http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060222/D8FUDN9O7.html

Quote :

"Shrine Attack Brings Civil War Warning SAMARRA, Iraq - Insurgents detonated bombs inside one of Iraq's holiest Shiite shrines Wednesday, destroying its golden dome and triggering more than 60 reprisal attacks on Sunni mosques. The president warned that extremists were pushing the country toward civil war, as many Shiites lashed out at the United States as partly to blame. As the gold dome of the 1,200-year-old Askariya shrine lay in ruins, leaders on both sides called for calm: But the string of back-and-forth attacks seemed to push the country closer to all-out civil war than at any point in the three years since the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein. "We are facing a major conspiracy that is targeting Iraq's unity," said President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd. "We should all stand hand in hand to prevent the danger of a civil war." U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the top American commander in Iraq also warned it was a "critical moment for Iraq" and called the bombings a deliberate attempt to create sectarian tension. They promised the U.S. would contribute to the shrine's reconstruction. "This attack is a crime against humanity," Khalilzad and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., said in a joint statement. In one ominous sign of how Shiites may react, Iraq's top Shiite cleric and the country's vice president hinted that local armed militias might play a bigger role in security in future, if the government can't protect such holy shrines. Both Sunnis and the United States fear the rise of such militias, which Sunnis view as little more than death squads. American commanders believe they undercut U.S. efforts to create a professional Iraqi army and police force — a key step toward the eventual drawdown of U.S. forces. Some Shiite political leaders already were angry with the United States because it has urged them to form a unity government in which nonsectarian figures control the army and police. Khalilzad warned earlier this week — in a statement clearly targeted toward Shiite hardliners — that America would not continue to support insitutions run by sectarian groups with links to armed militias. After the attacks, one top Shiite political leader accused Khalilzad of sharing some responsibility for the bombing of the shrine because of that stance. "These statements ... gave green lights to terrorist groups. And, therefore, he shares in part of the responsibility," said the official, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the former commander of its militia. The current interior minister, who controls the police, is a member of al-Hakim's party. The new tensions come as Iraq's various factions are still unable to put together a government after the Dec. 15 elections. The president said the brazen assault on the shrine — the third major attack against Shiite targets in as many days — seemed aimed at destroying the talks. The Askariya shrine contains the tombs of two revered Shiite imams, who are considered by Shiites to be among the successors of the Propher Muhammad. No group claimed responsibilty for the 6:55 a.m. assault on the shrine in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, carried out by insurgents posing as police. But suspicion fell on Sunni extremist groups, and a government statement said "several suspects" had been detained. In the hours after the bombing, more than 60 Sunni mosques were attacked, burned or taken over by Shiites, said the Iraqi Islamic Party, the country's largest Sunni political group. The attacked mosques were mainly in Baghdad and predominantly Shiite provinces south of the country. About 500 soldiers were sent to Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad to prevent clashes between Shiites and Sunnis, and a leading A leading Sunni politician, Tariq al-Hashimi, urged clerics and politicians to calm the situation "before it spins out of control." Other major Sunni groups joined in the condemning the attack. The Sunni clerical Association of Muslim Scholars called the bombing a "criminal act," while the Sunni Endowment, a government organization that cares for Sunni mosques and shrines, said it was sending a delegation to Samarra to investigate what happened. Al-Sistani — the top Shiite cleric — sent instructions to his followers forbidding attacks on Sunni mosques, especially the major ones in Baghdad. He called for seven days of mourning, his aides said. But he later hinted, as did Iraqi Vice President Adil Abdul-Mahdi that religious militias could be given a bigger security role if the government is not capable of protecting holy shrines. Shiite leaders in surrounding countries, including Iran's most influential cleric body, the Qom Shiite Seminary, also responded quickly. Large protests erupted in Shiite parts of Baghdad and in cities throughout the Shiite heartland to the south. In Basra, Shiite militants traded rifle and rocket-propelled grenade fire with guards at the office of the Sunni-led Iraqi Islamic Party. Smoke billowed from the building. Shiite protesters later set fire to a Sunni shrine containing the seventh century tomb of Talha bin Obeid-Allah, a companion of the Prophet Muhammad, on the outskirts of the southern city, but there was no immediate word on the extent of the damage or any casualties. Police found nine bodies of Sunni Muslims, most of them shot in the head, in two neighborhoods of Basra, according to a police official who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of militia reprisals. Protesters in Najaf, Kut and Baghdad's Shiite slum of Sadr City also marched through the streets by the hundreds and thousands, many shouting anti-American and anti-Israeli slogans and burning those nations' flags. Elsewhere in the capital, about 40 Shiite militiamen sprayed a Sunni mosque in eastern Baghdad with automatic fire. The Interior Ministry said the attack was carried out by four men, one wearing a military uniform and three clad in black, who entered the mosque and detonated two bombs. The dome collapsed into a crumbly mess, leaving just traces of gold showing through the rubble. Part of the shrine's tiled northern wall also was damaged. Police said Wednesday afternoon no casualties had been found as Iraqis picked through the debris, pulling out artifacts. U.S. and Iraqi forces surrounded the shrine and searched nearby houses. Five police officers responsible for protecting the mosque were taken into custody, said Col. Bashar Abdullah, chief of police commandos. Demonstrators then gathered near the shrine, waving Iraqi flags, Shiite religious banners and copies of the Muslim holy book, the Quran. "This criminal act aims at igniting civil strife," said Mahmoud al-Samarie, a 28-year-old builder. "We demand an investigation so that the criminals who did this be punished. If the government fails to do so, then we will take up arms and chase the people behind this attack." Tradition says the Askariya shrine, which draws Shiite pilgrims from throughout the Islamic world, is near the place where the last of the 12 Shiite imams, Mohammed al-Mahdi, disappeared. Al-Mahdi, known as the "hidden imam," was the son and grandson of the two imams buried in the Askariya shrine. Shiites believe he is still alive and will return to restore justice to humanity. The golden dome was completed in 1905."

This puts quite a damper on the plan for redeployment/extraction the Democrats have been working on lately. It's also a glaring contradictor to the idea that 2006 is going to be a period of serious transition in the country.

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 7:01 PM. Reason : *changed the link due to horizontal scroll, article may differ slightly*]

2/22/2006 6:54:41 PM

no

i think this is a perfect exit point for us

we can't choose sides in a religious war

peace, we out

2/22/2006 7:43:18 PM

Quote :

"It's also a glaring contradictor to the idea that 2006 is going to be a period of serious transition in the country."

I think the move from relatively low-level sectarian conflict to Balkan style all-out civil war is a pretty fucking serious transition.

2/22/2006 7:46:19 PM

hahahaahha

good point

positive transition

2/22/2006 8:02:25 PM

why is it I always get the feeling yall are happy when bad things happen in Iraq?

2/22/2006 8:06:47 PM

Because you're just that obtuse?

2/22/2006 9:04:33 PM

or maybe it's because I heard democrats just this last week talking about how great it would be if Cheney's friend died so that Cheney could be charged with manslaughter. Granted, that is a separate
issue than Iraq, but the observation remains the same. Many democrats and critics of Bush in general seem to get so carried away with their hatred of Bush and his policies that they appear to rejoice at each percieved failure of the Bush admin.

2/22/2006 9:34:22 PM

i openly admit i hate that he is our president

2/22/2006 9:39:29 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=223285

2/22/2006 9:42:48 PM

the fact that mathman is right about l3ftist going overboard with their hatred of bush to the point of actually wanting people to die so it'd tarnish his image

DOESN'T IN ANY WAY

change the fact that this is the direct result a collosal fuck-up that was completely avoidable in the first place.

Quote :

"mathman: or maybe it's because I heard democrats just this last week talking about how great it would be if Cheney's friend died so that Cheney could be charged with manslaughter."

i can't even count how many times i've heard a republican say that we should nuke the entire middle east

surely you are aware that indifference to the death of innocents is something shared by members of most political parties

Quote :

"JerryGarcia: I think the move from relatively low-level sectarian conflict to Balkan style all-out civil war is a pretty fucking serious transition."

pwnt

[Edited on February 22, 2006 at 10:00 PM. Reason : ...]

2/22/2006 9:59:11 PM

^^ from that thread:

Quote :

"boonedocks: I'd like to think that the administration has some sort of plan to prevent civil war, but that might be asking too much."

2/22/2006 11:07:20 PM

Civil Wars are part of democracy! USA #1! USA #1!

2/22/2006 11:14:46 PM

Quote :

"why is it I always get the feeling yall are happy when bad things happen in Iraq?"

because we don't care about dead Iraqis

2/22/2006 11:24:31 PM

damn this sucks. we failed again

2/22/2006 11:37:42 PM

nightline is doing a piece on this

shits wicked ok

2/22/2006 11:38:04 PM

^yeh i just saw it

2/22/2006 11:45:54 PM

remind me again of the foreign power that kept order during the civil war here in the states

cause i mean
i imagine that the death toll would have been massive if not for that forign intervention

2/22/2006 11:56:24 PM

Now for a moment of thoughtful response (as opposed to bored ranting):

I'm really curious to see how this plays out. This gives the Iraqi government and its security forces a GOLDEN opportunity to assert itself and "step up" (as Bush puts it) as a body that can handle its own business without looking like the thugs they replaced. Further, it gives them the perfect opportunity to direct the anger of its citizens where it belongs: Al Qaeda. How they respond and the effectiveness of that response will be indicative of how much longer we'll be in Iraq.

2/23/2006 12:06:09 AM

"Step Up"
from the man who brought you
"Bring em on"

2/23/2006 12:12:02 AM

It's not going to be an easy task. Iran and probably Al Qaeda have already spiked the punch by fueling the tensions created by the Danish cartoon. The people were already on edge. The facts that the mosque they blew up was the home of the 12th prophet (and the place he's forecasted to return to, coinciding with the return of Jesus and world peace), and bordering a Sunni neighborhood certainly won't help matters.

2/23/2006 12:26:08 AM

al queda is outplaying the US like they are UNC and we are NCSU

2/23/2006 12:32:50 AM

its almost like they actually understand what kind of people run and occupy countries in the middle east

or

its almost like they did some research before undertaking a major operation

2/23/2006 12:39:08 AM

I WISH THE CIA OR SOMEONE WOULD HAVE WARNED US THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN

2/23/2006 12:59:51 AM

so, what exactly is a civil war warning? is it anything like an air raid siren?

2/23/2006 1:19:06 AM

Its like a civil war warning I guess because they totally weren't bombing stuff and killing each other before.

errr...wait

2/23/2006 10:17:18 AM

Quote :

""We should all stand hand in hand to prevent the danger of a civil war.""

And no. This level of violence was unprecedented in Iraq.

2/23/2006 12:10:32 PM

Quote :

"many Shiites lashed out at the United States as partly to blame"

I'm tired of being blamed for everything. Let's gtfo.

2/23/2006 12:36:48 PM

Ah, fuck.

It will never cease to amaze me how some folks have the capacity to see a situation where group A blows up group B and come to the conclusion that group C is to blame.

However, I will say this...

One of my major reasons for supporting the Iraq war to begin with was my confidence that we would have to go over their eventually anyway, and that we might as well do it before things got too out of hand as far as civil war/brutal regime killing people/etc.

I don't think that, looking at Iraq, you can honestly come to the conclusion that this wasn't going to happen eventually. Yugoslavia is actually an apt comparison. Saddam Hussein and Tito were in fairly similar situations, though the old Marshall had a few more crazy ethnic groups to hold together and seemed to do it more smoothly and with less wholesale slaughter, but maybe I'm wrong.

Point is, as soon as the regime collapsed on its own through whatever means, the outcome would be what we have now, but worse. Right now they're largely limited to hit-and-run attacks or terrorist bitch moves. Doesn't it seem probable that in another post-regime scenario these militias would have popped up a lot quicker and been more directly confrontational?

I'll admit, there's a few hypotheticals in there, but I tend to think it's a likely enough model. I'm open to counterarguments about it.

2/23/2006 12:41:11 PM

i say we pull out and nuke the site from orbit.

its the only way to be sure.

2/23/2006 12:43:31 PM

I feel like Iraq and the current situation in the Middle East is like a... hmm... what's a good analogy... mmm... powderkeg? Like a big keg filled with explosive powder.. yeah. And it's just waiting for a the right spark.


I wonder if this analogy has ever been used before? I wonder what the resulting consequences of such a keg exploding would be like.... hrm...

paging any figure/event that would correlate to an archduke...

2/23/2006 1:05:23 PM

if theres a civil war it might be good for us.

Let them kill each other until 1 side is left and then we kill them.

2/23/2006 1:06:38 PM

Hmm...

Okay, so this is pretty bad, and we're probably going to have to leave the region in ruins unless their security forces step up (as has been mentioned) and start kicking some ass.

2/23/2006 1:55:49 PM

^^^^ Its the only way to be sure.

Quote :

"so, what exactly is a civil war warning? is it anything like an air raid siren?"

Venga Bus.

2/23/2006 2:11:19 PM

if you're talking about the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, that was a government inside job. That is a 100% proven fact.

2/24/2006 8:17:34 PM

good work, woodfoot

2/25/2006 6:36:47 PM

William F. Buckley weighs in:

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp

Quote :

"It Didn’t Work "I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America." One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries. Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols. The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the Shiites from each others' throats. A problem for American policymakers — for President Bush, ultimately — is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed. One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom. The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence. This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail — in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism. Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy. He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat."

2/26/2006 12:18:12 AM

i hope this dont sound bad but.....

i'm all for this civil war shit

honestly i mean whats a few less, crazy ass muslims in the world

2/26/2006 3:36:02 AM

^ Don't forget, it was a civil war that shaped America to what it is today.

It may be a few less now, but in the long run, it could be a few more.

2/26/2006 3:40:39 AM

The only problem with the civil war is whether or not the people of the country will fight it out and establish their own government in the long run. If they fight, then one side asks for the "assistance" of one of the neighboring countries to support their cause in return for, say, a sort of puppet government, we would have a problem.

Basically I don't see any civil war in that country as ending very well given all the outside influence currently being stirred up inside the country. Everyone in the region already would get involved (yes, including us, although it might be a bit more subtle than direct military support) and that could cause a whole bunch of other problems.

2/26/2006 11:50:20 AM

fear over a new saddam
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2058790,00.html

waaaaaaaait

You mean that, when you topple a dictator with barely any exit strategy or government strategy... you might get a new dictator?

HORROR OF HORRORS, IF ONLY SOMEONE HAD WARNED US!

2/26/2006 12:11:22 PM

Quote :

"remind me again of the foreign power that kept order during the civil war here in the states cause i mean i imagine that the death toll would have been massive if not for that forign intervention"

2/26/2006 12:12:13 PM

I think it's kind of funny that people now are like O DAWG DID U HEAR IT'S A CIVIL WAR NOW

As if the past year of the formerly powerful minority attacking the formerly oppressed minorty by basically any means available was an indicator of, I don't know, a fucking birthday party or something.

2/26/2006 12:15:10 PM

Quote :

"Mindstorm: The only problem with the civil war is whether or not the people of the country will fight it out and establish their own government in the long run. If they fight, then one side asks for the "assistance" of one of the neighboring countries to support their cause in return for, say, a sort of puppet government, we would have a problem."

Paging Iran. Paging Iran. Please come to the service desk. Your ready-made border extension is ready.

2/26/2006 12:20:43 PM

OMFG, axis of evil!!!

2/26/2006 12:53:31 PM

Quote :

"One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom. "

I have met a few Iraqis before and after the war, and though they shared hatred for Saddam, they also considered him to be a necessary evil because he was able to bring together (by force) the warring ethnic and religious groups and have relative peace (as long as no one defied him).

Of course, any human would and should believe that in the long run, it is better not to have a dictator, because eventually people will be tired of fighting and killing (or there will be no one left to fight and kill).

Let's see how long it takes Iraqis to learn to live together and become civilized.

[How long did it take Europeans to do the same?]

[Edited on February 27, 2006 at 8:36 AM. Reason : ]

2/27/2006 8:32:47 AM

Following the plan perfectly, it seems. The following was drawn two weeks after the start of the war:

3/1/2006 2:50:49 PM

Sectarian Violence > Insurgency

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11800917/page/2/

Quote :

"Sectarian fighting changes face of Iraq conflict Focus shifts to direct battle for power, survival between Shiites, Sunnis BAGHDAD, March 12 - Forced by Sunni Arab insurgents to flee his home, Bassam Fariq Daash, a 34-year-old Shiite auto mechanic, bid a weeping goodbye Tuesday to the Sunnis who had been his neighbors for a lifetime. Forced by marauding Shiite militiamen to defend his home, Firas Ali, a 28-year-old Sunni Arab medical technician, takes up an AK-47 and joins his Sunni and Shiite neighbors every night between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m. at garden gates, at roadblocks made of felled palm trunks and on the roof of his mosque. The past two weeks have changed the war in Iraq, shifting its focus from a U.S.-driven fight against Sunni insurgents to a direct battle for power and survival between Iraq's empowered Shiite majority and disempowered Sunni minority. On Sunday, three car bombings in Baghdad's Shiite neighborhood of Sadr City killed about 50 people, the deadliest string of sectarian attacks since the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra touched off a wave of retaliatory killings. The Samarra bombing, which blew the gold-plated dome of the Askariya mosque into naked gray concrete, did not set off the battle between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite blocs. Their enmity stretches back centuries, and ever since U.S. troops overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003, the two sides have been grappling to try to find their new footing. But the bloodshed that followed the shrine bombing, as Shiite religious parties unleashed their militias on a large scale in Baghdad for the first time, laid bare the sectarian rift -- and worsened it. Some Iraqis and international figures have expressed worry whether Iraq, having come to the brink of civil war, can keep itself from sliding in. Last week, Daash fled his predominantly Sunni village of Awad, north of Baghdad on the edge of the Sunni town of Taji, after what he said were too many death threats from Sunni insurgents after the mosque bombing, and too many bodies of Shiite men left bullet-riddled on roadsides. "I will never go back," he said. Iraqis have prided themselves on intermarriages as the glue that would always keep Iraq from splitting apart. They point to the mingling of Shiite, Sunni and Christian, and of Arab and Kurd. But sitting in a school converted into a refugee center in the Shiite neighborhood of Shoula in north Baghdad, Daash found himself unable to imagine ever living among his Sunni neighbors again, or ever again visiting an aunt and cousin in Tikrit who are married to Sunnis. "I don't think that it will be possible to go back to the way we were," he said. Dividing lines Baghdad has calmed since the mosque bombing, partly because the city's nightly curfew was moved up three hours to 8 p.m. But Baghdad and Iraq have nevertheless begun to look like Lebanon during that country's 15-year civil war. Green lines and red lines have sprung up between neighborhoods, and complex rivalries have grown among myriad factions pursuing political aims with armed militias. In north Baghdad, men selling tomatoes, oranges and potatoes stacked bright pyramids this weekend in Shoula, a neighborhood controlled by the militia loyal to Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and bemoaned the drop in customers since the Samarra bombing. Drawn by the cheaper prices for fruits and vegetables, shoppers from Ghaziliyah, a predominantly Sunni neighborhood adjacent to Shoula, used to cross over to shop. Since Feb. 22, though, the two-lane road that forms the two neighborhoods' boundary has become an invisible barrier between Sunni and Shiite. Business is "not as good as it used to be," one vendor said Saturday. "They're not coming over here like they used to." Checkpoints set up by Iraqi security forces now mark the otherwise imperceptible boundaries between some neighborhoods. Uniformed gunmen from Iraq's many ambiguous and shifting security forces and militias scan passing traffic, sticking their heads in rolled-down windows to question motorists, in search of anyone who looks like an outsider and a possible threat. No-go zones Other neighborhoods, such as Dora, are no-go zones for nearly everyone except residents too poor to move elsewhere. Sunni insurgents frequently lob mortar rounds into the Shiite neighborhood on Baghdad's southern edge, occasionally drawing a riposte of U.S. artillery rounds aimed at the insurgent-friendly farms outside of Dora. In Dora and elsewhere around Baghdad, gunmen step out of cars, riddle with bullets targets ranging from businessmen to boys selling black-market gasoline, and drive off again, without warning or explanation to victims or terrified onlookers. The shifting focus of Iraq's war does not mean the fight against the insurgency has ended. Bombings attributed to insurgents have held fairly steady. But execution-style shootings of the kind frequently laid to Shiite militias and police have skyrocketed since mid-2005, claiming more lives monthly now than bombings, according to figures from Baghdad's morgue. "Sectarian violence now has become the No. 1 problem in Iraq, more than the insurgency. Or on a par" with the insurgency, said Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, the U.N. envoy to Iraq. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the head of U.S. Central Command, said last week that "sectarian violence is a greater concern for us security-wise right now than the insurgency." Iraq's main means of controlling the factions -- the U.S.-backed government and its new military -- are themselves fractured along sectarian lines. Three months after national elections for what is to be the first full-term government since Hussein's overthrow, Iraq's leaders missed a deadline Sunday for parliament to meet. Bickering over the reappointment of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafari, a Shiite, has divided even the Shiite governing coalition. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad appeared to strong-arm factional political leaders into at least opening full-scale talks on the impasse Sunday, at the home of a Kurdish leader in Baghdad's Green Zone. But few politicians will risk embarrassment with a prediction of how many weeks, or months, it will take to form a government. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last week said the United States would look to Iraqi forces to quell any civil war that broke out. But voting patterns on army bases in December's elections suggested that the overwhelming majority of Iraq's armed forces were either Shiite Arabs or Kurds, although the United States is promoting efforts to recruit and keep more Sunni Arab soldiers. Interior Ministry police forces are predominantly Shiite as well. When Shiite militia fighters poured out of Baghdad's Sadr City after the Samarra bombing, police stood aside as the vehicles carrying men holding rocket launchers and automatic rifles moved out."

3/13/2006 1:12:54 AM

Quote :

"Raids by gunmen "They haven't come by at all," Ali, the Sunni medical technician, said of Iraqi security forces. A man with neatly pressed clothes and thinning hair parted in the middle, Ali lives in one of several Sunni and mixed neighborhoods near Sadr City that were repeatedly raided by gunmen in the days following the mosque bombing. The gunmen wore the black clothes of Sadr's militia, residents say. Sadr denies his militiamen were behind the attack, accusing rivals of impersonating his fighters. After Feb. 22, the Shiite militia fighters took away the imam of Ali's Sunni mosque but brought him back unharmed, said Ali and the cleric, Abu Bilal. The militia came back two days later to take a Sunni worshiper, a political activist, from the mosque; he turned up later in Baghdad's morgue, tortured and dead, the imam and Ali said. As in many Baghdad neighborhoods, the men of Ali's district have organized neighborhood watches since the mosque bombing. Doctors, government workers and other professionals, and the Shiite and Sunni neighbors, stand guard together against any return of the militias. Ali's 21-year-old brother, a university student, takes over on the predawn watch from 3 to 6 a.m. If it turns out that it already is too late to prevent a civil war, the International Crisis Group warned late last month, Iraq's minders and neighbors should look ahead to the next worry. "The international community, including neighboring states, should start planning for the contingency that Iraq will fall apart, so as to contain the inevitable fallout on regional stability and security," the international foreign policy group wrote. "Failure to anticipate such a possibility may lead to further disasters in the future." But many ordinary Iraqis still speak of cooperation, not of revenge. If full-scale civil war comes, it likely will be driven by the militias and political leaders, not the will of Iraqis. In Awad, Daash said, Sunni families had pleaded with their Shiite neighbors not to leave. They stood guard with them at night outside their houses. They turned back Daash's family the first time the household packed up and tried to leave. ‘We will put you in our eyes’ "If you stay here, we will put you in our eyes," he recalled Sunni friends pleading, using an expression that means they would watch over their Shiite neighbors. "We will protect you." Unable to stay, Daash slipped his car in behind a passing U.S. military convoy Tuesday, drafting in its wake to the safety of the Shiite neighborhood in north Baghdad. His was one of 147 Shiite families arriving in Shoula from the Sunni towns outlying Baghdad since Feb. 22, said Dhia Munir, who dished out rice for some of the families at a school converted into a refugee center by Sadr's organization. "We still feel the same way; we haven't changed," Daash said, speaking warmly of his bonds with the Sunni neighbors. "It's just that we want to be safe.""

Fancy that. The ivory tower PNACs who got to write our post-Sept. 11th foreign policy failed to realize that a military coup d'etat wouldn't end a century of sectarian tensions.

3/13/2006 1:23:33 AM

Another war comment from an former Reagan staffer...

Quote :

"Why Did Bush Destroy Iraq? by Paul Craig Roberts, March 20 is the third anniversary of the Bush regime's invasion of Iraq. US military casualties to date are approximately 20,000 killed, wounded, maimed, and disabled. Iraqi civilian casualties number in the tens of thousands. Iraq's infrastructure is in ruins. Tens of thousands of homes have been destroyed. Fallujah, a city of 300,000 people had 36,000 of its 50,000 homes destroyed by the US military. Half of the city's former population are displaced persons living in tents. Thousands of Iraqis have been detained in prisons and hundreds have been brutally tortured. America's reputation in the Muslim world is ruined. The Bush regime expected a short "cakewalk" war to be followed by the imposition of a puppet government and permanent US military bases. Instead, US military forces are confronted with an insurgency that has denied control over Iraq to the US military. Chaos rules, and civil war may be coming on top of the insurgency. On March 9, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the man who has been totally wrong about Iraq, told Congress that if the unprecedented violence in Iraq breaks out in civil war, the US will rely primarily on Iraq's security forces to put down civil war. What Iraqi security forces? Iraq does not have a security force. The Shia have a security force. The Sunnis have a security force, and the Kurds have a security force. The sectarian militias control the streets, towns and cities. If civil war breaks out, the "Iraqi security force" will dissolve into the sectarian militias, leaving the US military in the middle of the mêlée. Is this what "support the troops" means? President Bush's determination to remain in Iraq despite the obvious failure of the attempted occupation puts Bush at odds with the American public and with our troops. Polls show that a majority of Americans believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and that our troops should be withdrawn. An even larger majority of the troops themselves believe they should be withdrawn. Yet Bush, who is incapable of admitting a mistake, persists in a strategic blunder that is turning into catastrophe. Bush's support has fallen to 34 percent. The war's out-of-pocket cost to date is approximately $300 billion – every dollar borrowed from foreigners. Economic and budgetary experts have calculated that the ultimate cost of Bush's Iraq war in terms of long-term care for veterans, interest on borrowed money, and resources diverted from productive uses will be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. What is being achieved for this enormous sacrifice? No one knows. Every reason we have been given for the Iraqi invasion has proved to be false. Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction. Reports from UN weapons inspectors, top level US intelligence officials, Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill, and leaked top-secret documents from the British Cabinet all make it unequivocally clear that the Bush régime first decided to invade Iraq and then looked around for a reason. Saddam Hussein had no terrorist connection to Osama bin Laden and no role in the 9/11 attack. Hussein was a secular ruler totally at odds with bin Laden's Islamist aims. Every informed person in the world knew this. When the original justifications for the US invasion collapsed, Bush said that the reason for the invasion was to rid Iraq of a dictator and to put a democracy in its place. Despite all the hoopla about democracy and elections, no Iraqi government has been able to form, and the country is on the brink of civil war. Some Middle East experts believe that violence will spread throughout the region. The brutal truth is that America's responsibility is extreme. We have destroyed a country and created political chaos for no reason whatsoever. Seldom in history has a government miscalculated as badly as Bush has in Iraq. More disturbingly, Bush shows no ability to recover from his mistake. All we get from our leader is pig-headed promises of victory that none of our military commanders believe. Our entire government is lost in confusion. One day Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld tell us that we are having great success in training an Iraqi military and will be able to begin withdrawing our troops in a year. The next day they tell us that we will be fighting the war for decades. Bush's invasion of Iraq was a mistake. Bush's attempt to cover up his mistake with patriotism will ultimately discredit patriotism. America has to be big enough to admit a mistake and to bring it to an end. Roberts is Chairman of the Institute for Political Economy and Research Fellow at the Independent Institute. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. "

3/13/2006 3:19:26 AM

SET EM UP

3/13/2006 8:02:12 AM