah, an other places, although Taheri is clear that Sadr isn't a foreign "stooge".

It looks to me like you are concentrating on the issue of "foreigners" in order to avoid having to face the fact that most of the people the US finds itself in conflict with now are normal Iraqi civilians.

You seem to confuse "most of the rioters are Iraqis" with "most Iraqis are rioters". Again to quote Taheri, Mr. Sadr's real goal isn't the "liberation of Iraq" (he could have simply waited to the transition of power for that) but his personal political power.

Sadr could not get elected to the Iraqi governing council, despite having tried (which shows how serious his claims of being a "holy warrior against the American infidel" is: he only started this game after not getting elected to an American-sponsored government). He is too young to hold power in the traditional, age-respecting Shiite leadership, and is considered an upstart. So he mobilized his personal army to try and get power by force.

This, incidentally, is nothing new; consider, to give a more benign example, the so-called "anti-globalization" and "revolutionary socialist" movements in Europe and the US today. They know very well that in a real election, they would lose even if the opposing candidate was a dog. They also know that the democratically elected governments of the west disagree with their views of globalization and essentially consider them cranks (and rightly so).

So what do they do? They collect a mob of a few thousand people, call them "activists", get them to throw rubbish at the police and generally try to stop deomcratic leaders from meeting, and call this would-be totalitarian thuggery "the will of the masses" or "the world says no to globalization", or whatever. (Never mind that the real "will of the people" as expressed by the election results is quite the opposite).

Like Sadr, the real idea is to gain power by force and intimidation, based on the conviction that anybody that disagrees with you has no rights worth respecting. The difference is, Sadr's followers aren't the pampered "activists" in the west--they are serious thugs. But that doesn't mean Sadr is any more popular in reality than the anti-globalization activists are.

[demon]

Civil War?
This is the new media chant re Iraq. Civil war may come, but right now I've exclusively seen a national liberation struggle.
So why are all the reports about impending civil war rather than the real impending reality - the expulsion of US-led coalition troops in an ignominious fashion?

There's only a limited number of roles available in Iraq; if you're not with the 'Coalition', you're either a 'foreign terrorist', a 'Saddam remnant', an 'anti-democratic fanatic' (latest from T Blair), 'ordinary' (as in 'ordinary Iraqis' whose wishes, amazingly, are exactly the same as US intentions) or 'intent on civil war'. What the media absolutely will not permit is for you to be 'ordinary' and opposed to occupation.

The only place future intercine conflict seems a given is in the 'democratic' Kurdish areas so beloved of the cruise-missile leftists, from where Arabs and Turkomen are being ethnically cleansed - something the media's largely silent on.

There is no evidence of civil war, only of a struggle for national liberation. The evidence we have is of an indication to the contrary; of Shi'ite and Sunni joining in revolt of the occupier.
You yearn for the US to be the cavalry, that's evident. It is the source of the violence and needs to go. US pride is not worth another Iraqi or 'coalition' life. So you have the pen. Just have the courage to write "We must leave".

It was the same in Vietnam, wasn't it? This was a 'war against communism' to the Americans. To everybody else it was a war of national liberation and the insurgency, while supported from the North, was overwhelmingly based in the local peasantry.
Gees, US propaganda is so clunky, pervasive and Soviet.

You need to understand this thing if you are to describe it. When you can describe this abysmal violence and waste, you will also know that leaving is the only option for the Americans. You must leave!

[crackmonkey]

bani Sadr has bragged about his many trips to Tehran and his Iranian benefactors. He's hated in Iraq among the majority, but has a fanatical following of a few thousand Shi'ites - the poor and disenfranchised. He won;t be around much longer, and I think the rest of the Shi'ite world will thank us for it... there's been a simmering private war between bani Sadr and the rest of the Shi'ite mullahs. Sistani has been reluctant to act and has essentially waited for the US to do his dirty work.
As to foreign fighters, there have been a number of Syrians taken into custody already.

[Skeptic]

So why are all the reports about impending civil war rather than the real impending reality - the expulsion of US-led coalition troops in an ignominious fashion?

Because that's about as much as a "reality" as Saddam's information minister claims that "we have surrounded the Americans in their tanks" as Baghdad fell.

The only place future intercine conflict seems a given is in the 'democratic' Kurdish areas so beloved of the cruise-missile leftists, from where Arabs and Turkomen are being ethnically cleansed - something the media's largely silent on. There is no evidence of civil war,

...except for the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from Kurdish areas, I suppose, which you claim is happening. Doesn't that count as civil war?

You yearn for the US to be the cavalry, that's evident. It is the source of the violence and needs to go. US pride is not worth another Iraqi or 'coalition' life. So you have the pen. Just have the courage to write "We must leave".

Yes, just have the "courage" to run away! How come the US didn't think of that?

It was the same in Vietnam, wasn't it?

In the sense that the goal of the insurgents is not to win by military victory but by controlling the "expert opinion" in the press about how "useless" the US role in Iraq is, yes.

This is a bit like the Tet offensive. Militarily, it was a last-ditch effort by the NVA that had failed with massive casulties. But because it got tons of good pictures to the press, it convinced the newpaper editors at home that it is a "massive uprising", that the US is in a "hopeless situation", etc.

This was a 'war against communism' to the Americans. To everybody else it was a war of national liberation

...except for those few unimportant millions in South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, who were murdered, starved or "re-educated" by the "liberating" communists after the Americans left.

The real goal of the North Vietnamese was not a "liberated Vietnam", but a totalitarian communist one. The sole purpose of "liberating" Vietnam from the Americans was to stop them from creating this "paradise of the workers".

Same here: the real goal of the opposition is not a "liberated Iraq", but a dictatorial Iraq under their rule, where their enemies will be put into concentration camps (and worse).

Their enemy is not America, but the spectre of a democratic Iraq where they might not call the shots and actually will have to resort to elections to hold power. This is what they cannot stand; like the communists in their day, they claim that, somehow, the rifle and bomb are more "genuine" expressions of the "will of the people" than the ballot box--because they know they will lose without force and intimidation.

You must leave!

Or you'll do what? Huff and puff and... ?