Will Iraq go into a civil war?
Practically speaking Iraq is on a civil war, yet, formally it is not. Thus, the question would be will Iraq go into a formally declared civil war?
In fact I answer this question with another question: if Iraq goes into a civil war, which side America will take? And what will be the role of the US army during such a war?... You got my point? No? Then go ahead and continue reading this...
A civil war in Iraq will put America in hot spot, specially Bush and his administration. So there are two possibilities about how America will act:
Either America will stop this some what civil war early so that it puts itself in no deep shit about which side to take and what to do during a raging war between Sunnis and Shia'as.
Or Bush and his hawks will let it go in order to exploit the chance and find a good reason to send more troops and have more allies in Iraq, then settling the situation down and claiming more time to stay there to keep peace and security.
In fact, the later seems too impossible for me for some reasons. First, when Bush sent America's young men to fight his war in Iraq he said it is a war for democracy, bringing peace and finding weapons of mass destruction (at least that's what he announced). Well, in order to establish democracy you have to create and maintain security. Therefore, the US government cannot just let the war blow and endanger any democracy in the country. If America lets this going-to-be civil war go out of control, worldwide questions about the role of the US existence in Iraq. Moreover, as I said earlier, the Americans will -that way- put themselves in the situation not knowing which side to take and what to do. The US can't support the Sunnis as they are already enemies enough, and they can't support the Shia'as as they need no support, and they won't take the Kurds side as this will mean they just take the spectators' seats, a choice that is unavailable.
My point is simple, if Bush went to Iraq to bring democracy and security and find WMDs, well he found no WMDs and failed to secure Iraq and democracy and left it all in civil war.... This will mean the souls of more than 2000 American young man went in vain just because of the adventures of Mr President of War, and billions of dollars went astray. I don't believe Bush wants to find himself in this situation.
Therefore, considering the world's reaction to a civil war in Iraq (that might one way or another lead to dividing Iraq to different states) and the fury in the Middle East, and considering the reaction of the American people who lost more than 2000 soldier and billions of dollars then leaving Iraq with no objectives accomplished, I say the US administration will not let a civil war go off.
And do not forget that the existence of the US Army in Iraq gives more power to its threats to Iran and Syria, a position that they will lose if they let a civil war go off. Additionally, it would take years to convince the American people to go into another war against Iran or Syria after such failure in Iraq.
Some might just go to the idea that Bush will let the war go off, then gather a coalition, send more troops to Iraq and settle things down, then stay for more time there. I say I do not think Bush will gamble that way. I believe he can settle things down early, ask for more troops to come in order to keep peace and then stay for more time there till security prevails.
To sum up, a civil war in Iraq is something not possible now.... not before the US packs it luggage and leaves.
This is my opinion... What do you think?
In fact I answer this question with another question: if Iraq goes into a civil war, which side America will take? And what will be the role of the US army during such a war?... You got my point? No? Then go ahead and continue reading this...
A civil war in Iraq will put America in hot spot, specially Bush and his administration. So there are two possibilities about how America will act:
Either America will stop this some what civil war early so that it puts itself in no deep shit about which side to take and what to do during a raging war between Sunnis and Shia'as.
Or Bush and his hawks will let it go in order to exploit the chance and find a good reason to send more troops and have more allies in Iraq, then settling the situation down and claiming more time to stay there to keep peace and security.
In fact, the later seems too impossible for me for some reasons. First, when Bush sent America's young men to fight his war in Iraq he said it is a war for democracy, bringing peace and finding weapons of mass destruction (at least that's what he announced). Well, in order to establish democracy you have to create and maintain security. Therefore, the US government cannot just let the war blow and endanger any democracy in the country. If America lets this going-to-be civil war go out of control, worldwide questions about the role of the US existence in Iraq. Moreover, as I said earlier, the Americans will -that way- put themselves in the situation not knowing which side to take and what to do. The US can't support the Sunnis as they are already enemies enough, and they can't support the Shia'as as they need no support, and they won't take the Kurds side as this will mean they just take the spectators' seats, a choice that is unavailable.
My point is simple, if Bush went to Iraq to bring democracy and security and find WMDs, well he found no WMDs and failed to secure Iraq and democracy and left it all in civil war.... This will mean the souls of more than 2000 American young man went in vain just because of the adventures of Mr President of War, and billions of dollars went astray. I don't believe Bush wants to find himself in this situation.
Therefore, considering the world's reaction to a civil war in Iraq (that might one way or another lead to dividing Iraq to different states) and the fury in the Middle East, and considering the reaction of the American people who lost more than 2000 soldier and billions of dollars then leaving Iraq with no objectives accomplished, I say the US administration will not let a civil war go off.
And do not forget that the existence of the US Army in Iraq gives more power to its threats to Iran and Syria, a position that they will lose if they let a civil war go off. Additionally, it would take years to convince the American people to go into another war against Iran or Syria after such failure in Iraq.
Some might just go to the idea that Bush will let the war go off, then gather a coalition, send more troops to Iraq and settle things down, then stay for more time there. I say I do not think Bush will gamble that way. I believe he can settle things down early, ask for more troops to come in order to keep peace and then stay for more time there till security prevails.
To sum up, a civil war in Iraq is something not possible now.... not before the US packs it luggage and leaves.
This is my opinion... What do you think?
The US motivation originally was our own security, and secondarily, encouraging democracy in Iraq. While the presence of armed forces in Iraq has tactical advantage re Iran & Syria, it does not outweigh the disadvantages.
I think, having seen to free elections and the formation of government, that most of us feel that if the Iraqis want to fight about religion, it is not our problem.
That's part of democracy, too. You make choices, choices have consequences which we have to live with. We tried to tell them that it would work better to keep religious and sectarian issues out of government, but they were free to choose their own way.
It is not at all our desire to occupy a country indefinitely to prevent them from fighting internally. There is little we can do about sectarian issues in a country possessing self-determination.
As far as world opinion goes, we are damnned if we do, and damned if we don't, so we can't afford to worry too much about it. We don't intend to abandon Iraq to the insurgents, but if they decide to start killing each other, it doesn't make sense for us to jump in the middle.
Posted by
Anonymous |
March 01, 2006 3:36 AM