Civil War In Iraq Inevitable: Analyst

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=fe3ecafdfef5fe08

Civil War In Iraq Inevitable: Analyst
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big News Network.com Thursday 2nd October, 2003

A military analyst predicts a civil war in Iraq soon after the U.S.-led coalition forces return home, the Novosti news agency reported Wednesday.

The agency interviewed Dutch professor and analyst Martin van Krefeld at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He predicted Iraq will become another Afghanistan.

Everyone will fight against everyone: Kurds against Arabs, Shiites against Sunnis, he said.
He said the inevitability of civil war was proven by a perceived inability of the coalition to establish order.
more....

And American troops are in the middle of this mess :bounce:

which means money

and power to screw with the U.S.

An ayatollah will end up ruling Iraq. Just what the geo political realists wanted to avoid when they installed Saddam thirty-five years ago.

They'd rather have Saddam in power than the Shiites any day. We were warned. Oh boy, were we warned!

Hey, we can use up all those munitions. They're getting close, they don't stay good forever. Get to work on that new Fighter, where's my new Tank, hey I need a new Assault Rifle System......

Blah blah blah.

If only miliions and millions of people around the world saw this coming.

But we were just a "focus group".
We were all correct. Too bad it is taking so many dead and wounded soldiers and the rape of the US treasury and destruction of the Constitution to wake people up.

It will be difficult to imagine a strong enough central authority to hold it together. I mean, the Kurds have tried repeatedly. The Sunnis want to be in control but are outnumbered. The Shiites are no longer going to let themselves be controlled from Baghdad, and they're going to set up their own religious constitution.

Hadn't thought about it until now, but I can't see how it will stay together. The US always loses commitment and goes home in situations like this. The inevitable departure will be the trigger.

Years of brutal control by one man and long histories of tensions and hatred. Take away the man in control and everything comes to a head.

The place is actually three nations uneasily cobbled together, where Yugoslavia was seven. It really ought to be partitioned into a Kurdish north, a Sunni Arab center, and a Shia Arab south. This would result in at least a semblance of peace, for a while. It will not, however, be done.

Otherwise, separate homelands would not be enough.

The oil is beneath particular spots, the water runs in its courses.

I'd take this estimate very seriously.

As soon as I saw van Creveld made the comments, I "put my glasses down". Trouble looms.

because I've been saying it for over a year. Not only will there be civil war, but there will be regional, religous war as well.

Iraq has been a secular state for over a generation now - and the percentage of the population under 18 is really high - so there's a lot of younger people who haven't been raised in a theocratic state.

I don't think that even in the south there's enough Shiite extremists to turn that part of Iraq into a fundamentalist state. Fighting between Sunni and Shiite factions would be because of political differences, not religious ones.

Left to their own devices, I think the Iraqi people could work this all out. Probably by breaking into three countries.

Remember that privation and chaos and danger tend to drive folks to religion. Nor does it take too many to inflame a situation past recall in that direction. Muslims in Bosnia were not too religious at all before the killing started.

What bothers me the most about the situation is that the worst case scenario might be avoidable, if we had any kind leadership in the white house that didn't have it's head up it's ass. It's almost like they want it to fuck up.

The keystone has been knocked from the arch; the tumble is inevitable as gravity. The only way to avoid this would have been to have stayed out in the first place.

governing apparatus, don't you think Sir? It boggles the
mind, it does.

If there's mass chaos it's easier to swoop in and enact US & free trade friendly rules & governance in the name of "safety."

They're trying to enact that already (remember last week's "fire sale" notice of Iraqi resources). Chaos won't help them bring home the dollars, security will. Which is precisely why the Iraqi resistance won't allow that to happen.

They are already there: no need to "swoop in" when the boot is already on the ground, and there is more chaos already than can be readily managed.

They know it is hopeless, but they don't know what else to do now.
There isn't any plan. If there was a plan we would have been told about it or at least seen some evidence of it.
There is a gigantic propaganda program in place right now to convince the common man that we are "winning". But we are not winning. The common man is sensing this, thus the slow change of opinion in spite of the propaganda.

of all the bloodshed and war and joblessness and chaos and end up electing a strongarm dictator to restore some order and a semblence of peace? Madam, meet Saddam.