Iraq's future. Civil War looming?
 

With all the problems we have had lately, with cities like Falluja all over Iraq, us losing over 600 actual soldiers. Thousands more injured. We have lost 16 soldiers this month alone and we are less than 5 days in.

Now the Coalition has called for the arrest of this Cleric Al Sadr Very powerful man, we called him an outlaw. I'm not judging whether or not he is. I only care about the backlash. This guy commands many thousands of Iraqi's. This guy is a powderkeg and I see the Coalition tempting him with matches. The Clerics have been very helpful so far in-as-much as they haven't told their people to wage war against the occupiers.

I don't think it is possible to capture him. The result of any attempts will be either the deaths of our forces or the massacre of hundreds to thousands of his supporters to get to him.

If we go through with this either way, it's civil war. I don't think there are any bones about that. I don't think there will be any real stability in Iraq for a very long time. Its going to be hell and if it ever does stabilize it will be under a Theocracy. Most of the other clerics are only barely holding back. They are doing so mostly because of our promised withdrawl date I believe. If we get involved in a war with Al Sadr's followers I don't see how we can realistically pull out in under 3 months. That should bring the rest of them into a free-Iraq coalition against us as well.

Does anyone else really see the future of Iraq any other way than this? Why?

The situation is totally fucked up and it will only get worse. The withdrawal, if it actually takes place will only happen once America is happy that it has Iraq’s puppet government under control. This government will have to kill everyone who opposes it – like Saddam did, or it will get overthrown and a religious government will take over like Iran. I don’t see the ‘freedom & democracy’ that Bush promised happening in Iraq – it will take generations to achieve that, if ever.

Looming? Sounds like it might be happening. Over on a link in Instapundit.com, he links to this guy in Iraq:
Unverified, but scary and plausible.

via Josh Marshall. . .

I believe the Nelson Report is some kind of insider news cheat sheet passed around the beltway. Doesn't seem to be available online.

Somehow, the words "stay the course" don't quite do the situation justice.

Al Sadr is not at all a "very powerful" man. Compared to the many other clerics, he's a small fringe figure. There will be an arrest, and it will be resisted by his supporters. These will be wounded or killed, but this will not inflict "hundreds to thousands" of casualties.

You really shouldn't blow this situation out of proportion. Most Iraqis still appear to dislike these extremists (especially those in Fallujah), and most wouldn't shed a tear for them.

But still, this is a very tense situation, where one false move could trigger even more hatred, now amongst the "normal Iraqi's". If handled correctly, it will (unfortunately) result in a small number of deaths, but then the "revolt" will stop, when these people realize there's nothing to gain and a lot to lose.

Sadr is not the top dog, true, but he isn't exactly a fringe figure either. Only two clerics have more power than he does, and while both of them are in our camp for now, any moves that result in Shia deaths will make the fence they are straddling more and more narrow. Even Sistani cannot back an occupying force that is killing Shias and retain credibility.

This situation has to be handled very delicately, and I fear that even if this ends badly for Sadr, which it probably will, it will also end badly for us.

Story in my paper today.

Blackrock Mercenaries hold off hundreds of attacking Iraqi militia in Najaf.

Najaf is the city that Sadr is starting to shore up I believe.

Is this an "Oh shit" situation or what.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...1130577,00.htm

The only confirmation so far is this one source. If I had another source this would deserve a new thread.

I see reports of a dozen. I sure as hell hope 130 is not accurate.

CNN link

Same here. I hope it isn't 130.
I have been seeing most stories now hovering between a dozen and 20 some.
I hope Sky is wrong.

There is no way the Military could hide 130 deaths today.

If it is correct it'd be affirmed within hours. I'm willing to bet my life savings its full of shit.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...047720,00.html

The lede:

I've seen the official, confirmed number to have been 18 dead.
So, it's at least that. In one day.

130 people said to be dead total.

Ok, well, that number of Iraqi's won't mean jack over here. But 18 is still high for us. I think the 112 iraqi deaths, if confirmed, will get plastered all over the media over there. I don't think that will be good for us. Already the Sunni's and Shi'ites are starting to put aside their differences, but it is to unite against us. For example, Sistani is now publicly supporting Sadr.

If I had any friends or family over there anymore, the friends who were there are now out for various reasons, I would be extremely worried for them right now.

Well, total, yes, but that news source did have a preliminary account that American casualities alone might be that high. Obviously that account was way off base.

IMO. The US should get the hell out, let them/watch them kill each other.

agreed.. whatever we do there is just a waste. It kills me to hera people say we should pretty much just hold a gun to their head til they figure out that democracy and freedom is the way to go.. its just not going to work.

no way!
you made the mess and now it's your job to solve it.

No doubt. You shit in your bed, now you have to lie in it.

Pulling out would only reinforce the paper tiger belief of the US that terrorists have held for 30 years. It's time to put guns to terrorists' heads since the alternative is to allow them to continue putting their guns to ours.

Ah, but what's the exit strategy?

If the USA had free and fair elections tomorrow, the Shiites, who are the numerical majority, would win. This would turn Iraq into a religious state like Iran, and would probably start a civil war with the Kurds.

So, the reality is that for all the posturing, the USA won't allow free and fair democratic elections in Iraq for a long time. I assume part of the posturing on the part of the Shiite clerics has been because they realize that the USA power handover is structured to keep them out of majority power.

I suspect that when Iraq does get to elections, that that will be structured in some complicated electoral way to allow power to be divided, perhaps by splitting each region into it's own "state". I don't know how the USA is going to prevent a Shiite president though.

So, onetime2, what do you see as the exit strategy that will leave a majority muslim country with a USA-friendly government?

Well, we've all seen how well that's worked out for Israel...

Wouldnt it be interesting if by our very presence in Iraq, we are responsible for a Sunni/ Shi'ite reconciliation. If the two major religious sects in Iraq combined against the U.S. we would be in one hell of a world of hurt.
I see this as a dreadful situation, the only way we can hope for peace in Iraq is if these two factions cooperate, yet if they do, it will not bode well for our forces.

Any thoughts?

Yeah it's a real complicated idea, splitting a country up by regions and allowing those regions (or districts or whatever you want to call them) to elect representatives who share power.

And we've seen how well ignoring the situation and not responding to terrorist attacks has worked for us over the last 30 years. Until countries and leaders pay a price for their attacks they will continue to grow in intensity.

Nice oversimpification. If the plan is so simple, why isn't it in place now? The fact is, the Shiite majority would like nothing more than a religious state. And they are the majority. So, therefore, if the USA doesn't want a religious state, then Iraq can't be a democracy.

That bigass wall has been working well enough in my opinion, way more than trying to "understand the root causes." Being a pussy with them just makes people laugh at you.

Not oversimplified in the least. Simple does not necessarily mean fast. In any voting mechanism you need a census and some way to verify the identity of the voters. That's why it's not in place right now.

In a democracy all people are supposed to be represented. Voting by district, state, county, whatever is the best way to achieve that representation.

This reminds me of Henry Kissinger's books on Vietnam...

That a nation not used to democracy with no pluralistic tradition (in Vietnam's case, the Confucian teachings stress one truth, not multiple truths that can be shared, thus making it all or nothing in beliefs) and no identity or common ground that can be shared (not to mention bitter sects/enemies).... it can be a shit hole trying to make a democracy.

Ngo Dinh Diem was to be the democratic leader of South Vietnam... he went autocratic but kept the country in check.

I never thought I would agree with you, but I guess the stars must be in alignment today and the seven horsemen of the apocolypse are let loose.

I have a very good friend who comes from Syria.

She is educated, a lawyer, a Christian, and very very western. She lives half of the year in Toronto and half of the year in Damascus.

When discussing Afganistan once she told me that she wished that they would put the king back in power. I said that that would be the last thing they needed - another autocrat.

She said, no, you don't understand that the middle east doesn't work well with democracies like the west. All they have ever known is strongmen type leaders and all you can hope for is that he is a "good king".

Assad in Syria is very much like that. The archtypal "strongman". We in the west think that he is a brutal dictator, but the truth of the matter is that he, and the King of Jordan, and (gasp) even Saddam keep their countries working by suppressing any sort of uprising.

We tend to glamourize uprisings as a noble expression of the people, but in many cases they are extremists who want to merely set themselves up in power.

In Syria my friend told me that there was once a hard line muslim uprising (Assad is quite secular) and it was brutally put down.

Whether we like it or not, this is not as bad as the alternative.

As much as I dislike Bush, I think his idea of "Democracy in Iraq" was a noble idea. He and allot of people (wrongly) figured that if you just got rid of the strongman, that people would embrace democracy as we have in the west and live happily ever after.

Nice pipe dream, far from reality.

What you have is several different groups now striving to become pope of Iraq. Trying to fill the void and rewrite Iraq as they see fit.

I guess it comes down to the fact that you can not affect sociological changes at the end of an M-16. It takes hundreds of years and there must be a popular will amoung the people that that is indeed the way they will go.

When that happens, the people will naturally rise up and the old oppressive regime will be toppled.

We have seen it from the Magna Carta right on through to Soviet Georgia a few months ago.

Until the people rise up themselves, we are kidding ourselves thinking that we can hand them "democracy" on a silver platter and they will embrace.

Most Iraqis don't even know, or care, what democracy is.

They are too busy listening to the local Ayatollah.

james t kirk brings up a good point: if after hundreds and even thousands of years your society has lived under autocratic rule - sudden overnight freedom or democracy can cause a lot of problems

the world is mostly made up of autocratic nations and yes even in our own "backyard" (South America/Latin America) a good nubmer of countries are autocratic - many if not most have tried forms of democracy but the tradition of military strongmen and dictators has kept those nations so...

thats why we often use the word "Americanism" - a common set of values and beliefs that Americans in general share - in many nations, however, they have their own form

/shrug - good discussion on this stuff btw!

Heh, I completely agree with your post too. What's next, cats and dogs living together?

Until democracy is tried no one can "know" that it can't work. Just because that's all they've known, it doesn't mean that it's all that will work.

So you're in favor of making Iraq a Shiite-led country? Just checking. :)

That's a pretty huge gamble, given the stakes.

Everyone talks about democracy, and how we have to get it to the countries of the middle east (like Iraq).. Who says they want it or need it?

These regions have a rich history spanning ten times the life of the "west" and America, and not with democracy. Who is to say that the common people will be served by democracy?

I remember pundits and journalists making snarky comments on the Loya Jirga, saying "thats not right, its not even an election" when this is a process that is time honored.

just a thought, but maybe we're going about this the wrong way...

We didn't have democracy in the western world until quite recently, if you look back at the whole of history. There were brief periods of relative democracy (Greece, Romans, 19th century and onward), but these were (until recently) not universal. Therefore, I'd say that the "history of autocratic rule" is something that we experienced too.

I expect the people in the middle-east to be as good as us at building a lasting democracy. Perhaps it'll take time, but they'll get there. One essential first step seems to be a firm seperation of church and state, like in Turkey - a democratic Muslim country, one of the few examples. It *is* possible, and it's been done.

You raise a really good point. I see a couple of responses claiming that Iraqi's don't know what democracy is.

I think they might say they have seen the West practice it and don't want it. That's the irony of freedom--some people can choose not to exercise it (or cede their rights to someone else). While it may seem like they don't have control, uprising, even only to be killed, would be the only demonstration that they desire to take back their autonomy.

The bleeding edge of fem theory argues that women in the Middle East are using their burqas as shields against Western Freedom--which some of them feel is oppressive. That is, their wearing burqas is equivalent to our women bearing breasts. Now that seems bizarre to some of us, I'm sure, but that's research coming out of ME women's mouths to women interviewers--and I don't have anything to rebut it other than my own ideology.

SO long as it's led by a Shiite under the rules set forth in the constitution, absolutely.