Here's the story:

Link



I hope al-Rubaie is correct in his prediction.

To be debated:

What can be done to prevent civil war in Iraq?

What can be done to prevent civil war in Iraq?

Nothing Really. In essence both of these sides of muslims in iraq ( Shiite and I forget the other one ) are prejeduice of each other. Just like America and our Civil War involving racism and prejudice. Unless their federal government does something to ensure the protection of the Shiites and other muslim groups. I believe that it will definatley be a civil war, and America shouldnt be involved in it.

*Post Edited for Spelling Errors JH *

What can be done to prevent civil war in Iraq?

How can we (the rest of the world) prevent what appears to be a melt down within the social structure of Iraq which mirrors in great part the ongoing battle for supremacy within Islam?

Realistically? I have no idea.

Thinking outiside the box though, there are a few lessons which could be learned from history, but they are the sort of lesson that comes with a high blood price.

Imposing martial law is probably the first thing to be done... I know its not a preferable solution and really I ought to be writing about dialogue and understanding and a 'vibrant' multicultural, multi-faith society which no doubt exists in some rosy future or other, but the Muslim mind continues to confound me.

At the moment I'm reading various books which deal with European history in and around the year 1200 CE and the similarities between the language of Islam today and the Christian crusaders then is striking. Whats even worse though is the chilling similarity in their shared modus operandi.

Even if we could, successfully impose martial law, would it help? Do we even have the political will to intervene? Its far safer and much easier just to sit back and watch the various sides wear each other out.

I think perhaps the best course of action is always to support those who support us and do the best we can to anticipate future problems.

I'm afraid that this latest act will mark the "official" beginning of the long anticipated Civil War in Iraq.

At the end of the day trying to bring together people who have long term fundamental philosophical differences is almost undoable. Especially when you recognize that on a daily basis there are outrageous acts of violence against each other AND that the basic infrastructure that would be conducive to peaceful living are not being built.

Imagine long term not having electricity? Gasoline? Water? Garbage pick-up et al?

From where I'm sitting I cannot see how this ends peacefully? How do we prevent it? I have no idea, I think it's inevitable, sadly.

Its not looking good, the only people the Shia and Sunnis hate more than Infidels are each other and a civil war based on religion rather than ethnicity has the potential to drag in the entire Middle East. The cartoon fiasco has got everyone into a "defend the Prophet" frenzy and each sect views the other as blasphemers so why not take them down along with "the west".

moif mentioned imposing Martial Law, I think what they have now pretty much IS martial law whilst the US troops with Iraqi soldiers in tow are the main police force.

The only way to stop this is from within, the two sides have to stop wanting to kill each other, there's only so much you can do with force to keep neighbors apart. The only other solution would be to divide the country and "encourage" sects to move to their designated regions, much like the British did by creating Pakistan and moving the muslims north away from the Hindus. Frankly, I think this is what is likely to happen.

If we can corral anger over this towards a more concerted effort on the part of Iraqis to help eradicate al-Qaeda and other terrorists from their midst, it may actually improve the situation. But a lot depends on the skill of our statesmen and military professionals. But if we play our cards right, we can turn this to our advantage ("our" advantage meaning not just American advantage, but the advantage of anyone in the West and the Middle East who are starting to get really fed up with the terrorist heathens and their B.S.).


No, martial law is not just military occupation. Martial law is complete lockdown, dawn-to-dusk curfews, newspaper censorship, military courts - the whole enchilada. If there was martial law in Iraq, Saddam Hussein wouldn't be bloviating day in and day out at his "trial" and acting like he's somebody important. Instead he'd be six feet under, following his date with a firing squad.

Sadly, things seem to be getting much worse.

Link



Perhaps the only hope is a truly international effort.



Perhaps the nation will wind up being occupied -- either by UN or "coalition" forces -- for a very long time.

What would that accomplish? Are soldiers from the rest of the world better behaved than American soldiers? Experiences in Somalia, the Congo, Kosovo, and elsewhere strongly suggest otherwise. UN soldiers have been complicit in abuses of locals and engaging in the sex-slave trade in many of their bailiwicks. And any anti-American Iraqis will simply charge that the UN is a tool of the U.S. anyway, so that won't placate them. We shouldn't be trying to placate irrational people anyway, because ultimately that's self-defeating.

My intention was certainly not to suggest that international troops would be any "better" than American troops. I only meant that this crisis, unless things calm down quickly, could escalate to the point where no one nation, not even the United States, could handle it effectively alone.

Meanwhile, things continue to look grim.

Link

Sadly, this is a bit of propaganda that has turned out to be false long ago. There are no significant Al-Qaida forces in Iraq, even the US military aknowledges that a tiny fraction of insurgents are 'foreign fighters', almost all are local Iraqis fed up with US occupation, or fighting their own small religious wars. While there IS evidence of foreign funds and weapons, the reality is the insurgency is almost entirely home grown.

This has been waiting to hapen even since the US deposed Hussein, and the three major ethnicities/religious groups started to each other's throats. Hopefully it will not escalte into civil war, but on the other hand now both sides are being egged on by other countries, Shi-ite by Iran and Sunni by Jordan and Saudi.

Its not a lost cause yet by any means, but it is not looking good... The worst sign here is not the violence in itself, its the complete inability of the Iraqi government to deal with what are still (for now) small-scale protests and violent outbreaks...

Well, if it's just a question of manpower, you may have a point, but I really think that if the level of manpower that we have over there currently isn't enough to handle the situation, then no level would be able to. Having 10 or more different countries descend on Iraq I think will likely only cause more confusion and tension.


I guess I'm not up on the latest propaganda concerning what is and is not propaganda. I thought the standard critique of the administration so far has been that the Iraq invasion turned the country into a fertile breeding ground for al-Qaeda. Has the official party line on that changed now?

What can be done to prevent civil war in Iraq?
Blowing up mosques is an indication that the Arab Muslims are not only at war with the West, but at war with themselves.

There's probably nothing that the US can do, except impose Martial Law as Moif suggested. The problem is that the US doesn't have enough soldiers to carry that out. I think that in order to restore peace to the Middle East and to help put an end to the terrorism eminating from the Middle East, Islam is going to have to have a Reformation, like Christianity did when Martin Luther came to power. What I mean by Reformation is that the Moderate Muslims are going to have to take a public stand against the perverted doctrines that the terrorist groups have adopted.
George Bush, being widely hated in that region, is in no position to do what Martin Luther did. A respected Muslim cleric is going to have to step up to the plate.

Party line? I'm just telling you what is, I don';t care what the 'party line' is, or what you think the 'party line' is. According to Big Gen Mark Kimmitt, who lectures at Oxford a couple weeks ago, US forces have reported no solid encounters with 'foreign fighters', only rumours and stories about trainers and deliverers of equipment. The assumption that the insurgency was composed primarily of foreign or al Qaida linked terrorists led the US to a more heavy handed approach to counter insurgency than they are now using in the early days of the occupation.

Effectively, Al Qaida and other related terrorist organisations are shipping in some weapons, explosives and a few people to train their use, and they are being given in return close to 20,000 casualties with few costs on their side. Good for them, bad for the US.


As an aside, the other thing Kimmitt pointed out was that the common view that there is one 'Al Qaida' body behind any of this, like some Bondian SPECTRE is absurd. Almost all of the attacks internationally, such as Madrid and the London Bombins, have been conducted by independent terrorist cells with little or no practical affiliation to Bin laden, though they may have a strong ideological affiliation. These cells are run like IRA cells from the 1970s. They operate, plan act and execute independently, taking no orders from above. Bin Laden probably had NO idea these attacks were going to take place. The organisation 'Al Qaida in Europe' only took that name AFTER the Madrid bombings.

The UN doesn't have an army, and the nations under its mandate are looking towards withdrawl, not sending in more forces. There won't be any more UN troops in Iraq (unless we permit Iran, Pakistan, ect). Obviously Middle Eastern forces would likely escalate things at this point...particularly since we don't know who layed the explosives.

It really is a mess, and if it turns into an all-out religious war I doubt it will stay contained in Iraq. Everyone has a vested interest in seeing this settled peacefully. Civil war wouldn't be inevitable, if the international community had the will to respond and restore order, but we don't (reams of bad press have taken their toll). I have been perusing healing iraq, the blogspot of a dentist living in Baghdad. Sometimes it feels like I'm reading Anne Frank's diary as she was writing it.

What can be done to prevent civil war in Iraq?

Probably nothing, so it comes down to what can be done to shorten the civil war. There are some parallels to our own Civil War in that the same people are at war with each other. The trouble with this is that there are no armies with uniforms marching under distinct banners.

So, one side or the other has to come up with distinct identity markers. Something like red bandanas versus blue bandanas. Maybe gang tatoos and signs. Oh sure, there'd still be infiltration and spying going on. That's always a problem, but going on the fundamental dimness of humanity, most of the other side would forget to change bandanas on their bombing runs. A few pops from the ubiquitous AK would take care of them.

Implanted ID chips might work better, especially for the side supported by the technologically advanced West. I can imagine an active chip that sends out GPS readings or some other distinct signal. Develop hunting drones about the size of a house fly to go looking for folks without the distinct signal, and pow! A dramatic reduction in the opposing side.

But then a black market would develop for chips and drones. A few smart ones might figure out how to thwart the drones or turn them back on the other side. This could get pretty messy. Okay, so what else?

Mandatory conscription into the Iraq army might work. It worked for Israel. Men, women and children above the age of ten, or whenever they can tote and shoot, would be candidates. Basic training, a good dose of patriotic brainwashing, and by gosh you've just made a highly polite society, being as everyone knows the efficient ways of killing each other. Stalemate, and everyone wins.

However this civil war is done, it's up to the Iraqis to pull it together. I've offered a few suggestions, and that's all I'm willing to do for these people. I'm sorry that their heads are so screwed up. This might be a lost cause and simply a way of controlling human population growth, enforced by Ma Nature. Humanity is not very smart for a reason.

What can be done to prevent civil war in Iraq?
Precisely what is being done, the political and religious leaders of Iraq can appeal for peace and trust that the vast majority of the population knows they have nothing to gain from civil war.

Despite constant fear-mongering this worked when Ayatollah Hakim was assassinated and it appears to be working now in the face of even greater provocation.

I have watched the situation in Iraq and have been constantly warned of the "inevitable" civil war. According to some this country has been on the "brink" of civil war for so long one wonders if the term has any more meaning.

There will not be wholescale sectarian war in Iraq.

One doesn't have to believe me, of course, just watch.

This particular situation will calm down and we'll have another nail-biter next month.

I would say we should "stay the course," but somehow I think I would be echoing something. What must be done is to use diplomacy and inform all parties in Iraq that this level of hostilities will no longer be tolerated, give them three weeks in which to disarm or otherwise comply and then give time for the new government to establish its grip on the peoples of the nation and then call it a day.

While this does alarm, I do not think this is a major sign of civil war. Iraq is too crowded and has too much diversity. That is no longer a bad thing in our world today, but it is like people hold to: sometimes if people have been fighting for 2,000 years: they aren't going to suddenly stop in five years. It will take some doing, but in the end I think this can safely be resolved. To prevent civil war in Iraq we must first establish their places in the nation as separate entities.

I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the staggering arrogance oozing from that statement is just a miscommunication, an error caused by the limitations of determining emotional intent from the printed word.

You have watched the war, so you know? Forgive me, I may be mistaken here, but I rather suspect that there MAY be other people who have also watched the war in Iraq. Call me Crazy.

The fact that some have been predicting civil war for three years, does not detract from the accuracy of the possibility.

Lets look at the facts, shall we? Sunni and Shi'ite have largely hated each other since 632 BC when the schism was created over a dispute on the succession of the ruler of the faith. They have fought many wars over this, it is neither new nor unprecidented.

The war and its aftermath, such as the shocking inaction of the US in guarding former iraqi armories which have been looted and emptied, Iraq has one of the most heavily armed citizenry on the planet.

In many sectors of the country, the US has kept the peace by handing over authority and policing powers to local religious militia. These militia either sunni or Shiite are organised, well armed and hate each other.

Both sides have become aware that the US troops won't intervene, and the Iraqi government is powerless to prevent violence. In other words, there are no brakes left on the extremists. Furthermore, the violent factions of Shiites are being egged on by Iran while the violent factions of Sunni are being egged on by Saudi.


So, I cannot say that there WILL be a civil war, nobody can, but given the facts at hand, and the spark caused by the destruction of the Goldenn Dome Mosque, it is a lot more likely that there will be than that there won't be.

After all, to put it another way, why WOULDN'T ther be a civil war in Iraq?

I guess I'm one of those that was predicting civil war in Iraq even before the invasion. In fact, I have argued that a low grade many sided civil war has been underway for some time. Kurds are driving out Arabs and Turkmen from the Kirkirk area, ethnic cleansing has also been on-going in Sunni and Shiite areas, domestic terrorists have been targeting Shiites and foreigners, and death squad have been targeting Sunnis from within the ranks of the Shiite dominated police. The bombing of the Golden Mosque and the reprisals it generated only differ from the last year's events in the level of violence, not in kind.

I was not alone in such predictions - James Baker, GWB's father's Secretary of State predicted civil war if Saddam was removed, in the run up to war many intelligent analyst did as well, the fear of civil war was also one of the motivations in the peace movement opposing the invasion, even some of the Neocons had predicted such an outcome but went ahead anyway. (See this Robert Dryfuss Article).

I still hope for some miracle that will avert all out civil war and perhaps a regional war but I am afraid there is little to pin such hope on. Wasn't preventing a civil war the last in a stream of rationals advanced to keep US troops in Iraq? Could it be that their presence has helped create a civil war?

I didn't say anything about foreign fighters. I was talking about al-Qaeda. Unless you're saying that Iraqi and al-Qaeda are mutually exclusive concepts, then you haven't presented your point. There also was no discussion as to whether the insurgency consisted "primarily" of Qaeda fighters. You said that there was no significant Qaeda presence at all. It doesn't take a high percentage of them to make their mark, and they certainly do. Whether it's al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group, terrorism is certainly the method of choice for them, as they make a routine habit of blowing up Iraqi civilians going about their business.

My point is that at some point Iraqis are going to get fed up with this, if they haven't already, and we should be able to use that to get both Sunnites and Shiites on board with putting a stop to it. The main leaders of both factions seem to be genuinely willing to calm the situation, and that's a tremendous start. By the way, constantly posting gloom and doom, as you're doing, does nothing to help it, by contrast. The question for debate asked what can be done to prevent civil war. Any constructive suggestions?

What can be done to prevent civil war in Iraq?

Not a thing. I'm one of those whom turnea would describe as constantly warning of the inevitability of civil war - though I am not one who believes that the country has been on the brink of civil war for generations. Civil war in Iraq has only been inevitable from the moment the United States invaded the country, intent on ousting Saddam Hussein by any means necessary.

Indeed, I would argue that Iraq has been in a state of civil war ever since the "Mission Accomplished" banner was flown - and it has only been escalating.

There is no way to prevent the ongoing civil war in Iraq from escalating even further - and the only way to end it will be partition. Ever since Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire as a British mandate, it has been destined for chaos - which, in part, was the intent. The "unification" of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra was intended to create an instability that could only be maintained by secular and autocratic external powers - whether they be the British-created Hashemite monarchy, the Soviet-backed Qassim government, or the Arif and Ba'athist regimes installed by the US.

Civil war need not have been the solution, but trying to impose a "democratic coalition" on peoples with little in common but animosity is destined for abject failure - and all the principals know it. The neocon position encourages chaos as a justification for imposing hegemony - but this situation is a tad more chaotic than even the American Century can handle.

THese groups are not in all-out war, and NATO has stepped in and ended all out war between very aggressive parties harboring centuries old hostilities before, and recently too, in the former Yugoslavia. If this happens, and it certainly might, it's because of a combination of two things: 1) We didn't have the forces necessary to ensure the peace from the onset, and 2)We don't have the international will because occupying Iraq is dangerous and unpopular right now.

There is nothing we can do about number one NOW, but we can about number two rather than sitting by and deciding that civil war is a foregone conclusion. Surely we can't simply do nothing if the Sunnis and Shiites decide to exterminate each other? Isn't that a form of genicide (Sunnis and Shiites are born into their religions, they cannot turn at will to the other interpretation of faith)? Doesn't the UN exist in large part to prevent genicide?

Mrs. Pigpen, I think you missed the point of London's and Wertz' posts. I think you even missed it, inadvertently, in your own.

The point is, and I agree with London and Wertz, is that the only viable solution, perhaps at this point, is to literally break up Iraq into three separate countries.

A northern section for the Kurds, and a divide somewhere south of Baghdad for separate Shiite and Sunni populations. Attempting to get them to stay together and work together as if the differences were as minor as our Democrats, Republicans and third parties is folly.

As you note in your own post, Yugoslavia is no more. It never really was, after Tito died. The whole country came apart, based along ethnic and religious lines into various smaller states. It was the only way to avoid a civil war there.

Yes, we were able to stop an all out war in that region, by capturing Milosovic, a dictator not willing to try and hold Yugoslavia together, as Tito did, but willing to play on the ethnic differences to ferment war in that area between Serbia and Kosovo. And that was between only two of the ethnic groups there. How much more difficult would it have been if it had been three or more different groups fighting amongst each other?

Here, the situation is sort of the the opposite. We removed from power the "Tito" of Iraq, with no firm understanding of what it took to keep the country together afterwards. Now we have an elected government there, but one that is clearly leaning towards one of the religious and ethnic factions there, to the possible detriment of the others.

The only way to keep us from being caught in the middle, I think, is to separate each group, and let them find their own way into the future. Otherwise, we'll be in an even bigger mess than we already have.

I don't think that is a solution at all. It won't be long before border disputes turn into apartheid and full scale war between factions.

I think there is one way guaranteed to secure peace in Iraq and immediately stabilize it. But it's a very unpopular idea sure to induce scorn by anybody reading this.

Put Saddam back in power.

You might not like his methods (nor do I), but his methods worked. The arabs in that region are uncivilized religious extremists. I'm not convinced they know any other way to play nice with each other, other than rule under an iron thumb. The idea that democracy helps has been proven to be bogus as exemplified with the Palestinians and Iranians. Anti-western platforms win elections in that region now.

Our choices right now are ignore the fact that Bush fixed intelligence around a policy of regime change, removed an effective dictator, and created civil war in that region. Or, you could remove Bush as a consequence of his actions, put Saddam back in charge as an "ally" (as he once was not too long ago), and move on to a real terror threat. A strong Iraq at our side now would be a huge help with the Iran situation. It worked before when we supplied Saddam with all the WMD he needed to keep Iran from winning and later held the usage of such as evidence of his danger (it's a nutty world).

Put Saddam back. Two problems solved. I don't have enough love for Muslims to feel bad for those who try to spread their version of politics, intolerance, and hatred - those things Saddam kept in check very effectively.

What can be done to prevent civil war in Iraq?
Hopefully, the factions are taking care to prevent a civil war themselves. As reported today:
THE movement of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, alleged to have played a role in the anti-Sunni violence over the last few days, publicly made peace with political and religious Sunni leaders overnight.

Four sheikhs from the Sadr movement made a "pact of honour" with the conservative Sunni Muslim Scholars Association, and called for an end to attacks on places of worship, the shedding of blood and condemning any act leading to sedition.

The agreement was made in the particularly symbolic setting of Baghdad's premier Sunni mosque Abu Hanifa where the Shiite sheikhs prayed under the guidance of Sunni imam Abdel Salam al-Qubaissi.
Link

Beyond this type of conciliation, I don't believe there is much that the US can do to prevent religious civil war. As history has shown, when two factions guided by a 'guy in the sky' set their minds to violence in the pursuit of power, not much can be done until they take it upon themselves to make peace.

I'll give you points for thinking outside the box DaytonRocker, but right now the only thing we can do is sit and watch the events unfold.

I'm sure this has been discussed but do you remember at the onset to the war in '03 Mr Rumsfeld had quite a fight with the amount of manpower needed? I do. The generals wanted a much higher figure than what Mr. Rumsfeld gave them. We could do a whole tangent thread discussing if the civil war was an inevitable result of bad planning on our end.

I made the prescient comment to Mrs. Pigpen in another thread that each sect in iraq whether sunni, shi, kurd, was at the point where money, soldiers, and arms are now being sent to Iraq from outside sources. It is my opinion that the americans are purposely doing a sloppy job of border control because;

1) the situation is more chaotic than the media lets on
2) it is preferable to have the locals shoot amongst themselves than shoot at the soldiers.

I am not singling out Iran as the defacto culprit. I am saying this is a result of war and is completely an american made phenomenon. I feel safe in saying the situation is now deteriorating to the point where western people have to have a good long think about 'regime change' in general.

As time goes on people will forget the good work campaign of reconstruction as a feel good PR stunt. If this is a product of regime change I want nothing of it.

The farfetched solutions advanced here only serve to illustrate that there are no good solutions to the mess GWB and company have created.

Dividing Iraq with an independent Kurdistan would likely cause Turkey to intervene to avoid the threat of a renewed rebellion by their own Kurdish citizens. Iran wouldn't like an independent Kurdish country either, for similar reasons. On the other hand, an independent Shia nation would be closely allied to Iran and would threaten neighboring Sunni governments, most of which have minority Shia populations. Most Saudi oil is located within a region that is majority Shia. A Sunni region would lack any developed oil production and would quickly lead to attempts to seize either Kirkurk or some of the Shia fields. Add to this the fact that Sunni and Shia populations are mixed together, particularly in Baghdad.

Restoring Saddam is even more absurd. Both the Shia and the Kurds would immediately turn on US forces, to say nothing of the total immorality of such a proposal.

The least harmful thing we can do is accept failure and get out as gracefully as possible, while trying to influence internal events within Iraq constructively from the outside. This may be bloody before an internal power balance is established, but it is better than waiting for the Shia to openly turn on US forces as many Sunni have done.

Honestly? The US has to leave immediately. This whole idea of Iraqis wanting to kill Iraqis is all a western media fallacy. The US needs civil disorder because as far as the public's awareness is concerned, they're only there until the Iraqis can get themselves together with stability. And nothing the US is doing in Iraq is creating stability. That is why we know about the Brits and the US both being caught red-handed inside vehicles with a)arab costumes b)explosives and detonators. The Brits made a spectacular failure of themselves when they broke into that prison to rescue the masquarading troops before they could be thoroughly questioned. The failure came in the form of roughly one hundred serious criminals being freed as well. The best prevention is to quit meddling.

Really? So all of the insurgents who are blowing themselves up by detonating TNT vests and car bombs at Sunni and Shi'ite shrines, mosques, markets, hospitals and police stations........are really all US and British troops??
Why do you insist on throwing out such sweeping and inconsistent fallacies, without even trying to source them? Are we just supposed to see the light and the way that is the word of TruthMarch, and fall into line with you're version of reality?
Can you attempt to back up your statements that come even close to the reality of the soldiers and Iraqi's who are actually there?

Well, no it was taken for granted. Seeing as how there was no Iraqi Al Qaida before the invasion, by definition these people would have to have come in from the outside.

And I might add, it's the other way around. You are going ta have to show me some evidence that there is a branch of some 'global terror wing' making a major mark in Iraq. So far, sll that we have seen is Iraqis, angry at the US, angry at the Shiites or angry at the Sunni. Kimmitt himself said that the war in Iraq was a 'paralell war', not PART of the war on terror, but a seperate (and he contended necessary) war unto itself.




Well, unless it is radical shiia and Sunni who are the cause of it, not some phantom 'third agency' moving through the shadows like a James Bond villain. They are killing Iraqi citizens who are trying to get recruited into the army or police, as a general rule. Thats no different a tactic than the IRA used in the 1970s.



Really? Actually there is no specific one leader of either group, but of the various leaders many of them seem to be right in the middle calling for reprisals. There are a few leaders that the US recognises for their friendly(ish) stance, but that does not make them 'leaders', in fact if anything it has diminished their influence.

If you were looking for a single leader of the Sunni, that would have to be the head of the main Sunni party, Muhsin Abd al-Hamid. He is currently speaking for the violence from an Iraqi jail cell.

More importantly, the voices of reason, for as you say there are some, don't seem to be having too much effect.

As I have said, its not a failure yet, but it certainly is sliding that way quickly.



Ah yes, by presenting an accurate account of what is going on in Iraq, its MY fault. And all those who oppose Bush Jr.'s policies are traitors I suppose...