Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 02/23/2006 View Wed 02/22/2006 View Tue 02/21/2006 View Mon 02/20/2006 View Sun 02/19/2006 View Sat 02/18/2006 View Fri 02/17/2006
1
2006-02-23 Iraq
Your Opinion: Do you think there will be civil war in Iraq? If so, what will the US do about it?
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Yosemite Sam 2006-02-23 12:12|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [363 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Unfortunately yes. And if the US took any side it should the side of the Kurds. If the Turks don't like it though titties. Otherwise hunker down and let the idiots fight it out. Then shoot the last man standing. What would scare me about a Civil War in Iraq between Sunni and Shite is it spilling over into the rest of the ME in general. Just my 2 cents
Posted by Cheaderhead 2006-02-23 13:01||   2006-02-23 13:01|| Front Page Top

#2 On the Big Picture scale, they've been gunning for each other, sorta, since the death of Mo and the Big Split. There's only been a warm bathtub of water separating them all that time, so what this tells me is that neither side is actually willing to duke it out in the old bloody ways till there's a winner. Adding nukes to the equation could certainly change that, however.

Within Iraq, outsiders will feed the strife and push the Iraqis, as their proxies, to have a go at it -- if they think they can do it without blowback. Zarqi, and to an extent Tater, give them the cover, so I'd wager Zarqi is being offered a lot of stuff and advice - and Tater his marching orders from the MM's. If the Iraqis can resist this indoctrinated from birth hatred and fear, and not let these foreign interests use them, then they've certainly met a supreme hurdle and topped it.

I say no civil war, but more skirmishing, perhaps serious but not all-out war, before it dies down. I take 2b's suggestion that they're actually tired of it as being an excellent point - meaning that I want it to be true. I say no all out war, but still more skirmishing for awhile to come.

If one comes, then we should be with the Kurds and exit the playing field of the Sunnis and Shi'a ASAP.
Posted by .com 2006-02-23 13:49||   2006-02-23 13:49|| Front Page Top

#3 If they can't behave, side with the kurds and let them have at it, they will get tired of it soon ask the afghans.
Posted by djohn66 2006-02-23 13:52||   2006-02-23 13:52|| Front Page Top

#4 I agree with .com except I expect at least another few months of nasty militia action.

Also I really hope some of the captured terrorists who were involved in the Shrine bombing will ID Tater.
Posted by mhw 2006-02-23 15:07||   2006-02-23 15:07|| Front Page Top

#5 Are the Kurds really a party to all this, as long as they can keep their traditional area? I.e., wouldn't they be happy to sit on the sidelines and watch the Shi'a and Sunnis kill each other while Kurdistan continues to act and prosper independently?
Posted by Dar">Dar  2006-02-23 15:16||   2006-02-23 15:16|| Front Page Top

#6 I just realized that even the small scale civil war now going on probably makes it impossible for the OIC to have a conference on the cartoons.

Even for the OIC, such a conference would not pass the vomit/giggle test.
Posted by mhw 2006-02-23 15:20||   2006-02-23 15:20|| Front Page Top

#7 "the vomit/giggle test"

*snort* *gag*

Um, I needed a little advance warning on that, mhw!
Posted by .com 2006-02-23 15:22||   2006-02-23 15:22|| Front Page Top

#8 Actually, the Kurds have about 100,000 reasons to help the Shias demolish the Sunnis : their dead from the nerve gas attacks and Saddam's ethnic cleasing operations. And the troops that did almost all of that : Sunnis from the Triangle.
Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-02-23 15:37||   2006-02-23 15:37|| Front Page Top

#9 My contention is that the Kurds already have a very stable and established region--why risk it? Yes, they may hate the Sunnis, but would they actively take part in a civil war and risk losing what they've already achieved?

Would this really boil into a three-way free-for-all, or more of a Shia (and Kurd, to varying degrees) vs. Sunni fight?
Posted by Dar">Dar  2006-02-23 15:48||   2006-02-23 15:48|| Front Page Top

#10 I don't think the Kurd leadership will allow them, not matter how much they want to, to jeaopardize thier shot at an independent state. They're smart - seems like down to the last soul there - so they'll keep their power dry - and continue to retake Kirkuk and (assuming it was once theirs) Mosul - sending the Arabs (who Saddam installed) packing. That will be their most, uh, "escalating" or "antagonstic" act, I think. If there is a full Sunni vs Shi'a civil war, they will use it to advantage to more quickly consolidate the areas they consider traditional Kurdish lands.

My take, for better or worse, heh.
Posted by .com 2006-02-23 15:56||   2006-02-23 15:56|| Front Page Top

#11 Sheesh. "jeopardize" and "powder" PIMF.
Posted by .com 2006-02-23 15:57||   2006-02-23 15:57|| Front Page Top

#12 Well, since the best units in the Iraqi Army and Police are mainly or heavily Kurdish, the Kurds will be involved in any Sunni/Shia battles. One of the deals cut to get a constitution passed there was that the Kurds maintain their militia {Peshmerga, sp?} as "Police units" in the Kurdish zone. However, the Shias also have the authority to callup those units to back up engaged Police/Army units in times of national emergency. A civil war would cetainly qualify as that, and Kirkuik and Mosul would be the prizes awarded for loyalty to the Shia-dominated national government.
Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-02-23 16:01||   2006-02-23 16:01|| Front Page Top

#13 Do you think they'll stay with their units if civil war on a wide scale begins?

I'm not sure about that at all.
Posted by .com 2006-02-23 16:10||   2006-02-23 16:10|| Front Page Top

#14 Hmmm. Maybe for Kirkuk and Mosul...

A lotta meat in there to chew...
Posted by .com 2006-02-23 16:11||   2006-02-23 16:11|| Front Page Top

#15 This is an uptick in a low level setting of scores that has been going on since before We removed Saddam. I don't know which way it's going to go. My hope is that it doesn't break out into a full bore Civil War. I do hope Iraqi's take this chance to remove all non-native Arabs foreign muslims one way or another.

What ever happens we should hang with the Kurds they can read this all better than we every will and are interested in real peace and stability.
Posted by Sock Puppet O' Doom 2006-02-23 16:12||   2006-02-23 16:12|| Front Page Top

#16 Yes the Kurds will stay : the Shias will not be going after them, at all. People have to remember one fact : the Kurds are Sunnis, just a relaxed branch of that sect. So, if Shias whack the Triangle Sunni Arabs - especially the imams - they are getting a twofer : dead enemies and the strong possibility that the replacement Sunni imam will be a Kurd. The Shias have no incentive to attack the Kurds and every reason to draw them into the fight as a combined force : Shia/Kurd vs Triangle Sunni. And the Kurds have all sorts of reasons to go along with that : Kirkuk, Mosul, oil revenue sharing programs to give a lot to the producing zones, political and economic power-sharing, and the ability to be the Praetorian Guard of the new government, as well as good old revenge.
Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-02-23 16:16||   2006-02-23 16:16|| Front Page Top

#17 I agree with Shieldwolf but see it as a lot of reprisals and not an actual civil war. Yeah its a fine line but the Sunnis will learn and mellow.

On a similar note the entire area will become uninhabitable for Al Queda in the near future because of the Mosque attacks so there will be less provocating attacks in the future as well.
Posted by rjschwarz 2006-02-23 16:31||   2006-02-23 16:31|| Front Page Top

#18 The kurds have a strong economic incentive to prevent a civil war. Their economy is prospering partly because they sell stuff to the rest of the country. Also their soldiers in the National Army have a job because there is a national army.

Of course the emotional incentive is to encourage a shia-anwar conflict to take care of enemies.

To be honest though, if I were a Kurd I might well go with the revenge thing.
Posted by mhw 2006-02-23 16:40||   2006-02-23 16:40|| Front Page Top

#19 Better read this and see who is pushing it. Iraq the Model.
Posted by Sock Puppet O' Doom 2006-02-23 16:43||   2006-02-23 16:43|| Front Page Top

#20 There won't be a civil war, geography and logistics preclude it. The 'worst' that will happen is we see some heavy duty ethnic cleansing of Sunnis. The Shias and Kurds are probably not averse to pushing the bulk of the Sunnis into the 'Sunni triangle' and then contain them there.

BTW, Omar and his bro at ITM are Sunnis, and like most Sunnis they seem to way over estimate the military capabilities of the Sunnis and underestimate that of the Kurds and Shia.
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-02-23 17:12|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]  2006-02-23 17:12|| Front Page Top

#21 Is ethnic cleansing by Kurds, etc a legal solution given UN impotence?

For what it is worth, some of us supported ethnic cleansing by Serbs (Muslims were the first cleansers in Yugoslavia) as a means of removing hostiles and terrorists from the midst of a civilian population. I won't link the Serbianna website, for obvious reasons, but it is a fact that Serbs are being pushed out of Kosovo, by the same Muslims that Clinton served. And Bosnia has not permitted the construction of a single Christian church since they conned the Euros.

Sbrenica? Some innocents were slaughtered, but most of the targets were Muslim terrorists.
Posted by ToughLove Not Hate 2006-02-23 18:56||   2006-02-23 18:56|| Front Page Top

#22 As I recall the Croats have the honor of first place in ethnic cleansing.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-23 18:59||   2006-02-23 18:59|| Front Page Top

#23 Nimble Spemble, I think you may have bought into the disinfomation that the Croats ethnic cleansed 200,000 Serbs when they retook the southern and eastern areas of the country . News reports at the time clearly showed long columns of Serb vehicles fleeing ahead of the advancing Croats. Which makes it difficult to argue it was ethnic cleansing.
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-02-23 19:28|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]  2006-02-23 19:28|| Front Page Top

#24 Phil
A cousin was over there with Doctors without borders..
Only stayed a couple of weeks as all sides would shoot at doctors, nurses and rescue workers being they were easy targets to shoot.

Said..
Muslim Jihadist from Iran would wander all over raping and pillaging everybody as they couldn't even recognize the local muslims.
Croats tattooed swastikas on their own foreheads and hunted muslims and serbs.
Serbs methodicly ran an rational sort of battle plan to accomplish what they needed.
Muslims Serbs and Croats shot at the aid workers and laughed.
Posted by 3dc 2006-02-23 19:44||   2006-02-23 19:44|| Front Page Top

#25 A couple of days ago the burg had an article about the Kurds moving Christians and Jews from Iraq proper and into Kurdistan to live.

Sounds like they had a good idea shit was going to happen.
Posted by 3dc 2006-02-23 19:45||   2006-02-23 19:45|| Front Page Top

#26 Everyone lived happily ever after in the Krajina, I'm sure.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-23 20:16||   2006-02-23 20:16|| Front Page Top

#27 My point was that while 200,000 Serbs did leave Krajina. To say 200,000 were ethnic cleansed is false. Many if not most left of their own volition. Nowhere did I say the Croats (or Muslims, Serbs) didn't conduct ethnic cleansing.
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-02-23 20:32|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]  2006-02-23 20:32|| Front Page Top

#28 And all I said was that they were first.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-02-23 21:14||   2006-02-23 21:14|| Front Page Top

#29 I have to comment here, I think the question is wrong, not "Will" there be civil war, but that "Civil War" is, and has ben going on for a loooooong time now, interrupted by the United States Army in some severely localised areas.

That this recent resurgence (Touched off mainly by the excuse "Cartoons") is only the current excuse used, and now fueled by the golden dome destruction as simply the heat under the steaming pot just being turned up another slight notch higher.
Hunker down, wait a bit, this has been going on for so many centuries now that the people are very tired of it, and things will calm relatively quickly.
(Calm being a relative term, you understand)
Posted by Redneck Jim 2006-02-23 21:39||   2006-02-23 21:39|| Front Page Top

#30 I don't think so - the SAMARRA, etal. attacks appear more like yet another coordinated strike against multiple local targets intended more for American MSM-Pols than to successly destabilize the post-elex new Iraqi Govt. Yes, the Civilians have suffered loses but so have the atackers.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-02-23 21:43||   2006-02-23 21:43|| Front Page Top

#31 When we established the northern No-Fly zone for Sammy after OIF, the Kurds took advantage of the stability it produced and ran with it. The Sunnis in the Triangle are just spoil sports now that their benefactor Sammy and Uday and Qusay are out of power and/or this world. The Shiites have this Martyr complex that has been following them around for 1000+ years. They have a lot of shadow work to do, heh.

The Kurds have to secure their own area, consolidate their borders with the Triangle, ensure that their Northern oilfields are secure, and work things out with the Turks, so they have some communication with the outside world. It sure as hell won't be with Iran for a while.

If the Kurds play their cards right, they will do OK, despite what storms come up with the Sunnis in the Triangle.
Posted by Al-Aska Paul">Al-Aska Paul  2006-02-23 21:57||   2006-02-23 21:57|| Front Page Top

#32 From what I understand, causing folks to flee for their safety is the same as ethnically cleansing an area. If the Serbs left because they wanted Serbs as neighbors that wouldn't qualify.

As long as they don't go Rwanda on each other I don't really have a problem with this kind of ethnic cleansing as it tends to resolve conflicts a little better when combatants aren't intermixed.
Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz  2006-02-23 22:18||   2006-02-23 22:18|| Front Page Top

#33 Considering all the weapons/ammo caches still laying around in the Iraqi desert, telling the Peshmurga "no" might prove to be a very exciting experience. Short, too.

Let Turkey find out.
Posted by mojo">mojo  2006-02-23 22:47||   2006-02-23 22:47|| Front Page Top

10:12 wxjames
02:02 Yousuf
23:41 Cheaderhead
23:40 Jackal
23:34 Cheaderhead
23:31 Steve White
23:21 3dc
23:17 3dc
23:17 trailing wife
23:15 Cheaderhead
23:12 Captain America
23:10 Captain America
23:01 Captain America
23:01 JosephMendiola
22:59 IAU member since 1951
22:58 trailing wife
22:56 Phil
22:54 Root Spemble
22:52 Old Patriot
22:49 Old Patriot
22:47 mojo
22:46 JosephMendiola
22:45 trailing wife
22:43 trailing wife
Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com