Civil War In Iraq

[Sandino216]

I'm a new member, and like all of you I oppose to the US occupation of Iraq. But with the country teetering on the edge of civil war, I find myself in a dilemma regarding what I should hope for. From a Leftist standpoint the partisans of theocracy achieving power cannot, it seems to be, be viewed as a good thing. But that's just me. I'm curious to know, what would be the ideal outcome of this PARTICULAR situation, in your minds?

[Martin Blank]

Well, my view of an ideal outcome would be that this sectarian warfare repells Iraqis on all sides and strengthening the revolutionary-democratic and secular forces around the Iraq Freedom Congress and the Federation of Workers' Councils and Unions of Iraq -- thus giving them the mass base to take power and establish a democratic, secular republic.

Miles

[WUOrevolt]

Well, Iraq is only about 77% muslim, and not all of them are religious extremists. As we saw when Iraq was looted and the clerics called for the items stolen to be returned, many of them were not.

I hope that Iraq does not fall into a civil war and I really dont know what will happen if they do fall into a civil war.

[Phalanx]

I think Iraq is more like 98 percent muslim. But of course, only a small minority are muslim extremists.

Iraq, if it descends further into chaos, will probably be a much larger Lebanon. The world may see sectarian feuds, and, if the US troops get out, maybe Iran invading just as Syria had during the Lebanese war.

[Punk Rocker]

Hopefully if there's civil war, there will be so much chaos that the US runs the fuck out of there. Anything would be better for the Iraqi people than being used as corporate monkeys.

[WUOrevolt]

It's 97% Chinghis Khan, sorry, you were right. I apologize for providing false information.

[WUOrevolt]

I wanna hear what Noah thinks of this. I hope he reads this thread and responds.

[Hopes_Guevara]

Anyway I still prefer all of Iraqi uniting to fight against the US marine to carrying a civil war. I think lacking of solidarity, sooner or later a Iraqi Government will arrive to at a compromise with the US regardless of what the side taking the power is.

[somebodywhowantedtoleaveandnotcomeback]

The ideal outcome would be for all Iraqi to stop fighting, live in peace and for all the US soldiers to get the hell out of that country. And for Dubya to get a genital disease.

[chuq]

I believe that the civil war everyone is dreading is inevitable. Saddam was the only thing that kept the divisions among the people in check. To avoid this another heavy handed individual must step forward and take control with the best interests of Iraq in mind, not who speaks for a religion.

The democratically elected government is not that entity. The divisions have been there for centuries and only a strong leader has prevented much voilence.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I've actually been reading a rather good book over the last few days called Insurgent Iraq: al Zarqawi and the New Generation.

It's an account of how the myth of al Zarqawi was created, a short history of the "revolutionary jihad" - from the anti-Soviet jihad onwards - and then an account of what's happening in Iraq.

Indeed, what's quite remarkable about the book, is that the author Loretta Napoleoni (who is she?) gives a kind of class analysis of the different parts of the Insurgency.

Within the Sunni Resistance alone, there are four different currents: Islamo-Nationalist (supported by the Sunni "middle" and "commercial" classes), Ba'athist (ex-military people), Tribal and "revolutionary jihadist" (mostly foreign fighters) - this also makes up a tiny portion of the total insurgency.

Then you have the Shi'ite Insurgency, which is mainly composed of young working class men from urban Baghdad.

What she points out, is that in late 2003 to early 2004, there was a real possibility of the currents combining in a Secular Nationalist Resistance. However, the "revolutionary jihadists" who view the Shi'ites as "infidels" knew a Secular Insurgency would be disastrous for them and therefore starting to stir up ethnic tension - bombing Shi'ites ect.

At this point in time, it unfortunately looks like the "revolutionary jihadists" are being successful, and I'm on a Chapter now called The Balkanisation of Iraq. Needless to say, such a situation would be disastrous for the Insurgency as a whole. :(


Originally posted by CommunistLeague+--> (CommunistLeague)....thus giving them the mass base to take power and establish a democratic, secular republic.[/b]

Something I didn't know until I read the book mentioned above, was that Saddam Hussein before the War had given money and weapons to the population to conduct an Insurgency with a Secular Nationalist viewpoint.

However, since 1991 and the sanctions, Islam made a big comeback in Iraq and with that came the ethnic divisions which could engulf the Insurgency.

Fucking Religion! :angry:


Originally posted by Punk [email protected]
Hopefully if there's civil war, there will be so much chaos that the US runs the fuck out of there.

Yes, hopefully the "coalition" will leave, but unfortunately if there is a Civil War, the probability of ethnic cleansing looks very high.


chuq
Saddam was the only thing that kept the divisions among the people in check.

I'd say that that is a bit of an overstatement.

The divisions were there, but at the current time they seem to be being fuelled by "jihadists" who were formerly based in Afghanistan.

Up until they started launching their attacks against the Shi'ite population, it really looked like "Sadr's Army" and the Nationalist Sunnis were going to unite to drive out the foreign forces.

[Davey]

Sadly, I dont think the Americans are going to leave,Ive read they have plans for something like 14 PERMANENT military bases in Iraq. This suggests Bush is lying about wanting to get out. So I dont think there will be civil war, well not yet anyway, Grand Ayatollah Sistani is doing a good job in calling for moderation from the Shi ite community, in the face of murderous sectarian violence by the Sunni extremists. Incidently, has anyone read NO WAR by Naomi Klien. She talks about how the Bush Junta planned to sell of the whole of Iraq to foreign capital, and how Al Sadr opposed it. I certainly dont agree with the comments that Iraq needs another Saddam to hold the country together. People say the violence will get worse if the U.S. army goes, but the insurgents are fighting the occupation. Thats what half or more of the violence is about. It looks like another Vietnam for the U.S. TO ME. We need to build the anti war movement in Europe and the U.S.

[piet11111]

the best thing for iraq hmm good qestion.

1 annexation by iran to bring some stability to the country.
2 the more western iraqi's over the years undermines the mullahs and bring a democratic government (for asfar as democracy is democratic)
3 installing capitalism (for them its a step up) and allowing atheïsm to prosper.

sure my list may appear strange but its about what is best for iraq right now communism can simply not be achieved there without capitalism providing the materials and knowledge to make it possible.

unfortunaly another lebanon is almost infinitly more likely as america would never allow iran to annex iraq.

[Noah]

I wanna hear what Noah thinks of this. I hope he reads this thread and responds.

Well...Phoning relatives living in the heart of the toil, yesterday, they are saying Shi'ites and Sunnis are killing each other on the streets because of their different beliefs. Or just fighting in general.

It's terrible there now, the problem for my relatives is we are not Christians or Muslims we are the minority of minority (Mandaeans, we are called) because the religion is 6000 years old, alot of people consider Mandaeans infidels either way the Mandaeans lose.

The politics is so complex and backwards in Iraq right now. Shi'tes will vote for Shi'ite parties just because they are Shi'ite not because they are 'the best for them' and some people will say it is the 'will of god' to vote for so and so party because they are Shi'ite or Sunni.

These wars are good for no one, some of my relatives say the Americans want this civil war and caused..for what reason, I'm not sure, I'll ask them, if I have the time and the phone line doesn't get cut off.

'Behind the resistance' is a very good book on the situation in Iraq, it is written by Zaki Chehab.

[chuq]

The big bang has started and to try to figure out who is right and wrong is purely na wasted use of effort. In the past the only thing that kept this type of violence to a minimum was a strong leader. Make no mistake, I do not condone a tolatarian regime, but something must be done to stop Iraqis from killing Iraqis. Especially if the killing is in the name of religion.

The tribal mentality requires retribution for acts committed, and it will be a never ending cycle if nothing is done to find something or someone to control the situation.

[piet11111]

indeed stability and security is the best thing for the iraqi's unfortunatly all the involved party's are trying to tear out the biggest chunk of "iraq" for themselves.

personally i believe iran ought to annex iraq to create stability.
the more westernised iraqi's would then bring in a more moderate form of islam and hopefully make iran less radical and on the way to secularism.

[The Grey Blur]

The Civil War was engineered by the Americans

[Zak]

Originally posted by Rage Against The [email protected] 3 2006, 04:47 PM
The Civil War was engineered by the Americans
I take it you mean the US I don't think Cuba helped engineer it, but could you support this a little bit. Why would bush want to hurt his own policy with a civil war?

[Intifada]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 05:32 PM
Why would bush want to hurt his own policy with a civil war?
Iraqi/Arab nationalism is the biggest threat to US occupation and control over the region as a whole. Indeed, we saw Shia and Sunni Iraqis fighting together against the occupiers earlier on in the invasion/occupation, and that proved to be an effective means of fighting the invading forces.

Now, with Sunni and Shia fighting between themselves, the occupation is not under serious threat.

It is classical "divide and conquer" tactics.

The US neocons can breathe easier.

[piet11111]

Originally posted by Zak+Mar 3 2006, 05:32 PM--> (Zak @ Mar 3 2006, 05:32 PM)
Rage Against The [email protected] 3 2006, 04:47 PM
The Civil War was engineered by the Americans
I take it you mean the US I don't think Cuba helped engineer it, but could you support this a little bit. Why would bush want to hurt his own policy with a civil war? [/b]
my guess would be to generate casualty's and loss of materials.
there is some serious big money in repairing and if needed replacing damaged equipment.
and if soldiers die because of this well too bad money has to be made.
also if they keep fighting america could justify prolonged occupation or if needed a quick withdrawel.
also the fighting is a good way to prevent a unified opponent and this also ensures that there is always something to rebuild aswell.

and dead soldiers also make great propaganda to go out and kick some "terrorist" a$$.
then you also have a means to distract your population from whatever dirty things your doing in the usa.

so many reasons can be mentioned but just keep in mind that no matter how evil something sounds if it can make money they are doing it.

[loneredskin]

It is to be hoped that neither the religious fascists nor an american imperialist puppet faction wins out, but instead a true democratic secular government representing the interests of the Iraqi protelariat. Far-fetched I know. :rolleyes: Is there any significant socialist/leftist presence in Iraq? One thing I do hope is that the Iraqis can unite against imperialist occupation and exploitation of their country. It's true the U.S. plans on staying in Iraq. A marine that just got back from there told me permanent airbases were being built near the Syrian border as he left.

[YSR]

Originally posted by Rage
The Civil War was engineered by the Americans

Okay, I'll buy that it's in the imperialists' interests. But how SPECIFICALLY did they cause it? Do you have any proof to back this up? I suppose it could be argued that indirectly, by removing Saddam, they did so.

But as I understand it, the Americans have been rather unifying in some ways: They've convinced the Iraqis that the Americans need to leave. I could be wrong here, but that's what I'm getting from at least the mainstream press.

[red_orchestra]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 02:05 PM
I believe that the civil war everyone is dreading is inevitable. Saddam was the only thing that kept the divisions among the people in check. To avoid this another heavy handed individual must step forward and take control with the best interests of Iraq in mind, not who speaks for a religion.

The democratically elected government is not that entity. The divisions have been there for centuries and only a strong leader has prevented much voilence.
I completely agree with you! I have a few Iraqi canadian friends who spoke out against the US led- occupation of their homeland. They may not have had much love for Saddam, but they agreed that if their was no central leader the country would fall into civil war. The USA does not understand the realities of the middle east and they are creating a true mess.

these are VERY dangerous times.

[Zak]

Originally posted by Intifada+Mar 3 2006, 05:48 PM--> (Intifada @ Mar 3 2006, 05:48 PM)
[email protected] 3 2006, 05:32 PM
Why would bush want to hurt his own policy with a civil war?
Iraqi/Arab nationalism is the biggest threat to US occupation and control over the region as a whole. Indeed, we saw Shia and Sunni Iraqis fighting together against the occupiers earlier on in the invasion/occupation, and that proved to be an effective means of fighting the invading forces.

Now, with Sunni and Shia fighting between themselves, the occupation is not under serious threat.

It is classical "divide and conquer" tactics.

The US neocons can breathe easier. [/b]
Ok so you have a motive. Is there any proof of this? We can say they started the war to help defense contractors and for oil. We have proff of this like Chaney being a defense contractor, and the ridiculous overcharging of the US government by haliburton. Do you have similar proof for this civil war? I'm not defending the US im just asking for proof.
It's important for us to make our case against the US with sound facts.

[Intifada]

I agree with the following journalist:

Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/2005_10_30.php)

The US is using tactics that heighten the probability of civil war by rushing through this Washington DC- imposed timeline for the political process. That coupled with using state-sponsored civil war, where they have a US-backed Iraqi puppet government that is using the Kurdish and Shia army to fight a primarily Sunni resistance. While most people are loath to the idea of civil war, it is being instigated by the US and their puppet government.

I don't know if you remember September 2005, when undercover British SAS officers in Basra were arrested after acting suspiciously, to say the very least.

Dressed as Arabs, the two soldiers were driving a white car that was packed with weapons and explosives, when Iraqi police challenged them at a security checkpoint.

One Iraqi policemen was killed, and several others were wounded.

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

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 12:11 PM
I agree with the following journalist:

Dahr Jamail's Iraq Dispatches (http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/2005_10_30.php)

The US is using tactics that heighten the probability of civil war by rushing through this Washington DC- imposed timeline for the political process. That coupled with using state-sponsored civil war, where they have a US-backed Iraqi puppet government that is using the Kurdish and Shia army to fight a primarily Sunni resistance. While most people are loath to the idea of civil war, it is being instigated by the US and their puppet government.

I don't know if you remember September 2005, when undercover British SAS officers in Basra were arrested after acting suspiciously, to say the very least.

Dressed as Arabs, the two soldiers were driving a white car that was packed with weapons and explosives, when Iraqi police challenged them at a security checkpoint.

One Iraqi policemen was killed, and several others were wounded.

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

I hope a few more read it to gain a clear understanding of how imperialists work; murder, dirty war, divide and conquer and partitioning rebellious nations.

[Davey]

Yes Intafada, we are on to something here, something that smells rotten. I have not got the leaflets with me, but one talks about the U.S. taking the 'Salvador option' ,in other words using death squads against opponents of the government, quoting an american journalist. And there are mercenaries now employed by the U.S. AS SO CALLED 'advisers', but they are ex S.A.S. I'll quote the articles next time I log in.