PDA

View Full Version : a coming iraq civil war?




zimv20
Jul 10, 2005, 09:52 AM
long theorized by many, could rumors of a withdrawal be true and could iraq avoid plunging into civil war?

link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1687910,00.html)


Allawi: this is the start of civil war

IRAQ’S former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has warned that his country is facing civil war and has predicted dire consequences for Europe and America as well as the Middle East if the crisis is not resolved.
“The problem is that the Americans have no vision and no clear policy on how to go about in Iraq,” said Allawi, a long-time ally of Washington.

In an interview with The Sunday Times last week as he visited Amman, the Jordanian capital, he said: “The policy should be of building national unity in Iraq. Without this we will most certainly slip into a civil war. We are practically in stage one of a civil war as we speak.”

Allawi, a secular Shi’ite, said that Iraq had collapsed as a state and needed to be rebuilt. The only way forward, he said, was through “national unity, the building of institutions, the economy and a firm but peaceful foreign relation policy”. Unless these criteria were satisfied, “the country will deteriorate”.

Allawi’s concern comes amid signs of growing violence between Shi’ites, who make up 60% of Iraq’s estimated 26m people, and the Sunni minority who dominated the upper reaches of the civilian bureaucracy and officer corps under Saddam Hussein.

(more)


soon to be overwritten link (http://drudgereport.com/flash.htm)


SECRET PLAN TO QUIT IRAQ

BRITAIN and America are secretly preparing to withdraw most of their troops from Iraq - despite warnings of the grave consequences for the region, the SUNDAY MAIL in UK is reporting.

A secret paper written by UK Defence Secretary John Reid for Tony Blair reveals that many of the 8,500 British troops in Iraq are set to be brought home within three months, with most of the rest returning six months later.

The leaked document, marked Secret: UK Eyes Only, appears to fly in the face of Mr Blair and President Bush's pledges that Allied forces will not quit until Iraq's own forces are strong enough to take control of security.

If British troops pull out, other members of the Alliance are likely to follow. The memo says other international forces in Southern Iraq currently under British control will have to be handled carefully if Britain withdraws. It says they will not feel safe and may also leave.

Embarrassingly, the document says the Americans are split over the plan - and it suggests one of the reasons for getting British troops out is to save money. Mr Reid says cutting UK troop numbers to 3,000 by the middle of next year will save GBP 500million a year, though it will be 18 months before the cash comes through.

The document, Options For Future UK Force Posture In Iraq, is the first conclusive proof that preparations for a major withdrawal from Iraq are well advanced.

The British Government's public position is that UK troops will stay until newly trained Iraqi forces are ready to take control of security. Less than a fortnight ago, Mr Blair said it was 'vital' the US-led coalition stayed until Iraq stabilised, and Mr Bush endorsed his comments.

Mr Reid's memo, prepared for Mr Blair in the past few weeks, shows that in reality, plans to get them out - 'military drawdown,' as he puts it - are well advanced.

It says: 'We have a commitment to hand over to Iraqi control in Al Muthanna and Maysan provinces two of the four provinces under British control in Southern Iraq in October 2005 and in the other two, Dhi Qar and Basra, in April 2006.



iGary
Jul 10, 2005, 09:54 AM
There's such a long history of peace and love in this region that I can't imagine why anyone would think any of this. :rolleyes:

Dont Hurt Me
Jul 10, 2005, 10:08 AM
There's such a long history of peace and love in this region that I can't imagine why anyone would think any of this. :rolleyes:
Isnt that the truth, these guys have been have been killing each other for centuries. Why we couldnt just Bomb Saddam with all the Billions in the war machine and the Lack of CIA is beyond me. This was George's and the Republicans oil war with democrats going along for the ride. This is what happens when America lets one of the G.D. Parties run everything! Govt out of control. So lets see i have to take off my shoes now when flying, Grandma gets strip searched, Mexicans & Terrorist freely roam into our country and Osama is still free.....................I will never vote Republican ever again!

mactastic
Jul 10, 2005, 10:38 AM
How many regions of the world are there with histories of peace and love? Just curious.

idea_hamster
Jul 10, 2005, 01:25 PM
My suspicion is that the Bush administration is trying desperately to do some form of "Iraq-ification" of the war, a version of Nixon's "Vietnamification" that was our face-saving maneuver to limp out of that mess and say that we didn't lose.

The difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that Vietnam had a history of national identity long preceeding French colonization. Iraq does not -- quite to the contrary, it has a history (since post WWI British creation) of being internally divided and held together by brutual dictatorship. (In fact, it's my uderstanding that the history of dictatorship in the Iraq region long predates WWI as well, but I don't have a solid source for that.)

Much like in Yugoslavia, the long-standing factionalism that has been suppressed by fear and violence will bubble up now that the lid of the pressure cooker has been removed.

I am just afraid that we are waiting for the Iraq version of the Tet offensive -- a powerful, broad, co-ordinated attack on US installations (successful or not) that puts the lie to all the claims of progress that the Commander in Chief has been making.

There is no question in my mind that Saddam should not have been in control of a nation. Equally unquestionable is that Bush has made a real hash of things by refusing to listen to those who had misgivings.

zimv20
Jul 10, 2005, 01:50 PM
There is no question in my mind that Saddam should not have been in control of a nation.
but to hold iraq together, is that level of brutality a necessity?

xsedrinam
Jul 10, 2005, 03:47 PM
long theorized by many, could rumors of a withdrawal be true and could iraq avoid plunging into civil war?

Uh, to quote Bill Paxton's line from Twister, "it's already here" ;)
X

IJ Reilly
Jul 10, 2005, 04:11 PM
Which reminds me of this thread. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=89184)

Though for the life of me I can't figure out why...

blackfox
Jul 10, 2005, 04:15 PM
but to hold iraq together, is that level of brutality a necessity?
See: Xerses and Darius (Persians), or the Abbasid caliphs (descendents of muhammed's uncle) or the Mongols, or the Ottoman Turks.

Also see: Tiglathpileser, Ashurnasirpal, Ennatum, Sargon. Megalomania and personality-cults are nothing new.


Widespread bloodshead and repression was frequent and often unprecedented in history. This stemmed both to mitigate underlying ethnic divisions, and because of them.

Strangely, it is in no large part the relative sophistication, high-level of social development and political consciousness that makes Iraq so hard to govern, this of course, being coupled with ethnic and religious divisions, making the loads on the legitimacy of the State so great and complex.

Yet is is this development, coupled with the fact that Iraq is the only ME state with abundant oil, water and large population and the promise of an Arab State powered by it's middle class ( and therefore modern )that has drawn in the Western Powers, both British and American.

sorry for tangent...

idea_hamster
Jul 10, 2005, 06:21 PM
but to hold iraq together, is that level of brutality a necessity?

Well, I don't know. I suspect that it's difficult for people who have never had their national identity denied to understand the extent to which those who have will fight for it.

Further, current trends are toward national self-identification. Why should Iraq continue to trundle on as a national amalgum, continually convulsed by internal strife when the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites would prefer self-rule?

While the quick answer seems to be that it shouldn't, that ignores two countervailing points:
1. Other countries have interests in this -- to what extent is that important? (E.g., Turkey is concerned that an independent Kurdistan would act to destabilize the Kurdish region in their country, which has suffered some insurgency as it is.)

2. The question presupposes it's own accuracy. Specifically, it assumes that an Iraqi identity cannot take root and act as a cohesive bond among the three major groups currently at odds.

Can't say I'm sure of the outcome, but if people refuse/insist on a certain national identity, it is difficult for remote governments to coerce them into accepting an alternative.

mactastic
Jul 10, 2005, 07:19 PM
See: Xerses and Darius (Persians), or the Abbasid caliphs (descendents of muhammed's uncle) or the Mongols, or the Ottoman Turks.

Also see: Tiglathpileser, Ashurnasirpal, Ennatum, Sargon. Megalomania and personality-cults are nothing new.
Which is why I was hoping iGary could shed some light on parts of the world that have not had a brutal history.

IJ Reilly
Jul 10, 2005, 07:20 PM
Which is why I was hoping iGary could shed some light on parts of the world that have not had a brutal history.

Monaco?

Andorra?

dejo
Jul 10, 2005, 07:25 PM
Monaco?

Andorra?

Greenland?

Antarctica?

skunk
Jul 10, 2005, 07:26 PM
See: Xerses and Darius (Persians), or the Abbasid caliphs (descendents of muhammed's uncle) or the Mongols, or the Ottoman Turks.

Also see: Tiglathpileser, Ashurnasirpal, Ennatum, Sargon. Megalomania and personality-cults are nothing new.


Widespread bloodshead and repression was frequent and often unprecedented in history.Cyrus the Great would be a better role model, perhaps. A Kurd, he conquered Persia and all of Asia Minor, liberated the Jews from Babylon and wrote the first ever Charter of Human Rights, based on the requirements of holding together a nation of diverse races. One of my all-time favourite historical characters.

mactastic
Jul 10, 2005, 07:41 PM
Greenland?

Antarctica?
Oh hey, Greenland makes it one more than the one's I was able to think of. True though, AFAIK.

skunk
Jul 10, 2005, 07:53 PM
Oh hey, Greenland makes it one more than the one's I was able to think of. True though, AFAIK.Nope. The Sagas tell of serious trouble in Greenland around the 1400s. Looks like we're stuck with Antarctica.

IJ Reilly
Jul 10, 2005, 08:21 PM
Nope. The Sagas tell of serious trouble in Greenland around the 1400s. Looks like we're stuck with Antarctica.

Why, have you dug up some dirt on Monaco and Andorra?

skunk
Jul 10, 2005, 08:39 PM
Why, have you dug up some dirt on Monaco and Andorra?Well, no, actually. Try as I may, I can't find anything on those two since the 13th century. Good calls.
;)