Civil War in Iraq?

I hate to say it, but I think Iraq was better off with Saddam as president. He was brutal, but he kept order, the Iraqis had working utilities such as running water and electricity in far more parts of the country, and the country wasn't at it's own throat. Maybe he had such a hard government because that's what was needed.
I'm not about to say I like some of the things the bastard did, but the US works because Americans fought for it of their own free will, and the rest of us have either grown up accustomed to it or have willingly moved here. It's not a one-size-fits-all deal. No form of government is, as likewise if you tried a form of government like what Iraq used to have here in the US you'd have a full-blown revolution by the end of the day.

I don't know how much sense the rest of that makes to anyone else, it's just some speculation I was thinking about.

You know what form of government we could push that I'm sure would take rise in Iraq? Fascism. Let's see how they respond to a healthy dose of fascism.

Originally Posted by Rock

But the civil war we're discussing here is between religious groups.

So you're on the ground in Iraq and can tell me that for sure? I've read otherwise. In the Guardian (U.K. newspaper) there was a particularly interesting article that quoted Sadr as to saying that "No Sunni would do this" in relation to the demolition of a recently demolished Shi'ite shrine.

Cui bono?

The scale of a Civil War cannot be determined, but the likelihood that some form of sectarian conflict will break out is unequivocal. This civil war is clearly a result of the U.S. invasion (since the specter of a sectarian conflict was non-existent before the invasion) and the continued presence of predominately U.S. troops in the country does not mitigate that effect, and arguably exacerbates it by giving the impression that it is carrying out the will of the predominately Shiite democratic government against the Sunnis and, conversely, from the Shiite perspective, stoking the fires of the Sunni insurgency.

Here is a plausible solution: Withdraw from Iraq, arm the Shiites, and accelerate the prospect of a civil war that is already looming on the horizon. Here, we can gain political favor with the predominant political bloc and consolidate the power of the government of our choosing while distancing ourselves from the necessary actions they might take to solidify their hold on the country.

How many Iraqis have died since the US invaded Iraq? I know it's less than what Saddam killed over the same time period (albeit people killed by Saddam died a much worse death). I remember Bush ballparking it aound 30,000.

Originally Posted by www.sega.co.jp

How many Iraqis have died since the US invaded Iraq? I know it's less than what Saddam killed over the same time period (albeit people killed by Saddam died a much worse death). I remember Bush ballparking it aound 30,000.

Let us remember that terrorists count as civilians because technically they are not affiliated with any military. Therefore when you see "Iraqi Civilian Death Toll" while some may be innocent a large number are also insurgents as well.

Let us also not forget that a vast majority of Iraquis are killed by foriegn muslim extremists trying to incite civil war in Iraq in an attempt to discredit America.

Quote:

Back From the Brink: A Strategy for Iraq

The approval of the Iraqi constitution in the October 15 referendum does not put Iraq on the path to stability and democracy but pushes it toward division into largely autonomous regions. And this new momentum is probably irreversible.

Whether it will lead to a catastrophic descent into greater violence or even ethnic cleansing, or to a managed transformation into a loose federation of regions enjoying extreme autonomy, depends on whether it becomes possible for Sunni Arabs to form their own region, as Kurds already have and Shias are bound to do once the constitution is in effect.

The central thrust of U.S. policy in Iraq must now be to help Sunnis organize an autonomous region and to convince Shias and Kurds that it is in their interest to make this possible. Paradoxically, announcing now a timetable for the inevitable withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq could give Washington additional leverage in influencing all sides to accept the necessary compromises.

Source: http://www.carnegieendowment.org/pub...g=zgp&proj=zme

Full Text (Direct PDF Download)

I found this to be a very interesting read that shouldn't go unnoticed.

Quote:

Paradoxically, announcing now a timetable for the inevitable withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq could give Washington additional leverage in influencing all sides to accept the necessary compromises.

Giving these people a timetable of when the US is leaving also leaves room for certain groups to plan attacks on other groups, possibly by using terrorist "allies" who are trying to provoke a civil war. At this stage, a timetable sounds like a bad idea in general. The US people want to know when their troops are coming home, I'd suggest that the government have a general list of goals that need to be accomplished and stick with that instead. Unless of course... that things end up costing way too much and the US finds that it can no longer afford the war.

Quote:

The central thrust of U.S. policy in Iraq must now be to help Sunnis organize an autonomous region and to convince Shias and Kurds that it is in their interest to make this possible.

Wouldn't separating the ethnic groups only make it simpler for them to end up in a nasty civil war? I would think that it'd be easier for me to not worry about accidentally hurting my friends if only my enemies were in front of me.

The sad reality is that these people aren't going to be happy with some territory or political representation. The Sunnis, the minority of the population, were once in control and decentralized goverment where the majority rules is not in their best interest... ever.

In my opinion what is needed in Iraq is integration, not separation. Unfortunately I largely doubt that the Iraqi people are at a stage where they can accept integration.

So what are the options? Integrate the population almost forcefully and they will be angered, upset, and violent. Split the population and they'll likely go to war and possibly drag other neighboring nations in the conflict with them.