 |
|  |
 |
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
|
|
08-07-2005 10:54
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
|  |
|
Don't worry about Iraq - the coming internal Civil War
|
Tired of ads?
|
|
After the commentary on the terrorist attacks on Britian, I thought I would post this thought. Even thought the Grand Ayatollah Sistani has asked the Shia in Iraq not to escalate, things are starting to break down. There have been substantial Sunni-originated terror campaigns against Shia, with evidently a fair degree of Sunni community backing.
The Shia, for all they revere the Grand Ayatollah, are striking back. Remember Al-Sadr's militia? They were never disarmed. While things may dissolve into chaos, remember one thing. Unless you control the military, and can largely interdict the inflow of arms while controlling heavy weapons and air support, fighting a civil war when the other side has twice the population is not such a good idea.
When the other side controls the government, as well as the heavy weapons and air support, it becomes a bad idea. If the other side adds in militias, with the implication that they can match you atrocity for atrocity (taking away one of the advantages of asymetric warfare) it becomes positively suicidal.
The only disadvantage to this is that you probably end up with a Shia-oriented quasi-religious state, as that will be the cohesive factor behind the winners. However, since that is going to be the end result anyway (look at the election results), why stay that much longer? Help train just enough troops so the Shia are on the upside of the civil war, make sure that the Kurds are going to keep their semi-autonomy (I feel the US owes them that, but that is my own opinion), and get out. It's not a very nice solution, but I am all out of nice when it comes to the stupidity of US involvement in the Middle East.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
The Sunni insurgency has already been involved in death squad activity, engaging in executions, largely of young military age males in towns with a mixed population. Recently, there have been reprisal killings by Shia counter-death squads (even though Sistani had asked them not to, and that had kept a lid on longer than I thought was possible), targeting younger Sunni males. When the Sunni irregular units were engaged in executions, and it was the government/US occupying forces striking back, it was insurgency/counter-insurgency. When the Shia started fielding their own death squads, it became a Civil War.
UR - I agree about Turkey. In fact I firmly believe, as do many analysts, that one of the reasons Bush Sr. did not take out Saddam was due to Turkish pressure related to their Kurdish insurgency. I suspect the Turks have very mixed feelings right now, they don't want an autonomous Kurdish region, and they don't want a Shia-controlled religious state. Maybe they should have treated the Kurds better, because now they have a real problem.
edited - replaced Kurds with Turks in the third sentence of the second paragraph, had transposed them tottally changing the statement
Last edited by shawnmmcc on 10-07-2005 at 11:52
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19. Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|