Iraq,on the brink of Civil War ?

AlekSmart

Interesting times indeed as the Iraqi "army" fails to materialize,or.......is it all just an acceptable part of the country adjusting itself after years of Saadam's evil dictatorship etc .?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86da9f32-f169-11e3-9fb0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz34M7DzIpx

So...what's next for the region ?

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

Interesting times indeed as the Iraqi "army" fails to materialize,or.......is it all just an acceptable part of the country adjusting itself after years of Saadam's evil dictatorship etc .?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/86da9f32-f169-11e3-9fb0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz34M7DzIpx

So...what's next for the region ?

Four cities lost to what can best be described as hard core fanatics is a lot more than the "country adjusting itself".

comongethappy

Small in number, but they seem very effective

If the map on this link is to go by they have become very successful.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

I can't think of any 'Archer' reference for a story about ISIS.

Euphoric

A banana republic that's essentially a US puppet state, why am I not surprised they aren't "mobilizing" or whatever buzzword they use? The corrupt bureaucracy will just let the country fall to the Islamic fundamentalists.

Tony EH

But...but WMDs!..Iraq is a democracy now and whatnot...an evil dictator is gone and everyone is better off...

wes

The Iraqi government alienated the Arab Sunni minority, when they basically decided to blame them as a whole for Saddam's dictatorship, which left the door open for these fanatics to make in roads.

Its easy to blame the American's for creating the whole mess in the first place, but at some point the finger has to be pointed at the Iraqi government, who are screwing things up.

Jonny7

Apart from the Kurdish region, I don't even know how people have functional lives in that country

Half a million people fleeing Mosul, if Maliki doesn't rally the army to stamp out ISIS then yeah it's looking very serious

yosserhughes

I reckon at this point in time the people would welcome Saddam back if the yanks had not indirectly murdered him...

Jonny7

yosserhughes wrote: »

I reckon at this point in time the people would welcome Saddam back if the yanks had not indirectly murdered him...

Murder was far too good for him

yosserhughes

Jonny7 wrote: »

Murder was far too good for him

Lynched because he had a "massive arsenal of WMDs"....How many hundred thousand have died since the yanks invaded his country?And where will it all end now.

Sand

wes wrote: »

Its easy to blame the American's for creating the whole mess in the first place, but at some point the finger has to be pointed at the Iraqi government, who are screwing things up.

The majority of the blame has to be at the Iraqi governments door - they had multiple chances to bring the Sunnis into the fold, but instead have ruled in a relentlessly sectarian, corrupt and opportunistic manner. They're reaping what they sowed.

Manach

Perhaps the US should have learnt a lesson form classical times. When invading; either make a short devastation raid to make the point of their superiority and then leave or else plan to stay there for a generation or more to ensure their cultural norms become prevalent. To leave halfway through either of these routes, has brought this crisis to bear.

Sand

Many wise commentators would have told you the problem was the Americans were in the country. That if the Americans left, the violence would cease. Now the Americans have left and the problems persist. Conundrum.

Its the Iraqi government that needs to learn lessons. They have the most to lose. It will afterall be the Iraqi elite (and the women, and the musicians, and the children, and people with glasses, and the people without beards, and so on) who will be strung up from cranes in the brave new world planned by the Islamic fundamentalists. The US has already left - it stopped being a US problem several years ago. The Iraqis didn't take proper advantage of US support when they were in the country, and haven't done anything since to repair issues.

Jonny7

yosserhughes wrote: »

Lynched because he had a "massive arsenal of WMDs"

I would suggest the millions of deaths on his hands from his own actions possibly had something to do with it..gassing men, women and children, Ba'ath death squads, multiple wars, suppression of uprisings, persecution of the marsh Arabs and Kurds, widespread torture, rape, disappearances, international sanctions

Lest we only have sympathy for the suffering of those after the botched invasion (of which there were hundreds of thousands) and tragically it continues

Like I said, he deserved much worse than hanging

BuilderPlumber

This situation in Iraq is very worrying. Things have not improved at all since Saddam was overthrown. That invasion was the most stupid move ever made and the world has been paying for it ever since with terrorism, wars and recession. 9/11 was the hook that Bush fell for and instead of weaker, al Qaeda are in fact stronger.

So, now we have a situation where a very dangerous organisation threatens oil supplies in many states. The US has to basically try and have good out in the open relations with both Iran and Saudi Arabia and convince both to work together as well. Because they may be the only 2 oil countries left outside of al Qaeda's control.

Two worrying questions are (assuming the Saudi borders are defended by the US, Iran's borders are defended effectively and Israel stops them going into its territory):

1. Who will want to go into another Iraq war. The US/UK? Not something they can sell easily to their people and they have already said no to going in. Iran? Iran will certainly help the al-Maliki government in Iraq but again Iran's new moderate government cannot sell easily intervention into Iraq. Again, there's painful memories and most Iranians blame the Iran-Iraq war for a lot of Iran's political and economic problems. So, apart from limited support, Iran will mainly concentrate on making sure ISIS does not take hold in Iranian territory. Turkey? Turkey will like Iran primarily defend its own territory and give limited support. It would not want to be sucked into this 100% either. Israel will stop them anywhere near them but if they were to go after them deep in Iraqi territory, it would only strengthen them because of Arab hatred of Israel. So, Israel will not proceed this far either and will likewise just keep them away from their own backyard and at most invade 20 miles of Syria.

2. So, where can they spread? Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran are all too heavily guarded. But Jordan could suffer badly, Egypt is more or less there for the taking with a restive Islamic population miffed over the Morsi overthrow and even a non-religious population who also despise the army. Libya is a mess as is Chad, Niger, Mali and North Nigeria. Sudan is a handy link-up state run by willing fanatics. Algeria has been peaceful of late but their 'Islamic' insurgency is dorment but not gone. If they are bordered by all the other unstable places, it could spill over and into Morocco, Mauritania and others too.

So, a violent set of related states could be created across Iraq, Syria, Jordan and all of North, Northeast and Northwest Africa. A second wave could engulf Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and then Malaysia and Indonesia. With no one to stop it. This could only have a very negative affect on the rest of the world and on the world economy. The signs of what type of government this new entity would form would not be good:

-Blatant terrorist attacks deliberately targeting civilians like 9/11, 7/7, Bali, Madrid.
-Stonings in North Nigeria.
-Kidnapping of schoolgirls threatened with death in North Nigeria.
-A woman sentenced to hang in Sudan for being Christian.
-Europeans beheaded in Iraq for being innocent but European. 2004.
-Violent 'honour killings' in Pakistan and India.
-Boys killed for watching soccer in Somalia.
-Women deprived of education in Afghanistan.
-War that threatens to destroy Syria as a political secular entity.
-Mass killings of ethnic tribes opposed to 'Islamic' Fascism in Sudan.

The above are just some examples of what we have seen and what values such governments would hold. The emergence of a united form of this in North Africa in particular would be the worst threat since Hitler. Thankfully, at present, a united 'Islamic' fascist force has not emerged although ISIS and al Qaeda both have the desire to do so.

comongethappy

yosserhughes wrote: »

Lynched because he had a "massive arsenal of WMDs"...

Somehow there is always someone defending a tyrant.

He was convicted of orchestrating the killing of 148 people & torture of many others back in 1982.

Iraq needs some way of getting past its sectarianism, Malaci has done little but fester even greater hatred.

Rightwing

Sand wrote: »

Many wise commentators would have told you the problem was the Americans were in the country. That if the Americans left, the violence would cease. Now the Americans have left and the problems persist. Conundrum.

Its the Iraqi government that needs to learn lessons. They have the most to lose. It will afterall be the Iraqi elite (and the women, and the musicians, and the children, and people with glasses, and the people without beards, and so on) who will be strung up from cranes in the brave new world planned by the Islamic fundamentalists. The US has already left - it stopped being a US problem several years ago. The Iraqis didn't take proper advantage of US support when they were in the country, and haven't done anything since to repair issues.

No, they wouldn't. And if they would they weren't wise.

The reason Bush senior didn't invade Iraq after Gulf War was for the very reason that is unfolding now. If they knew the problems that would unfold back then, it begs the question, why on earth did they go in the second time of asking?

Jonny7

comongethappy wrote: »

Somehow there is always someone defending a tyrant.

For some the history of suffering in Iraq started only in 2003

Sand

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

This situation in Iraq is very worrying. Things have not improved at all since Saddam was overthrown. That invasion was the most stupid move ever made and the world has been paying for it ever since with terrorism, wars and recession.

I think you're overstating the consequences. Terrorism was a significant problem all through the 90s up to and including 9/11. It wasn't as if it didn't exist prior to that. Wars? Pretty much multiple wars are ongoing at all times somewhere in the world since the dawn of time. Again, no noticeable impact beyond the obvious direct one. As for recession - they was a huge global boom for 3-4 years after the invasion of Iraq. The cause of the crash had little direct relation to Iraq or US foreign policy in general.

Also stating the situation has not improved at all since Saddam was overthrown is OTT. Sunni areas are clearly worse off - As a minority, they lost a champion in Saddam and have yet been unable to secure a place in the new Iraq (hence the violence). Kurdish areas on the other hand are peaceful and relatively prosperous - it helps that they don't have a insane dictator trying to gas them I suppose.

Sand

Rightwing wrote: »

No, they wouldn't. And if they would they weren't wise.

The reason Bush senior didn't invade Iraq after Gulf War was for the very reason that is unfolding now. If they knew the problems that would unfold back then, it begs the question, why on earth did they go in the second time of asking?

Equally some might argue the Emancipation Proclamation was a bad idea because it led to huge social and civic problems in modern America that wouldn't otherwise exist.

BuilderPlumber

comongethappy wrote: »

Somehow there is always someone defending a tyrant.

He was convicted of orchestrating the killing of 148 people & torture of many others back in 1982.

Iraq needs some way of getting past its sectarianism, Malaci has done little but fester even greater hatred.

Saddam was no good guy no more than any of the other current rulers of the Middle East are. In an ideal world, I'd like to see someone better than e.g. al Saud family ruling Arabia but if this was to happen, Saudi Arabia would become the Islamic Emirate of Arabia and it would be horrid.

Saddam unfortunately kept Iraq somewhat stable. While he deserved to be gone in an ideal world, Iraq just had no one to replace him. al-Maliki is weak and the sectarian hatred too strong for him or any Iraqi leader to stop.

But the meddling of superpowers and arms industry has turned the Middle East and Africa into what they are at present. It is a shame that their only viable choices is between a bad dictator and a much worse one. The guys waiting in the aisles to take over would make/have made the likes of Gadafi, Saddam, Ali Khamenei, the al Sauds and others look perfect in direct comparison.

Rightwing

Sand wrote: »

Equally some might argue the Emancipation Proclamation was a bad idea because it led to huge social and civic problems in modern America that wouldn't otherwise exist.

And others might argue about life on Mars.

But nonetheless, the Americans now have a lot to answer for. And they know it.

BuilderPlumber

Rightwing wrote: »

No, they wouldn't. And if they would they weren't wise.

The reason Bush senior didn't invade Iraq after Gulf War was for the very reason that is unfolding now. If they knew the problems that would unfold back then, it begs the question, why on earth did they go in the second time of asking?

I think the problems in Iraq and the greater Middle East will not be settled any time soon. Bush Sr's policy of containing Saddam (continued by Clinton) was perhaps the only sensible policy. The 2003 war made matters much worse. So too did the Iran-Iraq war which was a made in the West/USSR arms dealers' bonanza. The stated official aim for both West and USSR of that war was to keep both fighting as long as possible so that both are weak and lose! That pretty much says it all!

BuilderPlumber

Jonny7 wrote: »

For some the history of suffering in Iraq started only in 2003

Iraq never had a break in recent times. The 1950s and 1960s was about the best of a bad lot. The country suffered during WW1 and WW2 and the whole 1970s saw a set of bitter disputes with Iran that really took off when Saddam got into power and Iran's Pahlavi regime was overthrown. 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s have all been very miserable years for Iraq. Only Afghanistan and African places have had as much misery. Even North Korea was paradise compared to Iraq in 1985!

Rightwing

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

I think the problems in Iraq and the greater Middle East will not be settled any time soon. Bush Sr's policy of containing Saddam (continued by Clinton) was perhaps the only sensible policy. The 2003 war made matters much worse. So too did the Iran-Iraq war which was a made in the West/USSR arms dealers' bonanza. The stated official aim for both West and USSR of that war was to keep both fighting as long as possible so that both are weak and lose! That pretty much says it all!

I agree with all of that.

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

Many wise commentators would have told you the problem was the Americans were in the country. That if the Americans left, the violence would cease. Now the Americans have left and the problems persist. Conundrum.

Had the Americans stayed, it merely would have been a different conflict.

Sand

True, because the keys to the conflict are in the Iraqi government and how it relates to the various Sunni and Kurdish minorities. The Americans had low and declining influence with the Iraqi government, so if they stayed or left it would'nt change the dynamics. Commentators at the time however viewed the Americans as the problem - interpreting the violence as a anti-imperial conflict that suited their political views rather than a civil war to which they had no insight into. The analogy about hammers, problems and nails applies to these commentators too.

The Iraqis need to get down to the basics of a tolerable administration of justice, acceptable political representation without sectarian bias, basic security and services. If they can manage that, problems will decline drastically. They have failed so far, perhaps the recent events might shock them into taking the necessary reforms but its more likely they will instead regress into a security crackdown.

ninebeanrows

Saddham kept Iraq in as good shape as was possible. We thought Saddham was bad, what we have here is 10 times worse.

This is why I am not quick to jump on the anti-Assad brigade in Syria. Sometimes it's best to stick with the devil you know.

Gringo180

comongethappy wrote: »

Somehow there is always someone defending a tyrant.
.

What about the biggest tyrant of them all the Shah of Persia? Was he not supported by the U.S? They also supported Hussein in the early days. Who sold him that gas that he used on all the Kurds? The position of your enemys enemy is your friend has came back to bite the west on the arse for decades, when will we ever learn to keep our noses out of the middle east?

Nodin

Sand wrote: »

True, because the keys to the conflict are in the Iraqi government and how it relates to the various Sunni and Kurdish minorities. The Americans had low and declining influence with the Iraqi government, so if they stayed or left it would'nt change the dynamics. Commentators at the time however viewed the Americans as the problem - interpreting the violence as a anti-imperial conflict that suited their political views rather than a civil war to which they had no insight into. The analogy about hammers, problems and nails applies to these commentators too.
.

You think a United States presence in the middle east would not draw concerted hostility from elements on both sides of the sectarian divide?

Sand wrote: »

The Iraqis need to get down to the basics of a tolerable administration of justice, acceptable political representation without sectarian bias, basic security and services. If they can manage that, problems will decline drastically. They have failed so far, perhaps the recent events might shock them into taking the necessary reforms but its more likely they will instead regress into a security crackdown.

Given the corrupt and sectarian nature of the regime, its unlikely that they are willing or capable. There may be hope for the Kurdish areas, under a autonomous and motivated admin, but little in the near term for the rest.

comongethappy

Gringo180 wrote: »

What about the biggest tyrant of them all the Shah of Persia

Your free to start a thread about him if you like.

In the context of this thread, expressing support for Saddam Hussein is ridiculous, considering the trauma his family inflicted on the Iraqi nation for years.

Next up: "Pol Pot, not a bad guy after all".

$480 million stolen also from captured Iraqi banks.
That's ISIS paid for for the next decade.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/iraq-army-capitulates-to-isis-militants-in-four-cities-1.1828973