Apparent Iraqi Civil War

[Bostana]

Propaganda perhaps?
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21134540/vp=52551690&#52551690

[Whale]

It was inevitable. Iraq is a product of GB's imperialist ventures. A country constructed around geography, and not cultural identifications is doomed to fail.

[Rafiq]

It was inevitable. Iraq is a product of GB's imperialist ventures. A country constructed around geography, and not cultural identifications is doomed to fail.

That would be relevant maybe 80 or so years ago. Iraq's mess right now can only be blamed on one thing: The intimate forces of American Imperialism. Actually when Iraq became independent I don't think the prospect of civil war was significant at all. This is a result of how the American state handled the situation in Iraq, which was absolutely disastrous. For Iraq's population.

[Whale]

That would be relevant maybe 80 or so years ago. Iraq's mess right now can only be blamed on one thing: The intimate forces of American Imperialism. Actually when Iraq became independent I don't think the prospect of civil war was significant at all. This is a result of how the American state handled the situation in Iraq, which was absolutely disastrous. For Iraq's population.

I'd have to disagree. If you look at the underlying issues, it's got more in common with Yugoslavia, than any issue of American Imperialism (which only exacerbated the problem itself). Saddam Hussein was the ruling hand that kept the country unified under a primarily Shi'ite (?) lead government that was a minority, and the Sunni population was the majority. After Saddam fell, the majority was back in power and had an axe to grind.

So, echoing sectarian and cultural conflicts from Yugoslavia, all of these religious and cultural forces were essentially reigning unchecked without a strong central government to maintain order. So while the american occupation of the country definitely hastened the destruction of that order, the real problem is a direct result of Iraq's geographical location and the fact that it's borders and lands are mixing cultures and sectarian hotspots.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'd have to disagree. If you look at the underlying issues, it's got more in common with Yugoslavia, than any issue of American Imperialism (which only exacerbated the problem itself). Saddam Hussein was the ruling hand that kept the country unified under a primarily Shi'ite (?) lead government that was a minority, and the Sunni population was the majority. After Saddam fell, the majority was back in power and had an axe to grind.

I think you have that backwards. The Shia are the majority in Iraq IIRC, with the Sunnis in second place, and the Kurds rounding out the remainder of the population in the north. The Ba'ath Party in Iraq was primarily Sunni IIRC

[Whale]

Yes, I get the two mixed up occasionally. Religious crazies are religious crazies to me. Although there are some cultural differences as well.

[Rafiq]

I'd have to disagree. If you look at the underlying issues, it's got more in common with Yugoslavia, than any issue of American Imperialism (which only exacerbated the problem itself). Saddam Hussein was the ruling hand that kept the country unified under a primarily Shi'ite (?) lead government that was a minority, and the Sunni population was the majority. After Saddam fell, the majority was back in power and had an axe to grind.

So, echoing sectarian and cultural conflicts from Yugoslavia, all of these religious and cultural forces were essentially reigning unchecked without a strong central government to maintain order. So while the american occupation of the country definitely hastened the destruction of that order, the real problem is a direct result of Iraq's geographical location and the fact that it's borders and lands are mixing cultures and sectarian hotspots.

Even in Yugoslavia's case, the U.S. did all they could to bolster ethnic tensions by supporting armed nationalist groups, and the same can be said about Iraq.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

That would be relevant maybe 80 or so years ago. Iraq's mess right now can only be blamed on one thing: The intimate forces of American Imperialism. Actually when Iraq became independent I don't think the prospect of civil war was significant at all. This is a result of how the American state handled the situation in Iraq, which was absolutely disastrous. For Iraq's population.

I partially agree with both of you in that the story of Iraq's history is a long, tortured path which led to this event. The US's intervention was a necessary but not sufficient condition for the conflagration in Iraq. Without the earlier policies of Britain, the failures of Iraqi politicians, the Iran-Iraq war and the violent sectarianism of the Baathist government, US Imperialism wouldn't have had the effect it did, but you're right to say that the way that the US intervened was a critical factor in creating the current situation.

[ComradeOm]

So Korea no longer leads the way in incredibly crap computer 'reconstructions'? News to me

But then that's about the only interesting thing in the NBC report. It seems perverse to talk about civil war in Iraq when deaths are a fraction of what they were several years ago (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/). While it's possible that the country is about to tip back into open warfare, on its own I'd take that NBC report as scaremongering


Yes, I get the two mixed up occasionally. Religious crazies are religious crazies to me. Although there are some cultural differences as well.Easy mistake to make. After all, they're all Arabs with the turbans and the mosques and the whatnot. Wackos. Personally, I also get Catholics and Protestants mixed up all the time. Remind me, which one of those has the Pope?


So while the american occupation of the country definitely hastened the destruction of that order, the real problem is a direct result of Iraq's geographical location and the fact that it's borders and lands are mixing cultures and sectarian hotspots.So a state with multiple religions within its borders is an impossibility? Without a military strongman at the helm at least?

[cyu]

Thought I should bump this thread. Good old plutocratic corruption combined with an unemployed ex-military, and throw in some random fighters and weapons from across the border. Not that the insurgents are left-wing (maybe something will emerge later, who knows), but the incumbents certainly are not.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Most of the articles I've read say "Al Qaeda (and moderate Syrian rebel groups) disowned ISIS". When did that happen? What role have they had in relation to other U.S.-backed/armed rebel groups in Syria?

[TC]

It was inevitable. Iraq is a product of GB's imperialist ventures. A country constructed around geography, and not cultural identifications is doomed to fail.

I think this is cultural-essentialist. Lots and lots of countries are mostly defined by geography - consider how many borders fall along rivers, mountain ranges, islands. If anything geography is a great predictor how cultures spread.

Many countries are multi-cultural at their core. Russia, Canada, United States, Spain, Belgium, United Kingdom, Switzerland, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, all have multiple cultures with varied geographic distributions, multiple languages and multiple religions. The nation states of Europe themselves were not emergent properties of culture, rather the states defined the culture and propagated a culture once sufficiently centralized and only within the last few hundred years. When the French Revolution took place only half of the people of "France" spoke "French".

[Invader Zim]

I think this is cultural-essentialist. Lots and lots of countries are mostly defined by geography - consider how many borders fall along rivers, mountain ranges, islands. If anything geography is a great predictor how cultures spread.

Many countries are multi-cultural at their core. Russia, Canada, United States, Spain, Belgium, United Kingdom, Switzerland, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, all have multiple cultures with varied geographic distributions, multiple languages and multiple religions. The nation states of Europe themselves were not emergent properties of culture, rather the states defined the culture and propagated a culture once sufficiently centralized and only within the last few hundred years. When the French Revolution took place only half of the people of "France" spoke "French".

All fair points, but I, like Whale, find it difficult to divorce many of the problems that currently exist in the world, in geo-political terms, from the decision by invading alien entities in the form of European Imperial powers (Britain chief amongst them) to arbitrarily redraw borders (all with political, military, cultural, administrative and economic significance) without any real consideration of what that might mean for the people actually inhabiting these regions or their history.

[cyu]

We anarchists (or at least my kind of anarchists) don't just believe in self-government for Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites, tribes, and other ethnic groups, but we are extremists in the sense that we support self-government down to the person (depending on whether you feel like associating with any other group of people or not). Seems like many political conflicts circle around this issue, but never get at the heart of it.