POL: "In Iraq, Civil War All but Declared"

[rexallllsc]

hxxp://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fg-iraq19jul19,1,7095356.story?page=2

In Iraq, Civil War All but Declared
Officials see the latest killings -- 130 lives in two days -- as a slide into a full-scale conflict.
By Borzou Daragahi, Times Staff Writer
July 19, 2006

BAGHDAD — Retaliatory massacres by gunmen and bombers linked to rival Muslim sects have left more than 130 people dead across Iraq over the last two days, the latest casualties of what some politicians now are calling an undeclared civil war.

At least 57 Iraqis were killed Tuesday and scores more injured when a suicide bomber lured a group of day laborers to his minivan with the promise of work before setting off explosives.

ADVERTISEMENT
The bombing in Kufa rained blood, burnt debris and charred body parts on a small market across the street from the Muslim bin Aqil mosque, the main platform for radical Shiite cleric and militia leader Muqtada Sadr.

Since the beginning of May, attacks by Sunni Arab and Shiite Muslims have claimed the lives of more than 6,000 Iraqi civilians, according to a United Nations study and Iraqi police reports.

The Kufa blast, coming on the heels of mass killings and bombings attributed to Sadr's Al Mahdi militia and its Sunni Arab enemies, brought the battle to the Shiite cleric's doorstep, igniting fears of a fresh wave of reprisal killings.

"The message is clear, and the message confirms the sectarian differences," said Fadhil Sharih, a leader of the Sadr movement. "It seems clear that it's been moving toward the direction of civil war."

U.S. and Iraqi government leaders have argued that the 150,000-strong foreign troop presence has kept the country from descending into full-scale civil war. But many Iraqi officials fear the threshold has been crossed.

"What is happening in Iraq is a disaster and a tragedy," Adnan Dulaimi, a Sunni Arab leader, said in an interview.

"It's bloodshed and killing of the innocents, killing the elderly and women and children. It's mass killings. It's nothing less than an undeclared civil war."

Many members of Iraq's political class spoke gravely of the massacres and bombings of the last few days, even as two U.S. Cabinet officials visiting Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone this week touted Iraq as a potential bonanza for private investors.

The Iraqi Islamic Party, the largest Sunni Arab political group, warned Tuesday that "Iraq is witnessing a grave escalation in violence," and it called on Iraqis "to return to their senses instead of slipping into the abyss."

The surge in violence has terrified residents of Baghdad and other mixed Sunni and Shiite areas. The Baghdad airport has been flooded with Iraqis of modest means seeking to escape even temporarily the country's upswing in sectarian slayings.

According to a U.N. study based on Health Ministry statistics, 2,669 Iraqi civilians were killed in May and 3,149 were killed in June. And this month, the violence appears to be accelerating, particularly in the Baghdad area that is the target of a sweeping security crackdown aimed at quelling the violence. U.S. and Iraqi troops launched the sweep, to great fanfare, after a visit in mid-June by President Bush.

"Things are getting worse," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish lawmaker.

Even those who hesitate to call Iraq's sectarian violence a civil war have begun saying that defusing the situation will require the international mechanisms used to mediate previous ethnic, religious and political conflicts in Central America, the former Yugoslavia and Sri Lanka.

"I start to feel the need to say that there is a civil war," said Salim Abdullah Jabouri, a Sunni politician, "in order to borrow the tools and solutions of past civil wars to apply them here, and to call upon the international community to deal with Iraq's problems on this basis."

The latest cycle of violence began with the July 8 bombing of a small Shiite mosque in the Jihad neighborhood of southwest Baghdad.

Shiite militiamen took to the streets the next day, pulling Sunnis from their homes and cars and executing them on the spot.

A string of bombings targeting Shiite mosques and markets followed.

In the morgue, the bodies of Sunnis piled up, felled with single bullets to the head, apparently by Shiite death squads.

And in the religiously mixed Dora section of Baghdad, Sunni gunmen began stopping cars filled with Shiite mourners headed to the cemetery in the Shiite holy city of Najaf, pulling out the occupants and killing them.

In apparent retaliation, three Sunni Arab members of the Ghereir tribe were abducted Sunday night and slain. Their burned and mutilated bodies were found in a pickup truck near Musayyib.

Hours later, dozens of gunmen flocked into the Shiite town center of Mahmoudiya, killing 42 civilians as they sought to flee the well-coordinated force, officials said.

Later Monday night, the bodies of 32 Sunni Arab men were found in Baghdad. The discovery was followed by Tuesday's attack in Kufa.

"I got out of my car to drink some water," said Sadik Kadhim Ali, a 30-year-old Shiite farmer being treated at the nearby hospital in Najaf for multiple shrapnel wounds to his legs from the minivan blast. "The car exploded. Many people were killed, and there were body parts all over."

Hours later, police discovered 14 more bodies near the mixed Mahmoudiya area.

The broken glass mingles with specks of human blood. The corpses and anger mount. Each attack, played over and over on satellite television channels controlled by political parties with sectarian agendas, is magnified across the airwaves.

"It is actually a civil war," said Ayad Samaraie, a leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party.

"It is action and reaction. And it is increasing day after day."

Iraq's elected political leaders have floated several plans to contain the fighting, among them the Baghdad security plan, which includes new checkpoints and curfews and a requirement that Iraqis own no more than one automatic weapon and keep it at home.

That crackdown has been declared a failure by all but the most strident supporters of the current government.

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki and his aides also continue to promote a reconciliation plan meant to draw at least some of the Sunni insurgents away from the gun and bring Shiite militias under the authority of government security forces.

In recent days, Iraqi politicians have proposed joint neighborhood watch groups made up of loyalists of both Shiite and Sunni political parties, in an attempt to spur dialogue and prevent reprisal killings.

"We're talking about the security situation on the ground in different neighborhoods," said Haider Abadi, a lawmaker and member of Maliki's Islamic Dawa Party. "Without having understanding and cooperation on the ground, we'll be drawn into civil war."

Still, even Sunni and Shiite political leaders, who meet frequently in the Green Zone, are far from an accord and often seem to talk past one another in discussing solutions for ending the escalating violence.

Shiites continue to heap most of the blame on loyalists of former President Saddam Hussein and takfiris, or Sunni Arab extremists, many of them from other countries. Sunnis contend that organized Shiite gunmen in the government security forces, perhaps trained by neighboring Iran, are instigating the violence.

"Elements inside the government are not in agreement," Othman said. "Some people call a group terrorist and others say they are the resistance. Some say the problem is Saddamists; others say, no, the problem is militias."

Unbridled lawlessness continued elsewhere. On Tuesday, gunmen in Iraqi army uniforms robbed a bank in west Baghdad, making off with about $1 million in Iraqi currency.

Clashes also broke out in the southern city of Basra between Sadr's followers and British soldiers. A Mahdi army official said at least four Iraqis were killed.

Five Iraqi police officers were killed by a roadside bomb near Hawija, a Sunni Arab city near the ethnically contested city of Kirkuk.

In Baqubah, gunmen killed a police officer on his way to work.

*

Times staff writers Saif Rasheed and Shamil Aziz in Baghdad, special correspondent Saad Fakhrildeen in Kufa and Najaf, and special correspondents in Baqubah, Basra and Kirkuk contributed to this report.

[ISiddiqui]

Ouch... this was predicted, but I always hoped that the sects would knock that shit off (however unrealistic that hope was).

[SirFozzie]

and a requirement that Iraqis own no more than one automatic weapon and keep it at home.

I'm sorry, it's horrible that this is happening, but where's the Iraqi NRA when ya need em?

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Ouch... this was predicted, but I always hoped that the sects would knock that shit off (however unrealistic that hope was).

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." –President Bush

[SunDevil]

"I don't think anyone thought that someone would fly a plane into a building." - Condi Rice

[Klinglerware]

"I don't think you're ready for this jelly." - Beyoncé Knowles

[yabanci]

"Trying to stop suiciders — which we're doing a pretty good job of on occasion — is difficult to do. And what the Iraqis are going to have to eventually do is convince those who are conducting suiciders who are not inspired by Al Qaeda, for example, to realize there's a peaceful tomorrow." —George W. Bush, May 24, 2006

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

"I don't think you're ready for this jelly." - Beyoncé Knowles

LOL.

[Bubba Wheels]

Hezbollah has announced that they are ready to start operations 'in the U.S.' Fox News states the FBI is busy looking for Hezbollah agents here. More to come?

[cartman]

"I think — tide turning — see, as I remember — I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of — it's easy to see a tide turn — did I say those words?" —George W. Bush, asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

[KWhit]

Almost 6000 Iraquis killed in just 2 months??? I had no idea.

[sachmo71]

Hasn't this been declared, or not declared, before?

[duckman]

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Almost 6000 Iraquis killed in just 2 months??? I had no idea.

Well we don't get any points for those deaths, so there is really no point in really keeping score.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

Hasn't this been declared, or not declared, before?

Well yes, if you mean by Rexall, but I think his point is that someone else said it this time.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well yes, if you mean by Rexall, but I think his point is that someone else said it this time.

I've heard this multiple times in the past, and that's just NPR. *shurg*

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sachmo71

I've heard this multiple times in the past, and that's just NPR. *shurg*

Shhh. I have too. They usually have someone else on with a counter point though.

I think it is something that can certainly happen, but an actual 'civil war' doesn't seem imminent to me.

It might be a matter of semantics, but sectarian violence like in say rwanda doesn't count as civil war to me. Things would be different if the Sunni and or Kurd provinces tried to take over the government. Right now it just seems that thugs are senselessly killing innocents to instill fear and uncertainty.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Almost 6000 Iraquis killed in just 2 months??? I had no idea.

Makes you wonder if the people there were safer under Bush or Saddam?

[duckman]

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Makes you wonder if the people there were safer under Bush or Saddam?

It also makes you wonder why the Al Qaeda never did bomb Saddam since the country is littered with Al Qaeda terrorists. I thought the two groups hated each other? How did they co-exist so well?

[SirFozzie]

Easy, Dutch.

Those who swear allegiance to Al-Queda didn't until after the US invasion.. because Al-Queda has actually HURT the US. It's an image thing

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Easy, Dutch.

Those who swear allegiance to Al-Queda didn't until after the US invasion.. because Al-Queda has actually HURT the US. It's an image thing

That's right, the swore allegiance to Al Qaeda because we overthrew Al Qaeda's most hated enemy. Got it.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It also makes you wonder why the Al Qaeda never did bomb Saddam since the country is littered with Al Qaeda terrorists. I thought the two groups hated each other? How did they co-exist so well?

If you read bin Laden's statements, I think it's obvious why.

[Bubba Wheels]

Its really very basic. Shia have been dominated by the Sunni minority for decades, now they get the chance to change the equation as the majority and they're taking advantage of it. But in order to do it they have to keep blowing smoke at the U.S. and rest of the world to buy time for completion. Sunni's see it coming and are fighting tooth and nail to delay the inevitable.

We are in the way of both. Time to leave.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It also makes you wonder why the Al Qaeda never did bomb Saddam since the country is littered with Al Qaeda terrorists. I thought the two groups hated each other? How did they co-exist so well?

They didn't co-exist. The Al Qaeda terrorists have been pouring into Iraq from Iran and Syria unabated for the past three years while Iraq has been in anarchy. One of the biggest mistakes that the Bush administration made was not repatriating the Iraq army to help secure the border.

The other huge mistake they made was thinking in terms of "Iraqis", instead of realizing the ancient visceral hatred between the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. Cheney and Rumsfeld were so naive that they thought these people would some how harmoniously join hands and "throw roses in the street" at our troops.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

They didn't co-exist. The Al Qaeda terrorists have been pouring into Iraq from Iran and Syria unabated for the past three years while Iraq has been in anarchy. One of the biggest mistakes that the Bush administration made was not repatriating the Iraq army to help secure the border.

I disagree. I think repatriating the Sunni dominated Iraqi Army would have been a disaster. Or at least no better than rebuilding the Iraqi army from the ground up.

The other huge mistake they made was thinking in terms of "Iraqis", instead of realizing the ancient visceral hatred between the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. Cheney and Rumsfeld were so naive that they thought these people would some how harmoniously join hands and "throw roses in the street" at our troops.

It would have been nice and it was a risky decision. And by risk, I mean the possability of failure. Not too much different than Saddam's game he played. It was with risk of being overthrown that he chose when he ignored the 17 UN Resolutions and the 1991 Cease-Fire Agreement with the US/UK/Aus alliance. I guess in the end, we all win some and lose some, but we all have to take those risks. Because if you don't, who will check your opponents risk taking?

As for the Sunni's, Shiites, and Kurds living together harmoniously, it is only the naive or the ill-willed who suggest they lived harmoniously under Saddam Hussein.

Cheney and Rumsfeld never guaranteed happiness, they simply guaranteed them an opportunity while we took care of business that was in the best interest of our nation. That opportunity was something Saddam Hussein never gave them, that's for sure. If terrorist organizations did not exist in Iraq, those ethnic/sectarian sides would certainly look to be living together much better than Al Qaeda insists they are through their bombing campaign. That's the primary reason Al Qaeda is coordinating the violence, to deny Iraqis that opportunity. So far, the terrorists are doing a pretty good job, I'll give them that.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It would have been nice and it was a risky decision. And by risk, I mean the possability of failure. Not too much different than Saddam's game he played. It was with risk of being overthrown that he chose when he ignored the 17 UN Resolutions and the 1991 Cease-Fire Agreement with the US/UK/Aus alliance. I guess in the end, we all win some and lose some, but we all have to take those risks. Because if you don't, who will check your opponents risk taking?

Can't wait 'til we call out Israel for their UN Resolutions (ha!)

If terrorist organizations did not exist in Iraq, those ethnic/sectarian sides would certainly look to be living together much better than Al Qaeda insists they are through their bombing campaign. That's the primary reason Al Qaeda is coordinating the violence, to deny Iraqis that opportunity. So far, the terrorists are doing a pretty good job, I'll give them that.

Oh wait. This is Al Qaeda's doing (lol). I thought they were on their "last throes"?

I think you're giving them far too much credit. This is simply sectarian violence caused by little or no order in the country.

[sachmo71]

Some really nice examples of sarcasm in this thread.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Can't wait 'til we call out Israel for their UN Resolutions (ha!)

I've actually firmly supported the UN resolutions regarding Israel and it's illegal settlements in the occupied territories. I've always contended that Israel is the primary holder of responsability with regards to the occupied areas since they offer no representation to those people.

However, at the same time, I would strongly argue that a sovereign nation has a right to defend itself against terrorism, I'm sure you would too.

Oh wait. This is Al Qaeda's doing (lol). I thought they were on their "last throes"?

They aren't targetting women and children today because they won anything.

I think you're giving them far too much credit. This is simply sectarian violence caused by little or no order in the country.

The chief tactic of the so-called sectarian violence is terrorism.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

Oh wait. This is Al Qaeda's doing (lol). I thought they were on their "last throes"?

I think you're giving them far too much credit. This is simply sectarian violence caused by little or no order in the country.

I think two factors contributed equally to this:

1. Neither the U.S. nor the provisional governments had any idea how to structure a government to satisfy the three ethnic groups. It was a huge sticking point for the constitutional convention, and in the end they were unable to reach any compromise solution and so just wrote a constitution with huge To Be Determined Later sections in it. There has not been one iota of progress on this since then. This, I think, was the single biggest flaw in pre-war planning and post-war execution. It was a predictable problem, and the U.S. has never had the first clue what to do about it. Consequently there is now no obvious way to resolve these sectarian problems through democratic means.

2. Zarqawi really focused on this issue. While the home-grown Iraqi insurgents were busy attacking U.S. and Iraqi troops and supply lines and civil infrastructure, Zarqawi and his foreign jihadis were busy blowing up mosques and killing civilians to foment civil war. It took a long time, as Shia leadership really resisted this and kept a tight leash on their supporters. But Zarqawi was persistent and wore down their resistance until eventually Shia groups started fighting back. By the time Zarqawi was killed the sectarian conflict had taken on a life of its own.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I've actually firmly supported the UN resolutions regarding Israel and it's illegal settlements in the occupied territories. I've always contended that Israel is the primary holder of responsability with regards to the occupied areas since they offer no representation to those people.

Good to know.

However, at the same time, I would strongly argue that a sovereign nation has a right to defend itself against terrorism, I'm sure you would too.

Yes. I would agree. I don't really think it applies in this case, however.

The chief tactic of the so-called sectarian violence is terrorism.

I would agree with that as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's "terrorists" (referring to Al Qaeda, not those committing the acts) committing these acts.