|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Is Civil War Coming to Iraq ? |
| Yes |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
| No, things will stabilize before that happens |
|
17% |
[ 3 ] |
| Coming? With the level of sectarian violence occuring daily, clearly the country already IS engaged in a bloody civil war |
|
76% |
[ 13 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 17 |
|
| Author |
Message |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:42 am Post subject: Civil War in Iraq |
 |
|
Civil war
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
For other uses, see civil war (disambiguation). See list of civil wars for individual examples.
A civil war is a war in which the competing parties are segments of the same country or empire. Civil war is usually a high intensity stage in an unresolved political struggle for national control of state power.
As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict.
An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organised armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not).
Ultimately the distinction between a "civil war" and a "revolution" or other name is arbitrary, and determined by usage. The successful insurgency of the 1640s in England which led to the (temporary) overthrow of the monarchy became known as the English Civil War. The successful insurgency of the 1770s in British colonies in America, with organised armies fighting battles, came to be known as the American Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war
Last edited by igotthisguitar on Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:03 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wrench
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2005 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Who gives a flying rats ass. Its the Americans problem right now, they distabilized the country now they should fix it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2005 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wrench wrote: |
| Who gives a flying rats ass. Its the Americans problem right now, they distabilized the country now they should fix it. |
Problem, reaction, solution ... ORDO AB CHAO.
Iran Accuses US of Being Behind Iraq Bomb Attacks
Al Jazeera Magazine | September 14 2005
Iran's top military commander accused the United States and Israel of planning the non-stop bomb attacks that killed thousands of civilians in Iraq.
Brigadier General Mohammad-Baqer Zolqadr, the deputy commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), told a gathering of senior officials, that the U.S. needs those attacks to justify the continuation of its military presence in Iraq.
��The Americans blame weak and feeble groups in Iraq for insecurity in this country. We do not believe this and we have information that the insecurity has its roots in the activities of American and Israeli spies,�� Zolqadr said.
��Insecurity in Iraq is a deeply-rooted phenomenon. The root of insecurity in Iraq lies in the occupation of this country by foreigners��.
��If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers��.
Zolqadr also said that the U.S. forces pursue ��important and strategic goals in their continuing occupation of Iraq��.
The U.S. wanted to remain in Iraq to ��plunder the country's wealth, bring the Middle East under its control, and create security for Israel, which is on the verge of annihilation��.
Zolqadr, moreover, noted that dozens of new U.S. military are being built in Iraq ��for this reason they are constantly creating insecurity��.
The U.S.-occupation authority has repeatedly claimed that the Iraqi security forces are not ready yet to protect the country against rebel attacks, with the aim of defending the continued heavy presence of U.S. troops there even after an Iraqi government was elected.
http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=257 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Asia Times
A good comprehensive article on the division amongst the Shi'a and how it might spin Iraq into a civil war.
| Quote: |
The US and that man Muqtada again
By Sami Moubayed
DAMASCUS - Everybody seems to be getting selfish these days in Iraq.
The Shi'ites are demanding autonomy in southern Iraq, which, if it happens, will give them control of about 80% of the country's oil. The Kurds have demanded and maintained their autonomy in northern Iraq. They are demanding expansion and Kurdish authority over the oil-rich town of Kirkuk. The Sunnis, meanwhile, are left in the middle, fearing a civil war and begging for a unified Iraq. They have little say because they have been snubbed by everybody; they remind the world of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and they added to their misery by boycotting the elections of January 2005.
What is happening in Iraq today is a recipe for a very ugly and bloody civil war. If it breaks out, it will cost plenty of Iraqi lives,
more lives even than those lost in the American-led war on Iraq and its aftermath. To date, close to 30,000 people have been killed in 30 months of violence since March 2003.
While many accuse the Kurds of triggering problems by insisting on an autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan, the real problem lies with the Iraqi Shi'ites of the south. Everybody has accepted Kurdish autonomy in the north, saying that the Kurds are in fact different from Arabs, in ethnicity, language, history and traditions. That cannot be said of the Shi'ites, who are both Iraqi and Arab. Nothing about the Shi'ites entitles them to an autonomous south. They have no unique language, race, ethnicity or history that qualifies them for a mini-state. The only reason for their ambitious demand is the greed for power among a specific group of Shi'ites, along with a desire for more oil, and an apparent commitment to Shi'ite nationalism rather than Iraqi nationalism.
Abd al-Aziz al-Hakim, who heads the largest Shi'ite coalition in the Iraqi National Assembly, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, urged thousands of supporters in the holy city of Najaf in August to demand autonomy for the Shi'ites, saying: "We see the need to form one autonomous zone in the center and south of Iraq. We must not miss this opportunity."
A loyalist to the mullahs of Tehran, Hakim spent many years in exile in Iran during the years of Saddam's dictatorship, and apparently his Shi'ite nationalism is stronger than his Iraqi nationalism. This can be understood for the Kurds, but not for an Arab like Hakim. As the crowds in Najaf cheered in support, his right-hand man, Hadi al-Ameri, the head of the Shi'ite militia, the Badr Brigade, nodded in support.
Ameri, who can control the Shi'ite street and mobilize armed support for Shi'ite autonomy, backed Hakim's statement, saying: "We have to insist on forming one region in the south, otherwise we will regret it. They are trying to deprive the Shi'ites." If implemented, a powerful and oil-rich Shi'ite mini-state will be formed inside Iraq, parallel to the oil-rich Kurdish one.
To date, the US has not been encouraging, saying that an autonomous south contradicts Washington's vision of a united and democratic Iraq. But, to say the least, the US has done little to thwart Shi'ite ambitions. The only ones who have seriously been lobbying against an autonomous south have been the Sunnis, arguing that this would destroy the modern Iraq that has existed since the 1920s. One Sunni member of the constitutional assembly said, "We were shocked and very upset when we heard this news. Nobody has been listening to us when we warned that federalism would lead to the disintegration of Iraq, and now the Shi'ites have shown what they really want." Another Sunni, Mishan al-Jibouri, told Qatar-based al-Jazeera TV, "This will create civil war. We will never let it happen."
Some argue that this is not a genuine Shi'ite demand, and Hakim is using it to make any other Shi'ite demands bearable. Anything short of autonomy will be welcomed and accepted by the Iraqis, seeing it as a big improvement on dismembering Iraq. Even the Shi'ite premier, Ibrahim Jaafari, is opposed to such an idea, with his spokesman declaring that Shi'ite autonomy in the south is "unacceptable".
Divisions in the Shi'ite community
The one person to stand up and criticize proposed Shi'ite autonomy, ironically, is Muqtada al-Sadr, one of the younger leaders of the Shi'ite resistance. In 2003-2004 he led his own war against the Americans, before the Sunni insurgency increased its war against the US military.
Initially, many wrote him off as a wild young man who was a product of the hour and who would fade away once the Americans crushed his military movement. That has not been the case, to the surprise of many, and Muqtada waited, joining the political process in January this year only because Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the powerful Shi'ite cleric, said that voting was a religious duty for every Iraqi.
Another reason, naturally, is Sadr's desire to be part of the political process and not be left out in the cold as other parties and politicians assemble to create the political order in the post-Saddam era. Today, he emerges as one of the loudest opponents of Shi'ite autonomy, arguing that there is no need for a Shi'ite region since Shi'ites are bound by religion rather than race, region or ethnicity. He states that they are part of the Arab world and the Islamic world and should not, under any circumstance, be given a mini-state of their own in Iraq.
Those to welcome his words, in addition to his Shi'ite followers, were not surprisingly the Sunnis. First, they have praised his commitment to Iraq and its historical borders, and second, they see that if Muqtada decides to wage war against the political system if Shi'ite autonomy is implemented, he would help them in the insurgency, which since 2004 has been headed by Sunnis. A Sunni-Shi'ite movement would surely not only defeat any federal projects in Iraq, but also inflict heavy pain on the Americans. It would destroy a promise made by US Vice President *beep* Cheney earlier this year, saying that the war in Iraq would be won by 2009 and that the insurgency was in its "last throes".
Muqtada, still in his early 30s, is likely to emerge as the most important Shi'ite figure in the years to come. He is the man to be watched in the new Iraq. His influence will eventually outflank that of Hakim, but he will remain a controllable rebel, always willing to obey the orders of Sistani. All reports in the US media about him being in conflict with Sistani are false. Sistani might disagree with Muqtada's young, radical and sometimes wild approach to politics, seeing him as an amateur, but he has respect for Muqtada, and likewise Muqtada obeys his orders.
For years, the Muqtada family has served as a counterweight to that the Hakim family in Shi'ite politics. Muqtada inherited the mantle from his father, the Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Sadiq al-Sadr, who was killed by Saddam in Najaf in 1999. Muqtada's father-in-law was also killed by Saddam in 1980. Authorities in 1999 denied involvement in the assassination, fearing the wrath of the Shi'ites, and instead implicated two men in the murder and quickly had them executed to wrap up the case.
Unlike his father, Muqtada is not a religious authority, lacking the age and experience to become a commanding figure in Shi'ite Islam. His older brother was devoted to prayer, with no interest in politics, and Muqtada was left in charge of family politics and welfare, caring for his mother and two widowed sisters-in-law, since both his brothers were also murdered in 1999.
He rose to fame through the military wing of his political movement, the Mahdi Army, created in 2004 to fight the Americans. It consists of about 1,000 trained combatants and an estimated 5,000-6,000 supporters. He claimed that he was more legitimate than any other government body imposed on Iraq by the Americans, or elected under the auspices of the US.
Today, he is trying to establish himself and the younger generation of Shi'ites as the natural leaders of the community, rather than Hakim. He grabs every opportunity to challenge Hakim, including the latest Shi'ite autonomy issue. In April last year, his army went to war against US and Iraqi forces in Baghdad. One month earlier, post-Saddam authorities had shut down his newspaper, al-Hawza, accusing it of instigating violence among Iraqis.
Fighting spread throughout Iraq, and US forces got involved in terrible and fierce combat with the Shi'ite militias of Muqtada. By April 8, 2004, the Mahdi Army had taken full control of the city of Kut and partial control of Najaf. Fighting broke out in Sadr City in Baghdad and Sunni insurgents, inspired by Muqtada's rebellion, also revolted in Baghdad, Ramadi, Samarra, and, most notably, Fallujah, where a rebellion raged until suppressed by the Americans in November 2004.
A truce was reached in June 2004 and Muqtada, being wise, decided to disband the Mahdi Army. He added that he would be joining the political process, an act that was welcomed by interim president Ghazi al-Yawer. The then prime minister, Iyad Allawi, gave him assurances that he would not be arrested. Allawi reneged on his promise and on August 3, 2004, the US military and Iraqi police raided his home with mortar shelling, gunfire and grenades. They wanted to arrest or kill Muqtada and destroy his movement. Muqtada's army was outnumbered by 2,000 US Marines and 1,800 Iraqi security force members.
Muqtada was cornered at a mosque, and hundreds of his supporters were killed in the fighting. The war was ended by Sistani, who negotiated that Muqtada be saved but his militia be disbanded, and that the US troops leave Najaf.
Muqtada joined the political process in January, but did not personally run for office. Yet since August, Muqtada has been overwhelmingly opposed to the constitution drafting process, and the draft was mainly authored by the Shi'ites and Kurds. On August 26, 100,000 of his followers demonstrated all over Iraq opposing the new constitution. The US and Muqtada's enemies at home accuse him of wanting to create a theocracy in Iraq, similar to the model in Iran. Muqtada claims that this is untrue, saying that this is the objective of his rival, the Iran-backed Hakim. What he wants, he has often said, is to create an Islamic democracy. In May 2004 he told his supporters: "Don't use my death or arrest as an excuse not to finish what you have started."
The US has said that Muqtada and his men are nothing but a group of street thugs who have no support among the Iraqi grassroots. His opponents in the Shi'ite community have accused him of murdering two rival Shi'ite leaders after the fall of Saddam in 2003. Yet a recent US-sponsored poll in Iraq showed that 67% of respondents supported Muqtada. They consider him a devote nationalist, uninterested in material gain since he lives a very simple and ascetic life. His is a gifted orator and is considered a charismatic leader, due to his age and thundering anti-Americanism. He has gained thousands of supporters from the Friday prayers he delivers in Kufa, where he interacts directly with worshippers, casting a magical spell on them with his inflammatory sermons.
Of the 67% people polled, an impressive 32% offered "strong support" to Muqtada, while 36% said they "somewhat support him". His supporters can be found in the slums and ghettos of Baghdad and southern Iraq, unlike those of Sistani, who commands support among middle and upper-class Shi'ites and within the Shi'ite business community.
Sistani and Hakim lead the urban rich, Muqtada leads the urban and rural poor. Young, poor men support Muqtada not because he is a religious man like Sistani, but because he is a man of principle, they believe, and precisely because he is a rebel. His images are plastered all over Shi'ite towns in southern Iraq, but particularly in Sadr City, a slum inhabited by 2 million on the outskirts of Baghdad that was once called Saddam City but renamed after Muqtada's father after Saddam's fall in 2003.
In Sadr City, Muqtada is king. His authority surpasses that of any other Shi'ite leader in Iraq. He has his own welfare system, one codes, laws, education and police system. Judges in Sadr City are appointed by Muqtada himself and verdicts are enforced by his stalwarts. The selling of alcohol is prohibited, as are video cassettes, CDs and cinemas. Veiling is obligatory. The religious police force resembles those that existed in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s and under the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Liberal and secular Shi'ites claim that Muqtada's authority in Sadr City is "worse than Saddam". Senior clerics in the community, fearing his radical politics, issued an official condemnation of Muqtada and his Mahdi Army, saying: "The army is composed of suspicious elements including individuals from the extinct regime who have wrapped their heads with white and black rags to mislead people into believing that they are men of religion, when in truth they are devils. We do not need your army. The imam [al-Mahdi] is in no need of an army made up of thieves, robbers and perverts under the leadership of a one-eyed charlatan."
Is Muqtada an imposter and a perverter of the Shi'ite cause? Is he a terrorist who must be killed? Or is he a true Shi'ite rebel and honest Iraqi nationalist? Regardless of the answer, it is too late to do anything about the rebel Shi'ite. Had the Americans wished, they could have killed him in 2003 when they first came to Iraq. They issued threats to have him arrested, but stopped short of doing that for a variety of reasons. One was that they underestimated how strong he really was and how much he could mobilize the Shi'ite street. Another reason was that they did not want to make a martyr out of him and inspire a new rebellion.
The reality in Iraq is that the US should engage in dialogue with Muqtada. He has the ability to bring both calm and chaos to Iraq. His history proves that despite his apparent rigidness, he can be negotiated with, as was the case in 2003-2004. He once said, "I will only negotiate with the Americans if their country says that it has come here to liberate us, not to occupy us, as occupying a country is incompatible with the very principle of negotiations. We are not hostile to America, but we are the enemy of occupation. I only want a government based on freedom and rule by the people. Obviously, such a government will be an Islamic one."
He even went on to distance himself from the radical Islam of US enemies like al-Qaeda and its Iraq chief, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, by saying: "There is no religion or religious law that punishes by beheading. True, they are your enemies and occupiers, but this does not justify cutting off their heads."
Muqtada is willing to join the political process and is willing to silence, or curb, his opposition to the US military in Iraq. What he wants is clear: leadership of the Shi'ite community within the context of a unified Iraq. If snubbed, Muqtada will probably unleash his wrath once again, this time against Hakim and other Shi'ite leaders who are advocating autonomy in the south.
He will wage a war once again against US forces, and perhaps will join forces with the Sunni insurgency. Bickering among the Shi'ites will deprive the US of its core of support in the Shi'ite community. With the Sunnis on the offensive, this would leave the Americans with nobody but the Kurds as allies.
The ensuing civil war would shed a vast amount of blood. To avoid that, the US would have to do two things: prevent, at any cost, the creation of an autonomous Shi'ite region in the south, and once the idea is totally discarded, deal with radicals like Muqtada with as much seriousness and respect as it does with Hakim.
By turning a blind eye to Muqtada, he will not go away or become less anti-American. By snubbing him at the expense of Hakim, all the US will be doing is making him more radical and dangerous. It will be hastening the onset of civil war.
Some would argue that negotiating with Muqtada would be a defeatist policy, and many have already drawn parallels with British premier Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Adolf Hitler in 1938, which gifted Czechoslovakia to the Nazis. This only enhanced Hitler's ambitions, bringing him to the conclusion that he was dealing with cowards who would not stand in his way of occupying the rest of Europe.
The perfect response to this argument was made by Professor Juan Cole in an article entitled "The Crock of Appeasement". He wrote: "Right-wingers who want to play [Winston] Churchill and denounce appeasement should please go off to Iraq and put their own lives on the line instead of playing politics with the lives of our brave troops from the safety of Washington DC."
The Americans need a Chamberlain in Iraq today, not a Churchill. The Iraqis need an Abraham Lincoln who is determined to keep the country unified. |
Sami Moubayed is a Syrian political analyst.
I really liked this article outside of the citation by Juan Cole. People with power on the street and on tribal levels need to be trusted by the US if they want to see their policies implemented. Moreover, it would be part of disengagement. As it is, by not allowing sovereignty, the US is anchoring itself in Iraq more tightly than perhaps may need be. Should the US begin to broker open deals with players like Moqtada and Sistani, world opinion would approve (as much as they'll approve of anything American in Iraq) and then if anything unravels, the US may be blamed less (possibly, although I think America will be blamed for almost every misdeed in Iraq for as long as I'm alive). |
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=45070 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wrench wrote: |
Who gives a flying rats ass. Its the Americans problem right now,
they distabilized the country now they should fix it. |
"WE DIDN'T IT" 
Thus Spake the Neocons
Former PM says Iraq in civil war
LONDON (Reuters) - Iraq is in a state of civil war and is nearing the point of no return when the country's sectarian violence will spill over throughout the Middle East, former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said on Sunday.
http://neoconsdidntdoit.notlong.com/
Last edited by igotthisguitar on Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:08 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wave of Violence Kills at Least 81 Iraqis
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Police found 30 more victims of the sectarian slaughter ravaging Iraq — most of them beheaded — dumped on a village road north of Baghdad on Sunday. At least 16 other Iraqis were killed in a U.S.-backed raid in a Shiite neighborhood of the capital.
Accounts of the evening raid in Baghdad varied. Aides to the Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and Iraqi police both said it took place at a mosque, with police claiming 22 bystanders died and al-Sadr's aides saying 18 innocent men were killed.
The Americans said Iraqi special forces backed by U.S. troops killed 16 insurgents in a raid on a community meeting hall after gunmen opened fire on approaching troops.
"No mosques were entered or damaged during this operation," the military said. It said a non-Western hostage was freed, but no name or nationality was provided.
Associated Press videotape showed a tangle of dead male bodies with gunshot wounds on the floor of what was said by the cameraman to be the imam's living quarters, attached to mosque itself.
The tape showed 5.56 mm shell casings scattered about the floor. U.S. forces use that caliber ammunition. A grieving man in white Arab robes stepped among the bodies strewn across the blood-smeared floor.
Separately, 12 more bodies were found near Baghdad & nine handcuffed and blindfolded, with rope around their necks and three shot in the head, police said Monday.
The latest deaths brought to at least 81 the number of people reported killed Sunday and Monday in one of the bloodiest days in weeks. Most of the dead appeared to be victims the shadowy Sunni-Shiite score-settling that has torn at the fabric of Iraq since Feb. 22 when a Shiite shrine was blown apart in Samarra, north of Baghdad.
Much of the recent killing is seen as the work of Shiite militias or death squads that have infiltrated or are tolerated by Iraqi police under the control of the Shiite-dominated Interior Ministry.
Many of the victims have been found dumped, mainly in Baghdad, with their hands tied, showing signs of torture and shot in the head.
In an apparent effort to clamp down on police wrongdoing, American troops raided an Interior Ministry building and briefly detained about 10 Iraqi policemen after discovering 17 Sudanese prisoners in the facility, Iraqi authorities reported.
The report was reminiscent of a similar U.S. raid last November that found detainees apparently tortured. That discovery set off a round of international demands for investigations and reform of Iraqi police practices to ensure observance of human rights.
In this case the Americans quickly determined the Sudanese were held legitimately and had not been abused, said Maj. Gen. Ali Ghalib, a deputy interior minister.
The U.S. military command here had no immediate comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2006 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wrench wrote: |
| Who gives a flying rats ass. Its the Americans problem right now, they distabilized the country now they should fix it. |
That's how I feel, too. At first I really hoped that there would be enough resolve amongst the American populace that they actually would go about installing a democracy and fixing the country asap and then get the hell out. However, that was obviously never their intention, so I hope they stay and that there's a lot of pressure from the international community to force them to stay as long as possible. That would be the best way to prevent any more attempts at 'regime change'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| Wrench wrote: |
| Who gives a flying rats ass. Its the Americans problem right now, they distabilized the country now they should fix it. |
That's how I feel, too. At first I really hoped that there would be enough resolve amongst the American populace that they actually would go about installing a democracy and fixing the country asap and then get the hell out. However, that was obviously never their intention, so I hope they stay and that there's a lot of pressure from the international community to force them to stay as long as possible. That would be the best way to prevent any more attempts at 'regime change'. |
Hates the US that he would side with the Ayatollahs. Kind of like Robert Fisk
but I am sure you would not be happy to know the airforce and the Navy are in good shape if the situation comes to that |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmmmmm ... seems Iraq will likely only ever find itself in a "Civil" ( oxymoron ) war when the White House announces this unavoidable "truth" to the world.
Militia Gunmen Kill Dozens in Baghdad
By Lutfi Abu Oun
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Militia gunmen went on the rampage in a Sunni district of Baghdad on Sunday, killing dozens of people in the bloodiest of many outbreaks of sectarian violence that have raised fears of civil war.
The shooting began in an area close to a Shi'ite mosque in mainly Sunni west Baghdad, where a car bomb killed three people late on Saturday. Houses were also burning, police said.
An Interior Ministry source said at least 38 people had been killed in Jihad district, while politicians from the once-dominant Sunni Arab minority put the provisional death toll at least 40, including women and children.
Both police and politicians blamed rogue police commandos and the Mehdi Army militia of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr for the killings, but officials from Sadr's movement, part of the ruling Shi'ite Islamist bloc, denied any involvement.
"These attacks prove the militias want to drag Iraq into civil war," said Adnan al-Dulaimi, a leader of the main Sunni political bloc which is already boycotting parliament over the kidnapping of a fellow Sunni leader. The finger of blame in that case has been pointed at Shi'ite militias.
A few kilometers from Jihad, Reuters staff in Shula, a mainly Shi'ite island in Sunni west Baghdad, said Mehdi militiamen blocked streets with burning tyres and told residents to stay indoors, apparently fearing reprisal attacks.
Iraqi troops launched a pre-dawn raid on Kadhimiya, a mainly Shi'ite district next to Shula, killing nine militants and capturing seven, the U.S. military said.
While bombings have often killed dozens, gunmen moving openly through neighborhoods killing civilians is something seen only rarely in restive areas outside Baghdad, and never on this scale in the capital.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/iraq_dc ... etc ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Civil War Would Confront US With Choice --
Pull Out Or Take Sides : Analysts
by Jim Mannion
Fri Aug 4, 8:39 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Warnings by top US generals of a growing threat of civil war in Iraq are confronting US policymakers with somber questions about the future of a costly three-year-old mission to stabilize the country.
Analysts said civil war would force the United States to choose between withdrawing its troops and taking sides in what could become a wider regional conflict.
US officials insist the violence between Shiites and Sunnis is still confined mainly to Baghdad and is not yet "a classic civil war."
But the sectarian violence is "as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular," and civil war is a possibility, the top US general in the Middle East, John Abizaid, warned Congress on Thursday.
His assessment was only the latest sign of high-level concern that the situation has drifted rapidly toward civil war since national elections last December.
Britain's outgoing ambassador to Iraq is reported to have advised his government that "a low-intensity civil war" was more likely than a transition to a stable democracy.
Last week, US commanders ordered more US troops to Baghdad after a wave of kidnappings, assassinations, massacres and bombings engulfed an Iraqi-led effort to secure the capital.
Abizaid said the situation in Baghdad was at a "decisive" juncture but he believed Iraqis would ultimately compromise "because the alternative is so stark."
Senators wanted to know what civil war would mean for the mission of the 133,000 US troops in Iraq.
"I'm reluctant to speculate about that," US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. "It could lead to a discussion that suggests that we presume that's going to happen."
Senator John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, warned that if Iraq does descend into civil war, the administration may have to seek a new mandate from the US Congress.
"If that were to come about, I think the American people would ask, 'Well, which side are we going to fight on? Or do we fight both? And did we send our troops there to do that? We thought we sent them there to liberate the Iraqis, which we have done at a great sacrifice, 2,500-plus," he said in an interview with PBS television.
Independent analysts said civil war was not a foregone conclusion and that military action and political moves could yet contain and suppress the violence.
Much depends, though, on how susceptible an already weak political center in Iraq is to pressure from both Sunni and Shiite extremists behind the violence.
If it leads to the collapse of Iraq's central government and security forces along sectarian lines, the US mission would become untenable, some analysts believe.
"Unsettling though it may sound, the United States could end up with no alternative to pulling out of a country that had degenerated into chaos," said Loren Thompson, director of the Lexington Institute, a Washington group that specializes in military analysis.
"It seems improbable, but our role in Iraq is to build democracy so if the center doesn't hold, there is nothing left to defend," he said.
A withdrawal of US forces in the midst of a civil war would be "a huge defeat for American diplomacy, in fact possibly the greatest defeat ever," he said.
"However, there is no point in sticking around to preside over a melt down. If a country is going to divide along sectarian lines, it would be very dubious strategy to try to prevent a natural process from unfolding," he said.
Other analysts believe, however, that too much is at stake in Iraq for the United States to abandon the fight.
A US pullout would mean skyrocketing oil prices, the creation of a safe haven for extremists and leaving Iran as the dominant power in the region, according to this line of reasoning.
Andrew Krepinevich, head of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said the administration would be forced to choose sides in a civil war, and it would not be alone.
Arab states dominated by Sunnis, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, would likely back the Sunnis, and Iran would step up its support for Shiites, setting the stage for a regional conflict, he said.
Abizaid, who said he has rarely seen the Middle East "so unsettled or so volatile," suggested such a broader conflict already is unfolding.
He highlighted Iran's support for Shiite militias in Lebanon and Gaza as well as in Iraq.
"There's an obvious struggle in the region between moderates and extremists that touches every aspect of life," he said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i didn't read any of those cut-n-pastes but yes, Iraq is pretty much in a civil war right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, democracy is being born.........
I posted this on another thread -- Joo's favourite journalist, his latest offerings on Iraq....He doesn't think it is civil war. And he should know, he is such an authority.
Amir Taheri writes..........
| Quote: |
| Is Iraq a quagmire, a disaster, a failure? Certainly not; none of the above. Of all the adjectives used by skeptics and critics to describe today�s Iraq, the only one that has a ring of truth is �messy.� Yes, the situation in Iraq today is messy. Births always are. Since when is that a reason to declare a baby unworthy of life? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 04, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm all for letting things find their natural equilibrium, Iraq included. Left to its own, it would disintegrate into several new sustainable states along religious and ethnic lines. A new kurdistan hopefully too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
