PDA

View Full Version : the civil war in Iraq



LeeG
07-09-2007, 10:34 AM
this is as good a clue as any it's under way. It's mind boggling how many delusional concepts have been floating around the US to explain what's going on there. Supposedly the militias were bad and the Iraqi military is good but there were regions of Iraq with no "Iraqi" or US military force for years. Now it's the Iraqi gov't is recommending Iraqis do what they've been doing all along.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,141662,00.html

The call for civilians to take up arms in their own defense was echoed Sunday by the country's Sunni Arab vice president, Tariq al-Hashemi, who said all Iraqis must "pay the price" for terrorism.

"People have a right to expect from the government and security agencies protection for their lives, land, honor and property," al-Hashemi said in a statement. "But in the case of (their) inability, the people have no choice but to take up their own defense."

He said the government should provide communities with money, weapons and training and "regulate their use by rules of behavior."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

speaking of delusions. The neocons and their sock puppet support the troops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/08/AR2007070800923_pf.html


The White House no more expected Domenici to jump overboard than it did Lugar. The shock of Lugar's speech was the reason Hadley quickly scheduled sessions with senior Republican senators such as Lugar and Chuck Hagel, the top two GOP members on the Foreign Relations Committee, and John Warner, former chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "The president has sent me up here on a scouting mission," Hadley said to begin the meetings.

Always deferential, Hadley took copious notes. But he did more than listen. Based on what Hadley said, one senator concluded that "they just do not recognize the depth of the difficulty they are in." That difficulty entails running out of troops in nine months. Hadley increased latent fears of the U.S. military being made the fall guy -- a concern shared by many retired and some active senior officers, including a current infantry division commander

Tristan
07-09-2007, 10:50 AM
And yet the mantra goes on, "If our troops pull out the country will descend into a civil war (repeated loudly in the midst of a civil war)."

High C
07-09-2007, 10:59 AM
And yet the mantra goes on, "If our troops pull out the country will descend into a civil war (repeated loudly in the midst of a civil war)."

"Iraqis warn of civil war if U.S. troops withdraw"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070709/pl_nm/iraq_dc_18;_ylt=AhgAMQThujA4_767nc0Q4Z8E1vAI

ccmanuals
07-09-2007, 11:48 AM
"Always deferential, Hadley took copious notes. But he did more than listen. Based on what Hadley said, one senator concluded that "they just do not recognize the depth of the difficulty they are in." That difficulty entails running out of troops in nine months. Hadley increased latent fears of the U.S. military (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Armed+Forces?tid=informline) being made the fall guy -- a concern shared by many retired and some active senior officers, including a current infantry division commander."

Shrub blaming someone else for his failed policy? Naaaawww, not our Shurb. He always owns up to his own failures.

John of Phoenix
07-09-2007, 04:24 PM
Iraqis warn of civil war if U.S. troops withdraw
Not to be confused with the civil war that's been underway for the past couple of years. For anyone who's still doubtful, there were over 250 Iraqis killed this WEEKEND.

LeeG
07-09-2007, 04:56 PM
"Iraqis warn of civil war if U.S. troops withdraw"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070709/pl_nm/iraq_dc_18;_ylt=AhgAMQThujA4_767nc0Q4Z8E1vAI


yep, but think of the bright side, the wmd are gone and there's no Saddam to have links to Al Qaeda.

Osborne Russell
07-09-2007, 04:56 PM
Well-regulated militias are necessary. Well-regulated by whom? If they're not well-regulated do the people get to keep their arms? And here we go again.

Osborne Russell
07-09-2007, 05:02 PM
Not to be confused with the civil war that's been underway for the past couple of years. For anyone who's still doubtful, there were over 250 Iraqis killed this WEEKEND.

Which one is the bad one? The new one, I take it. Why?

Because the one that hasn't happened yet is fictional, so the effort to prevent it is the only success the Bushicons have got left, which isn't as bad as it sounds because it's a reason to stay in Iraq indefinitely. The fictional bad one is worse than the real one, which isn't as bad as it sounds so long as we have plenty of money and soldiers.

LeeG
07-09-2007, 05:09 PM
you hit it Osborne, when the faith basers and neocons got in bed they created a Frankenstein, reason replaced by belief, planning by hope, integrity by deception. Of course the theorized civil war is worse than the existing one.
I wonder if we'll hear about bombing runs across the Iran/Iraq border from BBC or Al Jazeera.

few3
07-09-2007, 09:37 PM
If things do not continue to improve, Bush will start a phased withdrawal in December.

There is one absolute positive here....

The USA will never again be able to enter into any war, nor should we evr. It's time to batten down the hatches and let let the Jihadists focuse on spilling some blood of the countries north, south, east and west of our borders.

seanz
07-09-2007, 09:52 PM
If things do not continue to improve

:eek:????:eek:

Things are improving?
What things?
Where?
Are any of these 'things' even vaguely related to stability in Iraq?

LeeG
07-09-2007, 10:15 PM
you know, things, the things that are talked about, things that are said, things manifested by the formation of letters and spaces. Things in Iraq.

TMny
07-09-2007, 11:43 PM
Sean-
As recently as last August/September (2006) the nearly universal consensus in Iraq was that the situation was utterly hopeless; in Anbar province soldiers/marines held that there was nothing more coalition MILITARY forces could do FOR the Iraqis. Only political compromise between the warring Shia/Sunnis would allow progress, and apparently at least that would be requisite for the Iraqi security forces to become 'empowered' .

By September/November (2006) reports came in that previously hostile Sunni sheiks in Anbar had begun to move many of their sons {by now near 8000} into some of the Iraqi security forces (police, i believe), and collaborate with American occupation forces, not just providing intelligence. The Sunnis had gradually become livid at the wanton destruction/ruthlessness manifest by the alqaeda terror campaign. IIRC in November coallition forces reported Ramadi had become quite pacified ; some of the previously most fierce opponents of the US were cooperating. At about the same time interval the Baker/Hamilton Report was aired , and largely ignored by the administration [although one option included mention of a coallition force increment].

According to a PBS collaborative product 'Endgame' produced by WGBH's "Frontline" (aired this spring) , the administration's current Secretary of State , one Condoliza Rice, got wind of the Anbar realignments , and inquired as to the provenance of the developments. The operative buzzword thereafter became 'counterinsurgency' . General David Petraeus had just re-written the U.S. Army {'Field?/IrregularWarfare?} Manual , to once again include lessons learned through bitter experience by a previous infantry in VietNam a generation prior , regarding different approaches to 'conventional wars' versus 'counterinsurgencies'.

[In Vietnam , certain USMC, Special Forces, and C.I.A. programs had much better results concerning 'pacification' of the insurgency in SouthVietnam, than the bulk of American forces experienced.] A U.S. scholar/warrior , Colonel H.R.McMaster , who fought in both the 1991, and present, U.S. invasions of Iraq, wrote a very-well documented/researched book , "Derelection of Duty" (c)1997 concerned with the civilian 'direction' of the VietNam war 1961-1965 , which was remarkably akin to the management of the current effort . His troops in Iraq have been extremely effective in counterinsurgency. Another contemporary scholar/warrior, Colonel John A. Nagl , wrote "Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife, Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam" (c) 2002 , also fought in both Desert Storm and the present adventure, and is/was a military assistant to the Dputy Secretary of Defense.

Anbar province has been relatively stable for half a year. Some similar collaboration/cooptation of Sunnis in Diyala province is tentatively ongoing. There is risk , in that the US/Coallition forces are arming their previous enemies ... but the situation is no worse than the corrupted Iraq state security forces .
* *

Thus by design the (troop) "surge" was configured to increase security in Baghdad , particularly for the residents , as this was seen as a necessary prerequisite to enabling political compromise (and in view of the fact that over 1/3 of Iraqis inhabit that city). The fact that some enemy forces can trigger a truck bomb in a rural town is not nice , but doesn't undermine the "surge" plan. The "surge" is successful if it tamps down Sunni&Shia militia activity in Baghdad, as it is this activity which seems to be the root of the explosive internecine civilwar development subsequent the Samara mosque bombing. The increase in U.S. combat personnell casualties was predicted; the decrease in Iraqi civilian deaths in Baghdad is seen as an 'improvement' , and something of an endorsement of the plan. The current media/congressional consensus appears to be that the surge may be productive in some senses , but that it constitutes "too little, too late" to be considered successful BECAUSE:
I.) The Iraqi politicians/government are dawdling [rather than engaging and compromising] , and
II.) The Iraqi military/security forces are corrupt, militia-infiltrated , spineless wimps {in spite of significant Coallition efforts at training/recruitment}.
T m

seanz
07-10-2007, 03:12 AM
Good grief , a complex and considered response to a facetious post. Who are you and what are you doing in the bilge? :D
It's interesting that you mention the later half of 2006 as being a particular low point in Iraq because that's around the time that I switched off monitoring the war in Iraq on the net and had given it up as a lost cause.I still stay in touch with the situation (because news of the war is everywhere!) by reading Australian media online.Australia has troops there but recently they (they =the coalition government) seem confused as to why they're there.
From some quick skimming ( OK. Googling) it appears you are right about Anbar province but now I am amazed to find that there are Republicans (senators) against the war and there may be a timetable for withdrawal.
I am massively out of step with my left wing friends on this (they didn't even want NZ involvement in Afganistan) but I don't think the U.S. coalition should leave Iraq until it can be reasonably guaranteed that Iraq won't immediately become a failed state.
So umm best of luck with that.:(

JimD
07-10-2007, 03:18 AM
...I don't think the U.S. coalition should leave Iraq until it can be reasonably guaranteed that Iraq won't immediately become a failed state.

I was of the impression it already has been one for quite some time.

skuthorp
07-10-2007, 03:40 AM
It is reported here (6pm local time) that the US is about to change it's policy on Iraq. Our PM professes no knowledge. Any rumours over there?

JimD
07-10-2007, 03:43 AM
The president is said to be asking Dick what the changes are going to be as we speak so there could be an announcement any time.

seanz
07-10-2007, 03:52 AM
Hmmm maybe we need a new term or a better definition of failed state.
Let's see........
If you burn a cake ; it's a failure.
If you set fire to the kitchen ; it's a disaster.
If an Abrams tank parks in your living room ; its a Fallujah.

It's not a failed state as yet Jim but it is in the middle of a civil war.

Dang it (pardon my French) just went here:

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

JimD
07-10-2007, 04:31 AM
Be that as it may, Iraq doesn't sound especially successful. I'm about 2/3 way through Chomsky's 'Failed States'.

Chris Coose
07-10-2007, 07:18 AM
We are 1/3 of the way through July. The Iraq government is taking August off and the dubbya benchmarks are due in September.

This is some kind of fu*king joke.

LeeG
07-10-2007, 10:10 AM
The "surge" is successful if it tamps down Sunni&Shia militia activity in Baghdad, as it is this activity which seems to be the root of the explosive internecine civilwar development subsequent the Samara mosque bombing.


I don't get that there's a causal relationship between civil conflict within Bagdad and the rest of Iraq. Conflict within Baghdad, and surrounding regions are all a part of the same conflict. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

LeeG
07-10-2007, 10:18 AM
the number of bodies on the street in Bagdad have gone down since 6mo ago, up in the last two months,,unfortunately the reliance on air power in urban areas increases civilian injuries.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,138201,00.html

At the same time, the number of civilian Iraqi casualties from U.S. airstrikes appears to have risen sharply, according to Iraq Body Count, a London-based, anti-war research group that maintains a database compiling news media reports on Iraqi war deaths.

The rate of such reported civilian deaths appeared to climb steadily through 2006, the group reports, averaging just a few a month in early 2006, hitting some 40 a month by year's end, and averaging more than 50 a month so far this year.

Those are maximum tolls based on news reports, and they count those killed by Army helicopter fire as well as by warplanes, Iraq Body Count's John Sloboda said. The count is regarded as conservative, since it doesn't include deaths missed by the international media.

The U.S. military itself says it doesn't track civilian casualties.

"The reality of civilian deaths is a year-on-year increase," said Sloboda, a psychology professor at Britain's Keele University. "This particular part of it - airstrikes - have rocketed up more than any other."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6239896.stm

If you have hundreds of fifteen second in depth stories on FoxNews and CNN about getting the terrists that brung us 9/11, would you remember any that corrected that incorrect reporting? on BBC?

On 22 June the US military announced that its attack helicopters, armed with missiles, engaged and killed 17 al-Qaeda gunmen who had been trying to infiltrate the village of al-Khalis, north of Baquba, where operation "Arrowhead Ripper" had been under way for the previous three days.

The item was duly carried by international news agencies and received widespread coverage, including on the BBC News website.

But villagers in largely-Shia al-Khalis say that those who died had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. They say they were local village guards trying to protect the township from exactly the kind of attack by insurgents the US military says it foiled

John of Phoenix
07-10-2007, 12:32 PM
But villagers in largely-Shia al-Khalis say that those who died had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. They say they were local village guards trying to protect the township from exactly the kind of attack by insurgents the US military says it foiled.
This is the kind of fu<%up that gave birth to the old Army Aviation expression "One 'Aw sh!t' wipes out all the 'Atta boys.' "

Hearts and minds, hearts and minds, hearts and minds - are not won with Abrams and Apaches.

TMny
07-12-2007, 12:25 AM
Hello LeeG
>I don't get that there's a causal relationship between civil conflict within Bagdad and the rest of Iraq. Conflict within Baghdad, and surrounding regions are all a part of the same conflict. Am I misunderstanding what you're saying?

--My first governing assumption is that the salient parties to the ongoing chaos in Iraq can be somewhat usefully classed as of three 'strains'-- 1) Shia, and their clan/militia groups , 2) Sunnis , and their clan/militia groups , (including the supposed Baathist 'deadenders') , 3) Alqaeda, and other foreign islaamist radicals. I'm ignoring Iranians , but note that they have been training/arming both Sunni&Shia factions. I also note that numbers of intelligent US infantrymen (in the broad sense of active combatants/participants) who are involved on a daily basis in country , describe the overlapping {through history , clans , numerous nonobvious relations} hatreds/affiliations as unimaginably byzantine in complexity...

My second governing assumption holds that it is useful to describe the Iraqi descent into anarchy/civil-warfare as precipitated by two overwhelmingly powerful developments, subsequent the 'liberation' of the country from Saddam Hussein:
I.) De-Baathification , and terminal unemployment of the country's military, and also the destruction of most other pre-existing economic infrastructure as part of L.Paul/Jerry Bremer's administration;
II.) The increasing affiliation of the Sunni faction with Alqaeda(inMesopotamia/etc,etc) , and the effective destruction of the mosque in Samarra. The journalist Michael Ware reported [i think spring 2006?, maybe summer/fall 2005] that the Sunnis had begun to see him as essentially a 'western/Zionist/Infidel' (and a promising "scalp", as it were).

Ok , to the question . There are two conflicts in Baghdad , and throughout the miserable country, to wit: I.) The Sunnis want to regain their ruling stature , the Shia are determined to finally hold sway. They are actively engaged in the process of 'ethnically purifying' the previously "mixed" Shia and Sunni residential neighborhoods of Baghdad , in order that they can effectively unite in the comming final/decisive-phase of the ongoing civil war ; II.) The forces of Alqaeda are of course contemptuous of the Shia [Zarqawi noted that "Shia are infidels"] , but they also resented the secularity of S. Hussein's regime , and the corruption of such states as Saudi Arabia. Since the Alqaedans are 'purists' , their agenda is on the order of wanton destruction, followed by 'martyring' any opposition to a Taliban-style theocracy. The primary necessity for Alqaeda to be successful , is for democratic, negotiated compromise , and western influence to fail. {Iran appears to be on a similarly disruptive mission , at least as regards western influence}. To a certain extent the 'default' common inclination/affiliation/goal of the Arabs+Persians+Islaamists seems to be to oppose western influences. But there was acceptance of dislodging Saddam Hussein by many parties initially. Thus the dreadful carnage directed toward American/Coalition service people, is not terribly revealing , except as insofar it indicates that we might seriously rethink our tactics/vulnerability.

(sorry for delay, now attempt to clarify)

You are correct that the civil conflict is somewhat uniform throughout the country (possibly except in Kurdish zone). A key reason for the 'failure' of the latest military mission incurred by coalition troops {to build a 'democratic' state from the dust of what had been Iraq} is the same as that of previous difficulties , namely inadequate troops, specifically not enough force available to MAINTAIN order in a region once the most disruptive elements had been routed out.

Nobody cares if a handful of Iraqis are pacified , or radicalised. Thus for Alqaeda, Baghdad is valuable as a target because large numbers of people can readily be massacred routinely ... providing good press propaganda abroad {this is a recruitment/training theater for them} , and plenty of sustaining terror to maintain the internecine civil war domestically in Iraq . Similarly , for Coalition forces , Baghdad is a focus because a critical mass of the nation's (?) populace resides there , and if they can collaborate/cooperate in Baghdad , they can probably do so in the rural outlying areas.

Since Anbar has been somewhat 'pacified' , and the 'surge' has changed the situation in Baghdad, Alqaeda has regrouped elsewhere .
Once the Sunnis were coopted in Anbar , less coalition force presence is required in that area. Anbar is a Sunni heartland, and the local Sheiks were repulsed by the routine massacres in their backyards. It may be the case that the same personalities would not be so repulsed by wanton carnage of Shia opponents ... the success gained in Anbar may not be possible to replicate in more mixed regions , as Diyala province may be (i think it is), much less Baghdad. Attacks on civilians in Baghdad have decreased , but American troop casualties are much increased. The fact (to the extent that it is a fact) that alqaeda has moved on from Baghdad means there is somewhat less chronic incendiary instigation of civil war there, and ought to allow for some peacemaking/compromise/accommodation... but the Maliki government has not been forthcoming in this aspect , regrettably.

The blithe employment of the term 'Alqaeda' is sloppy , only Allah knows who's who there....

Anyway my storyline was that if Baghdad was somewhat purged by the surge there, it isn't surprising that disruptive events break out elsewhere, that is part of 'wackamole'. The potential pacification of Baghdad would be a worthy prize , the pacification of Anbar+Baghdad+'Triangle of Death' would be tantamount to 'victory' in administration's terms. Thus far only a modulation of the violence in Baghdad, and significant pacification of Anbar can be reported... and some increased rural/town violence elsewhere seems to have been the price.