Why Does Everybody Say Iraq Will Fall Into Civil War

If we leave?

I hear it as the main - the only - arguement for keeping our troops in, but I have never heard any evidence that points to that possibility.

Sure, it seems logical, with the geographic & ethnic divisions in the country. BUT... has there been any action that justifies any inclination toward civil war.

Has there been any instances where our presence has actually kept the peace re: Iraqi/Iraqi conflict?

If so, why haven't we heard about it? You'd think it would be something to crow about. Instead, we just accept the alternative to occupation as "cutting & running" which would lead to "chaos" and "civil war".

That's not a given & it doesn't give the Iraqi people much credit.

Show me.

The only reason I want any troops there is to rebuild the things we destroyed, the politics and decisions for the nation should be made by Iraqis.

...but that sounds like the Treaty of Versaille. We get to pay for the damage Bush caused. Our economy goes to the shitter as a result, and some even bigger dumbass rises to power in 10-12 years, probably another Bush, with the help of right-wing loons made even more crazy. We're F'CKed, just about any way you slice it though.

rebuild...we will remain hated around the entire world. I agree either way it is a shitty deal..but now we are stuck.

end the occupation and just sign the fucking checks. nobody's trying to dodge responsibility. this is another false assumption about the so-called "cut & run" camp.

There is no Iraqi government. Organizing elections will take months. There aren't even viable political parties in Iraq right now, and the only people with cabinet-level gov't experience in the country are Baathists.

so what does that have to do with our occupation?

Ok, you said something to the effect of "sign the checks and get out"

I assume you mean checks to cover the damage - i.e. money for reconstruction. If there is no government, they who exactly do we give the money to?

hates us and is united against the U.S.

bush e's a uniter not a divider ...

be someone that would rush to pronounce himself King of the land? Following that announcement, someone else would come forward and say..NO, this land and what little resources are left belongs to US...because yada-yada.. Civil war!

Geeze, MadMax and The Thunderdome come to mind..and many others.

Is that how we ended up with King George? Is that why we find our selves in civil war now?

To answer your question..yes, this is Jurassic Politics.

devastating? With out a doubt in my mind Bushco and their high morals are the worst force this country has seen as far as I can tell.

consensus even within his own party. It is highly unusual for Republicans to break ranks and speak out against a fellow Pub..
I really believe it's FEAR! They are pondering whether Bush can WIN...and are ruminating changing horses at this late date.

Out of their presidential stable their most popular asset IS McCain. It would be hilarious if they tapped McCain. Also a huge worry for Democrats.. All bets would be off..And this would be one heck of a horse race.

I used to be convinced they would break down into civil war. There are a lot of factions, there are other nations like Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabis, and the former Soviet states who would be drawn into regional disputes to defend the Sunnis, Shi'a, Kurds or the others. A civil war in Iraq has great potential to engulf the whole region.

But now I think it is only a matter of timing. We can't run Iraq for a decade or more. If our departure will cause civil war, it will now, or five years from now.

The best thing would be for us to pull back, get all sides together to negotiate a new arrangement, then pull out. We can act as gaurantors from a distance, as we did in Yugoslavia, threatening any other nation that tries to get involved in partisan issues inside Iraq. We might have enough clout to do that. We can get international agreements on the circumstances where we could get involved.

But we are doing more harm than good there. We have to leave.

What, do you think they could form something on their own? Now let me go do my accounting with my Arabic numerals. I may need some al-jabr-a...:eyes:

There are distinct cultural differences in the groups making up Iraq. There is the fear by Turkey,Syria, and Iran of a Kurdish nation arising in the north. There is the age old Sunni-Shiite rivalry in the south involving Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. There is the Baathist regime in Syria with ties to the former Saddam government in Iraq. There is Israel which is already at war with Hamas and Hezbollah which was supported by Saddam. It is not just civil war but the fact neighboring countries may decide to step in the vacuum created by leaving a country unable to defend itself from it's neighbors. Bush has put us squarely in the middle of the mess in the ME. This is why the US and others supported Saddam for so long. His ruthlessness allowed him to control these factions and provide stability to the region. That is why Bush 1 and all of his advisers left Saddam in power the first time.

Is there any chance of Iraq dividing up into states, or even breaking into different countries based on ideology?

but the Turks don't want it. they've made that very clear.

that support all of these fears?

there has never been a civil war in Iraq.

Have Turkey or Israel or Iran shown any agression towards Iraq in 20 years?

when do you stop going by history and take things the way they are? and even if you're right about the civil war, 1) Is our occupation preventing it? 2) Is our occupation a better alternative?

AND if the fear is that another country will try to come in & fill the vaccuum, well that just doesn't seem logical. If 100,000 US troops weren't doing such a bang-up job in keeping the peace, then you're actually saying that Turkish Army may be tempted to step in and do our job for us? And by doing our job, i mean creating a puppet regime and looting the nation of its resources.

Turkey has been at war with the Kurds for a long time. If the Kurds have a base of strength in Iraq, it would be a security threat to them. Iran has been at war with Iraq and has already involved itself in the political situation now. Israel has attacked Iraq when they saw it as a threat, and are definitely on the warpath now. Syria would be inclined to expand it's Baathist base. Our first problem is to liberate the US so a rational government can involve the world, which has a stake in this. The Lone Ranger from Texas has created a mess and the US is responsible for seeing this fixed. As he was told, "You break it, you bought it." We are responsible because we are the US and our leader has done this. We have a moral responsibility to prevent genocide that might follow our departure. This has gone on too long already and we have lost valuable time because Bush is incompetent and had no plan or strategy for success and how to measure it. I was against this war and I am not defending it. I am saying that unlike my pResient I have to accept responsibility and do the right thing to the best of my ability.

came to power.

And Saddam was supported by Washington not because it was his ruthlessness which was hold Iraq together. Saddam was supported because it was his ruthlessness which was holding Iran at bay.

Iraq did not exist until it was created by Churchill. The British had a military presence which was a period of unrest. Saddam gassing the Kurds might be perceived as severe response to civil unrest. No one said their is a history of civil war but there is certainly the likelihood given the history of the region. As I pointed out it isn't just the threat of civil war but also the regional instability that requires us to establish a government that can protect itself from it's neighbors. we supported Saddam when Iran was still an ally.

and those three groups still don't get on well.
Creation of Iraq

<snip> The merging of the three provinces of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra into one political entity and the creation of a nation out of the diverse religious and ethnic elements inhabiting these lands was accomplished after World War I. Action undertaken by the British military authorities during the war and the upsurge of nationalism after the war helped determine the shape of the new Iraqi state and the course of events during the postwar years, until Iraq finally emerged as an independent political entity in 1932.

It is a bit like the post WWI nation of Yugoslavia, formed from diverse national/cultural populations which recently broke into war and genocide in Bosnia. Old blood feuds tend to live longer than modern states with borders drawn up by those who win wars and settle treaties but not fully concerned with the traditions of the people living in the areas.
creation of Yugoslavia

Western powers are pretty much responsible for all those tyrants in power in the Arab nations. It takes strong-man tactics to maintain unity in states cobbled together for political expediency rather than
maintaining old borders which might acknowledge cultural differences of the peoples involved. The Brits and French divvied up the area after WWI and compromised with rival Arab families who laid claims to various sections. The borders we have today are not the actual traditional borders of the various indigenous peoples of the area.

The US started king making in the area later. We are the ones responsible for the deposed Shah of Iran (overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists who brought us the Iran Hostage situation which contributed to President Carter's undoing).

Saddam was our man in Iraq. Both the Shah in Iran and Saddam in Iraq became brutal tyrants to 'their' people in order to maintain their positions. US support of such leaders does not make us popular in the area.

The same will happen if we leave.

you pick

So we must stay on to complete those 14 permanent bases. Their purpose is to protect the Iraqi people, of course.

Our careful stewardship is making news!

How about leaving a country that can take care of itself?

uniting all three factions, the Sunnis, Shi'a, and Kurds. All of them hate us and want the US to leave the country we have destroyed.

will never sign up for the military.

but unlikely. Turkey has said they will not accept this. The Shia may be torn between those loyal to Iran and those who are Iraqi and have fought Iran. If the Sunnis try to restore their Baathist power base and develop close ties or even join Syria, Israel may feel the need to make preemptive strikes.

Are we back on THAT again? :eyes:

Big White Papa protecting them little brown ones, eh?

I've seen lots of evidence of why we need to stay. I've seen none demonstrating how Iraq stays together in peace if we leave. Sure it sucks that we are there, but it IS our responsibility to fix it.

That said, I'm open. Let's here it. Make your case. How does Iraq form a government, hold together as a nation, prevent civil war, and prevent other nations from invading or becoming otherwise drawn in by Iraqs inevitable instability.

The risk, in my opinion, is simply too great.



No sarcasm intended in the following: Wouldn't if be funny if they were to bring back Sadam?

what's happening now and will happen as the occupation continues.

So is that an argument for having the British continue to colonize India?

If not, then why do we use it as a modern-day argument to justify staying in Iraq?

be an eventuality (if it were to happen at all) even w/o our invasion and upon the death of Saddam? The guy wasn't going to live forever, after all.

All along, I have thought that the civil war arguement was just one more mendacious reason given to us by the administration for endless occupation and war. None of their other reasons for the invasion/occupation have proved out. Why would this one?

Why did everyone say that East Germany would take years to fall?
Why did everyone say that everyone hates the term "liberal"?
Why did everyone say that Condi Rice is "brilliant"?
Why does everyone say there's a god?
Why does everyone say that Socialized Medicine is hated?
Why does everyone say Dean is to the left of the other candidates?
Why does everyone say religion is good?
Why does everyone say men aren't sensitive?
Why does everyone say women don't kill?
Why does everyone say we want to give freedom to others?

Consensus opinion is an awful thing, and in every case, there are a reasonable number of respectable voices who dispute these things, but they're drowned out by the crowd. This is a flaw of constitutent Republics: common agreement is the highest form of proof. Nothing (and I use a superlative on purpose) could be further from the truth.

Czechoslovakia split in two with a mutual respect and maturity that the world should look to with hopes for our future. The Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites may not go at each other's throats, and there's ample proof that they DO have an identity as Iraqis in addition to their clannish ethnic one. Some evidence of this is to be seen in Sistani's caution and the fact that Sadr can't enthuse more than a minority of the members of his religion.

Everyone knows that it'll break into chaos without us.
Everyone knows that without us, the world wouldn't exist.
We are the center of the universe.

Iraq was in a state of civil war before our invasion, and Saddam was winning in the South and tied in the North

For ten years and more the Kurdish population, no stranger to conflict as a minority in Iraq, Turkey, Syria, and Iran had limited autonomy they fought for with a great deal of help on the ground from US Special Forces and certainly a 100% secure airborne umbrella.

The Shia population has also been struggling less successfully ? in no small part due to concentration of population and terrain had also risen up against the Baathists in response to George HW Bush.

With the yoke of the Sunni dominated, centrally recruited military/intelligence apparatus not only eliminated, but in many cases barred from assuming a role in the new Iraq, both Kurdish (and Turkmen) North, and the Shia South see little reason to give anything to the Sunni center. The oil is in the North and South, not the center ? why should the Shia share their geographically given wealth with their former murderous oppressors? Why should the Kurds who essentially liberated themselves as far as domestic autonomy more than a decade ago actually accept a situation worse than their stasis quo?

There were many good reasons not to go to Baghdad during the 2nd Gulf war (1st being Iran/Iraq). ? but then again, the current administration doesn?t listen to anybody?

I would agree that ?Civil War is a Certainty?