Don't worry about Iraq - the coming internal Civil War

[Mr. Harley]

After the commentary on the terrorist attacks on Britian, I thought I would post this thought. Even thought the Grand Ayatollah Sistani has asked the Shia in Iraq not to escalate, things are starting to break down. There have been substantial Sunni-originated terror campaigns against Shia, with evidently a fair degree of Sunni community backing.

The Shia, for all they revere the Grand Ayatollah, are striking back. Remember Al-Sadr's militia? They were never disarmed. While things may dissolve into chaos, remember one thing. Unless you control the military, and can largely interdict the inflow of arms while controlling heavy weapons and air support, fighting a civil war when the other side has twice the population is not such a good idea.

When the other side controls the government, as well as the heavy weapons and air support, it becomes a bad idea. If the other side adds in militias, with the implication that they can match you atrocity for atrocity (taking away one of the advantages of asymetric warfare) it becomes positively suicidal.

The only disadvantage to this is that you probably end up with a Shia-oriented quasi-religious state, as that will be the cohesive factor behind the winners. However, since that is going to be the end result anyway (look at the election results), why stay that much longer? Help train just enough troops so the Shia are on the upside of the civil war, make sure that the Kurds are going to keep their semi-autonomy (I feel the US owes them that, but that is my own opinion), and get out. It's not a very nice solution, but I am all out of nice when it comes to the stupidity of US involvement in the Middle East.

[Patroklos]

things are starting to break down

Worse than before is not "breaking down." Despite all the terror attacks the vast majority of Iraq's population is not directly effected. They suffer from macro problems as a resput of the attacks like power and transportation interuptions, but the contention that the whole place is a flowing river of blood is patently false, most of the country is quite stable.

Bush's fairy tale aside, I expected just this. I expect to be there for another 10-15 years at least.

And it is already a civil war. When the insurgents finally realized they couldn't defeat our military and started attaking primarily civilians out of desperation it became that by definition. I welcome the mobilization of the Shia, how can the insurgents operate with 80% of the population actively seeking their destruction, with US military backing?

[lord of the mark]

Sadr, during his first two uprisings, actually reached out to the Sunni insurgency, and called for unity agains the Americans. Can he lead an anti-Sunni pogrom and retain his credibility?

[Ninot]

I have a feeling that someone daft is going to do something positively daft that will set off a civil war the likes of which you speak of, and that with the current climate, this is largely unpreventable.

I'm thinking something along the lines of when an Israeli minister went in the Dome of the Rock a few years ago that set off that mess (that is what happened right? my memory might be bad).

Except this time its gonna be Sunni Vs. Shiite, and either the Americans pick sides or get caught in the middle.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ninot
I have a feeling that someone daft is going to do something positively daft that will set off a civil war the likes of which you speak of, and that with the current climate, this is largely unpreventable.

I'm thinking something along the lines of when an Israeli minister went in the Dome of the Rock a few years ago that set off that mess (that is what happened right? my memory might be bad).

It was Sharon, he wasnt a minister at the time (he was head of Likud, one of the two main parties, however, and candidate for PM) and he didnt go into the Dome, IIRC, merely walked on the Temple Mount.

Youre right, nothing can be ruled out.

[Patroklos]

I have a feeling that someone daft is going to do something positively daft that will set off a civil war the likes of which you speak of, and that with the current climate, this is largely unpreventable.

Like I said, Shia involvement does not have to be a bad thing, depends on the character of the involvement. If it is flooding the ranks of the military and police (which is actually happening) and reporting suspicions activity through watches and militas then that is good. Any time the citizenry decides standing up and defending their state is worthwhile then an insurgency is doomed.

Now if they decide to start burning down Sunni neighborhoods and shed all pretense of secular government that is bad.

Either way, with the Kurds and Shia actively suppressing the insurgents, the Sunni cause is doomed.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Don't worry about Iraq - the coming internal Civil War

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
...make sure that the Kurds are going to keep their semi-autonomy (I feel the US owes them that, but that is my own opinion)...

There is going to be one big problem in the shape of Turkey.

[Mr. Harley]

The Sunni insurgency has already been involved in death squad activity, engaging in executions, largely of young military age males in towns with a mixed population. Recently, there have been reprisal killings by Shia counter-death squads (even though Sistani had asked them not to, and that had kept a lid on longer than I thought was possible), targeting younger Sunni males. When the Sunni irregular units were engaged in executions, and it was the government/US occupying forces striking back, it was insurgency/counter-insurgency. When the Shia started fielding their own death squads, it became a Civil War.

UR - I agree about Turkey. In fact I firmly believe, as do many analysts, that one of the reasons Bush Sr. did not take out Saddam was due to Turkish pressure related to their Kurdish insurgency. I suspect the Turks have very mixed feelings right now, they don't want an autonomous Kurdish region, and they don't want a Shia-controlled religious state. Maybe they should have treated the Kurds better, because now they have a real problem.

edited - replaced Kurds with Turks in the third sentence of the second paragraph, had transposed them tottally changing the statement