Civil war possible after Iraq elections: US' top soldier
2 hours, 25 minutes ago

LISBON (AFP) - US army chief General Richard Myers said in an interview that civil war could erupt in Iraq after forthcoming elections.

However, Myers, the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, told the daily Publico there was no indication at present this would happen.

"Civil war is still a possibility. We know that there are forces for whom this is an objective," Myers said, adding: "We have not yet any signs that this will happen."

The upcoming elections, pencilled in for January, are seen as a major test of the shattered country's recovery.

Myers predicted there would be more violence before the elections rather than afterwards.

A wave of insurgent violence continues to sweep Iraq ahead of the polls with many cities under curfew and a state of emergency declared in much of the country.

"I think that there will probably be more violence before the elections than afterwards," he said.

Myers was unfazed by recent declarations that several countries were planning to withdraw their troops from Iraq.

"The most important question is not the figures, it's the fact that NATO should be involved, that the United Nations be involved and that the European Union be involved in providing an economic aid."

Articles here -
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...rs_041120193152

What does this article mean AFTER.

It appears there is a civil war going on there NOW.

I guess it's okay to start a thread by just cutting and pasting articles without comment, then slinking off never to be heard from again on the topic as is the modus operandi of the originator. I have to ask does that really foster discussion and debate in these forums or does it just cause more clutter?

IAC I agree that civil war in Iraq is probable. IMHO this is especially true because some of those countries that look to be implicated in the Oil For Food scandal have and are blocking any meaningful outside assistance that might change the situation in Iraq.

There will be no assistance from "Old Europe" since their populations consider Iraq a Bush act of agression. I do not claim to know the ultimate soluition to this Bush screwup. But I do know that Bush does not know either. O well, I suppose we will see how Condi Rice fixes this mess. Does not everyone have confidence in Bush's girl?

I sincerely hope there will be no assistance from "Old Europe".

The twenteith century is full of examples of massive human suffering wrought by the double dealing and backstabbing diplomatic efforts of "Old Europe"

I hope the twentyfirst century fares better.

Give Dr. Rice a chance before you condemn her, I know she's a hell of a lot smarter than me and a lot of other people on this forum.

Read Richard Clarke's book. After 9/11 Connie was just walpaper in the conference room. Perhaps it is not her fault she is in way over her head. Bush put her there. However, after realizing herself that she did not know what she was doing, she should have quit. Her country is at risk every day she makes decisions. She is just there to represent oil interests. She was on the Board of Chevern texaco. This qualifies one to head National Security and to become Secectary of State? Remember she was in charge of national security prior to 9/11. You can see how well that worked out.

Dr. Rice also was the first female provost of Stanford, a very liberal university.

I wouldn't site Richard Clarke as a good reference because he pretty much dropped the ball on protecting us from terrorist and tried to lay the blame on others. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3559087.stm

I'll wait and see how she does before I condemn her, I think Condi Rice didn't get to where she is by being stupid.

Condi Rice got to where she is because she is a neocon.

The civil war in Iraq started with our invasion, the reason we can’t get a grip on the situation is the same reason we lost the Vietnam War, we are in the middle of some one else’s civil war. Only difference between now and then is we started this civil war.

Are you sure it wasn't affirmative action?

No one said Condi is stupid. She simply does not have the experience or background to do the jobs in government. This is like asking your CPA to do brain surgery. Both are smart but I would not want my CPA cutting my head open. As far as 9/11, well who was in charge leading up to the attack? Condi was head of the National security council. It is funny how noone in the Bush Administration is ever responsible for anything.

That's pretty accurate. And 13 retired Generals and 3 retired Admirals warned President Bush that would be the outcome before he ordered the invasion of Iraq last March 2003.

Would you please identify these thirteen retired flag officers? Can you tell us how (specific means e.g. letter, phone call, semaphore) they warned President Bush as you state they did?

Brent Scowcroft even wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times warning President Bush not to invade Iraq.

Scowcroft was the National Security Advisor to both Presidents Ford and Bush the elder.

Cool!

'Twould still be nice if you could please identify these thirteen retired flag officers and tell us how (specific means e.g. letter, phone call, semaphore) they warned President Bush as you stated they did.

Richard Clarke had been in charge of keeping track of the terrorist since the Reagan administration. He claims he couldn't get anyone to listen to his warnings. I find it hard to believe that for two years Reagan didn't listen to him, four years Bush #1 wouldn't listen to him, eight years Clinton wouldn't listen to him, and for eight months Bush #2 wouldn't listen to him and then Richard Clarke trys to shift the blame on to Condileeza Rice.

Yeah, I would say someone in the Bush administration screwed up, the name would be Richard Clarke, the guy who no one listened to (according to him) for about 15 years. What did this guy do, sit they for 15 years drawing a paycheck with nobody paying attention to him? If that was true, all of the Presidents before Bush #2 are more guilty than Bush#2.

I'm not going to prejudge Condileeza Rice because she's been pretty impresive in her achievments up until now.

If she screws up as bad as you think she will it will only make the republicans look bad. If she don't screw up maybe she will do some good for the United States.

Ummm...speak for yourself.

ditto

IMHO she's got the guts and potential to do real well. If that happens she could be part of a 2008 ticket with either John McCain, Rudy Gulianni or Colin Powell that could devastate any ticket the Democrats put up.

Grey Cup update: Toronto 24 BC 19 early in the fourth quarter

This is why Bush shouldn't have lied in order to invade Iraq to begin with. He was warned that there would not be any good final outcome by invading Iraq.

There were no WMD's in Iraq and Bush lied about it for almost 2 years publicly. Cheney was lying this spring when he claimed that there were connections to Al Queda and Saddam as late as June 15th.

That's nice, and we've got a thread target='_blank'>here just for your comments on the subject.

Oh, wait.....I forgot. You don't actually participate in discussions, do you. It's just hit and run comments you seem to prefer.

So far, we have still yet to see you do a little more than shit, stay and comment about the other flies who dare check out your contribution and tell it as it is.

Why thank you! 'Tis truly kind of you to admit in public that I contribute more than you.

Let me see if I can try my hand at understanding this:

1. Winston Churchill, knowing nothing much about the area, but wanting to reward a few people and make life easier for Britain draws the map of Iraq on a napkin or some such. (See the book "Churchill's Folly").

2. There were basically three different groups of people included in this new country and they didn't particularly like each other to begin with, but what could they do?

3. The Brits put up their guy, then there are a few more disasters, then they end up with Saddam's coup and the leaders that disagree with Saddam's agenda are taken out and shot. The people who are forced to do the shooting (to show loyalty) are the former co-workers of the parliment that Saddam deemed worthy enough to spare. The families of those who are shot are not even given the bodies of their loved ones unless they can pay a fee for them.

4. We don't do anything about this because they are a USSR client state and hey, what can we do?

5. Saddam runs amok in Iraq, we don't hinder, in fact we do a bit of helping, but then something even worse happens, IRAN's Islamic revolution and we back Saddam because he has not kidnapped Americans and so far, he isn't having people go around and scream "Death To America" and "The Great Satan" thing.

6. The two nations become known as "The Lunatic Twins".

7. We have some ambassador, who seemed either totally ill informed or trying to stir up something, we will never really know what...tell Saddam we "would not get involved in his border disputes". So Saddam invades Kuwait because they were "slant-drilling" into his oil fields and they called Iraqi women's prostitutes.

8. Saudi goes nuts, calls up Bush and we decide this has to be fixed so we go kick Saddam out of Kuwait, while the Kuwaiti Royal family parties it up in Cairo at the discoteques.

9. We don't go to Baghdad and topple the regime, instead we encourage the Shia and the Kurds to rebel. Up to 4000 Iraqis flee to Saudi tent cities where they live or die for years and years until some get refuge here or in other locations.

10. We do not support the Shia and Kurdish rebellions instead we betray them and Saddam starts to line everyone up and shoot them in spite of our no-fly zones and embargoes.

11. We begin to finally enforce the no-fly zones and give the Kurds an autonomous region which they can defend with their own military called the Peshmerga...low and behold they managed to fight a little, but all in all, it turns out to be a pretty prosperous little place.

12. "W" decides to finish what his father started for about 100 different reasons, most of them unfounded, but many of the good reasons even if they weren't the ones we were sold. He screws it up royally. The places falls into utter chaos. The people that NEVER liked each other anyway STILL DON'T and we insist they have elections in the middle of a dangerous battlefield where most people are afraid to even go to the grocery store except in the Shia South and the Kurdish North.

13. Turns out that these elections we insist they have, concerning who will govern this fictional place called "Iraq" that we insist on thinking of as a country, might have a civil war because they don't really want elections, what they want is to be separate.

Now, why don't we just do the obvious and recind Churchill's map and let them vote on the real borders? It does seem like they are pretty determined NOT to be a country!

Heart good accurate read of the history and status. However we cannot let everyone go their own way. Turkey would never allow the Kirds establish their own state. The Shia would merdge with Iran which the Saids would not like. It is currently more complicated then redrawing a map.

1. If we leave, they separate.
2. If we stay, they will try to separate until we leave unless we can win which most people here say they we can't.
3. If we win, and then leave, they still might separate.

Soooo....maybe we can just keep Turkey out because they want entry to the EU and the Kurds will GLADLY harbor a US base so we can at least threaten the potential Iran and Syria invasion. If they are going to fight, there is little we can do to stop them if they are determined.

Anyone have any great counter-insurgency ideas? Ours don't appear to be working except in the Kurdish areas and the Southern Port area.

Our only hope, is that the insurgents will do things so badly that they will make us look like the good guys. I do think that is happening, but it could be wishful thinking on my part too.

No other country is coming in here to help you do know that right? I kept my mouth shut all during the campaign, but no country is going to come help us and they are mostly taking relish in watching us get our butts kicked if you ask me.

I saw on tv over the weekend that 47 political/ethnic groups are planning to boycott the elections to be held in Iraq in January. I don't think the election there will have much significance if that many different groups of people don't participate.

Wow, looks like you've got some control issues there, dude.

1. If we leave, or eventually pull away from the Sunnite-Shiite rift, anything can happen,

a) they work it out diplomatically using as leverage their respective allies and iraqi borders with surrounding countries stay, even if the country is partitioned

B) 2 potential civil wars: Shi'ites vs Sunnites, Kurds vs Sunnites, both with the potential to spread across Iraqi borders:

Sunnites have the handicap of numbers, but the advantage of having an ally with deep pockets: Saudi Arabia.

Shiites have the advantage of numbers and an ally, Iran, ready to pour in more men in a outnumbering strategy.

Kurds have 3 minor advantages:
- Terrain is favorable for defense
- Sunnites will be busy with Shi'ites in the south and the east
- Kurds and Iranians are not currently in dispute, an alliance is possible
- Kurds from Iran, Armenia, Azerbaidzan and Turkey can fill in the number deficit.

Kurds run a minor risk: Turkish intervention to prevent the constitution of a Kurdistan State. Turks face MAJOR retaliation from the European Union and the USA if they engage troops in Kurdish Iraq.

THE KURDISH GAMBIT
---------------------------
Kurds could build an alliance with Israel, the Lebanon opposition movement and the USA to invade Syria and remove the current regime.

VERY STRONG convergent objectives:

- Kurds would claim extra Kurdish occupied land in Syria to extend the Kurdistan State, and remove a potential threat against the very constitution of the state of Kurdistan.

- to appease Turkey, Kurds could offer to relinquish all claims over Turkish-Kurdistan. This agreement would be backed by the USA and Israel.

- justify the occupation of remaining Syria by US troops as interposition force against Turkish intervention, while securing the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline

- remove what Israel considers a threat to it's security: the Syrian regime

- US troops would pull away from the iraqi Sunnite-Shi'ite rift into Syria and Kurdistan to avoid confrontation with Iran and would benefit of close, open Israeli support.

Bonus:

- Lebanon frees itself of Syrian occupation

- Some of Syria could be offered to Palestinians

2. If we stay....

"under the current US-imposed situation, the Shi'ites will be in power after elections scheduled for January."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK20Ak03.html

So, what next, George ?

Go to 1. above.

3. If we win ... sure, Heart.

But what are the conditions of V-Victory ?
Again, why did we invade Iraq for ?
I kinda forgot. Haven't you ?

Go to 1. above.


In summary, in all cases, the "iraqi interior" pressure is on the Sunnites.
So, what kind of exterior support can the Sunnites find ?

- Saudi Arabia, for sure.
- Pakistan, probably.

Considering the persistant polarization between Pakistan and India, although things seem to be easing out between the two, Pakistan should be unwilling to engage itself in a venture against Iran.

This leaves Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia could probably compensate the Iraqi Sunnites numbers deficit with equipment, money and foreign mercenaries, if Sunnites are openly attacked by Shiites. But to guarantee a stallmate similar to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's would probably require a more direct engagement of Saudi Arabia. Which is highly improbable.

The possibility that Saudis decide to engage directly in a venture against Iran is today very remote, even if we consider the potential of a Saudi-Pakistani alliance.

Finally, considering the long cohabitation of Sunnites and Shiites under Saddam's rule, even through the most brutal events, Sunnites should be able to negotiate a peace agreement with Shiites in what could become an Iraq without Iraqi Kurdistan.

Actually methinks they'll learn the hard way one of the basic premises of democratic elections. It's kinda like the lottery, you can't win if you don't play.

The main significance will be that any criticisms of the election results by those not participating will be delegitimized.

Do you think they understand how a true democracy works? Saddam won "reelection" in 2002, with 100% of the vote. The country itself is a fiction - it was created by the British.

Here's a short history of the country:

A short history of Iraq
Present-day Iraq, known as Mesopotamia, was the centre for some of the oldest cultures of the world. The Empires of Sumeria, and Assyria (4000 BC-612 BC) were based in this region. Later on the region is part of Media, New Babylonia, Persia, Macedon, the Seleucidian Empire, Parthia and Persia (again, now under the Sassanides). During this last period the area is partially under control of the Roman Empire.
In 636 the Caliphate conquer Mesopotamia. When the Abassid dynasty rules from 759, the capital of the Caliphate is replaced to Bagdad. This caliphate is destroyed in 1258 by the Mongols. In 1534 Mesopotamia becomes part of the Ottoman Empire.

After World War I, the United Kingdom seizes the region and establishes in 1921 the Kingdom of Iraq under king Faysal I as a League of Nations mandate. When it becomes independent in 1932, the Hashemite family, which also rules Jordan, rules as a constitutional monarchy. In 1945 Iraq joins the United Nations and becomes a founding member of the Arab League. When the government of prime minister Rashid 'Ali of the Hizb al Ikha al Watani (National Brotherhood Party, HIW) becomes increasingly anti-British, Britian installs in 1941 a pro-British regime. Often Nuri Pasha as-Said of Ahd (Covenant Party) and later the al Ittihad al Dusturi (Constitutional Union Party, ID) is prime minister. In 1958 Iraq and Jordan form the Arab Union.

After a military coup d'état in 1958 the country is restyled into the Republic of Iraq. Abdul Karim Qasim takes power in this 1958 coup, during which king Faysal II and prime minister Nuri as-Said are killed. Qasim is assassinated in 1963, when the Hizb al Ba'ath al'Arabiyah al Ishtiraki (Iraqi Baath Socialist Arab Rebirth Party, Ba'ath) takes power under the leadership of Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr as prime minister and 'Abd al Salim Muhammad 'Arif as president. Nine months later, Arif leads a coup ousting the Ba'ath government. He becomes president on behalf of the nasserite Ittihad al-Ishtiraki al-Arabi (IIA). Arif is killed in a plane crash in 1966 and succeeded by his brother, 'Abd al Rahman Muhammad 'Arif. In 1968 a group of Ba'athists and military elements overthrow the IIA regime. Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr reemerges as president of Iraq and Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC).

In 1979 Bakr resignes and his chosen successor, Saddam Husayn, assumes both offices. Husayn establishes a cruel dictatorship. In 1990 Iraq invades and annexes Kuwait. This leads to an American-led coalition and the liberation of Kuwait. A Kurdistan Regional Government under international protection, not recognized by Iraq, is formed in 1992. The United States and the United Kingdom invade Iraq in 2003 and expel the dictatorial regime. This leads to an instable state in transition, in which both Kurdish governments join the Iraqi transition government.


This region has never been stable - never been under any kind of real democracy - the Iraqis most likely view this as another forced rule - we will install our "puppet" in office who will do the bidding of the US and Britain.

And then the civil war will continue. Which was what Bush was warned about clear back in 2002.

The majority of the people in Iraq are Shia and they are not going to accept Bush's form of democracy that America is trying to force down their throats. An Iraqi civilian was on tv last night explaining that if Allawi was not so heavily protected that he would be dead within 1 hour.

This is exactly what was said this year on the JK forum and last year on a different forum. The Shia are the majority in Iraq and if they had their way, they would set up a Muslim state just like Iran did in the '80's.

Picadilly wrote:
[QUOTE]1. If we leave, or eventually pull away from the Sunnite-Shiite rift, anything can happen,

a) they work it out diplomatically using as leverage their respective allies and iraqi borders with surrounding countries stay, even if the country is partitioned[/QUOTE]

I would say there is about a 30% chance that this will happen but it has a chance because the Sunni are more organized militarily, but the Shia are more organized politically. It's a definate possiblity that the two will counterbalance each other.

[QUOTE] 2 potential civil wars: Shi'ites vs Sunnites, Kurds vs Sunnites, both with the potential to spread across Iraqi borders:[/QUOTE]

I don't think the Shia or the Sunni could take on the Peshmerga independently. They would have to cooperate and I'm not sure they would. Even Iraqis don't really consider Kurdistan to be "part of Iraq" and they also know that Saddam could not win against the Peshmerga. It would have to be an insurgency and so far the Sunni and Shia seem to want to fight over power over what they consider Iraq which would be the port of Basrah (the only water access, and Bhagdad and some oil fields that are not in Kurdistan).

[QUOTE]Sunnites have the handicap of numbers, but the advantage of having an ally with deep pockets: Saudi Arabia.[/QUOTE]

Not that I discount this, but I am not under the impression that Saudi is overly fond of the Iraqi Baathists even if they are Sunni...Syria is the most likely ally for the Sunni in Iraq.

[QUOTE]Shiites have the advantage of numbers and an ally, Iran, ready to pour in more men in a outnumbering strategy.[/QUOTE]

Yes and this is already going on, and I would give this about a 90% probability of occuring, but not overtly unless the US left with our tail between our legs.

[QUOTE]Kurds have 3 minor advantages:
- Terrain is favorable for defense[/QUOTE]

TRUE THERE, but not Kirkuk which they need to make a viable nation.

- [QUOTE]Sunnites will be busy with Shi'ites in the south and the east[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is true unless they decided to try to force the Kurds into it, or they united against the Kurds for being the "ghurkas of the Americans" and that's a kind statement.-

[QUOTE]Kurds and Iranians are not currently in dispute, an alliance is possible[/QUOTE]

I don't think so. The Iranians want nothing to do with the Kurd and vis versa. They hang them regularly in Iran.

-[QUOTE] Kurds from Iran, Armenia, Azerbaidzan and Turkey can fill in the number deficit.[/QUOTE]

That's a wish, but I'm not sure if it would happen. It seems to take a lot of "fanaticism" to do that and most Kurds are passionate, but not the kind of fanatic that leaves home and goes to fight. Now, it could happen, but not in the numbers neccessary.

[QUOTE]Kurds run a minor risk: Turkish intervention to prevent the constitution of a Kurdistan State. Turks face MAJOR retaliation from the European Union and the USA if they engage troops in Kurdish Iraq.[/QUOTE]

The Turks said they would come in if the US let the Kurds control Kirkuk, but the Kurds took over Kirkuk and the Turks have not responed with anything more than complaints. Frankly I don't think that they want to get involved at all if they can help it.

THE KURDISH GAMBIT
---------------------------
[QUOTE]Kurds could build an alliance with Israel, the Lebanon opposition movement and the USA to invade Syria and remove the current regime.
VERY STRONG convergent objectives:

- Kurds would claim extra Kurdish occupied land in Syria to extend the Kurdistan State, and remove a potential threat against the very constitution of the state of Kurdistan. [/QUOTE]

I would be willing to bet a lot of money that this will never happen. The Israeli position is that they will not offensively attack Syria because this would be a nightmare that they could not win...and the Kurds are not strong enough to fight offensively. The USA does not want to replicate the Iraq problem and Syria does not pose the biggest threat to them....Iran does. Also, the Kurds know this would mean immediate genocide against the Kurds in Syria who have absolutely no way to protect themselves and don't even have "papers" to move from town to town to get out if they wanted to, much less if they had to do it en masse fast. If the Kurds took Syrian land, then Iran and Turkey would have to act because they would percieve it as a Kurd land grap which they feel would spread to the largest Kurd population centers in Medean areas of Iran and in Turkey.

[QUOTE]- to appease Turkey, Kurds could offer to relinquish all claims over Turkish-Kurdistan. This agreement would be backed by the USA and Israel.[/QUOTE]

This is what I think should logically happen, but the Turkish faction of Kurds are really so oppressed, and they have the bulk of the Kurds, so it might be hard for Turkic Kurds to accept this. I am trying to convince them that this is the best course, but there are many "uncooperative" elements that want ALL of Kurdistan liberated. I just hope they can do this because, however hard it may be to move to Iraqi Kurdistan, it would improve the balance of power greatly if the Kurds doubled their population in Iraqi Kurdistan.


-[QUOTE] justify the occupation of remaining Syria by US troops as interposition force against Turkish intervention, while securing the Kirkuk-Haifa pipeline[/QUOTE]

In the region, the pipeline in question was a financial and not a political arrangement. I'm not sure if I remember this correctly, but didn't that pipeline run through Jordan instead of Syria...hmmm...I'll have to look it up. Anyway, there is a clear distinction between "business" there so this pipeline would be secure anyway if it was operational which I don't think it is. Nothing, and I mean NOthing would come of invading Syria except another mess for a small threat.

-[QUOTE] remove what Israel considers a threat to it's security: the Syrian regime[/QUOTE]

Israel would be more threatened by this, not less. The Egyptians and Jordanians would not be happy and might get involved and that would be way too messy. Israel has learned to much from Lebanon to do that again, and THEY are the ones telling our administration that they can't win this war in Iraq so I doubt they would see this as good for them. The relations between Syria and Israel are not nearly as bad as it looks on the surface, especially when it comes to financial interests.

-[QUOTE] US troops would pull away from the iraqi Sunnite-Shi'ite rift into Syria and Kurdistan to avoid confrontation with Iran and would benefit of close, open Israeli support.[/QUOTE]

That, at least would give access to the port of Haifa for supply, but you know I don't think we can hold that much supply line without massive troop deployments and we are pretty tapped out. It would be easier to ensure an open supply route through Jordan, but then have to cross some dangerous territory into Kurdistan, or the pipeline route from Basra to Kirkuk, but still this is very dangerous and I doubt the attacks would cease on our convoys. But it might work if we just let the Sunni and Shia fight it out if they wanted to.

[QUOTE]Bonus:

- Lebanon frees itself of Syrian occupation

- Some of Syria could be offered to Palestinians [/QUOTE]

That would further divide the Palestinians, and I think Jordan would have a hissy fit. I'm also not sure that the Palestinians want to move to Syria. They seem to have gotten stuck where they are and they would not want to move into yet another war zone. They have been told repeatedly that Israel is occupying their birthright so they are kind of dead set on the place they are at (no pun intended).

2[QUOTE]. If we stay....

"under the current US-imposed situation, the Shi'ites will be in power after elections scheduled for January."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FK20Ak03.html

So, what next, George ?

Go to 1. above.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, and no one will consider the election results valid. The fighting will break out irrespective of who wins. If we can control that kind of violence (which we don't appear to be doing too well even before elections), then we would keep the peace for awhile, and if we could stabalize the situation we might keep the country unified for the time being.


[QUOTE]3. If we win ... sure, Heart.[/QUOTE]

Well, yeah, it's not going well is it? Yet, maybe it will, too early to say right now.

[QUOTE]But what are the conditions of V-Victory ?
Again, why did we invade Iraq for ?
I kinda forgot. Haven't you ?[/QUOTE]

I think that the real purpose was to establish a beach-head in the ME where we could run bases out of and control the region. That's a nice pipe dream and I wish it could be so easy, but it's idealist to assume this will happen. I'll be happy if they stop fighting with each other, the Kurds retain their autonomy or small nation status (call it something that won't infuriate the Turks). We were sold a bill of goods on this one, and I hate the lies that were told, but like I said before, I would have supported the truth.


[QUOTE]Go to 1. above.
In summary, in all cases, the "iraqi interior" pressure is on the Sunnites.
So, what kind of exterior support can the Sunnites find ?

- Saudi Arabia, for sure.[/QUOTE]

I don't think so. The Saudis always hated the Iraqi Baathists so I'm not at all sure they will help them.

[QUOTE]Pakistan, probably.[/QUOTE]

Why do you think they would help them? I mean the government of Pakistan?

Considering the persistant polarization between Pakistan and India, although things seem to be easing out between the two, Pakistan should be unwilling to engage itself in a venture against Iran.

That would be wise. Pakistan would only have nukes as a deterrent. They are overwhelmed as it is.

[QUOTE]This leaves Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia could probably compensate the Iraqi Sunnites numbers deficit with equipment, money and foreign mercenaries, if Sunnites are openly attacked by Shiites. But to guarantee a stallmate similar to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's would probably require a more direct engagement of Saudi Arabia. Which is highly improbable.

The possibility that Saudis decide to engage directly in a venture against Iran is today very remote, even if we consider the potential of a Saudi-Pakistani alliance.[/QUOTE]

I just don't see this happening. The Saudis are not going to want to continue the war on their borders and they do not want the Shia fighting them either. But...who knows.

[QUOTE]Finally, considering the long cohabitation of Sunnites and Shiites under Saddam's rule, even through the most brutal events, Sunnites should be able to negotiate a peace agreement with Shiites in what could become an Iraq without Iraqi Kurdistan.[/QUOTE]

We can all hope:)

Sorry about that messy post. The length of time allowed to edit is not the same as it was at K/E, and it should be longer because otherwise a long post looks horrible.

It is alright. The bboard screws the formatting after a certain number of {quote}{/quote} occurences even if you have properly "closed" each quote block you opened.

To prevent this, I generally split my reply in two or more successive posts.

The US would only need an intercept from Syria hinting they support iraqis to start rolling to Damascus and give the marines "interesting" things to do, even at the expense of more "old europe" hysterical outcry. What allies do Syria have anyways ? What strategic resources does Syria produce that could justify the preservation of Syria's trading capacity ?

2.5 million of iraqis are estimated to be Baath Party members.
10 million iraqis are sunnites.
Obviously more reasons for Saudis to support sunnites than refusing to support baath members.

Iraq’s debt to Saudi Arabia totals something on the order of $120 billion to $150 billion. Saudis have a major interest in "contributing" directly to the rebuilding of Iraq, under iraqi commitment, in order to repay themselves back in the long run, after the Saudis have been asked by the US to erase the iraqi debt.

And when all rational arguments fail to convince:

From Michael Scott Doran essay, "The Saudi Paradox":

The Saudi religious establishment is viscerally and vocally hostile to Shi`ism. Although Shi`ites constitute between 10 and 15 percent of the population, they do not enjoy even the most basic rights of religious freedom. Nevertheless, in an unprecedented move, the crown prince met with their leaders and accepted their petition. The controlled Saudi press did not publish the petition or even report on it, but Abdullah's move sent ripples of discontent through the Saudi religious classes.
...
Radical Sunni Islamists hate Shi`ites more than any other group, including Jews and Christians. Al-Qaeda's basic credo minces no words on the subject: "We believe that the Shi`ite heretics are a sect of idolatry and apostasy, and that they are the most evil creatures under the heavens." For its part, the Saudi Wahhabi religious establishment expresses similar views. The fatwas, sermons, and statements of established Saudi clerics uniformly denounce Shi`ite belief and practice. A recent fatwa by Abd al-Rahman al-Barrak, a respected professor at the Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University (which trains official clerics), is a case in point. Asked whether it was permissible for Sunnis to launch a jihad against Shi`ites, al-Barrak answered that if the Shi`ites in a Sunni-dominated country insisted on practicing their religion openly, then yes, the Sunni state had no choice but to wage war on them. Al-Barrak's answer, it is worth noting, assumes that the Shi`ites are not Muslims at all.
...
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faes...di-paradox.html


I don't think necessary to develop how much hate can be motivation for hostility.

If Saudis back the iraqi Sunnites, what can the Bush administration possibly do ?

How could iraqi sunnites possibly force the Kurds in their conflict with shiites ?

Peshmergas amount to less than 5000 in the US led iraqi force and haven't been engaged in shiite territory.

I meant an alliance of opportunity and of negotiating leverage against iraqi sunnites, if iraqi sunnites and iraqi shiites can't solve their dispute alone.

I realize I have been overusing the names kurds and sunnites, or iraqi sunnites, to distinguish factions, and this might lead to confusion. What should be distinguished here are the nationalist kurds of northeren iraq, who are in majority of sunnite religion, and the iraqi arab sunnites, who constituted the bulk of the iraqi Ba'ath party.

I agree that the non-recognition of iranian kurds by the iranian government, and their inexistent political representation in Iran have contributed to the iranian Kurds attempts to break away from Iran, with the subsequent repressions and subjugation expected.

Then, they should also hate the syrian baathist regime.
http://www.2la.org/syria/

But, back to the iraqi arab sunnites, I think Saudis would support them to oppose the Shiites.

Officially, relations between Pakistan and Iran are rosy, but both are funding proxy wars between Shiites and Sunnites in each other's countries as well as in Afghanistan.
Pakistan also fears the growing cooperation between Iran and India.

Would Canada taking a leading role in preparing for and possibly monitoring Iraq's parliamentary election early next year effect its potential for success?

I agree with most of what you're saying. The truth is that the agitators and funding for all of these players and terror groups are Saudi and Iran, the rest is really minimal. My personal opinion is that the reason we invaded Iraq was to be in the middle of Iran and Saudi funding sources for terrorism. I think we have made a mess of the whole thing, but I understand the premise.

Somehow I get a uneasy feeling that all of this is going to lead to Saudi and Tehran eventually.

"You can never be sure what the dawn will bring
So just be carefull how you choose your friends now.
Every turn in the night of the wheel of fortune
Changes everything, don't loose your head now.
Like a storm on the ocean, empires wax and wane
And crumble away....
And the world goes to Riyadh, today"

Al Stewart, who was/is much more popular in Europe I take it, than he ever was here, wrote that passage in the 1980's. He chose to insert this song in the middle of a long song on Nostradomus' predictions. It is one of the most interesting musical pieces I have ever heard when it transitions from western music to arabian music and then back to western music with perfect segue. But, what always made the song interesting, along with other Al Stewart lyrics is that he sings about historical events and possible future events. I believe he was a history major.

That, and one other strange item; my husband wrote an article in the 80's about the Western world going to war with the Arab world. It was about the "Lion of Arabia" and it is amazing how accurate his prediction has turned out to be.

A lot to think about. None of these scenarios lead anywhere except to a world war if you ask me. I'm not sure we can stop that now, even if we wanted tried.

IF they could maintain their current reputation while doing it, yes, it would make a difference. There's virtually no news in the region, commentary is the dominant part of news releases. Because of this much would depend on which groups see it as favorable to have a successful election and which ones prefer other methods. I think it would work if we allowed Canada to push us around a bit regarding implementation, but I doubt the administration would go along with that.

Another of the problems in the area which until recently has been suppressed is Kurdish nationalism. The Kurds are, depending upon who is asked, either the third or fourth most numerous ethnic group in the area. Ethnic Kurdistan spans from eastern Turkey in the north, well into middle of western Iran, all of northern Iraq, and into eastern Syria.

All of these countries shall face loss of national territory if Kurdish aspirations are allowed to occur. Turkey has been fighting a guerilla war against Kurdish nationalist for a number of years now, Iran maintains control of the Kurds by banning anything pertaining to Kurdish culture, the Kurds of Iraq have been virtually autonomous since Gulf War #1, and the Syrian Kurds are such a small minority they are just ignored.

This Kurdish problem originated from the dismemberment of the Ottomans following WW1. The colonial powers of old Europe made arbitrary divisions of territory based on the theory of to the victor goes the spoils.

The US could try to set things right for the Kurds in Iraq by allowing the Kurds their own country in their ethnic area of Iraq. I will guarantee we could not do anything that would make Turkey more angry, over 50% of the ethnic Kurds live in Turkey and about one third of Turkey is ethnic Kurdistan. We might even push the Turks into Iran's camp if we did this.

What is the solution? In the perfect world the Kurds should get ethnic Kurdistan as a nationality and the affected nations should cheerfully give up territory not belonging to them. In the real world, try to compromise and make the least number of people as unhappy as possible.

"heart" adds so much to these discussions, methinks she has some special connection to the area I don't know about. IAC reading target='_blank'>this note posted elsewhere might help one better understand what an Iraqi might be thinking about what's going on over there. Thanks heart!

Kurd/Jew Barazani's up one side, Revolutionary war era Jews on another, and just about everything in between too. I got relatives at war with relatives, aunts and uncles, cousins and brother in law's twice removed in several of the locations under discussion:)

Thanks, I try to listen more to the people who gotta make Iraq work than the people on jazeera who are terrified it MIGHT work!

Thank you!

Methinks we can read stuff 'til we're blue in the face, but lacking the background you've got and any real experience in the area our insight is still lacking. Your notes here really do add to better understanding what's actually going on over there.

The relatives fighting relatives thing you mention I can relate to. Being part Lakota and part Ojibwe I've got relatives who've been fighting, and sometimes at war with each other for hundreds of years.