News Is Civil War in Iraq Unavoidable?

[edward]

Civil war apparently can have various definitions. But when the people start to leave the country to escape the violence, that is a good indicator there is something more than sectarian bloodshed going on.

Updated: 4:43 p.m. MT Oct 13, 2006
GENEVA - Thousands of Iraqis are fleeing the country every day in a “steady, silent exodus” and a spike in sectarian violence has stopped others from returning to their homeland, the U.N. refugee agency said on Friday.

 

[Astronuc]

Exiting Iraq: A Discussion
Exiting Iraq: Adeed Dawisha's View
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6397238

Weekend Edition Saturday, October 28, 2006 · Adeed Dawisha is a professor of political science at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. Born in Iraq, Dawisha urges the United States to acknowledge that his homeland is a de facto segregated country. He wants American diplomats to urge the Iraqi government toward a peaceful partition or a loosely federated state.

Apparently something like 500,000 Iraqis have been internally displaced and sectarian killings are more or less a daily occurrence. It sure sounds like a civil war to me.

Partitioning the country would represent a failure. However, the Bush administration will redefine victory so as to claim victory.

Who will maintain security in Anbar province, which could become like the tribal lands in Pakistan? It would appear that the US forces will maintain a permanent presence in the region, which means Iraq and the other nations are not exactly free.

 

[Astronuc]

The Case For Dividing Iraq
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555130,00.html
With the country descending into civil war, a noted diplomat and author argues why partition may be the U.S.'s only exit strategy
By PETER W. GALBRAITH

Iraq is broken!

Iraq's national-unity government is not united and does not govern. Iraqi security forces, the centerpiece of the U.S.'s efforts for stability, are ineffective or, even worse, combatants in the country's escalating civil war. President George W. Bush says the U.S.'s goal is a unified and democratic Iraq, but we have no way to get there. As Americans search for answers, there is one obvious alternative: split Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shi'ite states.

The case for the partition of Iraq is straightforward: It has already happened. The Kurds, a non-Arab people who live in the country's north, enjoy the independence they long dreamed about. The Iraqi flag does not fly in Kurdistan, which has a democratically elected government and its own army. In southern Iraq, Shi'ite religious parties have carved out theocratic fiefdoms, using militias that now number in the tens of thousands to enforce an Iranian-style Islamic rule. To the west, Iraq's Sunni provinces have become chaotic no-go zones, with Islamic insurgents controlling Anbar province while Baathists and Islamic radicals operate barely below the surface in Salahaddin and Nineveh. And Baghdad, the heart of Iraq, is now partitioned between the Shi'ite east and the Sunni west. The Mahdi Army, the most radical of the Shi'ite militias, controls almost all the Shi'ite neighborhoods, and al-Qaeda has a large role in Sunni areas. Once a melting pot, Baghdad has become the front line of Iraq's Sunni-Shi'ite war, which is claiming at least 100 lives every day.

Most Iraqis do not want civil war. But they have rejected the idea of a unified Iraq. In the December 2005 national elections, Shi'ites voted overwhelmingly for Shi'ite religious parties, Sunni Arabs for Sunni religious or nationalist parties, and the Kurds for Kurdish nationalist parties. Fewer than 10% of Iraq's Arabs crossed sectarian lines. The Kurds voted 98.7% for independence in a nonbinding referendum.

Iraq's new constitution, approved by 80% of Iraq's voters, is a road map to partition. The constitution allows Iraq's three main groups to establish powerful regions, each with its own government, substantial control over the oil resources in its territory and even its own regional army. Regional law supersedes federal law on almost all matters. The central government is so powerless that, under the constitution, it cannot even impose a tax.

American leaders seem to be in denial about these facts. . . . . .

The Bush strategy has failed, and failed as Bush was declaring "Mission Accomplished". What happens with Sunni and Shiite areas if Iraq is divided. Will the US be welcome? Maybe in the Kurdish north, but that may be it. Resentment may last a generation or two for all the people killed during the US occupation.

 

[BobG]

Partitioning will be messy - just like it was in Yugoslavia. It's easy to designate some areas as definitely Kurdish, Sunni, or Shi'ite, but there will still be trouble over the overlapping regions. There also has to be a way to give the Sunni region at least enough of the oil revenues to keep them from raiding the Shi'ite and Kurdish regions.

There's going to be a lot of concern by Iraq neighbors if the country breaks up into an independent Kurdistan, Sunni region, and Shi'ite region. Some of Iraq's neighbors might be a little more accepting of any idea that avoids total catastrophe, or maybe they'll just stand in the way of any decision that they've been left out of.

That doesn't mean I don't think partitioning isn't a more realistic and easier solution than we're pursuing now. It just means I'll be surprised if it's a lot easier. Any direction points to a long road, which probably makes it even more important not to waste too much time following the wrong one.

 

[Astronuc]

It would be great if the various groups could reconcile and stay together as on stable nation state, but how do they overcome the incessant retribution and retaliation. If they would stop with the tit-for-tat killings and kidnappings, there might be a chance.

 

[edward]

The jobless rate in Iraq is horrible. These people need jobs. If these people had jobs to go to it would decrease the violence. They need some kind of a public works program, and a leader that wasn't selected by the USA.

We have 14 permanent military bases under construction in Iraq along with a $5 billion dollar embassy. Most of the workers are from India, because we don't trust the workers of the country which we liberated.

Somehow we have to get the men of Iraq back in the workplace. If half of those 14 U.S. bases were converted into trade and commercial centers complete with trade schools, housing, police and jobs I think it would help. "As my mother used to say: Idle hands are the devils plaything."

 

[Astronuc]

Iraqi Official: 150,000 Civilians Dead
from The Associated Press
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5642694

BAGHDAD, Iraq November 9, 2006, 5:03 p.m. ET · A stunning new death count emerged Thursday, as Iraq's health minister estimated at least 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war -- about three times previously accepted estimates.

Moderate Sunni Muslims, meanwhile, threatened to walk away from politics and pick up guns, while the Shiite-dominated government renewed pressure on the United States to unleash the Iraqi army and claimed it could crush violence in six months.

After Democrats swept to majorities in both houses of the U.S. Congress and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld resigned, Iraqis appeared unsettled and seemed to sense the potential for an even bloodier conflict because future American policy is uncertain. As a result, positions hardened on both sides of the country's deepening sectarian divide.

Previous estimates of Iraq deaths held that 45,000-50,000 have been killed in the nearly 44-month-old conflict, according to partial figures from Iraqi institutions and media reports.

No official count has ever been available, and Health Minister Ali al-Shemari did not detail how he arrived at the new estimate of 150,000, which he provided to reporters during a visit to the Austrian capital.

But later Thursday, Hassan Salem, of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, said the 150,000 figure included civilians, police and the bodies of people who were abducted, later found dead and collected at morgues run by the Health Ministry.

Seems an awful lot like a civil war to me.

 

[edward]

Another study has the death toll over 600,000. Is that possible or am I miscounting zero's?

A new household survey of Iraq has found that approximately 600,000 people have been killed in the violence of the war that began with the U.S. invasion in March 2003. The survey was conducted by an American and Iraqi team of public health researchers. Data were collected by Iraqi medical doctors with analysis conducted by faculty of the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. The results will be published in the British medical journal, The Lancet.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/10/11/human.cost.of.war.pdf

 

[Office_Shredder]

That study has been largley discounted, because it used a number of methods that artificially boosted the count (such as interviewing people who lived on main roads exclusively, even though people who live on main roads have a higher chance of being killed)

 

[Gokul43201]

That study has been largley discounted, because it used a number of methods that artificially boosted the count (such as interviewing people who lived on main roads exclusively, even though people who live on main roads have a higher chance of being killed)

It has been discounted? I'd like to see the rebuttal.

Edward, the peer-reviewed study you quote does not count the number of killed but in fact does a calculation based on estimation of death rates (so it counts the increase in number of deaths as a result of the war) - the same kind of calculation that has been used for years now to calculate deaths from epidemics and famines. I saw a CNN(?) interview where (I believe it was) John Zogby (who) said the survey methodology was sound and that he felt confident in its results. He also said that the disparity between this number and the typical numbers reported by the media is partly because the media isn't counting all the deaths in the country (most of the media is concentrated in the green zone, and has little knowledge of what happens in remote parts of the country) but also because the two different sources are talking about two different numbers.

 

[turbo]

It has been discounted? I'd like to see the rebuttal.

Edward, the peer-reviewed study you quote does not count the number of killed but in fact does a calculation based on estimation of death rates (so it counts the increase in number of deaths as a result of the war) - the same kind of calculation that has been used for years now to calculate deaths from epidemics and famines. I saw a CNN(?) interview where (I believe it was) John Zogby (who) said the survey methodology was sound and that he felt confident in its results. He also said that the disparity between this number and the typical numbers reported by the media is partly because the media isn't counting all the deaths in the country (most of the media is concentrated in the green zone, and has little knowledge of what happens in remote parts of the country) but also because the two different sources are talking about two different numbers.

And anybody that thinks the Iraqi Health Ministry knows about ALL the people killed in this war and is willing to report on all of them is in serious need of some education.

 

[Astronuc]

Another study has the death toll over 600,000. Is that possible or am I miscounting zero's?

No, this the same study Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health which was reported in October and is to be published in the Lancet, the principal medical journal in the UK.

'Huge rise' in Iraqi death tolls
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm


I don't know that the study has been discounted, but it has been dismissed by the Bush administration, and certainly is disputed by others. We may never know because people have just disappeared, which could be due to internal/external migration, kidnapping, in addition to being killed.

 

[edward]

No, this the same study Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health which was reported in October and is to be published in the Lancet, the principal medical journal in the UK.

'Huge rise' in Iraqi death tolls
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm

I was referring to a previous study published in the Lancet that had the total around 100,000. I think it was done in 04.

The latest one was funded by MIT.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N45/45iraq.html

Duh Ok we are talking about the same study.

 

[edward]

That study has been largley discounted, because it used a number of methods that artificially boosted the count (such as interviewing people who lived on main roads exclusively, even though people who live on main roads have a higher chance of being killed)

I would like to see a source for that info.

The Johns Hopkins team conducted its study using a methodology known as "cluster sampling." That involved randomly picking 47 clusters of households for a total 1,849 households, scattered across Iraq. Team members interviewed each household about any deaths in the family during the 40 months since the invasion, as well as in the year before the invasion. The team says it reviewed death certificates for 92% of all deaths reported. Based on those figures, it tabulated national mortality rates for various periods before and after the start of the war. The mortality rate last year was nearly four times the preinvasion rate, the study found.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116052896787288831.html

 

[Astronuc]

Syria and Iran: Keys to Iraq Peace?

Nov. 12, 2006 — Despite past disagreements with Syria and Iran, if a bipartisan commission recommends talks with them to improve the situation in Iraq, the Bush administration will be open to the suggestion, White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten told ABC News' "This Week."

Bush is slated to meet Monday with the Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker. The panel is supposed to advise the president on new strategies in Iraq.

Recently on "This Week," Baker indicated that he thought negotiating with Syria and Iran could be a strategy for improving the situation in Iraq. The commission will reportedly recommend such a solution during talks with Bush this week.

"Iran and Syria have been meddling in Iraq in a very unhelpful way," Bolten told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "Iranian weapons and technology have found their way into the Iraqi conflict and are being used to kill Iraqis and American soldiers. … That needs to stop."

"That said, we'll be open to what the Baker/Hamilton commission has to recommend, and we'll be trying to treat that in as open and bipartisan a way as possible," he said.

After meeting with the president and other top administration officials Monday, the study group plans to brief Democrats on Tuesday. The group's members hope to release their final report within weeks.

Analysts Weigh In

"There's no silver bullet here," said retired U.S. Gen. Jack Keane, an ABC News military analyst. "So I think their plan will reflect a political strategy, a military strategy, an economic one and a very strong diplomatic one."

. . . .

A bit too early to plan a vacation in Baghdad or Basra.

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1930001,00.html

The critics argued that the Lancet paper does not indicate that the researchers moved far enough away from the main street. "The further away you get, the further you are from the convoys that roll down the streets and the car bombs and the general violence," said Sean Gourley. "By sampling only cross streets which are more accessible, you get an over-estimation of deaths."

 

[Gokul43201]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1930001,00.html

I don't see anything there that says the "study has been largely discounted". All I see is one group of people arguing that the methodology is flawed and the other group rebutting that (i) the first group does not know the complete details of the methodology, and (ii) that the sampling was done to relfect actual distributions and hence isn't flawed (and it certainly doesn't say that it "exclusively" interviewed people on main streets...in fact, it clearly rebuts any such thing).

 

[edward]

Sean Gourley and Professor Neil Johnson of the physics department at Oxford University and Professor Michael Spagat of the economics department of Royal Holloway, University of London, claimed the methodology of the study was fundamentally flawed by what they term "main street bias".

Perhap these guys should actually go to Iraq before making a judgement call. The Shiite vs Sunni killings are not just happening on the main streets. In other incidents, more people are killed on the main streets because more people are on the main streets as compared to more rural areas or side streets. If the bombs were blasting craters in vacant streets the death toll would naturally be lower.

 

[edward]

In the meantime we have a new death toll guestimate by the Iraq health ministry.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/11/11/2003335773

This reminds me of Vietnam when we called such counts a WAG. (wild arse guess)

 

[BobG]

It looks like any debate over whether civil war is inevitable or whether Iraq is already in a civil war will be ended in a few days. Whatever Baker's group's recommendations may be, they'll be too late to ever be implemented.
Sunni mosques attacked
al-Sadr's group may only control 30 seats in the parliament, but I think their effect will be larger than that. It will be the start of the break up of the Iraqi government.

I don't see any hope of maintaining even a semblance of control.

 

[Anttech]

I don't see any hope of maintaining even a semblance of control.

The people in the know, knew that Bush's *experiment* (If you call it that) would end worse than it was started, all those years ago with shock and awe!

 

[Astronuc]

Shiite Ministers Threaten to Boycott Parliament
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6533222

Morning Edition, November 24, 2006 · The political block loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is threatening to withdraw from the Iraqi government if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki meets with President Bush next week in Jordan. The announcement comes on the heals of mass explosions that killed more than 200 people in Sadr City, Baghdad's Shiite stronghold.

Government officials issued a 24-hour curfew after mortars were fired on the holiest Sunni shrine in the capital, a suspected Shiia reprisal to yesterday's triple-car bombing in Sadar city.

Yesterday's violence was the single bloodiest attack since the U.S.- led invasion in 2003, and adds to worries by both the American and Iraqi governments that the sectarian violence could erupt into a civil war.

Well - others maintain that Iraq has been involved in civil war for many months, if not 2-3 years. They however indicate that it could get worse.

Shiite Militiamen Kill 25 Sunnis in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5642694

BAGHDAD, Iraq November 24, 2006, 1:05 p.m. ET · Shiite militiamen doused six Sunni Arabs with kerosene and burned them alive as Iraqi soldiers stood by, and killed 19 other Sunnis in attacks on their mosques Friday, taking revenge for the slaughter of at least 215 Shiites in the Sadr City slum the day before.

The mosque attacks came after the government, in a desperate attempt to avert civil war, imposed a sweeping curfew on the capital, shut down the international airport and closed the country's main outlet to the shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf.

The Mahdi Army militiamen, armed with machines guns and rocket-propelled grenades, swept through Hurriyah neighborhood near an Iraqi army post, burning four mosques and several homes, and attacking worshippers as they left Friday services, said police Capt. Jamil Hussein. Gunmen loyal to the radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had begun to take over the mixed neighborhood this summer and a majority of its Sunni residents had fled.

Sectarian Violence in Baghdad Kills at Least 130
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6531100

This morning, I heard over 144 were killed, but I don't know if that included Shiite retaliation, or its just those killed in Sadr City.

 

[turbo]

This morning, I heard over 144 were killed, but I don't know if that included Shiite retaliation, or its just those killed in Sadr City.

Apparently, those seriously injured in Thursday's attack are still dying. The death toll has topped 215 and Shiite militia have immolated a number of Sunnis in retaliation while Iraqi troops looked on.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_061124144023

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have to laugh when I hear how Iraqi troops or police who stood by idly, or who even participated while civilians were slaughtered, just need more training.

It will be interesting to see how close I came with this poll. It is set to close Dec 21st. Based on what the analysts were saying, I was betting that by then the question would be moot.

 

[Gokul43201]

How does one tell when there's a civil war on? Does it take uniformed armies fighting on battlegrounds, death rates exceeding some number, a group of "experts" deciding to call it that,...what?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Technically, from what I have heard, it requires an effort to overthrow the existing government. But to the average person on the streets of Sadr, I doubt this matters much.

 

[Gokul43201]

Technically, from what I have heard, it requires an effort to overthrow the existing government.

Isn't that what the Sunni insurgency is all about?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the Sunnis and shiites would be trying to kill each other no matter who was governing.

From wiki

An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority. Persons engaging in insurgency are called insurgents, and typically engage in regular or guerrilla combat against the armed forces of the established regime, or conduct sabotage and harassment in the land.

So by one standard, it would seem that the day Bush referred to "insurgents", a state of civil war existed. I assume that they [Bush admin] are playing the sabotage and harassment angle in their interpretation of events.

Or maybe they are terrorists... or are they sectarians... Hmmmm , it seems that we could play word games all day.

 

[Astronuc]

Technically, from what I have heard, it requires an effort to overthrow the existing government. But to the average person on the streets of Sadr, I doubt this matters much.

Well, at least the insurgency has undermined the government. For all intents and purposes, Iraq is embroiled in civil war and has been for about 2-3 years. Several experts, e.g. Peter Galbraith, already use the term civil war. The government has little or no authority in many territories, particularly in the Suni areas, and in many Shii areas, the militia are in control. The infrastructure is largely non-functional, and the government only exists because an occupying foreign army (US) is supporting it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, I guess I was thinking of the government collapsing, or a significant and explicit challenge to the elected government, but it is such a witches brew over there that pretty much all descriptions seem to apply. It is a matter of magnitude.

 

[Anttech]

How does one tell when there's a civil war on? Does it take uniformed armies fighting on battlegrounds, death rates exceeding some number, a group of "experts" deciding to call it that,...what?

I think differing neighborhoods shelling one another because they are of a different religious sect, would be a good gauge

 

[Anttech]

Can you imagine what will go down, when they hang Sadam.. I dread to think..

 

[Skyhunter]

Can you imagine what will go down, when they hang Sadam.. I dread to think..

I suggest they hang Bush along side him, that would please most Iraqi's.

I read that if Maliki meets with Bush in Jordan that the Iraqi parliament may collapse.

Here it is Astronuc posted it.

The political block loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is threatening to withdraw from the Iraqi government if Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki meets with President Bush next week in Jordan. The announcement comes on the heals of mass explosions that killed more than 200 people in Sadr City, Baghdad's Shiite stronghold.

As long as Bush is the face of the US, anything we attempt to do to help solve the problem will meet with strong opposition. It seems that Bush is the poster child for the phrase "ugly American."

 

[Manchot]

This might warrant a new thread, but NBC News is officially labeling the conflict in Iraq a "civil war."

 

[Astronuc]

Maybe the sectarian conflict in Iraq, of which the insurgency is part, is simply a matter of "a difference of opinion" and the guns and bombs are simply used "to emphasize" their points.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is an ominous technical distinction:

MR. RUSSERT: You keep using the words “sectarian violence.” Is it a civil war, in all honesty?

REP. SKELTON: You know, it depends on what you call a civil war.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, what do you think?

REP. SKELTON: Scholars will say no. I will say yes, because the violence is, is so heavy. In true civil wars, Tim, there’s a political goal. There is a way to stop it and shake hands and put an end to it. The sectarian violence, the only purpose is to kill each other. The Sunnis are killing the Shiites, the Shiites killing the Sunnis, and among themselves. But insofar as peace and decorum is concerned, it’s a civil war in, in my book.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15850729/page/5/

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers. ~François Fénelon

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...DONALD KAGAN: Well, the best historical example that jumps into my mind is that the American Civil War, which I don't remember anybody calling it that during the time. In the South, they referred to it as the War Between the States, in order to suggest that they were within their rights in breaking away from the other states. And up here in Connecticut, we referred to it as the Rebellion of 1861.

And it's that sort of thing that has characterized this kind of issue throughout history, I think.[continued]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/civilwar_11-28.html

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The Mahdi Army militiamen, armed with machines guns and rocket-propelled grenades, swept through Hurriyah neighborhood near an Iraqi army post, burning four mosques and several homes, and attacking worshippers as they left Friday services, said police Capt. Jamil Hussein. Gunmen loyal to the radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr had begun to take over the mixed neighborhood this summer and a majority of its Sunni residents had fled.

Just as a matter of interest it is expressly forbidden to burn the enemy in combat in the Koran.

Oh and there is also a hadith against destroying temples or accosting those who dwell there, regardless of their religion.

Further proof if any was needed that there is nothing Islamic about the methods of these insurgents.

 

[Anttech]

Maybe the sectarian conflict in Iraq, of which the insurgency is part, is simply a matter of "a difference of opinion" and the guns and bombs are simply used "to emphasize" their points.

Funny in a dark kinda way

 

[selfAdjoint]

Maybe the sectarian conflict in Iraq, of which the insurgency is part, is simply a matter of "a difference of opinion" and the guns and bombs are simply used "to emphasize" their points.

Funny in a dark kinda way

Somebody else's suffering and death is always a small price to pay for that good feeling of confirming your own correctness.

 

[Anttech]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/

Interesting article/blog regarding why the bbc doesn't define the current problems in Iraq as a civil war.

Somebody else's suffering and death is always a small price to pay for that good feeling of confirming your own correctness.

I wasnt laughing at my correctness, I was laughing at the "monty python" like wit of Astronuc. One can understand many a thing through satire

 

[Astronuc]

Forgive my dark humor, but I was reflecting upon the rationale of the Bush administration that the sectarian conflict in Iraq is NOT a civil war.

I find myself in disbelief sometimes at the absurdity of the reality of the Bush administration.

The situation in Iraq is a horrible tragedy.


Meanwhile, adding to the absurd -

Text of U.S. Security Adviser’s Iraq Memo
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/29/world/middleeast/29mtext.html

Following is the text of a Nov. 8 memorandum prepared for cabinet-level officials by Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, and his aides on the National Security Council. The five-page document, classified secret, was read and transcribed by The New York Times.

Somebody get me off this planet! I have my towel.

 

[Curious3141]

All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers. ~François Fénelon

What's so civil about War anyway? ~Axl Rose, Guns n' Roses

 

[Astronuc]

Iraqi Expatriates in Jordan Recount Personal Stories
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6564639

Morning Edition, December 1, 2006 · It might sound like an unlikely hangout for Iraqi expatriates, but the World Donut cafe in Amman, Jordan, attracts Iraqi doctors, teachers, and intellectuals. Renee Montagne speaks with two exiles from Iraq about their experiences fleeing from home.

I wonder if Iraqis divide along sectarian lines outside of Iraq. I think there is still hope that someone will come along and resolve the conflict among the different groups.

Iraqis Split on Sectarian Lines; Hospitals Follow
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6567172

All Things Considered, December 1, 2006 · Iraq's Health Ministry is controlled by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's movement, under an agreement struck by ruling parties, and sectarian influence has impeded healthcare, according to Dahr Jamail, an independent journalist who's been covering Iraq's healthcare system for Inter Press Service, a nonprofit news organization focusing on developing countries.

Jamail says that in his interviews with doctors at 13 hospitals in and around Baghdad in 2004 and 2005, he discovered a highly politicized healthcare system in Iraq, as well as other challenges facing the country's ailing hospitals.

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/reports/HealthcareUnderOccupationDahrJamail.htm

 

[BobG]

Al-Maliki is probably going to be removed from power very soon.

White House denies move to oust al-Maliki

At a minimum, this is a step back to where the Iraqi government was last winter - arguing among each other to come up with a national leader. In the current climate, I think it will be even more difficult this time around than the first time.

 

[Astronuc]

I've been reading Peter Galbraith's book, "The End of Iraq", in which he picks August 29, 2003 as the beginning of the civil war, basically the sectarian conflict between Sunni and Shii. On the day, an SUV laden with explosives detonated near Ayatollah Bakr al-Hakim as he and others left the Imam Ali mosque. He and 94 others died. And there has been a slow escalation ever since. In addition, there has been a huge internal displacement in Iraq, whereby Sunnis leave and area which is predominantly Shii and vice versa.

The Bush administration has been in deslusion and denial from the very beginning of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Galbraith's book is quite interesting as it delves into the ineptitude, incompetence and corruption of the Bush administration.

 

[Astronuc]

Powell Says U.S. Losing in Iraq, Calls for Drawdown by Mid-2007

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 18, 2006; Page A20

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell said yesterday that the United States is losing what he described as a "civil war" in Iraq and that he is not persuaded that an increase in U.S. troops there would reverse the situation. Instead, he called for a new strategy that would relinquish responsibility for Iraqi security to the government in Baghdad sooner rather than later, with a U.S. drawdown to begin by the middle of next year.

Powell's comments broke his long public silence on the issue and placed him at odds with the administration. President Bush is considering options for a new military strategy -- among them a "surge" of 15,000 to 30,000 troops added to the current 140,000 in Iraq, to secure Baghdad and to accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and others have proposed; or a redirection of the U.S. military away from the insurgency to focus mainly on hunting al-Qaeda terrorists, as the nation's top military leaders proposed last week in a meeting with the president.

But Bush has rejected the dire conclusions of the Iraq Study Group and its recommendations to set parameters for a phased withdrawal to begin next year, and he has insisted that the violence in Iraq is not a civil war.

"I agree with the assessment of Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton," Powell said, referring to the study group's leaders, former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former Indiana congressman Lee H. Hamilton (D). The situation in Iraq is "grave and deteriorating, and we're not winning, we are losing. We haven't lost. And this is the time, now, to start to put in place the kinds of strategies that will turn this situation around."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/17/AR2006121700494.html

Bush is still in denial. But I guess that's no surprise.

Bush is our equivalent to Ahmadinejad.

 

[Astronuc]

Attacks in Iraq at Record High, Pentagon Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/world/middleeast/19military.html

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 — A Pentagon assessment of security conditions in Iraq concluded Monday that attacks against American and Iraqi targets had surged this summer and autumn to their highest level, and called violence by Shiite militants the most significant threat in Baghdad.

The report, which covers the period from early August to early November, found an average of almost 960 attacks against Americans and Iraqis every week, the highest level recorded since the Pentagon began issuing the quarterly reports in 2005, with the biggest surge in attacks against American-led forces. That was an increase of 22 percent from the level for early May to early August, the report said.

While most attacks were directed at American forces, most deaths and injuries were suffered by the Iraqi military and civilians.

The report is the most comprehensive public assessment of the American-led operation to secure Baghdad, which began in early August. About 17,000 American combat troops are currently involved in the beefed-up security operation.

According to the Pentagon assessment, the operation initially had some success in reducing killings as militants concentrated on eluding capture and hiding their weapons. But sectarian death squads soon adapted, resuming their killings in regions of the capital that were not initially targets of the overstretched American and Iraqi troops.

Shiite militias, the Pentagon report said, also received help from allies among the Iraqi police. “Shia death squads leveraged support from some elements of the Iraqi Police Service and the National Police who facilitated freedom of movement and provided advance warning of upcoming operations,” the report said.

. . . .

I heard similar news on other channels.

Maliki's Ties to Sadr Complicate U.S. Mission in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6643020