Iraq edges towards civil war

Lestat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2002
Posts
7,356
Likes
41
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Arsenal
Thread starter #1
The Americans promised 'freedom' and 'liberation'...

however, all that they have delivered is 'death' and 'destruction'.

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

ANALYSIS: Iraq edges towards civil war
Richard Sale
United Press International
Published December 29, 2004

NEW YORK -- Iraq faces the prospect of civil war as Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's government loses credibility and violence against US forces increases, according to almost a half dozen former and serving administration officials.

In a suicide bombing attack on December 21 at a mess tent at Mosul, 22 were killed - 18 of them Americans - and 50 wounded.

"We can't afford to keep taking that kind of hit," a Pentagon official said. "We can't afford it in terms of American public opinion, and it causes us to loose credibility with the Iraqi public."

Upcoming January elections will not improve the deteriorating security situation, these sources said, all speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitiveness of the topic.

Plus a new threat has arisen.

"We are starting to play the ethnic card in Iraq, just as the Soviets played it in Afghanistan," said former CIA chief of Afghanistan operation Milt Bearden.

"You only play it when you're losing and by playing it, you simply speed up the process of losing," he said.

Phoebe Marr, an analyst who closely follows events in Iraq, told United Press International that "having the US military unleash different historical enemies on each other has become an unspoken US policy."

Bearden, Marr and others also referred to the Pentagon's tactic of pitting one group of enemies against another in Iraq as being fraught with danger.

For example, during the assault on Fallujah, wary of the reliability of Iraqi forces, the Marines used 2,000 Kurdish Peshmerga militia troops against the Arab Sunnis. The two groups share a long history of mistrust and animosity, according to Marr.

Both ethnic groups are Sunni, but Kurds speak a different language, have distinct customs, and are not Arabs.

"I think the US military is trying to get ethnic groups to take on the insurgents, and I don't think it will work," Marr said.

According to a former senior CIA official, the agency is dealing with reports of ethnic cleansing being undertaken by the Kurds in areas near Kirkuk.

"It's all taking place off everyone's radar, and it's very quiet, but it's happening," this source said.

Original reports disclosing that up to 150,000 Arab Sunnis had been uprooted and placed in camps have proved to be unreliable, several US officials said.

"There's so much white noise, so much unreliable rumor in the air," said Middle East expert Tony Cordesman. "You are going to have to get data from people on site, not from those in the rear areas."

According to Marr, Iraq has always been a complicated mosaic of religious and ethnic groups and tribes. The tilt of the Bush administration towards Iraq's Shia, who compromise 60 percent of the population, upset the balance of power, she said.

Former Defense Intelligence Agency chief of Middle East operations, Pat Lang, said the key blunder was the disbanding of Iraq's 400,000-man army. "At a stroke, we went from a liberator to an occupier."

A Pentagon official said that the Iraqi army had been "a respected institution," in Marr's words, "a focal point of national identity," utterly abolished.

From the beginning, sectarian and ethnic groups have been quietly at war. A US intelligence official told United Press International that soon after the US victory, there were Shia assassination squads "that were going around settling scores that dated back from the time [Iraqi leader] Saddam Hussein was in power."

There were also suicide bombings of Shias by Islamist jihadis allegedly led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an Islamist militant now associated with Al Qaeda.

According to the intelligence official, Zarqawi in the late 1990s was responsible for bombing Shias in Iran from his base in Pakistan where he was associated with the militant SSP party.

The Sunni Arabs, once the leading political group under Saddam Hussein, feel threatened and made politically impotent by the Shia majority, according to US officials.

This partly explains their leadership of a broad, deeply entrenched insurgency designed to humiliate American military power, keep the bulk of the Sunni population on the fence, and rally anti-US forces in the region, US officials said.

While the Shias and Kurds are eager to participate in the upcoming elections, the Sunnis are indifferent, US officials said.

"They feel they don't have a dog in this fight," a former senior CIA official said.

Another problem is the Iraqi middleclass, many of them Sunni, and almost all of them anti-American, according to Marr.

"They disliked us in the past because the UN sanctions made them suffer. When the war came, they had expectations that were much too high. Then they became passive and they won't work with us, and yet this is the only chance they're going to get."

"The Sunnis and Shias don't like the occupation and want us out as soon as possible," she added. "Their idea is that if a security force is needed, they want to do it themselves."

The Sunnis are also divided.

"Iraq is such a complex mosaic that breaks down into terribly diffuse groups," Marr said. "In places like Mosul, Basra and Baghdad, the Sunnis are secular professionals who look down their noses at the tribes and Shia."

Outside of Baghdad and the cities, the Sunnis are "isolated, and, by history, clannish and tribe-oriented," she said. "But even with the Shia, there is no real unity there either. Some are Iran-oriented, others are more secular," Marr said.

The war has made all three groups, Kurds, Shias and Sunni, "crawl into themselves," she said.

And the future?

"All sorts of ugly things could happen - the Kurds could declare independence or the split between the Shia and Sunni could deepen. The new Iraqi state could fail," an administration official said.

For Marr the outlook was also grim: "The whole Bush administration policy has been outrageously careless" and because of this, she said, the tenuous unity of Iraq "could break down."

Said former senior CIA Iraqi analyst Judith Yaphe: "Elections will not solve anything - we are grasping for events that will enable us to get out of Iraq, but there are no such thing. Democracy is not an event but a process."
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#2
Lestat said:
In a suicide bombing attack on December 21 at a mess tent at Mosul, 22 were killed - 18 of them Americans - and 50 wounded.

"We can't afford to keep taking that kind of hit," a Pentagon official said. "We can't afford it in terms of American public opinion, and it causes us to loose credibility with the Iraqi public."

Upcoming January elections will not improve the deteriorating security situation, these sources said, all speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitiveness of the topic.
WITHDRAW WITHDRAW WERE BEEN HIT RETREAT RETREAT

Interesting the concern over ''how it looks back home'' rather than any meaningful desire to deliver what was first promised.

Plus a new threat has arisen.

"We are starting to play the ethnic card in Iraq, just as the Soviets played it in Afghanistan," said former CIA chief of Afghanistan operation Milt Bearden.

"You only play it when you're losing and by playing it, you simply speed up the process of losing," he said.

"

Can anyone say Israel and Palestine?

Seems as it wont matter what happens there will always be a 3rd party on the outer not feeling too welcome, and needing to make a big noise to get attention
 

demon_dave

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Posts
2,727
Likes
2
Location
Highett
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory,Chelsea
#3
it is complete balls-up and will be long after the yanks have taken their oil and run, it will be seen in 20 years as one of the most treacherous acts in a long line of treacherous acts perpertrated by the US and all the neo-cons supporting it today will be putting their heads in the sand and not owning up to their part in genocide. There will be civil war and it will go on for years, taking millions of lives.
 

JW Frogen

Premiership Player
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Posts
3,001
Likes
335
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#4
I think the analysis is wrong.

Though Iraq will have a continued period of isurgency and violence throughout next year, the Shia and Kurds will federate after elections and leave the majority of Sunni (who do not support the insurgency) no option but to enter the democratic process.

Also the US is committed to a long term presence. Like Bush or loathe him, he will stay the course.
 

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#5
JW Frogen said:
I think the analysis is wrong.

Though Iraq will have a continued period of isurgency and violence throughout next year, the Shia and Kurds will federate after elections and leave the majority of Sunni (who do not support the insurgency) no option but to enter the democratic process.

Also the US is committed to a long term presence. Like Bush or loathe him, he will stay the course.

But the Sunnis do have an option...they can create divisiveness within a Kurdish/Shia alliance and promote civil disobedience

If you think the Sunnis will lay down , you are sadly underestimating the Sunni
 

JW Frogen

Premiership Player
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Posts
3,001
Likes
335
Location
Australia
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Collingwood
#6
Civil disobedience has never been a proclivity of Sunni arabs or most other people in the region. (Had the Palestinians practiced this exclusively in the 1990s they would have a state now.)

Most Sunni do not support the insurgency, (Fulluja may is an exception to this rule) remember they are victims of it as well. But they are cowed by it.

I think they are making a huge tacticle mistake not participating in the elections, but if they don't, once the Shia and Kurds come to an accord on federation, the Sunni will have no choice long term to enter the democratic process, the alternative is support and insurgency in which many are already victims of and of which the outcome if successful would only lead to another Baithist dictatorship and civil war with the Shia, or a Isamo Facist republic. Neither of which can happen as long as America remains committed to the country.

They are in a loose loose postion, the only way for them to win long term is to enter teh democratic process as quickly as possible so as to have as much influence on the nature of the federated state.
 

Lestat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2002
Posts
7,356
Likes
41
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Arsenal
Thread starter #7
JW Frogen said:
I think the analysis is wrong.
I think your being awfully naive.

Considering that this analysis actually comes from within the pentagon...I'm curious as to why you believe it to be 'wrong'.

JW Frogen said:
Though Iraq will have a continued period of isurgency and violence throughout next year, the Shia and Kurds will federate after elections and leave the majority of Sunni (who do not support the insurgency) no option but to enter the democratic process.
Once again, you are being either extremely optomistic, or awfully naive.

How do you come to this conclusion?? The shia population has already expressed there desire for the US forces to leave, and are only tolerating there presence in the hope that after the elections, they will have control of parliament and the country. And when they do, you can be assured, that the Iranians will have there claws well and truly embedded deep into Iraq. Shi'ite's are first and formost loyal to the shi'ite religon...then second to Iraq.

The Kurds have already expressed there desire for a seperate state, and there has been a push for a referendum, with over 500,000 signitures demanding a referendum for independance. Kurdish groups are already quietly going about with the revenge attacks against the Sunni's for the years of suffering they have recieved.

And to say that the sunni's will have no option but to enter the process tells me that you have no idea about the history of the land, the culture of the arabs.

no...more then likely, the best that can be hoped for is that Iraq will be divided into 3 different nations.

JW Frogen said:
Also the US is committed to a long term presence. Like Bush or loathe him, he will stay the course.
Once again....it appears that you are judging Bush by what he says, not what he does.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,963
Likes
6,234
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#8
demon_dave said:
it is complete balls-up and will be long after the yanks have taken their oil and run, it will be seen in 20 years as one of the most treacherous acts in a long line of treacherous acts perpertrated by the US and all the neo-cons supporting it today will be putting their heads in the sand and not owning up to their part in genocide. There will be civil war and it will go on for years, taking millions of lives.
from the Dan Warna school of rabidly anti American hysteria.

You should apply for a current affairs job at the ABC you would be a shoe in.
 

demon_dave

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Posts
2,727
Likes
2
Location
Highett
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory,Chelsea
#9
medusala said:
from the Dan Warna school of rabidly anti American hysteria.

You should apply for a current affairs job at the ABC you would be a shoe in.
thats the trouble with you lot, someone speaks the truth and you just can't cop it
 

demon_dave

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Posts
2,727
Likes
2
Location
Highett
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory,Chelsea
#10
I'm guessing you will be one of those neo-cons telling your kids how you new all along the monkey and rodent were lying ****************s
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,963
Likes
6,234
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#11
demon_dave said:
I'm guessing you will be one of those neo-cons telling your kids how you new all along the monkey and rodent were lying ****************s
I have no time for the neo cons nor do I have much time for those who massively exaggerate statistics in their anti american fervour, just like Dan Warna and his creation of a few hundred thousand corpses. Genocide???


.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,963
Likes
6,234
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#12
demon_dave said:
thats the trouble with you lot, someone speaks the truth and you just can't cop it
Well genocide and stealing oil, clearly have no relation to the truth for a start.

The only people deliberately trying to kill civilians are your glorious freedom fighters, why dont you accuse them of genocide?
 

demon_dave

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 5, 2003
Posts
2,727
Likes
2
Location
Highett
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory,Chelsea
#13
medusala said:
I have no time for the neo cons nor do I have much time for those who massively exaggerate statistics in their anti american fervour, just like Dan Warna and his creation of a few hundred thousand corpses. Genocide???


.
well what would you call the killing of 100,000 people? serial killer?
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,963
Likes
6,234
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#14
demon_dave said:
well what would you call the killing of 100,000 people? serial killer?
We have been through this, they havent killed 100,000 peopleaccording to that report you rely on. Besides you labelled it genocide which it clearly isnt. Nor is Halliburton stealing their oil.
 

Qsaint

Cancelled
Joined
May 6, 2004
Posts
15,460
Likes
165
Location
Brisvegas
AFL Club
St Kilda
#16
medusala said:
We have been through this, they havent killed 100,000 peopleaccording to that report you rely on. Besides you labelled it genocide which it clearly isnt.
Out of interest How many do you think have died? I haven't seen any figures for a while.

medusala said:
Nor is Halliburton stealing their oil.
Semantics the US gets the money for all Iraqi Oil and gives a large slab of it to Halliburton
 

Lestat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2002
Posts
7,356
Likes
41
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Arsenal
Thread starter #17
Qsaint said:
Lestat

Whilst we are on this what is the fundamental difference between the Shia and Sunni's in regard to Islam?
This issue in itself could be a thousand page thread, however, I will keep it as short as possible. :)

In a nutshell, the shi'ite believe that the Calipha (leader of the Islamic Empire) must be of the family of the prophet, and a descendent of Muhummed and Ali. They revere Ali to a point that some almost worship him as a God, whereas others place him on par with Muhummed.

Whereas Sunni's believe that any person can be the Caliph. The caliph should be chosen NOT by which family they belong to, but by his piousness and level faith, and good.

They believe that the Calipha does not necessarily have to be of the family of the prophet.

The shi'ite/sunni split actually began within 30 years of the prophets death, when the caliphate was fought between Ali bin Abu Talib (the prophets cousin, and the first child who supported Islam (did so as a 10 y.o)) who was from the family of the prophet (bani Hashim - hence the term hashimite, which you may have heard) and Mu'awiyah bin Abu Safyan who was from bani umayah. To cut a long story short, Mu'awiyah won and began the dynasty where bani Umayah were the leaders of the empire, and the islamic world.

The grave mistake the Mu'awiyah made, was the he made his son heir to the throne. This was very much unislamic, as Islam preached that the best person, should be the caliph. The caliphate should never have been heridatory.

Abu Bakr was the first caliph after Muhummed. When Abu Bakr died, he could of very well have chosen his son Abdullah Bin Abu Bakr, however, he did not. He nominated the one he thought was the best person for the job, and that was Omar Bin Khattab, and the people took Ba'yat (oath) at his hands (it is in this that a leader is chosen in islam, the calipha nominates one or more successors, and then the people choose by either making ba'yat or rejecting).

Omar bin Khattab also could have chosen his son as his heir and succesor, however, he did not, he discussed with a council of close companions of the prophet, and they all nominated Uthman bin Affan as his succesor.

With the caliphate of Uthman, this is where the split began. Uthman was an Umayad, from Bani Umaya.

Before Islam, Bani Umayya, and Bani Hashim where the two biggest clans/tribes in Mecca. There was a big rivalry between them, and great animosity.

The prophet and Islam changed all that, and united all the tribes of Islam as one. However, when Uthman came to power, he began favouring his family and giving them admistrative roles. This awoke the rivally between the Umayads and Hashimites once again, and eventually some people rioted, and murdered Uthman in cold blood.

This was the begginnning of the split. Ali was made caliph after Uthman, however, he could not settle the trouble, as he was of Bani Hashim, and the Umayads were demanding revenge for the blood of Uthman.

Eventually, this led to battles between the Umayads (led by Mu'awiyah) and the Hashimites (led by Ali) and eventually Mu'awiyah was victorious.

The caliphate passed onto Ali's son, the Imam Hassan, who was a great man that was sad to see the muslims fight amongst themselves over the caliphate so soon after the prophet.

In one of the most admirable and sacrificial acts in history, Hassan gave up the caliphate, and gave it to Mu'awiyah so that the muslims could be in peace.

Mu'awiyah ruled for 22 years, in the time he expanded the borders of the Islamic empire incredibly, defeated the Byzantiums time after time, and completely destroyed the Persian empire.

However, his biggest, most negative legacy was to make the caliphate heridatry.

He nominated his son Yazid bin Mu'awiyah as the next caliph. Yazid was not worthy of the position. His faith was not strong, he was cruel and a tyrant. It was during his rule that the Imam Hussien (Ali's son, Hasans brother and the prophets grandson) was viciously murdered in Karbala (you'd would of seen this in the news, the shi'te in Iraq go to Karbala to mourn the death of Hussien) and his head was sent back to Damascus as a trophy.

This was the beginning of the split, and with the killing of Hussien (who was a great and pious man) the split between sunni and shi'ite grew into a chasm that could never be sealed.

The shi'ites (known as alid's earlier) always remained in the background, trying to remove the Ummayads and gain power. However, they were unable to, and the Ummayads remained in power for 120 years.

After that, the Abassids (of the family of the prophet, however they are desendents of not Ali, But Abass, the uncle of the prophet) managed to ursurp the Umayyads (who had by now became cruel, arrogant tyrants), and started the new Abassid dynasty, which held the caliph for 300 years.

THere is much more to it, and it really is a facinating story, one I only started researching a few years ago. The Islamic empire was the defining empire in the world, the major super power for 1100 years. Yet I find it intriguing that we in the west no nearly nothing of this empires.

Some of the generals of war were some of the greatest generals of mankind, as great as Alexander, Ceaser and Napolean. Yet here we haven't even heard of there names. Khalid Bin Walid, Mohammed bin Qasim and Amr Bin Al-As to name a few.

Some of the caliphs were the greatest warrior kings mankind has ever known, there wisdom and rule rivally and surpassing the greatest European kings (Haroun Rashid, Mamun Rashid), whilst others were so pious and faithful that there actioins as emporors of the world would make men cry if these actions were committed today (Omar Bin Abdul Aziz).

Some of the sultans were hero's that the west has heard of (Salahudin - otherwise known as Saladin, though he was never a caliph, only a sultan (prince)), where others were cruel and tyrants that the world had never seen, and hopefully will never ever see again (Yazid Bin Mu'awiya, Abdullab bin Saffah).

If you'd like to read more on the islamic empire, I suggest a book which comes in 3 volumes called 'The History of Islam' by Akbar Shah Najeebabadi. It can get boring at times (only so muc 'revolts' you can read about) however, it is facinating and the best book i've read that tells an 'unbiased' report.

I have read a number of books on the topic. Most are biased. Some are biased from an arab pov, others are biased from a persian pov, and I would steer clear of western authors, as they often make basic errors when telling the story (islamic errors) and the bias against Islam always comes out.

hope this helps.
 

telsor

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Posts
30,086
Likes
26,538
Location
Here
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Habs
#19
Qsaint said:
Thanks for that, so the schizim is much worst than anything that happened with Chrisitian religions.
I think the deaths that occured during the reformation suggest otherwise.

Just saying they're in the same league, and neither is "much worst" than the other.

LeStat..to summarise your most interesting piece, are you saying that the Shi'ites want a 'pope' like figure ( who is, theoretically, appointed on piety/religious knowledge ), and the Sunnis want a hereditary leader.
 

Qsaint

Cancelled
Joined
May 6, 2004
Posts
15,460
Likes
165
Location
Brisvegas
AFL Club
St Kilda
#20
telsor said:
I think the deaths that occured during the reformation suggest otherwise.

Just saying they're in the same league, and neither is "much worst" than the other.

LeStat..to summarise your most interesting piece, are you saying that the Shi'ites want a 'pope' like figure ( who is, theoretically, appointed on piety/religious knowledge ), and the Sunnis want a hereditary leader.
If you judge by the violence you are correct but as a theological point it is far greater.
 

Lestat

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 16, 2002
Posts
7,356
Likes
41
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Arsenal
Thread starter #21
telsor said:
I think the deaths that occured during the reformation suggest otherwise.

Just saying they're in the same league, and neither is "much worst" than the other.

LeStat..to summarise your most interesting piece, are you saying that the Shi'ites want a 'pope' like figure ( who is, theoretically, appointed on piety/religious knowledge ), and the Sunnis want a hereditary leader.

Actually the opposite.

The shi'ite's want the caliph to be a hashemite, from the descendants of Ali and the prophet, and they believe that the caliph must be from the family of the prophet.

It is the sunni's that believe that the caliph can be from any family.
 

Qsaint

Cancelled
Joined
May 6, 2004
Posts
15,460
Likes
165
Location
Brisvegas
AFL Club
St Kilda
#22
Lestat said:
Actually the opposite.

The shi'ite's want the caliph to be a hashemite, from the descendants of Ali and the prophet, and they believe that the caliph must be from the family of the prophet.

It is the sunni's that believe that the caliph can be from any family.
Didn't the Caliph seek to exist in the 1920's when the turks changed to a secular government?
 
Top Bottom