Originally Posted By Dabob2 The past 48 hours have had very disturbing news coming from Iraq. While this sort of thing was always a possibility, I always hoped (like all of us, I'm sure) that it could somehow be avoided. Maybe the worst of it still can, but there's no question this represents an escalation, and presents the danger of tit for tat of the sort that bears bitter fruit for years. And, of course, the possibility of a bloody civil war in the vacuum left by the eventual withdrawl of US troops or perhaps even sooner, as many thoughtful people warned against. There are several discouraging and sometimes new things here: the destruction of mosques, the accusation by Sunnis that the new Iraqi government itself is involved in the killings of Sunnis, the criticism of Sistani, the apparent killings of civilians for no other reason than they belong to the "other." <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11491483/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11 491483/</a> "Criticism of al-Sistani “The Muslim Clerics Association points the finger of blame at certain Shiite religious authorities for calling for demonstrations,†said spokesman Sheikh Abdul Salam al-Qubaisi. In all but unprecedented criticism, the comments appeared aimed at Iraq’s top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who called for protests on Wednesday over an attack on a Shiite shrine in the city of Samarra. Sistani also called for restraint and said mosques should not be attacked. Since U.S. forces toppled Saddam’s Sunni-dominated government in 2003, Sistani has helped hold in check anger many Shiites feel against al-Qaida and other Sunni militants as the Shiite majority tastes power after years of oppression. Militiamen loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr patrolled streets in Baghdad and clashed in Basra and elsewhere with Sunnis. A Sadr aide said, “If the Iraqi government does not do its job to defend the Iraqi people we are ready to do so.â€" There's much more. There are calls for calm too, of course, and let's hope that happens.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I've just been to depressed about the whole thing to post anything about it. This ain't gonna end well.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Short of a massive military build up on our part, I don't see what could stop this from getting worse. You have to know terrorists are behind this latest bombing of the mosque, but Iraqis of any religious sect or so excitable it wouldn't that cooler heads will be able to prevail. Gee, one has to wonder, did we plan for this eventuality in our invasion plans or were we too busy quail hunting to think about it?
Originally Posted By gadzuux The quick assumption is that the sunnis blew up the shiite shrine. Call me cynical but I have to wonder if some sect within the shiites might have done this to their own shrine as a way of inciting their own extremeists. I know nuthin' - I admit it. But the shiites seem to have more to gain by civil war than the sunnis. And yes - the "tit for tat" is virtually guaranteed. This isn't the end of anything. More cynicism - there seems (to me anyway) to be a 'manifest destiny' to an all out civil conflict within iraq. We can't stop it. We could maybe forestall it for awhile, but to what end? It eventually has to happen. It's foregone and there's no steering around it. Maybe we should just get out of the way. And not pick sides. You know - like "democracy".
Originally Posted By mrichmondj They've been fighting over the same grains of sand there now for thousands of years -- how could we expect anything different?
Originally Posted By bboisvert ...waiting to see if anyone says, "There was no way anyone could have predicted civil war." What do our troops do if they get caught in the middle of all of this?
Originally Posted By mrichmondj I would say we are already in the middle of things there . . . but maybe I missed something during the past 3 years.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Here's an article that explains why what happened in the last few days is a very promising development. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200602230743.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ robbins/robbins200602230743.asp</a> Whether they committed this attack or not, non-Iraqi jihadists are being blame for it, which is causing regular Iraqis to turn against them even more. "Despite panicky headlines to the contrary, it is not in any group’s interest to wage full scale civil war in Iraq. The Shiites have power without it; the Sunnis could not win it; and the Kurds will sit it out either way and keep patiently building their homeland."
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I didn't realize that editorial writers at the National Review played the glad game.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I don't believe they do, although they certainly don't echo the alarmist journalism of the liberal media.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>although they certainly don't echo the alarmist journalism of the liberal media<< ...while the GOP is running the show.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh By the way Tom, do you think Thomas Freidman plays the "glad game"? Here's what he said recently on Good Morning America: "People have often asked me, "Why has been there been no terrorism in the United States since 9/11?" And my answer to them is really my answer to you. I believe Al-Qaeda, these forces of virulent, you know, Sunni fundamentalism that we've been up against since 9/11, their main focus right now, Charlie, is to defeat us in the very heart of their world. That is why they're focused right now on defeating us in Iraq, because after all, they want to control the Middle East. They're not interested in controlling, you know, Las Vegas. And they know if they defeat America in the heart of their world, the resonance that will have is enormous. If we defeat them in the heart of their world, in collaboration with other Arabs and Muslims, by putting together some kind of decent democracy in Iraq, that will have an enormous impact, an enormous resonance in the region and be a terrible defeat. So what you're seeing now is in many ways acts of unspeakable violence. I mean, going into a mosque, blowing it up, one of the most prominent Shi'ites shrines, the reason they're doing that is actually because in some ways they've been losing. The process of Iraq coming together has been happening. And I believe that the most dangerous point for America, as with Iraq, is the closer we actually get to producing a decent outcome there, the crazier our opponents are going to get, because they know if they lose, it's strategic."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh By the way Tom, do you think Thomas Freidman plays the "glad game"? Here's what he said recently on Good Morning America: "People have often asked me, "Why has been there been no terrorism in the United States since 9/11?" And my answer to them is really my answer to you. I believe Al-Qaeda, these forces of virulent, you know, Sunni fundamentalism that we've been up against since 9/11, their main focus right now, Charlie, is to defeat us in the very heart of their world. That is why they're focused right now on defeating us in Iraq, because after all, they want to control the Middle East. They're not interested in controlling, you know, Las Vegas. And they know if they defeat America in the heart of their world, the resonance that will have is enormous. If we defeat them in the heart of their world, in collaboration with other Arabs and Muslims, by putting together some kind of decent democracy in Iraq, that will have an enormous impact, an enormous resonance in the region and be a terrible defeat. So what you're seeing now is in many ways acts of unspeakable violence. I mean, going into a mosque, blowing it up, one of the most prominent Shi'ites shrines, the reason they're doing that is actually because in some ways they've been losing. The process of Iraq coming together has been happening. And I believe that the most dangerous point for America, as with Iraq, is the closer we actually get to producing a decent outcome there, the crazier our opponents are going to get, because they know if they lose, it's strategic."
Originally Posted By TomSawyer That's not quite saying the same thing that the Robbins editorial did. There are a lot of "ifs" in Friedman's statement, and instead of saying that it was a good thing that the Mosque was attacked he was using it as an example of how high the stakes have become for both sides in the fight. That's not the glad game at all - it's pragmatism in all of it's depressing glory when it comes to talking about Iraq these days.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "The process of Iraq coming together has been happening." There's no "if" in this statement.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Iraq is no more coming together than Humpty Dumpty. It's a quagmire. Any other description of it is, charitably put, less than honest. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/25/iraq.main/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/ meast/02/25/iraq.main/index.html</a> The story in the link also contains a link to yet another story that says the only Iraqi battalion that was certified to fight alone has been downgraded, meaning that now no Iraqi unit can go it alone. A freakin' quagmire.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Iraq government warns of "endless civil war". <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world /iraq</a>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>"The process of Iraq coming together has been happening." There's no "if" in this statement.<< And he uses it as the reason that the stakes have become so high and why this is likely to escalate.
Originally Posted By woody To quote this blog site... "I guess we can cancel the civil war -- Moqtada al-Sadr has reached a truce with Sunni leaders to stop the attacks on the mosques:" <a href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006407.php" target="_blank">http://www.captainsquartersblo g.com/mt/archives/006407.php</a> ----------- <a href="http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0" target="_blank">http://www.theaustralian.news. com.au/common/story_page/0</a>,5744,18278442%255E1702,00.html Sunnis and Sadr's Shiites make peace From correspondents in Baghdad February 26, 2006 THE movement of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, alleged to have played a role in the anti-Sunni violence over the last few days, publicly made peace with political and religious Sunni leaders overnight. Four sheikhs from the Sadr movement made a "pact of honour" with the conservative Sunni Muslim Scholars Association, and called for an end to attacks on places of worship, the shedding of blood and condemning any act leading to sedition. The agreement was made in the particularly symbolic setting of Baghdad's premier Sunni mosque Abu Hanifa where the Shiite sheikhs prayed under the guidance of Sunni imam Abdel Salam al-Qubaissi.
