Civil War ?

[kuranes]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD08Ak02.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040702031.html


Wonder what Bush has in mind for a next move ?

[distraction tactics]

If the divisions take place across geographic lines, the practical move would be to take the hit and divide the country.

Bush is in way over his head.

[euterpenc]

Aw.. I was hoping this would be a thread about another American civil war coming...

[mr. treat]

i don't think bush would formally allow his pet project to turn into a civil war, he'll tough it out just to save face. it's going to be up to whoever's in office next to cut the military's losses and leave.

[dubbeltop]

I think Bush(?) will use some military drawback in combination with installing a tough leader a la SH. Then just like in Afghanistan UN peace targets can form a buffer while Bush trumps his Iran Man card while saying look terrorists!!, and while everybody looks he presses that lliiiitlle red button and watches a nice fireworks display.

Ohh say can you SEE Iraq and Iran are atomic history etc etc etc.

or he fires Dick Cheney and hires BL and SH as secretary of defense(lol) and and SH as vice president.(now that would be historic!!)

Guess DC will be the new leader of the confederate atomic wasteland of Iraq and Iran.


PS:skip the nuke its BS but Iran is the next target because this prevents the buildup of a major anti US warmachine. Now lets not forget the importance of oil. China and other major oil consumers might intervene with weapons and support. So this might have serious international consequences.

[Nemesis]

i don't think bush would formally allow his pet project to turn into a civil war, he'll tough it out just to save face. it's going to be up to whoever's in office next to cut the military's losses and leave.
Agreed. It's a shame that a world leader is more concerned with being right than with what's best for everyone.

[mgb]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD08Ak02.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040702031.html


Wonder what Bush has in mind for a next move ?

In the context of Bush, I believe it's actually irrelevant whether or not Iraq is labelled as a civil war. His world is crumbling around him, people are jumping ship everyday, his coat tails are shrinking. I think what you're starting to see is massive opposition to him from within his own rank in file in an effort to disassociate from him before the next two elections.

So whether or not Iraq is going through a civil war almost becomes irrelevant because tons of labels are going to get thrown at it as people try and splash egg on the President's face.

In a more worldly context, yes it's probably a civil war. I mean, it was kind of inevitable when you think about it. Wait until the Shi'ites and Shia attack the Kurds because of their stability, that'll be fun. I wonder if they'll be able to get their hands on some poison gas, just to prove Saddam wasn't the only tyrant in town.

[INThoughtPolice]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD08Ak02.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/07/AR2006040702031.html


Wonder what Bush has in mind for a next move ?
It's all part of the plan.;) ;)


"War is peace."

[PenguinHunter]

If the divisions take place across geographic lines, the practical move would be to take the hit and divide the country.

Bush is in way over his head.

It's not geographic though. If you have a civil war based on ethnic identity in Iraq it will be everywhere. 25% of the population is in Baghdad and all the major groups have significant representation there. People aren't going to just move if you try to break up the coutry. Each region has significant representation of all the major groups. That is also combined with the fact that no Iraqi (not even the Kurds) want a divided Iraq. Many groups may want more autonomy - in a kind of federalism perhaps - but none want to convert Iraq back to its Ottoman provinces again (or some variation of them).

I was really confident a year ago that there would be no Iraqi civil war as such but I've become less certain over the past few months. Things are bad. Riverbend (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/)'s disheartened outlook on recent events hasn't helped either. Depending on how you define civil war you might say it is already going on but there just aren't many major groups. (yet?)

[distraction tactics]

Yeah, I figured it was a pretty big 'if', but there are geographical concentrations in the religious demographic.. if Iraqi's truly are facing a civil war, wouldn't the most practical solution - other than reinstating Saddam - be to give each group the right to their self-determination? A federation isn't a bad idea, but I'm thinking it would have to be very loosely-based. Wouldn't that simply mirror separate nation-states in function if not sentiment/intent?

[PenguinHunter]

Yeah, I figured it was a pretty big 'if', but there are geographical concentrations in the religious demographic.. if Iraqi's truly are facing a civil war, wouldn't the most practical solution - other than reinstating Saddam - be to give each group the right to their self-determination? A federation isn't a bad idea, but I'm thinking it would have to be very loosely-based. Wouldn't that simply mirror separate nation-states in function if not sentiment/intent?

That has been one of the ideas expressed and (kind of) adopted. The new Iraqi constitution grants the theoretical right to any two provinces to form a "region." They have to go through a referendum and vote but obviously anything like that will be given an sectarian spin. For example, you might find Najaf and Karbala want to form a new region. If this is put forward it will be because the local powers feel that they have the Shi'a majority behind them. If they do become a "region" then they will be able to declare their own official language, create a new governement and provide their own security/defense force. They even get their own constitution as long as it doesn't conflict with the national one.

Here (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rZKJQ6wiTLAJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_08_05_constit.pdf+Iraqi+constitution&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=2) is the Iraqi constitution. Look at chapter five to see the bit about Iraqi federalism.

Here (http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_riverbendblog_archive.html) is Riverbend. I posted this before when the constitution was first drafted but it's interesting to see how things are working themselves out. (just read from "Federalism...") She gives a good breakdown of the parts that worry her.

The problem is (as she points out) if you allow these "regions" their develoment is likely going to gravitate towards forming on ethnic grounds. This kind of division is the last thing Iraq needs.

[sharkmano2]

well, if you believe what Seymour Hersh is saying, Bush is just gonna say "screw it" and invade more countries