| Submit your comments on this article |
| International-UN-NGOs |
| The Real Civil War |
| 2006-04-01 |
| With all the recent MSM hype about an Iraq civil war, behind the scenes, a much greater civil war might be brewing. The US is aware of this, and is working to forstall it from happening. It is a war within Islam itself. It is not easy to calculate, because their are many factions with conflicting agendas, and no easy alliances. The obvious fight is between Sunni and Shiites. But it is unclear, as while the Iranians might dream of a Shiite empire, the Shiite are intensely divided among themselves. As are the Sunni. So this brings into play lesser factions, minority interests, and their programs. One such split is between the primitive, fanatical, Wahabbi and Salafist movements vs. the modern, secularist, and even socialist Moslems. While not actively fighting, they constantly conspire against each other, and wait for an opportunity. Another split is between Wahabbis and factions such as the Sufi, especially in Saudi Arabia. While the Wahabbi rule half the country, the Sufi are quite powerful among the upper classes, and if the Wahabbis ambitions become too great for them, and they openly challenge the Sauds, they might be replaced by the Sufi. As managers of all the Saudi holy sites. This could be markedly violent. Other factions, such as the Moslem Brotherhood, could turn on whoever they see fit, in an almost unpredictable, but powerful way. All told, it has become one task of the US military in the region to control any of these, or other outbreaks, that could spiral out of control and cause chaos through the ME. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #10 Excuse me, but these violent factions within Islam have pre-existed the entrance of the US involvement in Iraq by decades, if not centuries. Implying that it is the job of the United States to resolve these as well is probably intended to imply that the United States is somehow to BLAME for them. It may seem obvious, but Trolls and lefties exploit preconditions and ambiguity, so making things clearer and more obvious limits their options: "I didn't MEAN THAT!" is their obvious response that covers up their irritation that their loophole just got closed. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2006-04-01 21:34 |
| #9 I often wonder if they are capable of self-government. Ever watched sessions of the Taiwanese legislature? Gang fights in the aisles. :) Too bad our own 'esteem' body of the people no longer witnesses the occassional 'caning'. When words fail you .... |
| Posted by: Hupoluth Crearong7529 2006-04-01 20:23 |
| #8 A civil war sounds like a good way to describe it. It isn't new, and as he says it isn't a single battle. One aspect is the neo-Kharajites against the rest. Forty years ago I was a young lad in Africa, living at a mission school with a Muslim village next door. I'm not sure it is fair to call the villagers "moderates;" they were perhaps a bit too syncretist for the label to be perfectly accurate. But there was no seething, Israel wasn't on anybody's radar, and I never heard of apostates getting killed. Ostracised from the family, yes. There weren't a lot of conversions among the Muslims; there were a lot more among the animists (who could also face ostracism, by the way). Aside from the minor detail that the whole school grounds turned into a giant refugee camp a few years ago, I rather doubt that the village would have the same attitudes now as it did then. The Salafi missionaries have been around, teaching Muslims to "come back to the pure path." That is, the pure path as taught by the Salafis. So what do the native Muslims do? It has long been an article of faith that following any of the 4 main schools makes you an acceptable Muslim, so they have to accept the Wahhabis as legit. (And the Wahhabis have got lots of money and custody of the holy places, so they must be very legit, right?) But the Wahhabis reserve the right to declare other Muslims to be infidel. So native Muslims are in a position analogous to our own, where we accord freedom of speech to people who want to deny us freedom of speech. And the Wahhabi schools and mosques have enough money to drown out opposition voices, even when there are any. The result is obvious: native leaders lose influence and Wahabbi rules and priorities reign. I've never been to the Middle East, and no doubt the dynamics there are different. |
| Posted by: James 2006-04-01 16:12 |
| #7 "The US is aware of this [a war within Islam itself], and is working to forstall it from happening." "...it has become one task of the US military in the region to control any of these, or other outbreaks..." Oh really? Who is the author of this article and what have they been smoking? |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-04-01 16:09 |
| #6 Why would we want to stop any of these, or other outbreaks, that could spiral out of control and cause chaos through the ME? |
| Posted by: Angoluter Ulaque4098 2006-04-01 12:24 |
| #5 Popcorn is needed on this post. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-04-01 11:58 |
| #4 It's not about self-government as much as it is about a BALANCE of power. If you get the balance of power right, between the people, the legal, the executive, the military, and the congress - it will work. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-01 11:54 |
| #3 The more you learn about Iraq, the less you like it. I often wonder if they are capable of self-government. I know that sounds egocentric, but look at all the major political groups and one thing stands out among them. They are all radical. Radicals don't seem to make good leaders, you can't reason or compromise with a radical and that is what democracy is all about. |
| Posted by: Thineting Angigum6873 2006-04-01 10:58 |
| #2 everyone wants to wear the bejeweled turban. Divide and conquer baby. That's why in the end, democracy will win - because in this modern global world, the guy who ultimately wins will be the one who learns the power of sharing. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-04-01 10:58 |
| #1 Khaos is good! Embrace the Khaos! |
| Posted by: Khaosvoid Warrior 2006-04-01 10:37 |