[Itch]

It seems like the occupying armies are the common enemy, or at least it is widely desired that most of Iraq's citizenry want those armies out of the country. The longer occupying forces stay there, the more impatient, frustrated, and angry people become.

If there is going to be a civil war, then I think it would be most likely to happen after the occupying armies withdraw, stagnate, or die. In the meantime, there may be people who try to incite civil war. I'm not specifically sure why they'd do that, but I'm sure there are numerous groups who could gain much from such violence.

[pilferage]

They are basing it on categorization. Since (iirc) Iraq is divided along tribal lines, any internal conflict betwixt it's residents cannot, by definition, be a civil war.

[BabyPeanut]

[pilferage]

I owe you my first born for exposing me to that site!

[NevadaGhosts]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')unmen in two cars opened fire on a vehicle carrying Col. Ahmed Abeis, the head of a police station in central Baghdad, killing him and four of his guards, said police Capt. Talib Thamir.

[BabyPeanut]

link
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')omeone once told me that they thought Sistani was responsible for the fact that civil war didn't break out in Iraq. That's garbage. Sistani has no influence over Sunnis and he also has little influence over many Shia. Civil war hasn't broken out in Iraq because Iraqis are being tolerant and also because we're very tired. It's like we spent our lives in conflict with someone or another, and being in conflict with each other is not the most tempting option right now. Sistani is an Iranian cleric quietly pushing a frightening agenda and we're feeling the pressure of it every day.

[Carmiac]

Nope, that is a real blog from a woman living in Baghdad.

[RdSnt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'H')ere is a story suggesting that the Turkomen and Kurds might get together to claim the Kirkuk oil field revenues for themselves. Assyrian News Agency The civil war may start as another war over oil. I don't think it is inevitable but it is alarming.

[MicroHydro]

Iraq: Does it sound more like civil war then insurgency??
I thought this was going to be a thread about the future of the USA

[arretium]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Hawkcreek', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') thought this was going to be a thread about the future of the USA

[RonMN]

ya know, in that "free election"...more iraqi registered voters turned up to vote than in OUR (USA) election! And they were under the threat of loosing their lives!!! and they STILL showed up to vote! so what were you saying???

[savethehumans]

We stay, we go. . .there's gonna be civil war either way. It's just that they have to deal with us, too, if we stay. Which, unfortunately, we are.

[TrueKaiser]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'y')a know, in that "free election"...more iraqi registered voters turned up to vote than in OUR (USA) election! And they were under the threat of loosing their lives!!! and they STILL showed up to vote! so what were you saying???

[Leanan]

The good news from Iraq is that there's been a sudden drop in insurgent attacks against American forces and Iraqi police. The bad news is the violence has turned against religious targets: link

Iraq's new Shia-led government is doing what any political party worth its salt in the Middle East does: assemble militias and stage terrorist attacks against their political rivals. Wonder if any of those oil predictions take civil war in Iraq into account...

[vegasmade]

A divided Iraq actually serves our strategic interests. We're already staking our claim on the oil producing regions and really couldn't care if the rest of Iraq divides into thirds or they just kill everyone. As I understand it, our bases are being set up at oil infastructure points. Once we've secured what we came for, they can have their sand pile!

[EnemyCombatant]

There you have it. Civil War means Rumsfeld did his job. A unified Iraq would mean the US would have to leave. I am sure the CIA is helping to support the insurgency just as they do throughout many parts of the world. I am basing this on the MO they have used in Latin America specifically. War is good for business.

[Carlhole]

link Bush Opts for Civil War in Iraq by Paul Craig Roberts

What are we to make of the news reports that Baghdad is to be encircled and divided into smaller and smaller sections by 40,000 Iraqi and 10,000 U.S. troops backed by U.S. airpower and armor in order to conduct house-to-house searches throughout the city to destroy combatants?

Is this generous notice of a massive offensive a ploy to encourage insurgents to leave the city in advance, thus securing a few days respite from bombings? Is the offensive a desperate attempt by the Bush regime and the Iraqi government to achieve a victory in hopes of reviving their flagging support?

Or is it an act of revenge? The insurgency has eroded American support for Bush's war. A majority of Americans now believe Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake and that Bush's war is not worth the cost. The insurgency has proved the new Iraqi government to be impotent both as a unifying agent and source of order. U.S. frustration with a few hundred insurgents in Fallujah resulted in the destruction of two-thirds of the former city of 300,000 and the deaths of many civilians. Are we now going to witness Baghdad reduced to rubble?

Considering reports that 80 percent of Sunnis support the insurgency passively if not actively, it looks as if extermination of Sunnis will be required if the U.S. is to achieve "victory" in Iraq. If this Baghdad offensive is launched, it will result in an escalation of U.S. war crimes and outrage against the U.S. and the new Iraqi "government." Obviously, the Americans are unwilling to take the casualties of house-to-house searches. That job falls to the Iraqi troops who are being set against their own people.

If insurgents remain and fight, U.S. airpower will be used to pulverize the buildings, and "collateral damage" will be high. If insurgents leave and cause mayhem elsewhere, large numbers of innocent Iraqis will be detained as suspected insurgents. After all, you can't conduct such a large operation without results. As most households have guns, which are required for protection as there is no law and order, "males of military age" will be detained from these armed households as suspected insurgents. The detentions of thousands more Iraqis will result in more torture and abuses. Consequently, the ranks of the active insurgency will grow.

Neocon court historians of empire, such as Niall Ferguson, claim that the U.S. cannot withdraw from Iraq because the result would be a civil war and bloodbath. However, a bloodbath is what has been going on since the ill-fated "cakewalk" invasion. Moreover, the planned Baghdad offensive is itself the beginning of a civil war. The 50,000 troops represent a Shi'ite government. These troops will be hunting Sunnis. There is no better way to start a civil war.

As George W. Bush has made clear many times, he is incapable of admitting a mistake. The inability to admit a mistake makes rational behavior impossible. In place of thought, the Bush administration relies on coercion and violence. Nevertheless, Congress does not have to be a doormat for a war criminal. It can put a halt to Bush's madness.

The solution is not to reduce Iraq to rubble. The U.S. can end the bloodshed by exiting Iraq. A solution is for Iraq to organize as a republic of three largely autonomous states or provinces—Shi'ite, Sunni, and Kurd– along the lines of the original American republic. The politicians within each province will be too busy fighting one another for power to become militarily involved with those in other provinces.

The problem is that Bush wants "victory," not a workable solution, and he is prepared to pay any price for victory. The neocons, who are in effect Israeli agents, want to spread their war against Islam to Syria and Iran. For neocons, this is a single-minded pursuit. Their commitment to war is not shaken by reality or rationality.

The Bush administration has proven beyond all doubt that it is duplicitous and has delusions that are immune to reality. America's reputation is being destroyed. We are becoming the premier war criminal nation of the 21st century. We are all complicit. How much more evil will we tolerate?

[EnemyCombatant]

Bill O'Reilley says we should level the place since Iraqis really don't want to fight for freedom anyway.

IMO, the insurgency is by design. Kaos and civil war is good for the neocon strategy. Expect it to continue. We could stop the insurgency if we wanted to just by leaving Iraq. But that's not an option.

[Carlhole]

Exactly. When it was observed that most of the world's remaining reserves were held by Muslim countries, it became transparently clear who would have to fill the shoes of the Former Soviet Union in taking on the role of THE ENEMY of Truth, Justice and The American Way - a big and dirty PR job to be sure!

The question then became, "How do you turn these raghead wife-beaters into a world-class threat? 911 !! Afghanistan! Operation Iraqi Liberation! Civil war in the Middle East! All of that should resolve some-damn-how by about 2010 when the world will be experiencing the daunting realty of PO.

[RG73]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '[')url=http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=6128]link[/url] The neocons, who are in effect Israeli agents, want to spread their war against Islam to Syria and Iran.