Iraq and Civil War

[Caldric]

As we all know civil war is in most cases the worst kind of war. With Iraq on the brink and over 3 years of US attempts to stabilize the country do we stay or do we start pulling out? The Generals seem to think that civil war is a possibility. From the looks of it from our stand point it looks very possible.

We do not want to be in the middle of a civil war at all in my opinion. Really only hope I can see is to divide the nation into three nations. Which we know the Kurds would welcome not sure about the other two major groups.

Otherwise it is my opinion that if the people of Iraq do not wish to build a stable nation then perhaps we should kick the tires and light the fires and drive right the hell out of there. They obviously do not care enough to crush the insurgents and what the generals now call not foreign fighters but; "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I have seen it," General John Abizaid. General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who told the panel (US Senate): "We do have the possibility of that devolving into civil war.". No longer is it just insurgents but the internal politics and religion ripping the place apart. Baghdad is in anarchy.

Well that is rather gloomy. When do we take up stakes and let them kill each other? Seems they are going to rather we are there or not. Although if we did pull out there is a chance one of the Clerics could control some of the violence, although there would be a terrible purge I am sure. Iran would most likely gain a great deal influence although it is obvious that they already have as much control as we do and don't have a boot on the ground.

General Pace summed it up for me:
"Shia and Sunni are going to have to love their children more than they hate each other".

"The weight of that must be on the Iraqi people and the Iraqi government,”

"It depends more on the Iraqis more then the US Military."

Sounds like he is somewhat writing them off himself, there is only so much the military can do and it is painfully obvious that it is not working up to this point.

I wouldn't call it cut and run because we do not have to do that. However we could possibly turn over security to the Iraqi's and make ourselves more scarce. That is just an assumption it is impossible for me to say what the correct strategic route is but dying for people who seem to not care is an issue.

If it blows into a full scale civil war with all its horrors then well call it what you will, cut and run or just plain giving up on a bunch of whacks. Perhaps we are fighting for an impossible dream?

I am not implying politics here I think we just need to analyize without politics and from more of a common sense stance.

[Snowden]

Civil War or Religious War - these two sects, Sunni and Shi'ite will never find peace between them, I'm afraid. Gen. Pace is right - they have to love their children more than they hate each other, but can they do that?

This is Islam; hating is what seems to be easiest for them to do when we look at them - they hate other sects than their own, they hate Jews, they hate Christians, they marry for the most part mates they haven't picked for themselves instead of for love. Love can and does sometimes follow, but marrying for love isn't an option. Hate is more important, or it appears so to non-Muslims.

Of course, the real problem is Baghdad. There are a few places where the Iraqis have taken over. But the legal infrastructure of the nation has been destroyed, or seems to have been destroyed - and without that, the nation will fail. That has to be a primary concern and something addressed as quickly as possible. Iraq had an excellent legal system that was completely separate from Saddam - and that is not stable now, if it exists at all.

Civil war was always a possibility; all the Shi'ites needed was money and weapons it would buy.

[Shooterman]

Seems to kinda, sorta, maybe, negate the reason to go in in the first place, eh?

I'm sure if the decision to pull out is made, we'll get a 'Snow Job' placing it in proper pespective.

[odannyboy]

Caldric, you have precisely the right idea. That is the forward kind of thinking that is sorely lacking by those in this adminsitration.

Remember, not only did we naively and arrogantly rush into war with no plan on what to do AFTER we got rid of Saddam but the same people who dreamed up this disaster are clearly incapable of admitting mistakes.

And to start drawing down would not only show that their policy is doomed to failure (it is) but it would go against the "party line" of one catchy sound bite after another that implies we aint going anywhere under Bush.

As long as we are there the brewing civil war and violence will get WORSE, not better. We have to admit this simple fact.

If you dont think so, then think of the United States or some other nation you call home being invaded by someone of another race and religion. Then imagine daily fighting and lack of security and scores of people dying everyday.

How would you feel towards those who are in your country after more than three years? Be kind of hard to view them as anything but unwelcome, uninvited guests.

And the only thing that Sunni extremists and Shi'ite extremists will ever agree upon is they hate us and want to kill us.

The hel with them and their country, not one more soldier dying is worth it. And folks better realize this "Democracy" in Iraq exists in the Green Zone. It dont exist hardly anywhere else. It AINT gonna be a cute little Americanized version of Democracy in the Middle East.

I also agree that the partitioning of Iraq may be the only thing that will prevent a full scale civil war. The ethnic hatred is too deep, and the Shi'ites have the advantage of numbers. The Sunni's are the criminal elements with a long history of terrorism, and the Shi'ites just aint gonna take it anymore.

We are in the middle of this, and al-Sadr and friends dont like us either. With Israel bombing Lebanon we are now linked with them and the hatred of us is growing every day.

It's not the troops fault that the mission was terrible, its the fault of the politicians with their heads up their azzes who sent them to die for a lie.

[Caldric]

I hate to sound greedy but the cost is amazing. A company would asses its odds of success and failure and make appropriate plans. After the last week it seems to me that Iraq is a money pit and the people seem to make it clear they want us out. 10s of thousands protesting against us, few seem to appreciate what we have done besides the Kurds and their appreciation is tenuous at best, mildly hostile at worse. I read in the National Geographic about the Kurds, they are actually doing very well and are moderate in their religious zeal. Women are in politics and the Army, unheard of in Islam and women have been spies for 15 years against Saddam. They seem to be appreciative of our help and thank us but even they would rather get on with their lives without us there. The article was very, very good and if anyone sees the NG magazine with Kurds on the cover take a look really good reading with inside view we never see. Of course the Kurds have been semi-autonomous since the end of the first Gulf War. If we have no other success we should champion their form of government and support them. They seem to be the only ones caring enough about their future to fight and work hard to build something for their culture.

I think our military has done a fantastic job but it is beyond the mandate or ability of the military to stabilize these idiots. Perhaps the iron fist was the only way to control the place. As Stalin stated "The Russian people expect and need a Czar, they know nothing else" paraphrased but I think that many may have heard the quote.

[odannyboy]

It's absolutely amazing how LITTLE is heard about the Kurds. Is it because they are not actively involved in blowing up Americans? Hell, I think this is very SIGNIFICANT and would say to someone in the Bush Administration that I have a novel idea for you:

How about AMERICANS fighting for someone like the Kurds, who might actually APPRECIATE us other than the other two. Time to "redeploy"

The Shi'ites are the ones likely to turn hostile, while the Sunni's are the ringleaders in attacking us. That does not mean the radical al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army wont tunr on us, they already HAVE, a few times, and will again, its guaranteed. The hell with both Sunni's and Shias, I dont trust either of them and we NEVER will be able to!

NEVER! They are NOT our friends.

Boys, pack it up, everyone is moving to new country we are gonna call "Kurdistan", F*#K the rest of this place!

Now that might mean actually fighting, and dying, for someone who actually wouldnt shoot AT us. And that means something.

[Snowden]

You may have a point in this, Dan. There is ancient enmity between Kurds and Arabs, although I don't know the basis for that.

The Kurds are Sunni Muslims, but Saddam's hatred of the Kurds put them in the same place on his target range as the Shi'ites. They are still nobody's favorite there.

For a real 'Kurdistan,' it may infringe on some of Turkey's land, and that could cause us problems. The Turks are not fond of the Kurds either, and certainly not around those oil fields!

I won't take sides in this, but I find it amusing. An old Kurd saying: 'Never trust an Arab, they will make a nastiness on the hem of your garment."

Not a friendly thing to say!