Iraq Falling Apart?

[Pangloss]

Is it just me, or does the situation in Iraq suddenly look a lot more grim this week?

 

American politicians right now are debating whether to send more troops or begin to schedule a distant withdrawl timetable. But I'm getting a vibe here that that decision is about to be made for us.

 

I could be wrong, of course. It's not just the escalation in sectarian violence that has me thinking this. The fulcrum, if you ask me, is the Iraqi government ordering us not to intercede on behalf of Sunnis. After which they promptly swoop with a death squad in faster than you can say "pogrom".

 

Watch to see if the "more troops" option comes off the table this week. If it does I wouldn't be surprised if the reason turns out to be a behind-the-scenes "thanks but no thanks" phone call from Baghdad to Washington.

 

But maybe I'm reading too much into it.

[CPL.Luke]

something tells me that the Iraqi government isn't calling the shots on this one, washington doesn't want Iraq to fall apart on them and if it looks like its heading that way and Bush wants more troops there we'll send more troops.

 

however I have a feeling were just going to call it quits.

[bob000555]

If it does I wouldn't be surprised if the reason turns out to be a behind-the-scenes "thanks but no thanks" phone call from Baghdad to Washington.

Sure Iraq didn’t want us coming in the first place but now they probably want us to stay to prevent the immanent civil war. But in the end the US congress is going to decide this one (not the “I’ve vetoed one bill” lame duck president), I predict a close to unanimous vote for a time table or immediate withdraw.

[Pangloss]

Sure, they want us to stay. That was their reason, too, up until recently, when the government decided to stop trying to kill Al'Sadr and instead ally itself with him and start ordering American troops to back off from the Shi'a militia forces that he controls. Now their reason is that our presence is helping them to establish the Second Shi'a State, vassal to Iran.

 

Is that what we're there for?

[Sisyphus]

I wonder if a Shi'a state is inevitable. I mean, they're a large majority, and we've gone through a whole lot of trouble to establish elections. And all this violence seems to be polarizing the population more between Sunni and Shi'ite, so should we really be surprised if there's a Shi'a government? Are we going to establish a "democracy," and then stay there and make sure they practice it the way we want?

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure that staying there can accomplish the goal of making sure they practice it the way we want. What we appear to be heading towards is a situation in which we help them establish the kind of democracy that Iran has.

 

Let me put it this way: If the situation becomes one in which the US forces are only allowed to attack Sunni insurgents, then what will the US actually be doing at that point, politically speaking?

[john5746]

Sure Iraq didn’t want us coming in the first place but now they probably want us to stay to prevent the immanent civil war. But in the end the US congress is going to decide this one (not the “I’ve vetoed one bill” lame duck president), I predict a close to unanimous vote for a time table or immediate withdraw.

 

I think most of the people in that region were glad to see Saddam taken out. They blamed all their problems on him. Now, they blame their problems on the US.

[Skye]

I'm not sure a Shia Islamic state is all that likely. Not all Shia are in favour of an Islamic state (with something akin to Shia sharia law) and I can't imagine that the Sunni Arabs or Kurds, or any of the other groups, will like the idea. So there's probably only a minority that support it.

[mr d]

Hello

 

The believe amoung many is that Iraq already is in a state of civil war, media just does not use the term for political reasons. A war mainly along ethic and religious lines, and fueled by insurgents whom attack either of the two main factions of Shia and Sunni to encourage reprisal by militia factions.

 

If allowed Iraq will most likely break apart into 3 countries one Shia lead, one Sunni, and one Kurd.

 

Certain polititians now view that if Iraq can be held together it will be more as a Confederation of States, where ethic groups hold power in each of their regions. With a weak central goverment representing the Country of Iraq, mainly for disposition of capitol gained by oil sales.

 

Mr D

[ParanoiA]

Hello

 

The believe amoung many is that Iraq already is in a state of civil war, media just does not use the term for political reasons. A war mainly along ethic and religious lines, and fueled by insurgents whom attack either of the two main factions of Shia and Sunni to encourage reprisal by militia factions.

 

If allowed Iraq will most likely break apart into 3 countries one Shia lead, one Sunni, and one Kurd.

 

Certain polititians now view that if Iraq can be held together it will be more as a Confederation of States, where ethic groups hold power in each of their regions. With a weak central goverment representing the Country of Iraq, mainly for disposition of capitol gained by oil sales.

 

Mr D

 

Sounds reasonable to me. Why not let them each have their own territory?

 

I don't know about the media not using the term 'civil war' for political reasons as it would benefit them and their political cause to use such terms. So far it has remained an insurgent's fight, so to label it a civil war would be incorrect and misleading.

[Pangloss]

Three disconnected nations is impossible because of the oil situation. You'd be leaving the Sunni with nothing (except, of course, their IEDs and AK-47s). It would also leave the Shi'a unable to develop the southern oil field (which currently produces almost nothing), because UN mandate requires a federalized oil company before international investment will be allowed to resume. (Of course Iran could do it anyway, and probably would under those circumstances, but that raises other issues.)

 

A 3-inner-states solution that keeps a larger Iraqi state intact in a more-or-less confederation, splitting oil revenues, is a possibility with wide support. But it requires a peaceful period of cooperation in order to be achieved. This is unlikely WITH Americans in Iraq, and it is also unlikely if Americans leave.

 

Catch-22.

[GutZ]

Has there been situations that would offer a deal that would benefit all parties involved to stop fighting, and work? Insentive to work together type idea. If terrorism was the main concern, Having a few friends in the Middle East would help significantly, I don't think that can be done by force, but is there something all iraqis want?

[ParanoiA]

A 3-inner-states solution that keeps a larger Iraqi state intact in a more-or-less confederation, splitting oil revenues, is a possibility with wide support. But it requires a peaceful period of cooperation in order to be achieved. This is unlikely WITH Americans in Iraq, and it is also unlikely if Americans leave.

 

Catch-22.

 

Oh, that's actually what I meant. Three states under the centralized title of Iraq.

 

Are there any of the three factions that don't agree with this? If not, what exactly are they fighting for?

[Sisyphus]

Trouble is, they're not cleanly distributed in different regions. Plenty of areas are heavily mixed.

[CPL.Luke]

you also have the problem of shia militias still under the belief that they can get the whole pie and have a shia Iraqi state...

[Pangloss]

Both good points.