News Is Civil War in Iraq Unavoidable?

[Ivan Seeking]

For the sake of the millions of Iraqis caught in the middle of this, I hope and pray that they can see this through. But from the start my perception has been that civil war is inevitable as soon as we leave; no matter when we leave.

I forget him name, but in the words of one noted military strategist cited in another thread: This can end but one way - with the slaughter of the Sunnis who are outnumbered by two to one. And this was "infinitely forseeable".

 

[scott1]

Reilgons can start wars.With that shi`ite site destoryed that would probally get them mad.There's already been shi`ite attacks on sunni mosque.
I wonder what the U.S. will do if civil war starts that can't take sides that would be aganist the 1st adment and they can't just stay of this civil war because without U.S. occaupation of Iraq it will become potically unstable and Iraq will be divided.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is the source of the quote. It is a great discussion and worth the watch.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=101146

...and an inspired title for a thread I thought...

Edit: Here
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/iraq_11-21.html#

 

[Pengwuino]

I have an eery feeling that it might happen even before we leave. I guess this is sort of a long-time-coming revenge of an opressed majority. I always felt from day 0 that they all wouldn't be able to just kiss and makeup from all the crap Saddam did.

 

[loseyourname]

It's entirely possible that they would have simply slipped into civil war as soon as Saddam croaked or was otherwise deposed regardless of how it occured. It's too bad. I pretty much felt from the beginning that we should just create multiple nations out of this. There is no reason to force people to live together who don't want to and impose the arbitrary British political boundaries that don't reflect social reality.

 

[SOS2008]

It's entirely possible that they would have simply slipped into civil war as soon as Saddam croaked or was otherwise deposed regardless of how it occured. It's too bad. I pretty much felt from the beginning that we should just create multiple nations out of this. There is no reason to force people to live together who don't want to and impose the arbitrary British political boundaries that don't reflect social reality.

True. Let's just hope Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. aren't sucked into this in such a way as to make the situation even more explosive.

 

[Pengwuino]

It's entirely possible that they would have simply slipped into civil war as soon as Saddam croaked or was otherwise deposed regardless of how it occured. It's too bad. I pretty much felt from the beginning that we should just create multiple nations out of this. There is no reason to force people to live together who don't want to and impose the arbitrary British political boundaries that don't reflect social reality.

I never thought they would have broken into a civil war upon his removal. I see it as two siblings. When their parents/adults are around (like when the US has full military force there), they don't get too out of control but once the parents and adults go away or aren't paying as much attention (akin to troop reductions), it's all too tempting to get your anger out at that point. The problem would be like what we have in Israel and Palestine however I bet. Both are going to want x city or y oil fields and we might just have another big situation like we do in israel.

 

[BobG]

True. Let's just hope Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. aren't sucked into this in such a way as to make the situation even more explosive.

I don't think an all out civil war is inevitable, but it's likelihood sure has increased.

Early on, I would have felt the worst case scenario would be an all out civil war in Iraq that spread into a regional war and that the chances for a worst case scenario weren't very high.

Now I'd say the worst case scenario would be World War III - but that World War III won't be quite as gloomy as it would have been during the Cold War. If there's any nuclear weapons used, it will only be a few of them used in the Middle East. (In fact, the only reason I'd go so far to call it a World War is the number of countries involved, the nuclear weapons, and the number of radical changes that would occur in the Middle East as a result - it would be one of those defining moments in history.)

I'd still say this is an unlikely scenario - just that things have gotten bad enough to consider it a possibility. Besides the problems in Iraq, you have a terrorist organization elected leaders of the Palestine Authority, Iran moving down a path that will surely bring a response from Israel, if not the US, the Catholic Church tossing its opinion into the mix (condemning the cartoons while using the opportunity to bring up Christian persecution in the Middle East), and, most of all, you have mutual cultural ignorance. Bin Laden might get the holy war he hoped for after all.

 

[PerennialII]

Would hope the inevitability could be avoided by getting both the international community and 'the local players' (Saudi Arabia etc. neighboring counties) realize the extent of the possible explosion and work together to resolve (seems to apply to most ME problems, if the greatest troublemakers could see past their noses). The current course doesn't really seem to lead to any tolerable conclusion.

 

[Gokul43201]

I pretty much felt from the beginning that we should just create multiple nations out of this.

...using what arbitrary boundaries ?

Easier said than done ! And in my opinion, this would have been a lot harder to achieve and likely less stable even, than the current situation.

 

[RVBuckeye]

I think it all hinges on who is responsible for the initial bombing on the mosque. If it was Zarqawi, then perhaps it could unite the country in the fight against the "terrorists". I certainly remember a strong sense of nationalism after 9-11. This might be what was needed to finally put into perspective the word "terrorists", (who I think most Americans believe we should be fighting), as opposed to the perceived definition as "Muslims".

I think the U.S. and its' allies have used the correct policy of avoiding religious targets. An attack on a mosque, clearly demonstrates a lack of respect for the Iraqis' religious beliefs. Anyone who resorts to this on its own Muslim people, cannot turn around and say it was justified under Muslim dogma.

 

[BobG]

I think it all hinges on who is responsible for the initial bombing on the mosque. If it was Zarqawi, then perhaps it could unite the country in the fight against the "terrorists". I certainly remember a strong sense of nationalism after 9-11. This might be what was needed to finally put into perspective the word "terrorists", (who I think most Americans believe we should be fighting), as opposed to the perceived definition as "Muslims".

I think the U.S. and its' allies have used the correct policy of avoiding religious targets. An attack on a mosque, clearly demonstrates a lack of respect for the Iraqis' religious beliefs. Anyone who resorts to this on its own Muslim people, cannot turn around and say it was justified under Muslim dogma.

Perhaps, but it was a Shi'ite mosque and Zarqawi operates in the Sunni section of Iraq. There's already plenty of Shi'ites united against Sunnis due to the fact that Hussein and his Baath Party (a predominantly Sunni group) brutally oppressed Shi'ites (especially when the Shi'ite Badr Brigade helped Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war).

I think you need a scorecard on who's fighting who: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11389233/ You have two main Shi'ite groups (that sometimes fight each other) and two main Kurdish groups (they currently get along with each other, since they have a common goal of preventing the civil war from spreading north into their territory). Of course, this article doesn't even try to detail the Sunni groups that are only loosely organized (there's a divide between them caused by Zarqawi's presence - a lot of Sunnis reject him, even if he's fighting the same enemy as them).

 

[Manchot]

True. Let's just hope Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. aren't sucked into this in such a way as to make the situation even more explosive.

If that were to happen, we'd be in huge trouble. No matter how hard we try to stay out of it, we'll get sucked in by oil (just as we were sucked into WWI).

...using what arbitrary boundaries ?

Easier said than done ! And in my opinion, this would have been a lot harder to achieve and likely less stable even, than the current situation.

We could use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iraq_demography.jpg as a rough guide. Remember that when the French and British drew the boundaries for Iraq, Iran, et al., they were even more arbitrary.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Perhaps, but it was a Shi'ite mosque and Zarqawi operates in the Sunni section of Iraq. There's already plenty of Shi'ites united against Sunnis due to the fact that Hussein and his Baath Party (a predominantly Sunni group) brutally oppressed Shi'ites (especially when the Shi'ite Badr Brigade helped Iranians in the Iraq-Iran war).

I think you need a scorecard on who's fighting who: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11389233/ You have two main Shi'ite groups (that sometimes fight each other) and two main Kurdish groups (they currently get along with each other, since they have a common goal of preventing the civil war from spreading north into their territory). Of course, this article doesn't even try to detail the Sunni groups that are only loosely organized (there's a divide between them caused by Zarqawi's presence - a lot of Sunnis reject him, even if he's fighting the same enemy as them).

Thanks for the link. All that taken into consideration, nothing makes friends of old enemies, than uniting against a common enemy. As long as that common enemy is Zarqawi, it would be good (at least in the "working together to build a free Iraq" aspect.) A little optimistic, I know.

 

[turbo]

True. Let's just hope Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc. aren't sucked into this in such a way as to make the situation even more explosive.

This is something that lots of people overlook. If we "regionalized" Iraq and allowed each faction local control with a central government, Turkey would probably start attacking the Kurdish state, Iran would side with the Shiites and lay into the Sunnis, and perhaps prompt Syria to throw in with the Sunnis...it's going to be pure hell no matter how we try to disengage. President Cheney and his little Bush yes-man have sold us out and have destined the Iraqis to civil war. There is no war as destructive or as hard to recover from as a civil war, as any US citizen should know, if they bother to study history.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My impression of the vote thus far: 2:1 say war can be avoided:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00000DHSL/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[devious_]

I doubt that something as major as a civil war would happen. Instead, what I think will happen is a small clash between two groups of Shi'a and Sunnis, but the majority of the population won't get dragged into this. My reasoning is because most Iraqi tribes and families are actually composed of both Sunnis and Shi'a and will most likely not kill their own. In fact I know many Iraqis who have one Sunni and one Shi'a parent and when asked which sect they associate themselves with, they say "neither."

However, this "small" clash is actually very worrying. It has the possibility of exploding if neighboring countries choose to take part. It will be very unfortunate if Muslims choose to divide and fight.

 

[Astronuc]

For the sake of the millions of Iraqis caught in the middle of this, I hope and pray that they can see this through. But from the start my perception has been that civil war is inevitable as soon as we leave; no matter when we leave.

I forget him name, but in the words of one noted military strategist cited in another thread: This can end but one way - with the slaughter of the Sunnis who are outnumbered by two to one. And this was "infinitely forseeable".

Based on what I heard yesterday, civil war in Iraq is underway, with Sunnis and Shiites bombing one anothers communities and mosques.

The activities to form the government have stopped, and fighting is occurring in various communities with local majorities attacking members of the local minorities.

A 24-hour vehicular ban remained in effect in Baghdad and its suburbs as authorities tried to halt the violence that has killed nearly 200 people since the Shiite Askariya shrine was destroyed Wednesday in Samarra. But traffic restrictions were lifted in the strife-prone provinces of Diyala, Babil and Salahuddin, where the shrine was located.

AP
The bombing of the Askariya Shrine is a major setback.

The matter is whether or not the escalating violence will continue or be arrested, and whether or not a stable (and non corrupt) government can be formed.

 

[Ortelius]

Can somebody tell me the basic definition of a civil war? Besides civilians fighting and killing each other "en masse" what else is needed to fit your theoretical description? Or is it a question of numbers?

 

[Astronuc]

Can somebody tell me the basic definition of a civil war? Besides civilians fighting and killing each other "en masse" what else is needed to fit your theoretical description? Or is it a question of numbers?

From Merriam Webster online - civil war - "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country." Then I suppose one must ask - what constitutes a war, as opposed to conflict? Size or scale?

For me its pretty much the fact that groups of civilians are fighting one another or perhaps the government. I suppose one could exclude feuds from civil war, but according to the definition conflicts between families or clans could be considered civil war.

 

[Ortelius]

Thanks,
It's such a reassurance knowing what to be killed for.
Religious fanatism.
Fascist Baatism.
American naivism.
Sectarian activism.
Pure Barbarism.
And change our tie for every occasion.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Anyone have an update on who was responsible for the Askariya shrine attack? Usually that is determined in a day or two. I wonder what the hold-up is.

 

[SOS2008]

A civil war is a war in which the parties within the same country or empire 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

BTW, per a new poll just released:

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006 - http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

 

[Astronuc]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1671494&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A series of suicide attacks, car bombs and mortar barrages rocked Baghdad on Tuesday, killing at least 66 people and wounding scores as Iraq teetered on the brink of sectarian civil war. President Bush decried the violence and said Iraqis must choose between "chaos or unity."

Iraqis have suffered through days of reprisal killings and attacks on Sunni mosques since bombers blew apart the gold dome of the revered Shiite Askariya shrine in Samarra on Wednesday. The Iraqi Cabinet said at least 379 people had been killed and 458 wounded in reprisal attacks.

In the latest attacks, two explosions hit Shiite targets in northern Baghdad after sundown, killing at least 15 people and wounding 72.

This seems indicative of civil war, or do people want to call it a conflict or civil strife. That is like using euphemisms for war, such as 'Police Action' or 'Peace Keeping'.

 

[Art]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1671494&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
This seems indicative of civil war, or do people want to call it a conflict or civil strife. That is like using euphemisms for war, such as 'Police Action' or 'Peace Keeping'.

It seems the Iraqi gov't is understandably trying to downplay the number of casualties to try and stop the pot from boiling over meanwhile Bush claims it's all Iran's doing

At least 60 die on another day of sectarian killing
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 01 March 2006
Sectarian violence continued to wreak havoc in Iraq as a series of car bombs, suicide attacks and mortar barrages killed at least 60 people. At the same time it was claimed that up to 1,300 people may have died in sectarian violence triggered by last week's destruction of one of the country's holiest Shia shrines, although the government put out a statement to insist that the death toll was much lower.


It was reported that 1,300 people were killed by the violence triggered by the bombing of the Shia shrine in Samarra. Officials at Baghdad's morgue said it had dealt with hundreds of corpses. The figure of 1,300 is at least three times higher than reported by the US military and was disputed by the office of the Iraqi Prime Minister, which issued a statement saying that 379 people had been killed over six days. It denied reports in the Washington Post that the death toll had passed 1,000. The bombings underline the failure of Iraqi security forces and US troops to provide security for ordinary people. Last week the outgoing head of the UN's human rights mission in Iraq, John Pace, said that up to three-quarters of bodies in Baghdad's mortuary had been executed or showed signs of torture. He blamed death squads controlled by the Interior Ministry.

Mr Pace said the lack of security was part of a vicious circle that helped to feed sectarian violence. In the absence of any other security forces, ordinary citizens were looking to extremist groups to offer protection.

President George Bush side-stepped questions about plans for a troop withdrawal from Iraq, as a poll showed that nearly one in four Americans believed the US soldiers should pull out. He also said nothing of US responsibility for maintaining order. Instead he suggested that Iran was behind much of the latest violence and said people had a choice between "chaos or unity".

Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador in Iraq, warned that further flare-ups were possible and said that Iraq had reached "the brink of civil war". The apparently co-ordinated attacks have scotched all hopes of the early formation of a national unity government that would bring the Shia community into a cabinet with the minority Sunnites.

MONDAY Government lifts curfew amid relative lull in fighting but more than 20 people die in clashes. Baghdad morgue officials say up to 1,300 have died in recent fighting.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article348414.ece

 

[SOS2008]

In a recent ABC interview, Bush specifically said this:

BUSH: I don't buy your premise that there's going to be a civil war.

...And the response was that we understand this is a moment that we've got to make a choice if we're going to have sectarian strife or whether or not we're going to unify. And I heard loud and clear that they understand that they're going to choose unification, and we're going to help them do so.

VARGAS: But what is the plan if the sectarian violence continues? I mean, do the U.S. troops take a larger role? Do they step in more actively to stop the violence?

BUSH: No. The troops are chasing down terrorists. They're protecting themselves and protecting the people, and — but a major function is to train the Iraqis so they can do the work. I mean the ultimate success in Iraq —

and I believe we're going to be successful — is for the Iraqi citizens to continue to demand unity.

VARGAS: So let me make sure I understand you. No matter what happens with the level of sectarian violence, the U.S. troops will stay there?

BUSH: The U.S. troops will stay there so long as — until the Iraqis can defend themselves. I mean, my policy has not changed.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1671087&page=1

And on his recent trip:

He also predicted Osama bin Laden would be captured despite a futile five-year hunt.

"I'm confident he will be brought to justice," Bush said, standing alongside Afghan President Hamid Karzai outside the presidential palace.

AP - Wednesday, 01 March 2006

Earth calling Bush. Do you read me?

 

[turbo]

Civil war is past inevitable because it is on-going. Sunnis are regularly found bound, tortured, and shot in the head execution-style, presumably by the death squads operating out of Ministry of the Interior.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article347806.ece
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/03/AR2005120300881.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iraq;_ylt=AnE_hSqW2t7K2U8TQR
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-death29nov29,0,3364549,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Sunnis do strike back, but it seems that some of the violence attributed to the insurgency was actually perpetrated by the Shi'ite death squads. There is a civil war in Iraq - right now it's a simmering war of attrition, but it could get lots worse.

 

[Gokul43201]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

BTW, per a new poll just released:

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006 - http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

This is mind-boggling. Some 90% of the troops think the war is an act of retaliation against Saddam's role in 9-11.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is mind-boggling. Some 90% of the troops think the war is an act of retaliation against Saddam's role in 9-11.

It was mind boggling three years ago but IMO it is a crime now. So this implies that 90% of those who have died or lost family have done so for a lie that has been perpetuated by the President.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Four found hanged in Shiite slum after attacks killed 58 in Iraq

In the Shiite holy city of Najaf, al-Sadr avoided blaming Sunni Muslims for the attacks and appealed for unity. The anti-American cleric instead blamed feared terror group Al Qaeda in Iraq and U.S. forces.

"Sunnis and Shiites are not responsible for such acts," al-Sadr said. "National unity is required."

Members of al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia had captured the four people found hanged in the Shiite ghetto, according to police and a member of al-Sadr's organization, Sheik Amer al-Husseini. Police collected the bodies early Monday.

"We know nothing about their nationalities but residents reported that they were arrested yesterday by Mahdi Army," said police Lt. Laith Abdul-Aal. "Two of them were wearing explosive belts and two others had mortar tubes."

The coordinated nature of the attack and its use of a homicide bomber bore the hallmarks of Al Qaeda in Iraq, which has said it hoped to start a Shiite-Sunni civil conflict.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187643,00.html

I believe there is still hope here...nothing makes friends of old enemies, than uniting against a common enemy. As long as that common enemy is Zarqawi, it would be good (at least in the "working together to build a free Iraq" aspect.)

edit: I take the "and US forces" quoted by Muqtada al-Sadr (in first section) to mean "not providing adequate security." Not resposible for the bombings.

 

[Astronuc]

Dozens of bodies found across Baghdad
Gruesome reprisals appear to intensify after particularly bloody weekend

Updated: 6:42 a.m. ET March 14, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Police found at least 72 bodies in Baghdad in the past 24 hours, including 15 men bound and shot in an abandoned minibus, in a gruesome wave of apparent sectarian reprisal attacks, officials said Tuesday.

The timing of the killings appeared related to the car bomb and mortar attacks in the Shiite slum of Sadr City in east Baghdad on Sunday in which 58 people died and more than 200 were wounded.

The sectarian violence marked the second wave of mass killings in Iraq since Feb. 22, when bombers destroyed an important Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra, north of the capital.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11819857/

Not a civil war, just sectarian violence - which is kind of like the IRA/Provisionals and Unionist/Loyalists in Northern Ireland. I wonder what the threshold is for considering it a civil war? Of course, the press could be exaggerating the whole thing as to which Rumsfeld alluded.

So will Iraq become a long engagement like Britain's in Northern Ireland?

 

[Bilal]

They arrested today an American with explosive devices (similar to those used to kill Iraqi civilians) in Iraqi town- Tikrit. The prisoner admitted that he is American contractor...

((No comments!)

 

[Amp1]

WOW, Do you think... naaaa. Q:Did he work for Haliburton? I notice the poll has swung towards - civil war. In light of the facts on the ground in Iraq, it's obvious there is a civil war going on now. How intense it will become is unknown at this time further developments will surely give some indication. For instance, if the post above is true, escalation could be imminent. Also, if the above post is true then it implies, IMO, that there is some covert activity going on to destabilize the shaky regime/system in place now; the question is to what purpose?

 

[Bilal]

They presented this as a source in Arabic media (However many people in Iraq and ME believe that the strategy of Bush admin. is to burn the region by creating civil wars if their main strategy failed):

American arrested with weapons in Iraq-official
Tue Mar 14, 2006 5:23 AM ET

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - An American described as a security contractor has been arrested by police in a northern Iraqi town with weapons in his car, said a provincial official.
Abdullah Jebara, the Deputy Governor of Salahaddin province, told Reuters the man was arrested in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit on Monday.
The Joint Coordination Center between the U.S. and Iraqi military in Tikrit said the man it described as a security contractor working for a private company, possessed explosives which were found in his car. It said he was arrested on Tuesday.

WOW, Do you think... naaaa. Q:Did he work for Haliburton? I notice the poll has swung towards - civil war. In light of the facts on the ground in Iraq, it's obvious there is a civil war going on now. How intense it will become is unknown at this time further developments will surely give some indication. For instance, if the post above is true, escalation could be imminent. Also, if the above post is true then it implies, IMO, that there is some covert activity going on to destabilize the shaky regime/system in place now; the question is to what purpose?

 

[Amp1]

Well, the only privite contractor I know of over there is Haliburton. Bilal, your message in parenthesis has the ring of truth, though it can't really be substantiated but that supposition follows along the lines of the so called comspiracy theory that the Bush admin had prior knowledge if not complicity in 9/11.

 

[Astronuc]

There are several private security contractors besides Halliburton are working for the US government in Iraq.

It is too early to tell what the situation with this guy is. But it does sound suspicious.

In any event, individuals can certainly act on their own accord - means, motive and opportunity.

 

[RVBuckeye]

They presented this as a source in Arabic media (However many people in Iraq and ME believe that the strategy of Bush admin. is to burn the region by creating civil wars if their main strategy failed):

Just wondering what you thought was the "main strategy" which failed, and why escalating ongoing sectarian violence would be beneficial to the US?

 

[Dawguard]

They presented this as a source in Arabic media (However many people in Iraq and ME believe that the strategy of Bush admin. is to burn the region by creating civil wars if their main strategy failed):

I fail to see any purpose this could achieve them. They have no motive for creating civil wat, it's nothing mere then mere speculation: groundless.

 

[Bilal]

Dear RVBUCKEYE and Dawguard ,

Here is the answer:

The main American strategy in ME:

“Restructuring ME to serve the long term American interests”

This strategy is based on establishing a pro USA new Iraq, the same as Kuwait after 1991. The new Iraq will be controlled by the American invisibly. They will use this Iraq to change the rest of regimes, particularly Syria and Iran … after that they will focus on Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt ‘’to disarm them’’. Finally, Israel will be the only strategic force in ME. Arab unity will be finished forever, Turkey and Israel will be the leaders of the ‘’great ME’’.

What if this strategy fails?

The Zionist-neoconservative strategy will be activated:

After the Iranian revolution in 1979, religious factor involved in the Zionist-Arab conflict in Middle East. The Israeli defense confirmed a long term strategy which was published in 1982:

“Focusing on the religious sectors in the surrounding countries, thereby rebuilding the region based on religious sectors instead of nations: Syria will be divided into 4 States (Shia on the Coast, Duruz in the South, Halab and Damascus), Iraq will be divided into three States: Shia , Kurds and Sunni, Egypt will be divided into two States : Copts and Muslims), Lebanon will be divided into several cantons such as Maronite, Shia and Sunni. Palestinian in WB and Gaza ‘’and if possible the Israeli non Jews” will be ‘’transferred to the Sunni State of Iraq (besides the rest of Palestinian refugees). Accordingly, Israel as a Jews State will be a normal State in this region which is divided based on religious sectors. These small and weak States will never cause any troubles to the great Israel and they will secure for them the Water and Oil”.

Based on the above Strategy,

Because my English not so good, I will cut and paste some paragraphs from other sites, but I will provide more trusted references up on the request:

http://ce399.typepad.com/weblog/2004/12/the_neoconserva.html

The American Neoconservatives and Iraq : " A Clean Break"

“The blueprint from the new Bush policy had actually been drawn up five years earlier by three of his top national security advisors. Soon to be appointed to senior administration positions, they were Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. ...the plan was originally intended not for Bush but for another world leader, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.”

“A key part of the plan was to get the United States to pull out of peace negotiations and simply let Israel take care of the Palestinians as it saw fit. "Israel," said the report, "can manage it's own affairs. Such self-reliance will grant Israel greater freedom of action and remove a significant lever of pressure used against it in the past."”

“Another way to win American support for preemptive war against Syria, they suggested, was by "drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program." The claim would be that Israel's war was really all about protecting Americans from drugs, counterfeit bills and WMD---nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.”

You can read the rest of information in that site , and then you will realize why the American government banned the Iraqi army and destroyed it as State and then they divided the nation into ‘’religious sectors’’.

Could you also observe that those who involved on the invasion of Iraq are the same who proposed “A Clean Break” to the extremist Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996? Even Gen. Garner ‘’the first American leader of Iraq - who banned the Iraqi army and divided the nation into religious sectors - was one of those who proposed this plan to Likud party in Israel. The Israeli media described him as ‘’the Zionist governor” of Iraq”.

http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.03.21/news8.html

“Garner is said to maintain ties with the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening American foreign and defense policy. In 1998, he visited Israel for the first time on a trip sponsored by JINSA.

“

“In a reference to the signatories' JINSA-sponsored trips to Israel, the statement said: "n those travels, we brought with us our decades of military experience and came away with the unswerving belief that the security of the State of Israel is a matter of great importance to U.S. policy in the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean, as well as around the world. A strong Israel is an asset that American military planners and political leaders can rely on."

“

 

[Amp1]

In light of some of the above replies - including mine - anrticle I read in todays AMny caught my eye. Later, I checked if there was a separate confirmation of the article on the WWW.

Bush warns: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/28/iraq/main887468.shtml

This in particular gave me pause, I really don't want to read something into it that's not there but as Astronuc says with regard to the contractor in custody - my rephrasing - this sounds fishy.

..."As these milestones approach we can expect there to be increasing violence," Mr. Bush said.

Although, the context these words are spoken in reflect the upcoming vote it is curious even strange IMO to hear word of some person affiliated with US contractors traveling in a sensitive area with explosives. Innocently enough maybe he was taking the explosives to a job site. Pun intended.

 

[Bilal]

May be these old news (5 months old) are interesting now:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-09/19/content_3514065.htm

.

BAGHDAD, Sept. 19 (Xinhuanet) -- Iraqi police detained two British soldiers in civilian clothes in the southern city Basra for firing on a police station on Monday, police said.

"Two persons wearing Arab uniforms opened fire at a police station in Basra. A police patrol followed the attackers and captured them to discover they were two British soldiers," an Interior Ministry source told Xinhua.

The two soldiers were using a civilian car packed with explosives, the source said.

He added that the two were being interrogated in the police headquarters of Basra.

The British forces informed the Iraqi authorities that the two soldiers were performing an official duty, the source said. British military authorities said they could not confirm the incident but investigations were underway. .

By the way, the British army invaded the jail by tanks in that day and liberated those two soldiers quickly! After that nobody hear any news about them!

 

[RVBuckeye]

Bilal,
sorry I asked

 

[Astronuc]

Re:

The main American strategy in ME:

“Restructuring ME to serve the long term American interests”

What if this strategy fails?

The Zionist-neoconservative strategy will be activated:

Based on the above Strategy, . . .

http://ce399.typepad.com/ is not a reliable source. It seems to reflect personal opinions with snippets of headlines, and it seems to reflect allegations of conspiracy rather than substantiated information.

The American Neoconservatives and Iraq : " A Clean Break"

The registration of forward.com is rather dubious. It certainly does seem to be pro-Israeli or pro-Zionist.

But with claims like "Garner is said to maintain ties", its credibility is questionable.

As for Xinhua - they are not exactly neutral with regard to US policy.

I am concerned about Bush's policies like many Americans, but I don't make claims regarding his motives or those of others unless I can substantiate them with factual evidence.

 

[alexandra]

Well, some US intelligence analysts seem to think civil war is likely:

Posted on Mon, Jan. 17, 2005

New intelligence reports raise questions about U.S. mission in Iraq
By Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - A series of new U.S. intelligence assessments on Iraq paints a grim picture of the road ahead and concludes that there's little likelihood that President Bush's goals can be attained in the near future.

Instead of stabilizing the country, national elections Jan. 30 are likely to be followed by more violence and could provoke a civil war between majority Shiite Muslims and minority Sunni Muslims, the CIA and other intelligence agencies predict, according to senior officials who've seen the classified reports...
Ref:http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/intelligence/10667714.htm

I watched a TV interview last night where an Iraqi civilian said his experience of life in Baghdad seemed to fit the description of 'civil war' (he gave supporting examples), and a British journalist currently there said it's so chaotic, and there are so many different insurgency and militia groups active, that it's impossible to understand what's going on or where it's headed. Everyone agreed that the only thing they could say for certain is that there is total lawlesness and the civilian population is threatened on every front and there is no-one civilians can turn to for help. It's a mess.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Iraqi Assembly Gets Off To Quiet but Telling Start

But for many ordinary Iraqis, the fact that the assembly finally met was cause enough for celebration. Noting the risks they faced when they went to the polls on Jan. 30 and the insurgent threats against the parliament, they said the first session -- televised live across Iraq -- fulfilled a national vision.

"I personally look at the assembly as a symbol of our will and our hopes for a better future," said Saadiya Abdul Wahid, 55, a retired schoolteacher from Baghdad. "For the first time in my life, I, as an Iraqi, feel I have a voice in what's going on."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39352-2005Mar16.html

I believe there is still hope here.

 

[Astronuc]

On Sunday's "Meet the Press," Democratic Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, repeated his call for redeploying U.S. troops over a six-month period to take them out of what he called a civil war.

"We have to say to the Iraqis, 'This is your war. This is no longer our war. You've got an elected government. This is up to you now to settle this thing,'" Murtha said on NBC.

Murtha made the comment that 25,000 insurgents fighting each other for 'dominance' in Iraq amounts to a Civil War.

Also, listen to this interview with a Sunni from Iraq! Unbelieveable. His experience stands in stark contradiction to Bush and the US government's assessment.

Life, Death and Trust in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5288790

An Iraqi driver and translator, Tahir Younis, reflects on the three years that have elapsed since a war began with "shock and awe" and evolved into a bitter battle with elusive insurgent groups.

Sounds like Civil War to me.

 

[Hootenanny]

The only way to prevent civil war in Iraq is to perminatly stay. If this is required, so be it. The middle east is already unstable and I would prefer to keep both British and American forces in Iraq if it increase the stability of the middle east even slightly.

 

[BobG]

At least Murtha is proposing some alternative to "stay the course". I still don't go for it. I like Zbigniew Brzezinski's comments better, even if it's only a start to a real plan:

BRZEZINSKI: Well, I think we ought to disengage, but we ought to disengage in an intelligent fashion. We have to recognize the fact that we are facing a war of attrition and a war of attrition which we are not winning.

Henry once said, and I thought, very correctly, that in a guerrilla war, if the guerrillas are not losing, they're winning. This is a war of attrition. And we're not winning. It's getting worse. More and more Iraqis want us to get out. What I would like to see us do is the following three or four steps.

One, ask the Iraqi leadership to ask us to leave. There will be Iraqi leaders who ask us to leave, maybe not all. Those who don't want us to leave are the ones who will leave when we leave. So first of all, ask us to leave.

Secondly, once they have publicly asked us to leave, set a date. I think a year or so would be reasonable.

Third, get the Iraqis to announce publicly, as their initiative, the convening of a conference of all of Iraq's neighbors to deal with the problem of stability and stabilization in Iraq because they all have a stake in stability in the region.

And then, last, we could then convene an external conference, modeled on the one that we had regarding Afghanistan, regarding help from the major potential donor countries.

BLITZER: All right.

BRZEZINSKI: Then we would have a program. Right now, all we have is slogans about staying on course or vague, vague threats that if we leave, it will be a debacle. We're stuck.

 

[RVBuckeye]

I don't find myself disgreeing with Astronuc on much, from what little I've read. I'm sure I'm going to get blasted for the following, but here it goes...

At the very end of the interview, the driver said he thought our troops should stay. They should leave eventually, however. They are needed for his protection (paraphrased). I don't think anyone disagrees with that game-plan. The opinions differ on how to go about a pull-out, or when. No matter the circumstances, of why we are there. This is now the situation before us and the Iraqi people. Don't we now have an obligation to see this through? Whatever your personal feelings of whether we should have been there in the first place. I agree that Bush is showing poor management. But this is the great thing about living in a Democracy, we have a legal means to replace bad leaders. A freedom the Iraqi people will soon enjoy.

"In recent weeks, Americans have seen horrific images from Iraq: the bombing of a great house of worship in Samarra, sectarian reprisals between Sunnis and Shias, and car bombings and kidnappings," Bush said.

"Amid continued reports about the tense situation in parts of that country, it may seem difficult at times to understand how we can say that progress is being made," he said. "But the reaction to the recent violence by Iraq's leaders is a clear sign of Iraq's commitment to democracy."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH?SITE=VTBUR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Why critisize that position? I'm not a Bush- ite. I'm a responsible American who has the utmost confidence in our military. (The leader of which just isn't doing an adequate job ) Out of a country with 25 million people, 25,000 insurgents does not a civil war make. Even that estimate is less than 1% of the population if you take Murtha's figures at face value. Keep in mind that those numbers are meant to represent people fighting each other. It's not like the country is rallying to kick our troops out. Apparently, the overwelming majority thinks we are still needed (for good or bad). I'm sure there are many people in Iraq that feel the same as the cab driver interviewed. It is a war zone afterall. It must be truley heartbreaking for them.

please note... I did not critisize anyone for believing one way or another, or accuse anyone of bias. I'm well aware of Murtha's military history. I disagree with his plan on principle.

As another side note, if you want an in depth assesment of what is going on there. Pretty sobering stuff.
http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Page 10 lists casualties, page 18 estimates foreign insurgents.

 

[BobG]

I don't find myself disgreeing with Astronuc on much, from what little I've read. I'm sure I'm going to get blasted for the following, but here it goes...

At the very end of the interview, the driver said he thought our troops should stay. They should leave eventually, however. They are needed for his protection (paraphrased). I don't think anyone disagrees with that game-plan. The opinions differ on how to go about a pull-out, or when. No matter the circumstances, of why we are there. This is now the situation before us and the Iraqi people. Don't we now have an obligation to see this through? Whatever your personal feelings of whether we should have been there in the first place. I agree that Bush is showing poor management. But this is the great thing about living in a Democracy, we have a legal means to replace bad leaders. A freedom the Iraqi people will soon enjoy.

The problem is that Bush's management skills affect the prospects for success in Iraq ... and people's confidence in whether there is any hope for Iraq.

A few days ago, I read an article stating that Bush would apply his diplomatic skill to the problems in Northern Ireland and I could imagine terrified looks on the faces of everyone living in Ireland. I've also noticed Art hasn't posted since then ... maybe he died of a heart attack.