Civil War in Iraq?

[thedrifter]

Civil War in Iraq?
By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 28, 2006

The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy.

The destruction of the Golden Dome, built in 1905 and one of the holiest shrines of Shi’ite Islam, represents an escalation of the Sunni assault on the Shi’ites, a purposeful outrage intended to provoke an emotional backlash. It signals not Sunni weakness but the determination of elements in Iraq’s long-ruling community to reassert its dominance. Iraq’s president, Jalal Talabani, has rightly warned that “The fire of sedition, when it breaks out, can burn everything in its path and spare no one.” One shudders at the possible carnage ahead.

That said, Iraq’s plight is neither a coalition responsibility nor a particular danger to the West.

When Washington and its allies toppled the hideous regime of Saddam Hussein, which endangered the outside world by beginning two wars of expansion, by building a WMD arsenal, and by aspiring to control the trade in oil and gas, they bestowed an historic benefit on Iraqis, a population that had been wantonly oppressed by the Stalinist dictator.

Unsurprisingly, his regime quickly fell to outside attack, proving to be the “cakewalk” that many analysts, including myself, had expected. That six-week victory remains a glory of American foreign policy and of the coalition forces. It also represents a personal achievement for George W. Bush, who made the key decisions.

But the president decided that this mission was not enough. Dazzled by the examples of post-World War II Germany and Japan – whose transformations in retrospect increasingly appear to have been one-time achievements – he committed troops in the pursuit of creating a “free and democratic Iraq.” This noble aim was inspired by the best of America’s idealism.

But nobility of purpose did not suffice for rehabilitating Iraq, as I predicted already in April 2003. Iraqis, a predominantly Muslim population newly liberated from its totalitarian dungeon, were disinclined to follow the American example; for their part, the American people lacked a deep interest in the welfare of Iraq. This combination of forces guarantees the coalition cannot impose its will on 26 million Iraqis.

It also implies the need for a lowering of coalition goals. I cheer the goal of a “free and democratic Iraq,” but the time has come to acknowledge that the coalition’s achievement will be limited to destroying tyranny, not sponsoring its replacement. There is nothing ignoble about this limited achievement, which remains a landmark of international sanitation. It would be especially unfortunate if aiming too high spoils that attainment and thereby renders future interventions less likely. The benefits of eliminating Saddam Hussein’s rule must not be forgotten in the distress of not creating a successful new Iraq.

Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition’s responsibility nor its burden. The damage done by Saddam Hussein will take many years to repair. Americans, Britons, and others cannot be tasked with resolving Sunni-Shi’ite differences, an abiding Iraqi problem that only Iraqis themselves can address.

The eruption of civil war in Iraq would have many implications for the West. It would likely:

· Invite Syrian and Iranian participation, hastening the possibility of a U.S. confrontation with those two states, with which tensions are already high.

· Terminate the dream of Iraq serving as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, thus delaying the push toward elections. This will have the effect of keeping Islamists from being legitimated by the popular vote, as Hamas was just a month ago.

· Reduce coalition casualties in Iraq. As noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, “Rather than killing American soldiers, the insurgents and foreign fighters are more focused on creating civil strife that could destabilize Iraq’s political process and possibly lead to outright ethnic and religious war.”

· Reduce Western casualties outside Iraq. Vali Nasr, a professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School notes: “Just when it looked as if Muslims across the region were putting aside their differences to unite in protest against the Danish cartoons, the attack showed that Islamic sectarianism remains the greatest challenge to peace.” Put differently, when Sunni terrorists target Shi’ites and vice-versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt.

Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

February 28, 2006
Iraqi People Continue to Disappoint the Pessimists
By Jack Kelly

The Associated Press reported Monday that Sunni Arabs in Iraq are prepared to end their boycott of talks to form a national unity government, thus disappointing yet again those journalists who've been telling us for two years civil war is imminent.

It seemed last Wednesday as if the pessimists might finally be right after terrorists destroyed the Golden Mosque in Samarra, one of the holiest sites in Shia Islam. Shia militias attacked more than a dozen Sunni mosques in retaliation. An unprecedented three day curfew was imposed in Baghdad in order to curb sectarian violence in which more than 100 people were killed.

The outbreak of violence convinced conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr. that the U.S. mission in Iraq has failed.

"Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans," Mr. Buckley wrote in National Review. "The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough."

Mr. Buckley is of the "realist" school of foreign policy, which believes, in essence, that "freedom and democracy are for me, but not for thee." The lesser breeds without the Law, like Iraq's Arabs, aren't ready for it now, and probably won't be ever. Buckley noted with apparent approval the view of an anonymous soldier quoted in the New York Times who said he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and Shiites from each other's throats.

Mr. Buckley's pessimism may be premature. Both Sunni and Shia religious leaders have called for calm. The Moqtada al Sadr, whose militia was in the forefront of the retaliatory attacks on Sunni mosques, prayed publicly Saturday with the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars. Thousands of ordinary Sunnis and Shias joined together in half a dozen Iraqi cities to demonstrate for peace.

"We have much more evidence of a strong national unity movement in Iraq," said Iraqi Web logger Haider Ajina of the weekend demonstrations. "This attack was supposed to plunge Iraq into sectarian mayhem and senseless massive killing. This did not happen."

These peaceful demonstrations for peace drew little attention from a news media that is eager to report on a civil war, even if it isn't happening.

"Nearly every Iraq story is inaccurate," wrote Ben Connable, a Marine major stationed in Fallujah, in an email to a friend. "The numbers are inflated, the damage exaggerated, the estimates are misleading, and the predictions are based on pure conjecture, often by people far removed from the problem."

"The Iraqi military and police forces have held together and they are doing their jobs," Maj. Connable said. "In 2004, the Iraqi military and police all but collapsed. The fact that Shia soldiers who make up the vast majority of the troops have stayed at their posts, held back the Shia militiamen, and prevented an increase in violence is remarkable. This should be one of the feature stories on the nightly news, but it barely received mention."

Those danged Iraqis. They continue to disappoint by failing to be disappointing. Could it be that most of them value freedom, democracy and peace as much as white Christians do?

This is not to say there isn't plenty of sectarian tension. Things could go south fast if negotiations for a national unity government fail. But things could get better if those who attacked the Golden Mosque are caught.

Al Qaida, which is as eager to start a sectarian civil war as the New York Times is to report on it, is the principal suspect.

"The Golden Mosque bombing will turn out to be another major defeat for the terrorists, if for no other reason than it got the two major Shia factions, the Badr and Sadr groups, to stop fighting each other," predicted StrategyPage.

But some Sunnis are claiming the real culprit is Iran, acting through the Moqtada al Sadr's militia.

There is some evidence to support the Sunni claim. Col. Austin Bay's friend "Sapper," a former combat engineer, says it would take several hours to place the roughly 200 lbs of explosives needed to drop the dome, suggesting an inside job. Guards were handcuffed and put in a safe place rather than killed, solicitude al Qaida has not shown to Shias in the past.

A desperation move by al Qaida, or the Iraqi equivalent of the Reichstag fire? Stay tuned.

Ellie

[thedrifter]

No Civil War in Iraq
February 28th, 2006
John Mendez

Do not fear a civil war in Iraq. The strife on display is the unfortunate evolution of a burgeoning democracy. These are the last gasps from a segment of the populace reluctant to accept its diminished political clout as the country’s ethnic minority. There are already signs of Sunnis backing away from an all-out confrontation. For good reason.

While everyone suffers under tyranny, some groups must endure more than others. So while Saddam Hussein’s predominantly Sunni henchmen brutally ruled Iraq by crushing dissent and savagely subjugating the entire population, the Shiite and Kurdish majorities bore the brunt of their atrocities. The stories of ruling Sunni atrocities against the Shiites and Kurds are now undeniably confirmed by the unearthing of mass graves and first hand accounts from a suddenly free Iraqi population.

The evidence of Hussein and ruling Sunni carnage is extensive, obvious and, not surprisingly, underreported by an antique media fixated on the empty rhetorical scowls of Hussein himself rather than the cries of his victims.

Despite this decades’ long butchery and slaughter, neither Shiites nor Kurds have openly sought retribution against their former oppressors, except in isolated instances. In the spirit of reconciliation and nation-building that has followed the liberation of Iraq, the formerly-oppressed have shown remarkable restraint.

The Sunni government was simply removed from power through the advent of democracy where, for the first time in the very long history of the Arab Middle East, the will of the people has spoken. Although the Sunnis initially refused to vote in what can only be described as a delusional denial of reality, they were graciously included in the constitutional deliberations and concessions were made to appease their leadership.

Despite this appeasement and various acts of reconciliation orchestrated by the US in order to include the Sunnis in the rebuilding of Iraq, many Sunnis have instead harbored al Qaeda terrorists and participated in attacks against US forces. Or at least maintained silence about the activities leading to such attacks, which they may have seen or heard.

It is important to note that the vast majority of Sunnis participated in the most recent election – in overwhelming numbers. Many are actively involved in the reconstruction and have been the unfortunate victims of al Qaeda and sectarian violence, like other Iraqis. But their leadership continues to act duplicitously, condemning the violence yet doing nothing to end it.

They know who and where these perpetrators are and should actively root out the foreign fighters in their community and quell the Sunni “insurgency” instead of sitting idly by in Arafat-esque fashion. Reaping the rewards of violence without its repercussions is not leadership and never ends well. At the moment, al Qaeda terrorists are given sanctuary and assistance by many in the Sunni community as they devise heinous attacks against the civilian population of the Shiites as well as their holy sites in order to foment unrest and encourage ethnic violence.

The unadulterated hope of al Qaeda and former Ba’athists is that with the onslaught of violence and its chaos, the newly formed government will collapse. As the violence escalates and the casualties mount, political demands from the apologist left in the US would intensify, paving the way for a withdrawal of US forces and a humiliating American defeat.

In essence, al-Qaeda is eager to sacrifice Sunni and Shia lives for political gain. Now, in a moment that can only be considered sheer lunacy, elements of the Sunni minority in Iraq, spurred on by Ba’athists remnants and al Qaeda murderers, have inconceivably decided to take up arms. But they should be careful what they wish for, because the withdrawal of US forces and the commencement of civil war would have catastrophic consequences for the Sunni minority.

What these killers don’t seem to understand is that it is the threat of civil war not the actual initiation of hostilities that is the true bargaining chip. The Sunnis have yet to fully appreciate the monumental shift that has occurred in the Iraqi power structure. Like Saddam before them, the Sunni leadership fails to grasp that they no longer have a monopoly on power. The feared Republican Guard is non-existent and Hussein’s chemicals will not rain down on the villages of the defenseless. Acts of violence will now be met with reciprocal attacks. The Sunnis are outnumbered, likely outgunned, and surrounded by a population that has, for the moment, forgiven but not forgotten yesteryear’s bloodbaths. The Sunnis may find that the today’s hated US “occupier” is tomorrow’s merciful defender.

The Shiite and Kurds who make up the overwhelming majority of the population will make concessions in order to avoid bloodshed and to rebuild a nation where they now, for the first time in decades, have a political voice. However, once the general fighting of a true civil war begins, the Sunnis lose the ability to demand any concessions whatsoever and will find that the Shiites and Kurds will indisputably be much more heavy-handed than a US Marine.

In the end, the civil war that the former Ba’athists and al Qaeda foreign jihadists so desperately crave would be disastrous for the Sunnis, the majority of whom are looking forward to a new day in Iraq diligently assisting in the reconstruction of their country.

It is time for the Sunni leaders to show true leadership and rid their communities of destructive elements and continue to work in the spirit of compromise, understanding that a civil war will likely deteriorate into their worst nightmare. There are already signs that they are doing so, returning to negotiations over the formation of a new government. The building of a nation and its political infrastructure is immeasurably difficult and compromise is essential. Sunni disapproval of the currently proposed “federalist” system is understandable and concessions on the composition of a national government are necessary in building a democracy.

It is said that democracy is essentially the process of compromise between conflicting interests according to mutually agreed upon rules. The ultimate rule is to work within the framework of compromise in order to avoid bloodshed. If bloodshed is the goal, then the Sunni population will learn to its disadvantage that it is easier and more expedient to compromise than take up arms.

Ellie