TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- preview of Iraqi civil war...

preview of Iraqi civil war...

the last events in Iraq are a mild reminder of the chaos and civil war that will erupt after the "power void" created by both the lack of a strong govt and occupation forces.

At the moment, it seems that Iraqis from all ethnic background want the US to get out... they seem unified. But in reality, they're far from it.

An old Arabic proverb:

Me against my brother
Me and my brother against my cousin
me, my brother and my cousin against the outsider.

Wow. I was just thinking of that proverb 5 minutes ago when I was reading the news on Iraq. Incredible! I don't remember it exactly like that though, but close enough:

Ana dod ibn 3ami.
Ana w ibn 3ami dod el gharib.

Translation:

Me against my cousin.
Me and my cousin against the foreigner.

Anyway, you're probably right All I have to say is 4 days till Bal en Blanc!!! Can't wait

And ya, the situation in Iraq sucks, and we all knew a civil war was inevitable under these circumstances. It's starting to look more and more like the Lebanese situation in the early to mid 1970s. Hopefully, It won't degenerate into that. Well, as long as Syria doesn't get involved that is j/k

quote:

Originally posted by Epicurus Wow. I was just thinking of that proverb 5 minutes ago when I was reading the news on Iraq. Incredible! I don't remember it exactly like that though, but close enough: Ana dod ibn 3ami. Ana w ibn 3ami dod el gharib. Translation: Me against my cousin. Me and my cousin against the foreigner. Anyway, you're probably right All I have to say is 4 days till Bal en Blanc!!! Can't wait And ya, the situation in Iraq sucks, and we all knew a civil war was inevitable under these circumstances. It's starting to look more and more like the Lebanese situation in the early to mid 1970s. Hopefully, It won't degenerate into that. Well, as long as Syria doesn't get involved that is j/k

Many people talk about Vietman, etc, but I have always maintained that the situation is more closely linked to that of Lebanon. Despite what all the pundits may say the time has come to give Iraq to the Iraqis, not Chalabi, Barzani, or whoever the hell else spoke up the WMD theories to the idiotic administration in power right now in my country. I could have cared less about Iraq before this war for just the reasons before our eyes right now, there are reasons for dictators or quasi-dictators in the Mide East from Syria to Iran and the U.S. failed to recocgnize this fact. Let the Arab world be to live the way they deem fit, what is so hard about that concept is besides me.

NYC you are right man...

you can't "pacify" a country and a region like that...

these people need to be educated and sent to school ( i am not saying they're not, but its not generalized). Local govts still can't afford it because they have to stockpile arms to be ready for a war against Israel (which are stockpiling too...) its like a mini-cold war over there.

The solution for these regions should be similar like what the Chinese did in the last century... strong central govt to get the country going, then relaxing slowly the rules so that the people have more freedoms...

The situation in Iraq is going to worsen,its inevitable. June 30th and on will be a scary time in Iraq.

I blame the "liberators" for this "stability".

i actually think this is going to be a new vietnam, it seems like the real uprisings are starting now. and the bombing of the mosque was just fucking stupid, now they will get even more people against them.

I'd be satisfied if we installed a demo-tatorship in iraq. We should leave after they hold elections to pick their new dictator. Maybe in 30 years we can re-invade and do the whole thing over again. We have a saying in the USA... practice makes perfect.

quote:

Originally posted by malek NYC you are right man... you can't "pacify" a country and a region like that... these people need to be educated and sent to school ( i am not saying they're not, but its not generalized). Local govts still can't afford it because they have to stockpile arms to be ready for a war against Israel (which are stockpiling too...) its like a mini-cold war over there. The solution for these regions should be similar like what the Chinese did in the last century... strong central govt to get the country going, then relaxing slowly the rules so that the people have more freedoms...

Sadly what happens with politicians is that once they have made a decision such as G.W.Bush invading Iraq there is little room to maneuver when the perverbial "shit hits the fan" The more I listen to the events in Iraq the more I no longer hear of a democratic, stable Iraq but the June 30th deadline and making the Iraqis feel that they have their country back, coincidence I think not.

I am having a hard time finding those who can even defend the war anymore, you hear that the U.S. has to save face, they can't back down from terrorists and its to make the Mid-East safer, sure it will. Were these the original reasons for the war, and U.S. troops now are fighting for Iraqi freedom when Iraqis are shooting RPG's at them throughout the towns of central and southern Iraq, go figure that one. Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Powell should all be tarred and feathered for gross stupidity in understanding that region of the world and their feelings towards America. How will A-10s, F-16s, Humvees and Bradley tanks going to change that hate. I just have to shake my head malek.

Malek, i completely agree with you in that iraq needs a strong central government.
that is why i am happy america has toughened up lately and counter-attacking the lastest insurgents. The iraqi people need to be shown that they are dealing with a strong force who wants to put in a strong government (enforced by rigorous police force and national army). When the iraq governing council can be giving enough power to control all that is happening in its country then peace finally be started by using the methods you talked about such as education and demilitarization.

of course the concept of being powerful and strong at first in order to lose that same strength later requires a lot of trust, something that is sadly missing in that area.

The problem now of imposing a strong govt is the constitution... it puts lots (too much) emphazise on minorities rights and what not. Instead, the constitution should push forward the concept of Iraqi nationality and appartenance which sadly, Saddam Hussein was apt to do (be it with fear and brutatlity).

Now you have 15 council members with rotating power to represent the three main ethnic groups. A Mickey Mouse show if you ask me.

quote:

Originally posted by malek The problem now of imposing a strong govt is the constitution... it puts lots (too much) emphazise on minorities rights and what not. Instead, the constitution should push forward the concept of Iraqi nationality and appartenance which sadly, Saddam Hussein was apt to do (be it with fear and brutatlity).

Fascism, YEAH! thats the answer!

In a swedish newspaper this morning there where a couple of quoutes by the swedish professor in islamology Jan Hj�rpe.

He said that the latest insurgency, instigated by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, wasn't first and foremost aimed at the occupying forces or the U.S. but at the rest of the Shiite leadship. He wanted to let them and the people know that he's the one that making things happen, he's the one in control and he has more power than is generally believed.

Remember al-Sadr is very young compared to the other Shiite leaders and hasn't really been considered a "major player" in the shiite-movement and thus not getting the repsect he thinks he deserve.

So not only is there problems between the various groups in Iraq, the groups seems to be ridden in conflicts internally as well.

quote:

Just as Bush's main reasons for the war turned out to be bogus, the explanations proffered by the American troops for their mounting troubles in Iraq have been delusory. In maintaining that the occupation was popular and resistance to it limited to "enemies of freedom," America has been blaming, variously, "Baathist bitter-enders," Iranian or Syrian "agent provocateurs," Islamists (homegrown and foreign), anti-Shiite Al Qaeda Sunni terrorists, and "Saddamists in the Sunni triangle." The fallacy of such propaganda stands exposed today as Iraqi resistance is clearly coalescing into what looks like a burgeoning national war of liberation by both the Shiite majority and Sunni minority.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=968350116795

I think that pretty much sums it up. All along we've been told that the dissidents were the minority - they were all "Saddam loyalists" or "Shiite terrorists" from Iran. At every major milestone the coalition have laid claim to - the toppling of the statute, the end of major combat operations, the killing of Saddam's sons, the capture of Saddam, the ratification of the new Iraqi constitution and so on - we've been told that lasting peace is just short step away, and that with these milestones, the morale of those conducting the resitance will be wittled away. As the intensity of the resistance intesifies (remembering that it's been strong and unwavering for 12 months now) the coalition needs to admit that this isn't a problem isolated merely to small groups of ideological extremists, it's a major grass-roots issue. As the US troops - by necessity - begin to lock-down on rogue cities like Fallujah, the citizens will only feel more oppressed, the ill-feeling will spread, tougher security will be needed and the entire thing begins to snowball. This is no longer a case of merely dismantling small, disbanded groups of "terrorists" to win the peace, it's a case of winning over 24 million people amongst whom ill-will continues to spread. The coaltion needs to admit that the simple picture they've painted (in the form of lots of "freedom lovers" crushing small groups of "freedom haters") is inaccurate and need to develop a new strategy on the basis that this is going to be a permanent, on-going, large-scale problem that they do not have under control at all.

Similarly, what is becoming more apparent is that the US war-planners just didn't give enough thought to what would happen after the fall of Baghdad. They seemed to believe that the hatred of Saddam Hussein possessed by most average Iraqi citizens would be enough to coalesce the nation under a new US installed regime. What they failed to take into account though:

1) The unity under Saddam's Iraq was always going to disipate once the Baathist regime fell and the various ethnic groups within Iraq made a dash for power.
2) People will generally not be acquiescent in the occupation of their nation for too long, regardless of the circumstances under which this occupation arose.
3) The major ethnic groups in Iraq have, historically, not gotten along. Merely because they've been united under a brutal, iron-fist regime for 40 years (and say they wish to retain this unity) there is necessarily going to be disunity as these ethnic groups start pulling towards their necessarily disparate ideologies in the resultant power-vacuum.
4) The Iraqi people - almost unanimously - hate Chalabi, the criminal the US have installed at the top of the administrative heirarchy.

Mix all this up with the influx of ideological extremism and militantism, 12 months of instability and social decay in many parts of the country, the delay in the power transfer and elections promissed by the occupying forces and a continuous, all-encompassing uncertainty about the future of the country and you can begin to understand why many average Iraqi citizens are starting to vent their frustrations at the US and UK troops. When Wolfowitz admitted that the US hadn't properly planned for post-war Iraq he was more particularly referring to the inadequacy of the troop numbers, but it's now clear that they didn't have a clue about how to solve all these social problems that even the most amateur arm-chair politician could see coming prior to the war.

And, of course, the wild-card in all this are the Kurdish people. They been well behaved so far (they're used to being occupied and protected by foreign troops I think) but just watch what happens when they're told they have to surrender their oil-fields and their semi-autonomous government. Getting the Sunnis and the Shiites to get along and unify under a single constitution is nothing (due to their similarities) compared to getting the Kurds to acquiesce. If you tell the Kurds to hand over everything they've worked hard to acquire since the first Gulf War to the soon-to-be Iraqi government, they will dissent and you're half way to a genuine civil-war. The alternative - giving the Kurds the protected autonomy they want - will lead to the Turks strolling over the border as soon as the US leave (the Turks have said, explicitly, that they will have no hesitation in invading "Kurdistan" should this scenario eventuate) and this, of course, will bring its own set of problems.

So while the violence in Iraq escalates, we're still nowhere near the worst-case scenario. At the very least, there is some sense of national unification (even if that is only the unification of antipathy towards the occupying forces) but if this begins to decay (more likely to happen as power is handed over to the Iraqi people) then this could be an on-going problem of Yugoslavian proportions.

Oh the joys of "liberation"!

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade then this could be an on-going problem of Yugoslavian proportions.

Aww, nice to see how people like my little region of the world

But seriously, I agree with Renegade's post. I am really scared of what July 30th will bring. The country is already in total turmoil regardless of large amount of american forces being there. When those forces leave, a full-out war will start in a matter of hours. What a brilliant move by Bush's administration. When you're threatened by islamic terrorists, destroy the only arab regime that openly hates islamists!

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Aww, nice to see how people like my little region of the world

Heh, well as a Croatian (and with a user name like that ) you could probably explain it better than most. What I meant was that once Tito fell from power (in 1980 was it?) all the different nationalities and ethnic groups that were united under his rule started fighting amongst themselves for power and/or independence and that - even now, 25 years later - the in-fighting continues. Do you think there are parellels between what happened in Yugoslavia and what's happenning in Iraq, or am I off the mark here?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.