Log in

View Full Version : Iraq on the brink of Civil War?



enigma2517
25th February 2006, 00:48
They just imposed a curfew and there have been a ton of sectarian feuds going on.

At least some leaders like al-Sadr have the reasoning to advise against this type of crap. He's always advocated targetting the coalition forces :)

Anyway, this looks serious. What do you all think?

Severian
25th February 2006, 01:29
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 07:15 PM
At least some leaders like al-Sadr have the reasoning to advise against this type of crap. He's always advocated targetting the coalition forces :)
Not so much. By all accounts Sadr's Mahdi Army has been in the forefront of sectarian retaliation against Sunni mosques and individuals for this...last straw in a long list of attacks on the Shi'a.

According to the NYT and other media (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/24/international/middleeast/24mosque.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

And similarly, The "Iraqi Resistance Report" (http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20949&l=i&size=1&hd=0) is denouncing "brutal attacks by Shi'i sectarian Jaysh al-Mahdi militia." Pot, meet kettle.

After a day or so of widespread attacks on Sunni mosques, Sadr comes out against them, and it appears they are coming to a halt.

****

As far as the "resistance", on the other hand, Sunni Arab supremacism seems to be pretty much a given. The major division among them has been whether to participate in the last round of elections in order to make sure Sunni Arabs are represented. Being snowed out by Kurds and Shi'a in the earlier elections produced more division than all the terrorist bombings against Shi'a civilians.


Washington's response has been decidedly...low key. U.S. forces have largely stayed off the streets. And why not, from their viewpoint?

"Let it bleed" worked for them for years in Yugoslavia. Once all sides are exhausted, Washington can impose a settlement, and have all the various sectarians competing for Washington's favor.

Conghaileach
25th February 2006, 02:03
I wouldnt' be surprised if the occupiers were helping to engineer and ramp up sectarianism amongst the Iraqi people. Divide and rule is a favoured tactic of imperialism.

Commie Rat
25th February 2006, 12:17
Let the relgious fools kill each other

bolshevik butcher
25th February 2006, 12:22
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:31 AM
I wouldnt' be surprised if the occupiers were helping to engineer and ramp up sectarianism amongst the Iraqi people. Divide and rule is a favoured tactic of imperialism.
Well by banning most of the secular parties at the election, as they were mainly workers and socialist paries they created a situation where the caididates were natioanlists of a certain religon or ethnic group. The inevitable result is an unstable government and the emergence of various national factions based on ehtnic and religous lines.

This will of course give the U$ an excuse to keep its bases in the country and make sure the oil goes uncle sams way.

Tormented by Treachery
25th February 2006, 15:54
Imagine that, western imperialism leading to a civil war. I think it's about 2 weeks before it becomes full-scale battles, at which point the United States will pull out. "Democracy" will have been accomplished.

BattleOfTheCowshed
25th February 2006, 20:44
Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 02:31 AM
I wouldnt' be surprised if the occupiers were helping to engineer and ramp up sectarianism amongst the Iraqi people. Divide and rule is a favoured tactic of imperialism.
http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/560/..._DirtyWar.shtml (http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/560/560_05_DirtyWar.shtml)

bolshevik butcher
25th February 2006, 20:52
The interesting thing about it all is that the country itself, Iraq was created by British Imperialism.

godfather of soul
25th February 2006, 21:40
I don't think that it benefits the US position to have "engineered" the sectarian "terrorism" that led to the destruction of the mosque in Samara. Who benefits most from this strife is Iran and in the event of full scale civil war, Iran will come out looking a whole lot stronger than the US. If the US uses this as a pretext to attack Iran, by implying that Iran is stoking sectarian violence, then that would hurt the US position even more as most non-US people would see that the US was using those charges to justify strikes on Iran. Bottom line is that the US cannot win a 1-front war, let alone open a new theater against Iran. Trust me, the US does not want civil war...that would destroy their policy goals for the next 20 years.

Severian
26th February 2006, 04:48
Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 25 2006, 06:50 AM
Well by banning most of the secular parties at the election, as they were mainly workers and socialist paries they created a situation where the caididates were natioanlists of a certain religon or ethnic group.
I'm not aware that they banned any parties. They certainly didn't ban all secular parties - in fact they favor Allawi's "secular" National List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election,_December_2005#Iraqi_Na tional_List_.28.23731.29) - a coalition which includes the Iraqi Communist Party.

Some other workers' parties refused to run in the elections, describing them as a sham held under occupation.

But Washington has tended to encourage sectarian and community divisions from the beginning. In its first, appointed councils - nationally and locally - everyone was a representative of some religious or ethnic group, not of any party or organization that might cross those lines.

An Iraqi Communist Party leader was put on the Governing Council....on the condition he not represent the party, but rather the sect he was classified in...Shi'a I think. (Which also adds a dimension to the level of sellout by the ICP - not just serving on the Governing Council, but agreeing to that and other conditions in order to get the seat.)

This doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory, and they may not have intended it to escalate to this pont. Certainly Washington couldn't have done it on their own - the preexisting societal division and the efforts of people like Zarqawi were needed.

But it's a normal part of occupation - divide and rule.

BattleOfTheCowshed
26th February 2006, 07:23
Originally posted by godfather of [email protected] 25 2006, 10:08 PM
I don't think that it benefits the US position to have "engineered" the sectarian "terrorism" that led to the destruction of the mosque in Samara. Who benefits most from this strife is Iran and in the event of full scale civil war, Iran will come out looking a whole lot stronger than the US. If the US uses this as a pretext to attack Iran, by implying that Iran is stoking sectarian violence, then that would hurt the US position even more as most non-US people would see that the US was using those charges to justify strikes on Iran. Bottom line is that the US cannot win a 1-front war, let alone open a new theater against Iran. Trust me, the US does not want civil war...that would destroy their policy goals for the next 20 years.
How would that benefit Iran at all? If it was proven that Iran was trying to fuck up "the road to democracy" in Iran and messing with Iraqi politics then that would completely tarnish their image, especially with Western liberals. How would a civil war upset American policy whatsoever? I see it as being the most profitable option for American Capitalists. Civil war means that in the eyes of most people a continued occupation is warranted, which means that the US is able to have a military presence to protect their financial interests and continued presence in the Middle East. Unless you actually buy the idea that the US was genuinely trying to foster democracy in Iraq or gives the least fuck about how many Americans and Iraqis die. Also, who said they would have to fully engage Iran in a war? A few strategic bombings here and there is all they need to create the right destabilization.

piet11111
26th February 2006, 11:56
also civil war would mean american soldiers being killed material destroyed etc.
this would mean huge profits for the military industry and create a ruined country ready to rebuild for a price.

jaycee
26th February 2006, 12:51
1 theory is (although i'm not sure i agree yet) that the coalition forces mainly british and america can see that iraq is falling apart and see a 3 state settlement as the only viable solution. this would explain why british troops were found and arrested wearing arab clothes and planting bombs about the place.

piet11111
26th February 2006, 13:48
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 01:19 PM
1 theory is (although i'm not sure i agree yet) that the coalition forces mainly british and america can see that iraq is falling apart and see a 3 state settlement as the only viable solution. this would explain why british troops were found and arrested wearing arab clothes and planting bombs about the place.
that makes sense to me.

but how would they try to keep iran from annexing a part ?

maybe its part of the strategy to tear iraq apart hoping iran takes a slice and then go in to beat up iran.
the whole nuclear energy thing is just a nice flavour to sucker the europeans in aswell.
perhaps the iranian situation will turn out to be one of the major crisises that bring down capitalism in the advanced country's.

ComradeOm
26th February 2006, 14:08
Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 01:19 PM
1 theory is (although i'm not sure i agree yet) that the coalition forces mainly british and america can see that iraq is falling apart and see a 3 state settlement as the only viable solution. this would explain why british troops were found and arrested wearing arab clothes and planting bombs about the place.
Does anyone have a link to this story of the SAS men in disguise. I missed that story when it broke.

dso79
26th February 2006, 15:18
Does anyone have a link to this story of the SAS men in disguise.

British troops in pitched battle in Basra (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/basr-s21.shtml)

What was the British SAS doing in Basra? (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/sep2005/basr-s28.shtml)

godfather of soul
26th February 2006, 18:53
Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed+Feb 26 2006, 12:51 AM--> (BattleOfTheCowshed @ Feb 26 2006, 12:51 AM)
godfather of [email protected] 25 2006, 10:08 PM
I don't think that it benefits the US position to have "engineered" the sectarian "terrorism" that led to the destruction of the mosque in Samara. Who benefits most from this strife is Iran and in the event of full scale civil war, Iran will come out looking a whole lot stronger than the US. If the US uses this as a pretext to attack Iran, by implying that Iran is stoking sectarian violence, then that would hurt the US position even more as most non-US people would see that the US was using those charges to justify strikes on Iran. Bottom line is that the US cannot win a 1-front war, let alone open a new theater against Iran. Trust me, the US does not want civil war...that would destroy their policy goals for the next 20 years.
How would that benefit Iran at all? If it was proven that Iran was trying to fuck up "the road to democracy" in Iran and messing with Iraqi politics then that would completely tarnish their image, especially with Western liberals. How would a civil war upset American policy whatsoever? I see it as being the most profitable option for American Capitalists. Civil war means that in the eyes of most people a continued occupation is warranted, which means that the US is able to have a military presence to protect their financial interests and continued presence in the Middle East. Unless you actually buy the idea that the US was genuinely trying to foster democracy in Iraq or gives the least fuck about how many Americans and Iraqis die. Also, who said they would have to fully engage Iran in a war? A few strategic bombings here and there is all they need to create the right destabilization. [/b]
It benefits Iran because the Shiites will most certainly turn to the Iranians for aid etc. They need not get directly involved in the conflict, but would enhance their position among the majority of the Iraqi population by helping to fight "sunni extremists." Iran already has a much stronger position than the US among the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population and a civil war would only make that position stronger. The chance that a shiite state emerges after a sectarian civil war also benefits Iran immensely. That is how Iran benefits from civil war. The US has proven that, even with its miltiary might, it cannot control the country...and that is when everyone is largely fighting AGAINST the US. If everyone starts fighting each other, American control over the country decreases dramatically.

As for Iran meddling in Iraqi politics...it already is! It has been from the very beginning. Al Sistani and all of the religious lists WERE TRAINED IN IRAN! They have a natural inclination to favoring Iran and establishing an iraqi-iranian alliance. It may not be official, but it will certainly exist. Also, Iran doesn't care about how it looks to western liberals. Its focus is not westward. Its focus is in strengthening its position through economic concessions from the Europeans (thus the existence of the current row over its nuclear program) while hummiliating the US. So far, it is well on its way to making both of those goals happen. They could care less about how they are perceived by the Western public. They only care about improving their global position (Euro oil bourse etc.) in elite circles whose opinions really matter.

How does a civil war upset American foreign policy goals? Well, most obviously it proves that the current set of FP goals are worthless, unrealistic and impossibile to attain. The US will not be able to bully the so-called "international community" into tacitly supporting invasions etc. Plus, this war has not been anything other than an economic disaster for the US, in the broadest of terms. Merely financing another campaign of this scope is borderline impossible. Civil war in Iraq would show the complete and total failure of neo-conserative optimism, thusly upsetting FP goals for the future for that particular region.

Civil war will not make the US public want to stay in Iraq any longer. It will hasten the expansion of the majority of Americans who favor a pullout of some sort. It will actually hasten total withdrawl as the pretext of "expanding democracy" will no longer be viable. It increases the likliehood of internal dissent, on a large scale, within the troops themselves. That is what happened in Vietnam...large numbers of troops began to refuse to fight. The same can and will happen in Iraq if the war is no longer about "terrorism" and becomes a sectarian war. All of the pretexts for continued occupation melt away when the struggle among Iraqis becomes more important than the struggle against occupation. There would be no lasting "financial interest" of American capital if the entire country reverted back to invasion-like anarchy. There would not be a single puppet regime to control! Stability suits the US more than chaos...it is much more difficult to plunder a country of its wealth when it is in complete dissaray, than it is when the country is stable and forcibly open to privatization etc.

Lastly, I am not saying that the US would fully engage Iran in a war. However, if the US attacks Iran, Iran will attack Israel. That is the unquestioned reality. If that happens, the prospect for full scale, and even nuclear war go through the roof. The US can do its strategic strikes, but Iran WILL retaliate. It WILL close the straights of Hormuz and it WILL attack Damona in Israel. Those are almost certainties. Given the level of nationalism in Iran right now, I don't think that any number of strategic missile strikes will destabilize the country. It will have the opposite effect.

BattleOfTheCowshed
26th February 2006, 23:12
It benefits Iran because the Shiites will most certainly turn to the Iranians for aid etc. They need not get directly involved in the conflict, but would enhance their position among the majority of the Iraqi population by helping to fight "sunni extremists." Iran already has a much stronger position than the US among the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi population and a civil war would only make that position stronger. The chance that a shiite state emerges after a sectarian civil war also benefits Iran immensely. That is how Iran benefits from civil war. The US has proven that, even with its miltiary might, it cannot control the country...and that is when everyone is largely fighting AGAINST the US. If everyone starts fighting each other, American control over the country decreases dramatically.

The U.S. has already portrayed the Sunni population as the masterminds of terror in Iraq. If the Shiites turned to Iran in a more visible manner (I know its already happening, its just not as known about in the Western media) then that would allow the US to be more brutal to all of the Iraqi population and would give them more justification to take action against Iran. I also see the exact opposite dynamic happening than you do. If everyone is focused on fighting the US then thats a direct threat to the US, not only physically (as in the US's interests are threatened) but also politically, people could start saying "Well, they're all fighting, maybe they dont want us there, lets leave". If the different sects start fighting each other 1. that means less danger for Americans and 2. justification to stay longer to attempt to mediate and stem the conflict. Also, a divided Iraq means that its easier for the US to play one sect against the other, easier for them to impose their own government while they keep the country in chaos, destablize any genuine democracy forming, etc.


As for Iran meddling in Iraqi politics...it already is! It has been from the very beginning. Al Sistani and all of the religious lists WERE TRAINED IN IRAN! They have a natural inclination to favoring Iran and establishing an iraqi-iranian alliance. It may not be official, but it will certainly exist. Also, Iran doesn't care about how it looks to western liberals. Its focus is not westward. Its focus is in strengthening its position through economic concessions from the Europeans (thus the existence of the current row over its nuclear program) while hummiliating the US. So far, it is well on its way to making both of those goals happen. They could care less about how they are perceived by the Western public. They only care about improving their global position (Euro oil bourse etc.) in elite circles whose opinions really matter.

Granted, of couse Iran has had its hand in Iraqi politics since the occupation began, it is still not in the same kind of apparent meddling that military support in a civil war would produce that could significantly affect the international stage. Also, I never stated that Iran had any interest in Western opinion, what I am saying is that Western opinion is interested in them. If Western opinion turns increasingly against Iran, it makes it far more easy for US and Europe to take military action against Iran. Where Iran views its economic interests as being or where it is turning for its future economic developments has nothing to do with it.


How does a civil war upset American foreign policy goals? Well, most obviously it proves that the current set of FP goals are worthless, unrealistic and impossibile to attain. The US will not be able to bully the so-called "international community" into tacitly supporting invasions etc. Plus, this war has not been anything other than an economic disaster for the US, in the broadest of terms. Merely financing another campaign of this scope is borderline impossible. Civil war in Iraq would show the complete and total failure of neo-conserative optimism, thusly upsetting FP goals for the future for that particular region.

Your argument rests on the idea that America's foreign policy goals are to bring democracy, stability etc. to the Middle East. Of course there is no doubt that this is what they claim, I do however believe that their foreign policy goal is to reap massive profits. To the degree that public opinion matters, I have yet to meet anyone who is arguing that civil war would be a reason to leave. Every mainstream liberal/conservative person I talk to states that they would support leaving immediately if Iraq were in better condition, the possibility of civil war is the number one reason they support troops staying. I also disagree that this war has been an economic disaster. True, it has cost the US government a lot of money, but that makes little to no difference to the average CEO. The fact of the matter is that this year, oil companies and military "security" companies are making record profits, and that matters far more than the national debt.


Civil war will not make the US public want to stay in Iraq any longer. It will hasten the expansion of the majority of Americans who favor a pullout of some sort. It will actually hasten total withdrawl as the pretext of "expanding democracy" will no longer be viable. It increases the likliehood of internal dissent, on a large scale, within the troops themselves. That is what happened in Vietnam...large numbers of troops began to refuse to fight. The same can and will happen in Iraq if the war is no longer about "terrorism" and becomes a sectarian war. All of the pretexts for continued occupation melt away when the struggle among Iraqis becomes more important than the struggle against occupation. There would be no lasting "financial interest" of American capital if the entire country reverted back to invasion-like anarchy. There would not be a single puppet regime to control! Stability suits the US more than chaos...it is much more difficult to plunder a country of its wealth when it is in complete dissaray, than it is when the country is stable and forcibly open to privatization etc.

I strongly disagree with your assertion that civil war would make the US public want to pullout of Iraq. Like many people on this board, I spend some considerable time selling my group's newspaper on the street, and thus talking to people, discussing politics etc. The #1 reason people support staying in Iraq? Possibility of civil war. I agree completely about the soldiers in revolt thing, you might be interested in reading this: http://socialistworker.org/2006-1/577/577_...ilProfits.shtml (http://socialistworker.org/2006-1/577/577_10_OilProfits.shtml) . As far as the stability vs chaos thing. I really don't see how Sunni and Shiite groups fighting each other in the middle of Baghdad or some other such city endangers American financial interests whatsoever. It means more security forces/contractors are needed (ergo more profits). As long as the oil fields are secure much of the financial interests is secure. Notice that when the resistance was much more oriented against the occupation that you heard about attacks on oil facilities. Now that sectarian violence is happening? Not so much.


Lastly, I am not saying that the US would fully engage Iran in a war. However, if the US attacks Iran, Iran will attack Israel. That is the unquestioned reality. If that happens, the prospect for full scale, and even nuclear war go through the roof. The US can do its strategic strikes, but Iran WILL retaliate. It WILL close the straights of Hormuz and it WILL attack Damona in Israel. Those are almost certainties. Given the level of nationalism in Iran right now, I don't think that any number of strategic missile strikes will destabilize the country. It will have the opposite effect.

No doubt Iran would retaliate. I think that is why the US has not attacked yet and is trying to build up international anger against Iran. That way if Iran retaliated, they would the international backing to do something more drastic.

Guerrilla22
26th February 2006, 23:26
A civil war has been raging for a while now, its just been recetly that the situation has gotten a great deal of media attention.

mo7amEd
27th February 2006, 00:55
Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 25 2006, 09:20 PM
The interesting thing about it all is that the country itself, Iraq was created by British Imperialism.
No it was not, the land between the two rivers have been existing before islam, and even before britain.

todays borders of iraq are very similar to the classic mesopotamia (which is the same as iraq), but iraq only became a legimite country when it kicked out the brits.

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

back the the topic:

there is speculations that the CIA was behind this operation, but I do not know how close the truth that is.

Civil War in Iraq: Who are the Winners and Who are the Losers

"We have widespread evidence that the outside forces are attempting to instigate a civil war here and Iraqis are conscious of that and have made determined effort not to respond to it" (Dr. Saad Jawad, a political scientist at Baghdad University.)

When a crime is committed, the obvious question to ask is: what was the primary motive and who stands to benefit. The answers would lead to building up a list of suspects. Therefore, at the very least, let us ask the obvious questions before apportioning blame to a particular community or group. Almost everyone concurs that, the primary motive behind the bombings of the Askariyah shrine was to ignite civil war along sectarian lines. The main beneficiary would be the US led coalition forces, as they would face less resistance due to the Sunni-Shia infighting. A deeply divided Iraqi population is less able to channel and focus their collective opposition against the US-led invaders.



It is an axiom that power in the international arena is always determined by the power of rival nations. Naturally, if civil war in Iraq ignites, that would further weaken its position in relation to Israel; another significant beneficiary of a civil war. Logic dictates that the primary suspects behind the bombings of the Askariyah shrines are the US, UK and Israel, most likely a joint CIA, MI5 and Mossad operation. Many would simply dismiss it as a conspiracy theory, but remember to suit the interests of the state, political analysis are often dismissed as conspiracy theory or disseminated by the state as a legitimate point of view.



As expected, the western dominated media wasted no time in blaming the ubiquitous Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Musab Al-Zarqawi and the likes. Blaming the Sunni-led Iraqi resistance for the recent bombings is bizarre, as they have the most to lose from a civil war, as explained above. The city of Samara where the Askariyah shrine is located was under the control of Sunni-Arab resistance, but the Shi’ites places were never attacked, the same can be said for other places that the Sunni-Arab resistance was in control of. Moreover Islamic laws clearly prohibit attacking any place of worship, e.g. Mosques (Sunni or Shi’ites), Churches and Synagogues.



If you examine the mass media, the statements from political commentators to senior politicians, they are the ones who have been promoting the idea of a civil war; it has been constantly on their lips, and constantly amplified by the media. From the onset of the invasion the occupational forces have tried to inflame the sectarian violence to ignite a civil war. It was they who constantly talked about dividing Iraq into the three regions, by constantly alluding to Sunni-Arabs and Shi’ites-Arabs and Kurds (note majority Kurds are also Sunnis). To incite the Shi’ites, they kept reminding them of how the minority Sunni-Arabs have dominated the country for centuries. Likewise, to incite the Kurds, they kept reminding them of their rights over the Kirkuk oil fields and the domination by the Arabs for centuries. Indeed, divide and rule has always been a very effective colonial tool.



Accordingly, the US began to appoint people on the basis of promoting a sectarian conflict. They filled the military, police and other influential positions largely with the Shi’ites and the Kurds. The US forces used these sectarian based militias to attack the Sunni dominated town of Fallujah and other similar towns; this naturally incited the Sunni-Arabs. Then, elections were held under US occupation, which clearly favoured the groups that provided the least resistance to the US occupational forces. Only recently dead bodies of Sunnis were discovered, tortured to death by the Shi’ite dominated regime.



The US hoped that Shia-Sunni schisms would eventually surface - when this did not occur they tried to ignite it themselves. The bombings of Shi’ite Mosques and other similar places were never carried out by the Sunni-led resistance, and no genuine group came forward to admit this. In fact, most of the killings and kidnappings have been blamed on a particular community with little or no evidence in order to incite sectarian feuds, hoping that it would culminate into a full scale civil war. This was largely part of the counter-insurgency activity; and clearest evidence for it was shown by the capture of the two British soldiers last September, who were dressed as Arabs armed with explosives and remote detonations.



Can anyone explain how it would server the interest of any Iraqi group by killing so many Iraqi academics, which the main stream press have kept quiet about? Not surprisingly, many of Iraq’s senior nuclear scientists have been eliminated. Is this the work of the Sunni-led resistance? Nuclear scientists are an asset to any nation. Another clear proof of the coalition forces engaged in terrorism and counter-insurgency activities.



Fortunately, many of the Iraqis have realised the conspiracy to ignite civil war and have resisted all the provocations to their full credit. It is commendable that both Sunni and Shi’ite leaders have called for restraint, and have denied that Sunnis were behind the bombings as no clear evidence has been provided. Another pertinent point is that, in its entire history, Iraq’s sectarian-based conflict never took place, so why should it erupt now? If it does, it cannot be down to coincidence but directly related to the designs of the foreign occupational forces as they have the most to benefit from a civil war.



Some of the Shi’ites are angry towards Sunnis as they are the prime suspect in their eyes, but most have started to blame the US and Israel. Even it is found that some extreme Sunnis were behind the bombings, primary blame still lies with the US, because there were no such attacks prior to the war. The war and the subsequent occupation created the climate for such types of attack.



Moqtada as-Sadr has called on the Sunnis to join the Shi’ites in condemning those Sunnis who have attacked Shi’ite places, but how many have called on the Shi’ite to join the Sunni-led resistance. On the contrary, seeking sectarian interests, Shi’ites and Kurds have provided the greatest level of cooperation to the US forces. For example, Ayatollah Sistani, the most influential Shi’ite scholar in Iraq ordered his followers not to resist the US forces, therefore implicitly aiding the US forces against the Iraqi resistance. He was treacherously silent over Abu-Ghraib and the Fallujah massacre. Therefore, by his conduct, he participated in killing the men, women and children in Fallujah alongside the Americans.



Shi’ites ought to consider the point that anyone cooperating with the US is a legitimate target for the Iraqi resistance. Hence, the Sunni-led resistance targeted all collaborators, Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds. Attacks were never driven by ones sectarian identity but the degree of cooperation with the US-led forces.



Many of the commentators view the recent events in the context of the US preparing for an attack on Iran.



Recent bombings of the holy shrines were designed to ignite a civil war and give the US an excuse to drag Iran into the conflict or initiate an attack on her.


The Danish cartoon incident was engineered by the neo-cons behind the scene to magnify the anti-Islamic climate in Europe, which would reduce the level of opposition in Europe, if Iran is attacked jointly by the US and Israel.


The nuclear crisis with Iran is always looming to escalate even though Iran has not violated the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) treaty. Clearly the crisis has been manufactured by the West as pretext to attack Iran and like Iraq’s WMD it is a lie.


Finally, Iran’s oil is now being traded in euros instead of the US dollar and they are preparing to establish an oil bourse to trade oil using the euro – this will threaten to eradicate the petro-dollar, and weaken the US dollar significantly, posing a serious threat to the US economy and its super power status. No wonder Iran is part of the axis of evil. This may be the most significant reason behind the conflict with Iran.


Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org)

London, UK



Copyright © 2006 by Yamin Zakaria

godfather of soul
27th February 2006, 01:11
The U.S. has already portrayed the Sunni population as the masterminds of terror in Iraq. If the Shiites turned to Iran in a more visible manner (I know its already happening, its just not as known about in the Western media) then that would allow the US to be more brutal to all of the Iraqi population and would give them more justification to take action against Iran. I also see the exact opposite dynamic happening than you do. If everyone is focused on fighting the US then thats a direct threat to the US, not only physically (as in the US's interests are threatened) but also politically, people could start saying "Well, they're all fighting, maybe they dont want us there, lets leave". If the different sects start fighting each other 1. that means less danger for Americans and 2. justification to stay longer to attempt to mediate and stem the conflict. Also, a divided Iraq means that its easier for the US to play one sect against the other, easier for them to impose their own government while they keep the country in chaos, destablize any genuine democracy forming, etc.

I seriously disagree with your intial analysis over giving cause for the US to be more brutal. If the US were to respond to a more open Shiite aliance with Iran with increased violence againt shiites, then US interests would definitely be hurt. The US WANTS the Shiites engaged in the political process in order to keep them from openly rebeling. Open civil war prevents the Shiite population from engaging in the political process and makes controlling them much more difficult. You act as if the entire Iraqi government is a total puppet of the US...that most certainly is not the case. The shiites are playing ball specifically to outmaneuver the US. Outright fraud in the elections has prevented the Shiites from taking outright control and from being expressly pro-Iran. The US wants to keep them engaged in the process specifically to keep them from fighting WITH the insurgency and to keep them from building even stronger bonds with Iran. If there is a civil war, there will be nothing to restrain an open and very public shiite reliance on iranian aid. Not to say that there isn't a significant portion of the insurgency that is shia, but most shia militia do not openly engage in warfare with the US like they did at one point. It would be extremely counterproductive to US interests for the US military to brutally suppress the shia. Sadr's rebellion proved that.

It has been clear since day 0 that the Iraqis never wanted the US there. Americans want to "finish the job" but that is clearly changing. If the situation degenerates into hopeless civil war, yes there will be a significant portion of the population who says that we should stay and keep the peace, but at the same time they will not tolerate the high level of US casulties that it would take to sustain the peace. Most Americans don't believe that being there is a good idea NOW, and that was before this most recent powder-keg was lit. If it gets worse, and US soldiers are killed (like they were today) then the public will be even less likely to tolerate it. The public tolerates it now because the US is fighitng a phantom, faceless enemy (the insurgency) and most Americans don't want to "lose to the insurgents." The sunni cannot win an open civil war agains the Shia and the US knows this. Again, another reason why it is far from the interest of the US to even tacitly support civil war.

As for the sects fighting each other meaning less risk to US troops...I seriously doubt that. In fact quite the opposite would probably happen. The insurgency would take advantage of the chaos to attack US forces more frequently, not less. The US would inevitibly botch "peace-keeping" and incite the wrath of the shia, and Shia militia would intentionally draw US forces into open battles with them (Remember Najaf? Sadr? That was a military disaster for the US). To say that civil war means an easier time for the US is living in dreamworld. Chaos does not lend support to a military occupation. Tight, almost Orwellian control of the population does...tricking the population into supporting rigged elections does. When everyone is fighting everyone else, then the occupier cannot possibly maintain control and plunder the people's wealth. The US has been playing one side against each other quite effectively now...however it hasn't been doing it with the intention of stirring up open and widespread civil war. Warfare makes it harder to pit political sides against one another because they will refuse to even come to the table to be manipulated. The fake elections took place during a time of relative calm. Nothing like that is even remotely possible under an open warfare situation.


Granted, of couse Iran has had its hand in Iraqi politics since the occupation began, it is still not in the same kind of apparent meddling that military support in a civil war would produce that could significantly affect the international stage. Also, I never stated that Iran had any interest in Western opinion, what I am saying is that Western opinion is interested in them. If Western opinion turns increasingly against Iran, it makes it far more easy for US and Europe to take military action against Iran. Where Iran views its economic interests as being or where it is turning for its future economic developments has nothing to do with it.

Where do the Shia militia get their weaponry? The tooth fairy? Where do they receive military training? On a basketball court in philadelphia? Of course they are trained in Iran or in Iraq BY Iranians! Rummsfeld already tried to play the "Iran is supplying the insurgency" card. But the reality is that Iran is not supplying the insurgency, they are supplying the Shiite militia. Is the US going to stand up and say "Shia militia! You have no right to arm yourselves!" That would result in exactly the reaction that the US does not want.

As for Iran being seen any more negatively in the US press, I would like to see that happen. It cannot get any worse! There is some serious brinksmanship going on here from both ends. Iran is pushing as hard as it can in an attempt to get concessions from Europe...it is also trying to increase its international standing by hummiliating the US. It knows that the US public will not tolerate open warfare, and is pushing because of that. The US cannot attack Iran beyond strategic strikes because the public will not tolerate it. Iran knows that the worst they have to fear are tactical strikes from cruise missiles. If Iran is attacked its international standing GOES UP! HOwever, what no one in the western media is saying is that if THAT happens they will close Hormuz, launch a Euro bourse and drive the price of oil through the roof. I would also wager that Europe only supports the rhetoric behind what is happening in regards to Iran. It is not in their economic interest to allow an attack on Iran. They want a Euro bourse, they just can't say it because of the repurcussions that it would have. They have close economic ties to Iran (especially Russia and France) and in their short-term interest it is better to talk tough and placate the US than it is to speak honestly. I promise you that Iran will take the Russian deal after it has pushed as hard and as far as it can go.


Your argument rests on the idea that America's foreign policy goals are to bring democracy, stability etc. to the Middle East. Of course there is no doubt that this is what they claim, I do however believe that their foreign policy goal is to reap massive profits. To the degree that public opinion matters, I have yet to meet anyone who is arguing that civil war would be a reason to leave. Every mainstream liberal/conservative person I talk to states that they would support leaving immediately if Iraq were in better condition, the possibility of civil war is the number one reason they support troops staying. I also disagree that this war has been an economic disaster. True, it has cost the US government a lot of money, but that makes little to no difference to the average CEO. The fact of the matter is that this year, oil companies and military "security" companies are making record profits, and that matters far more than the national debt.

You are misguided if you think profit is at the forefront of US FP goals. Read Brezinsky's Chess Board to get a good sense of what is really important to these people. Profit is a major concern, don't get me wrong, but global political dominance is more important than just profits. Read anything from PNAC, or Herritage, or AEI and you will see that it is about far more than profits. We aren't talking about rational actors here. We are talking about a bunch of Leo Strauss protege's whose idealism puts the entire world at risk. They care more about those ideals than they do profits. Profits are a part, but they are by no means the end game (more of a great fringe benefit).

As for public opinion. If you ask someone "if the situation in Iraq gets incredibly LESS stable (meaning more troop deaths and more financial and military commitment), should we stay or should we leave?" I promise you that the majority would say that it is time to go. They say that we should stay to "prevent" civil war. Well, what happens if we are there and civil war errupts anyway? What will people say? IMO and of those that I have posited MY question to, they say "get out...it's not worth it." Most people are already at that place, and that is with the relative stability of the last few months (where most people are shooting at us!).

This war has been an economic disaster for all but a very few people. That is the definition of a disaster...it affects a large, not small, number of people. The US has sold itself to China so that a few corporations can get rich. IMO all the better because it will hasten the collapse of this system and bring about the conditions for which a revolution could actually happen. In terms of economic consequences for the average person: social spending has been drastically cut, inter-generational taxation is at an all-time high, and fuel prices continue to rise. You can only borrow so much and you can only cut social services so much before the people rebel. A super small minority of people have gotten rich and have enriched those closest to them at the expense of the greatest good. That is classicaly capitalist and will help lay the ground for significant change. It is just like pre-revolution semi-feudal socities...they are engaging in the same economically disastrous wealth concentration that led to their downfalls.


I strongly disagree with your assertion that civil war would make the US public want to pullout of Iraq. Like many people on this board, I spend some considerable time selling my group's newspaper on the street, and thus talking to people, discussing politics etc. The #1 reason people support staying in Iraq? Possibility of civil war. I agree completely about the soldiers in revolt thing, you might be interested in reading this: http://socialistworker.org/2006-1/577/577_...ilProfits.shtml . As far as the stability vs chaos thing. I really don't see how Sunni and Shiite groups fighting each other in the middle of Baghdad or some other such city endangers American financial interests whatsoever. It means more security forces/contractors are needed (ergo more profits). As long as the oil fields are secure much of the financial interests is secure. Notice that when the resistance was much more oriented against the occupation that you heard about attacks on oil facilities. Now that sectarian violence is happening? Not so much.

Of course you assume that I do not do the same thing. However, I am not in the ISO, so I guess that means that I am less privy to the opinions of the "man on the street." The people I speak with agree that chaos does not suit American economic interests. The stability of a lap-dog government does. That was the model the US followed for just about evey conflict before this (see central AMerica in the 1980s) and that is the model that the US is trying to follow now. How can you pump the wealth from formerly nationalized interests if they are not stable? If they are constantly under attack? If there is no one to manage them? How? More security forces is not a given (as the US public will not, under any rational set of circumstances, support a massive increase in troop levels). Where are they going to get these thousands of contractors to do blackwater style operations? Where? How many AMericans do you see clammoring to go and sign up to contract in Iraq NOW? Do you honestly believe that more will sign up when the security situation is WORSE? You are arguing a very naive position if you think that US corporations want to try and extract wealth from a war zone over a stable and semi-friendly government. In regards to the oil fields being secure. They hardly are and all of the pipelines are attacked on a weekly, if not daily basis. If there is a civil war, those attacks will increase dramatically as all sides will fight to prevent ONE drop of natrual resources from being expropriated and put into the hands of a "government" that no one follows. At leat now there is some buy-in...if there is a civil war, there will be no buy-in whatsoever.

If civil war happens, it most certainly will turn into a situation like Afgahanistan in the 1980s under soviet occupation...however, the US public will not tolerate it for as long as the Soviets did. But that is the BEST CASE scenario if civil war errupts.

Lastly, if Iran retaliates to tactical/strategic strikes...the US has one option: nukes. I don't think that is really an option. So, we will see how all of this brinksmanship plays out. I am inclinded to think that conflict will be avoided at the last second as Europe gives economic concessions to Tehran and the Russians enrich their uranium for them. If Israel does anything, then all bets are off.

Hiero
27th February 2006, 01:45
No it was not, the land between the two rivers have been existing before islam, and even before britain.

todays borders of iraq are very similar to the classic mesopotamia (which is the same as iraq), but iraq only became a legimite country when it kicked out the brits.

Land and Country is different. Of course there has always been the land of Iraq, but the country Iraq was created by British imperialism. Iraq currently is country that posses 3 main nations. The Kurdish nation in the north which is southern Kurdistan, the Sunni Arabs in the middle and the Shia Arabs in the south.

Mesopotamia was a state that existed a long time ago, nations have disappeared and assimilated and some nation have grown over that time. You can no longer compare Mesopotamia to Iraq except in land.

I think you are confused over nations and countries, and what their rights are.

I think it was very important that clenched fist has brought the point up about Iraq being a creation of British imperialism. There has obviously been a long history of National oppression in Iraq, with one national group been giving the power to dominate other nations.

There is no doubt that oppressed nations will eventually call for national liberation. However i believe that in a Iraq a separatist war is not the correct way. The biggest oppressor is US imperialism and the major contradiction in Iraq right now is the US imperialst and the Iraq country.

The current war should be a people's war. This involves a National front of all nations in Iraq, and all classes in Iraq to be lead by the proletariat. Then after liberation from US imperialism national liberation should be dealt with and the right of nations to decide their own destiny must be followed.

While there is a sectarian war going on, then in this way the National Front is not created. And so the US imperialist do benifit from the sectarian war without even realising it.

Janus
27th February 2006, 02:28
Here's some of the latest news from Iraq.

BBC News

A barrage of mortar attacks in southern Baghdad has killed at least 16 Iraqis, while seven others died across Iraq.
A police source told the BBC that a total of eight mortars had been fired into the mainly Shia area of Doura.

The attacks come after days of sectarian tensions that have left at least 165 dead since Wednesday.

Political and militia leaders say they have made progress in talks to curb the violence that was sparked by the bombing of a major Shia shrine.

However, an explosion hit a Shia shrine in the southern city of Basra on Sunday.

But the bomb, placed in the building's toilets, caused little damage and there were no serious injuries.

The mortar rounds were fired into the neighbourhood of Doura - first into residential streets and then at a fruit market.
Doura is frequently targeted by insurgents, says the BBC's Jon Brain in Baghdad.

Earlier this week, 11 people were killed in the same district by a car bomb.

A daytime curfew in Baghdad, imposed to try to contain the spiralling violence, has been lifted but a 24-hour ban on road traffic remains in place.


In other violence on Sunday:

Two people are killed and six others are wounded when gunmen open fire on a group of people playing football near Baquba, 60km (36 miles) north-east of Baghdad

Two US soldiers die in a roadside bombing in Baghdad

A doctor is shot dead in his surgery in Mosul

A police officer is killed and two are wounded by roadside bombs near Madain, south of Baghdad

In Ramadi, a general in the army under Saddam Hussein is shot dead

The bodies of three men, bound and shot in the head, are discovered outside Baghdad

A bomb in Hilla, south of Baghdad, injures five people at a bus station
Security deal

Salah al-Mutluq, who heads the Iraqi Front for National Dialogue, told the BBC a new security plan had been worked out by Sunni and Shia leaders that could help relieve tensions.

It involved removing Shia-dominated interior ministry forces, including police, from sensitive Sunni areas.
Instead, these districts would be patrolled by the Iraqi army and multinational troops, he said.

Interior ministry police have been implicated in a number of "death squad" killings of Sunnis.

Residents of Abu Ghraib in western Baghdad told the BBC on Sunday that the Iraqi army appeared already to have taken over street patrols from interior ministry forces.

The bombing of the al-Askari shrine in the city of Samarra, one of the country's holiest Shia sites, has led to fears that Iraq may descend into civil war.

If these bombings continue to occur then a civil war is very likely. However, the only thing that can be declared with certainty is that this will definitely hamper the time schedule for troop withdrawals.

Severian
27th February 2006, 08:43
Originally posted by godfather of [email protected] 26 2006, 07:39 PM
I seriously disagree with your intial analysis over giving cause for the US to be more brutal. If the US were to respond to a more open Shiite aliance with Iran with increased violence againt shiites, then US interests would definitely be hurt. The US WANTS the Shiites engaged in the political process in order to keep them from openly rebeling.
Exactly right. Now, Washington only has to fight an insurgency based among a minority of the population, and detested by the Shi'a majority as well as the Kurds. Their whole strategy is to enlist Shi'a and Kurds to fight the insurgency.

That does require and benefit from sectarian division - but if the Shi'a do get pushed too far towards Iran, that's a problem. So yes, Washington probably doesn't want the level of sectarian conflict to escalate to full-scale warfare..


You act as if the entire Iraqi government is a total puppet of the US...that most certainly is not the case.

Right. And all conspiracist views tend to treat the enemy as all-powerful, as behind all events.


The shiites are playing ball specifically to outmaneuver the US.

Also to maximize their own power within Iraq. That's one of the ways Washington benefits from sectarian division: they hope to get all the different groups trying to curry favor with Washington. Competing for Washington's favor in order to end up on top relative to other groups.


The US wants to keep them engaged in the process specifically to keep them from fighting WITH the insurgency and to keep them from building even stronger bonds with Iran.

Little chance of the first; everyone in Iraq is clear by now the insurgency is heavily Ba'athist and then there's the Zarqawi element of it. If you said "specifically to keep them fighting against the insurgency..." that sentence would be exactly right.


If there is a civil war, there will be nothing to restrain an open and very public shiite reliance on iranian aid.

Aside from the need to keep Washington on their side of the civil war. But it's probably true it would push them towards Iran.


Not to say that there isn't a significant portion of the insurgency that is shia,

Why not say it? Occasionally there's some attack in the south, but that's not terribly significant...and not part of anything together with the Ba'athists and Zarqawi.


If the situation degenerates into hopeless civil war, yes there will be a significant portion of the population who says that we should stay and keep the peace, but at the same time they will not tolerate the high level of US casulties that it would take to sustain the peace.

There would be another option, the Yugoslavia strategy. Let it bleed. Fort up on the bases while Iraqis concentrate on killing each other, and mostly leave the U.S. alone (as is increasingly happening anyway.) Dribble aid to one or another side to prolong things until all sides are exhausted, then impose a settlement which all sides will have to accept.

Worked beautifully and with very few U.S. casualties in Yugoslavia. But Washington would prefer to reach its goals more quickly, I'm sure. (And in a number of respects seems on track to doing so.)

Washington would be blamed for the chaos in much of public opinion, also - which is manageable, they specialize in turning their failures into new self-justifications. But probably preferable to avoid.


The insurgency would take advantage of the chaos to attack US forces more frequently, not less.

That doesn't make sense; the Ba'athists capacities would be enhanced by having to fight the Shi'a militia and enraged population?


and Shia militia would intentionally draw US forces into open battles with them

Why? Each side from the civil war would want the U.S. to help them against their enemies; easier than trying to win against your domestic enemies plus the U.S.

They would compete for Washington's favor - as they're increasingly doing already.,


(Remember Najaf? Sadr? That was a military disaster for the US).

What are you talking about? In military terms, that was a disaster for the Sadrists; they were incompetent fighters and took heavy casualties.

In political terms, it was damaging to Washington; and shocking in that they thought Sadr had little support. They didn't expect widespread fighting when Bremer provoked the Sadrists into rising up.

So yes, they decided they wanted to avoid that in future...and they've been successful so far in coopting Sadr - and in a growing rift between Sadr and the Sunni Arab insurgency.


tricking the population into supporting rigged elections does.

And how did they get the population to support the elections? By sectarian division. Each group participated in order to get an advantage over the others - and to make sure the others didn't have a monopoly control of the government.

That's quite explicitly why Sunni Arab groups finally participated in the December elections.


Profit is a major concern, don't get me wrong, but global political dominance is more important than just profits. Read anything from PNAC, or Herritage, or AEI and you will see that it is about far more than profits. We aren't talking about rational actors here.

Sounds fairly rational to me: more rational than worrying about short-term profit while letting their control of the world go down the toilet.


The US has been playing one side against each other quite effectively now...however it hasn't been doing it with the intention of stirring up open and widespread civil war

Here I agree completely.

At least if "civil war" means what it usually seems to: chaos, unauthorized militias, retaliatory attacks on Sunni civilians, clergy, mosques...

But what do you call it if more and more Shi'a and Kurds are enlisted in the army and police, become more effective and motivated, more and more seeing it as their war? If the war against the Sunni Arab insurgency becomes more and more Iraqi vs. Iraqi, with the U.S. able to take more of a support role?

Isn't that, in a sense, turning the imperialist war into a civil war?

mo7amEd
2nd March 2006, 00:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:13 AM
Land and Country is different. Of course there has always been the land of Iraq, but the country Iraq was created by British imperialism. Iraq currently is country that posses 3 main nations. The Kurdish nation in the north which is southern Kurdistan, the Sunni Arabs in the middle and the Shia Arabs in the south.

Mesopotamia was a state that existed a long time ago, nations have disappeared and assimilated and some nation have grown over that time. You can no longer compare Mesopotamia to Iraq except in land.

I think you are confused over nations and countries, and what their rights are.

I think it was very important that clenched fist has brought the point up about Iraq being a creation of British imperialism. There has obviously been a long history of National oppression in Iraq, with one national group been giving the power to dominate other nations.

There is no doubt that oppressed nations will eventually call for national liberation. However i believe that in a Iraq a separatist war is not the correct way. The biggest oppressor is US imperialism and the major contradiction in Iraq right now is the US imperialst and the Iraq country.

The current war should be a people's war. This involves a National front of all nations in Iraq, and all classes in Iraq to be lead by the proletariat. Then after liberation from US imperialism national liberation should be dealt with and the right of nations to decide their own destiny must be followed.

While there is a sectarian war going on, then in this way the National Front is not created. And so the US imperialist do benifit from the sectarian war without even realising it.
There is nations and there is etnicities.

It's not like every etnicity has its own country, or else USA would be lots of nations now.

Still I can say that Kurdistan is a different nation than Iraq, but Sunnis and Shia are not different etnicities. They are the same arabs with different beliefs. You have not been in Iraq to see the mentality of people, this sectarian conflict is temporary and will end when situation has camled down. In reality Kurdistan could (and should) split away, but the rest is Iraq.

With your logic then sunni arabs in Iraq are closer to syrians than to the shia population in south, and me (as an Iraqi) to be honest I am closer to christians and even yezidis (an old zoroatristic religion) than to syrians. I'm not arab but I am as Iraqi as any anyone from north to south.

Sure the state of Iraq was created in the 20's but the borders where always obvious, since Iraqis have a different past, different culture than other arab countries.

My point is tha todays Iraqi borders was no coinsidence.

btw, Mesopotamia was never a state, it is an area where alot of empires occured in.

Tekun
2nd March 2006, 07:32
Divide and conquer, thats how America has been able to conquer the world
I don't believe for a second, that Iraqi's would bomb Muslim mosques and kill other innocent muslims

This is the work of America's propaganda machine, in order to show that the Iraqi's are the one's guilty for creating a civil war
I mean, how is a suicide bomber gonna destroy a huge mosque? Ridiculous :lol:
An American missile destroyed the mosque

I say, keep resisting Iraq
Blow those American automatons into pieces