Discussion in 'Middle Eastern Politics' started by qalam, Jun 17, 2007.
WHY? I like short posts make your total look really good.
We have no disagreement on that. However I would go much further and say a total lack of understanding of the dynamics of the region that led us to this point came from the administration and our field commanders are now just living that out first hand.
I'm glad that like the Pentagon we are now at least recognizing that Civil War and not just a war against the West does exist in Iraq. It's a start.
Soooo what is IT that "happens in civil wars". MARK
I realize it jhas been stated in the past, but the tribal mentality and the lack of knowledge of the thinking has led to the present civil war and if you do not like that term, then holy war.
I believe that Al qaeda is responsible for bringing about the present level of sectarian conflict, civil war, holy war or whatever it is you want to call it.
There's nothing to "believe". That is undeniable fact. There wasn't nearly as much sectarian violence until Zarqawi's bombing of the Samarra Mosque back in Feb of '06.
In Civil Wars you have a previously sovereign country that splits along some definable line. In this case Shiite and Sunni. They battle each other for overall control of said country.
This is not to say that is the only war going on in Iraq... far from it. You also have people from many different internal and external groups that fight against the US being in the Middle East or based on any Muslim soil.
None of that extra action makes the Civil War going on not a Civil War and it certainly doesn't make our position being there stronger. In fact it makes it much worse.
This is not a civil war. What you have in Iraq is anarchy.
There is no definable Sunni/Shiite political divide fighting over the country. What you've got is the fabric of Iraqi society splintering along tribal lines. And why shouldn't it? The Iraqi people have not had self rule since 900 BC! Since Babylon fell!! Since then it's been one empire after another. The tribes are now the only indeginous politcal force left in the country. One of them will emerge dominant enough to pacify the country, but it won't happen without excessive blood-shed.
There is no "new" U.S. plan for Iraq.
The U.S. plan all along for Iraq was to invade and occupy as long as necessary to secure our continued receipt of their special light, sweet crude oil, thereby preventing Saddam (or his successors!) from diverting it to China as Iraq threatened in the fall of 2002 to do as soon as the sanctions against Iraq choosing new trading partners came to an end, and those sanctions were about to come to an end ... when we "suddenly" invaded.
That is the original and only U.S. plan for Iraq.
This is what comes of a glaring, puposeful ignorance of history combined with obvious agenda. Pretty funny. As if the petty semantics of what you think constitutes civil war has any relevance to reality on the ground.
Separate names with a comma.