Iraqi Civil War

[nowensone]

There are definately the seeds of a world war here given the external forces already at play in Iraq, and CN I agree with you, it takes little more than a high school world history class to see that Bush' policies/actions are dumb beyond comprehension. I personally still feel quite angry that I believed them when they said there were weapons of mass destruction and began the campaign in the first place, and think the guy deserves impeachment at the very least. You don't just start a war, which may turn out to be a MAJOR war, and then say oops, sorry about that. Or even worse, deny that things are very bad over there.

[monsoon]

...... Everyone knew Lincoln's position on slavery and when he won the election that was it. ....

[Pillsbury]

If I may indulge, he was still opposed to the idea of slavery, though not enough to wage a war over its destruction. Much the same way many of us find the human rights violations of other countries absolutely horrible, though we are not ready to wage a war to end those abuses. I agree. My only point is that the South left the Union over its fears that the abolitionist movement which was gaining steam all across the North would finally lead to slavery's demise. Lincoln represented this belief, whether faulty or not. As Vice President Alexander Stephens said in his Cornerstone Speech:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.... its [CSA] foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Let us all remember that John C. Calhoun had suggested seccession of the Southern Slave States more than a decade before the Civil War over his fear that the South's "peculiar institution" would be abolished. The South started the Civil War, not the North.

Let me say again that I agree with you that Lincoln convictions against slavery did not dictate war in his mind....until it became an opportunity to pull the nation together against the South. In that same way, we have seen the reasons for our war in Iraq changed many times in an effort to pull our nation together against......well against whoever we seem to be fighting.

[nowensone]

If I may indulge, he was still opposed to the idea of slavery, though not enough to wage a war over its destruction. Much the same way many of us find the human rights violations of other countries absolutely horrible, though we are not ready to wage a war to end those abuses.

[monsoon]

....

Let me say again that I agree with you that Lincoln convictions against slavery did not dictate war in his mind....until it became an opportunity to pull the nation together against the South. In that same way, we have seen the reasons for our war in Iraq changed many times in an effort to pull our nation together against......well against whoever we seem to be fighting.

[Charlotte_native]

The fact is, to me, that our government DID believe that there would be a short war, the people of Iraq would be delighted at their liberation, and that a new government would step in. This goes against every bit of historical background of the area and region, but in Bush's defense (that will come from me very very little) I think he believed that scenario. Of course that doesn't make it right, and there were plenty of real experts in the region that stated otherwise -- anyone that didn't agree or had info to the contrary was pushed to the side.

Now that this rosey picture has proven to be untrue and hindsight lets us all see that this was a foolish set of assumptions, what do we do with the massive mess we have created.

I, for one, believe that calling a duck a duck when it is obvious that is what it is will be the first step in solving the problem. Relying on more and more "hopeful" or rhetorical beliefs just doesn't work. We have to take the situation for what it is and then figure out how to fix it.

This is a civil war of some sort. Call it what it is so we can a least have honest dialogue. Continuing to blame things on terrorists, Al Queda, foreign fighters, etc, just prolongs the ineptitude we have watched for a few years now. Those other factors might be present, but the main problem NOW is Iraqis killing Iraqis.

We also didn't set a very good tone at the very beginning by letting the entire country loot itself immediately following the fall of the government. Talk about setting the tone for the years to come.

[MZT]

There has been some evolution on Turkey's part about northern Iraq. Some see it as an escape valve for dissatidifed Kurds within Turkey. And a peaceful Kurish region bordering Turkey, may be better in the long run for the Turks, than bordering a whole country at war with itself.

It will probably become a quasi-country like Taiwan for the next few decades. Self-governing, but not an official UN "state".

[Pillsbury]

The United States unprovoked attack on a soverign nation has provoked untold suffering amoungst that population and now it has devolved into a civil war. The news gets worse every day.

[nowensone]

There has been some evolution on Turkey's part about northern Iraq. Some see it as an escape valve for dissatidifed Kurds within Turkey. And a peaceful Kurish region bordering Turkey, may be better in the long run for the Turks, than bordering a whole country at war with itself.

It will probably become a quasi-country like Taiwan for the next few decades. Self-governing, but not an official UN "state".

[Kheldane]

Regarding US History: You can't call it a civil war because the South never wanted control over the north. It was a War of Southern Independence, or a War of Northern Agression, depending on the way you want to look at it. Never a civil war. Washington wanted control of the South, but Montgomery never wanted control of the North.

Regarding Iraq: The real wild card in Iraq is the Sunnis, because they inhabit the middle of the country which is not rich in oil. If the south breaks off it will likely join with Iran. If the north breaks off, it will likely remain independent, or joing with Iran (remember that the kurdish language is related to the persian language). That leaves the arabs in Baghdad with nothing but sand and palm trees. I don't think Saudi Arabia would be happy with either of those scenarios, but I get the sense that Saudi Arabia is not a major power player in mid-east politics. Israel appears to be indifferent to the fate of Iraq - as long as it's no longer an organized military threat, they appear to be satisfied. Jordan and Syria are sympathetic to the Sunnis in the middle and would likely be very unhappy about the partitioning of the country. I have to wonder what Kuwait thinks about all this - they must be laughing it up because of all the suffering Iraq inflicted upon them. I think I ran would like a split Iraq because it means they will have weaker neighbors. Iran is pretty much already surrounded by weak neighbors (except for Pakistan).

[monsoon]

I heard this on CNN but I agree with it. There are actually 4 wars in Iraq right now.

• Terrorist War with Al Queda

• The Insurgent War

• The civil war

• Covert war with Iran

The USA does not have the troops in Iraq to deal with this let alone occupy the country. Given that Iran is going to be the big winner in this conflict, I can see where the day is coming where they wish Saddam was still in control.

[Charlotte_native]

Colin Powell called the situation in Iraq a civil war yesterday. Not disagreeing with anyone that does not think this "fits" classic civil war definitions, just pointing out that government and ex-government officials are finally starting to use the term.

Iraq is simply a chaotic mess -- now there has been a walk-out of many Sunni (30 or so) government officials to protest a dinner between Maliki and Bush and that dinner has now been cancelled due to the huge backlash of many Iraqis over their government meeting with Bush whom they called "the great evil". Our president is now being snubbed by the Iraqi government.

No matter the real reasons for the mess over there, perception by the people there in the region is as important as facts on the ground, and they fully see W as the reason for their suffering. I think this has been the biggest bungled job in our history. (wait, wait, I forgot, it is the liberal media that caused all this -- had American newspapers told happy stories about Iraq I guess the people there would be living in peace...you know how all those average Iraqis read the New York Times.)

Our policy over there has been like kicking a hornets nest to destroy the hornets.

[Charlotte_native]

I can see where the day is coming where they wish Saddam was still in control.

[nowensone]

I heard this on CNN but I agree with it. There are actually 4 wars in Iraq right now.

• Terrorist War with Al Queda

• The Insurgent War

• The civil war

• Covert war with Iran

The USA does not have the troops in Iraq to deal with this let alone occupy the country. Given that Iran is going to be the big winner in this conflict, I can see where the day is coming where they wish Saddam was still in control.

[Pillsbury]

^ Good observation. I would hope that we're doing something behind the scenes to counter-balance Iran.

[monsoon]

^ Good observation. I would hope that we're doing something behind the scenes to counter-balance Iran.