Iraq phase three: Civil war

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1098543,00.html

The question therefore is no longer one of invasion and war, or even of occupation and withdrawal. It is a question, fundamentally, of which Iraqis will take control of their country as the coalition's grip eases, how they will do so, and with what degree of legitimacy. This next phase offers a choice: self-rule - or self-destruction.

This is the developing context in which increasing attacks on diplomats, aid workers and contractors involved in long-term, non-Iraqi controlled reconstruction must be seen. This may be why the overall level of attrition against US forces is falling while attacks by Iraqis on Iraqis are rising. Some are targeted as "collaborators"; but that is just another way of saying "rivals for future power". The internal, potentially internecine, physical battle for the "new Iraq" is getting underway, under the very noses of the liberators.

A parallel, political battle for control is also gathering momentum, as Iraqis contemplate life after the Coalition Provisional Authority. Members of the US-appointed governing council are manoeuvring for position in a future, interim or directly elected government, reneging on their agreement last month to give up power. The Shia leadership, representing a majority of the population, is beginning to flex its political muscle, particularly in respect of establishing the "Islamic character" of any new constitution and leadership. It is clear, as always, that the Kurdish north will not accept future political arrangements that in any way diminish its considerable autonomy. And then, at the heart of the matter, figuratively and geographically, stand the Saddam Fedayeen of Samarra and the Sunni Triangle, the infamous, elusive "Ba'athist remnants", and all those many Iraqi nationalists and resistance fighters who never accepted the US intervention and still reject it and all its works. These groups see no reason why they should forego the decisive power to which many have been accustomed. From their viewpoint, it is their attrition and their blood sacrifice that has been decisive in pushing the Americans into surrendering the political reins.

Despite all the events of the past 12 months, this next phase of the Iraq conflict could yet prove to be its most dangerous. The big picture, to the extent that it can be made out, suggests Iraq's future is still very much in the balance. An orderly transition and the assertion of legitimate, democratic governance is by no means assured. Continuing, escalating civil strife, scattering the seeds of a possible civil war, could yet turn out to be the Bush-Blair legacy in Iraq.

I would say that the US and Britain deeply underestimated the resolve and daring of the Iraqi resistance fighters. I believe they thought the internal strife among the Iraqis themselves would be 2 aces for them. In other words, they were going to capitalize on the seemingly discord among the tribal factions and use it to their advantage.

For the moment, though, it seems that the Iraqis have banded together, at least temporarily, with this new, common enemy.

We have watched the Iraqis in action, week after week, participating in suicide bombings, attacks on US troops, facing a certain death, along with Iraqi civilians who happen to be at the wrong place on the wrong day.

We've watched them on a learning curve, figuring out how to shoot down Black Hawk helicopters after dark, after the US decided it was too dangerous to fly during daylight.

After that, it was donkey carts loaded with explosives. Before that, it was a cement mixer. In every case, the US was the last to know.

Like a giant, stumbling around after it's been hit, it quickly assesses the situation, vows not to let that happen again, and proceeds to smash all the houses nearby. Each time, the US has been the reacting party. The enemy moves, the US reacts. The enemy comes up with a new strategy, and the US reacts again and adjusts to the new situation. Bush even said this himself last week, "we're adjusting to the new threats".

See the pattern there? The US is always in 2nd place, forced to adjust and try to proceed. The insurgents are always in the 1st place. The US is helpless but to wait for the next move. A shitty place to be in, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

I believe the war planners had NO IDEA how truly patient the muslims can be. I've read that they have patience which can span centuries. They never forget an injury.

The chickenhawks didn't seem to have any idea about life after Saddam. That is a major part of the problem.

I think the article does mention though, that however much they may hate the US, Iraqi's still have their own internal factions to fight against too. That is where the danger of a civil war comes in.

Another tyrant will emerge and take control.

We will not have ended tyrany, we will have just provided an opening for a replacement tyrant.