Is a civil war in Iraq bad?

Many of the Kurds did welcome the invasion. That is true. The Shiites and the Sunnies didn’t want the US invading Iraq, and I know some Assyrians Christians who were very much against Saddam and very much against a US invasion as they knew very well the kind of chaos and destruction that would bring, and they were right.

 

I stated that Iraq was not Africa, nor is it Europe or the US - it is somewhere in between. I would venture to guess a civil war there would be more similar to the Bosnia mess than either Africa or Iraq.

As for the question - they had the choice to be under the despot or fight a civil war to free themselves, and as a nation, they chose living under a despot. We are the ones that voided that choice.

Besides the above, where we already made one choice for them, where do you see in the current situation that self-determination is likely, or even possible? How do you propose to get both the US and foreign terrorists out of the mix? In that situation, how do you propose to keep Iran from getting involved, when we already have reports that their intelligence agents are already all over the place?

If you walled off Iraq and sealed it from international interference, then I might agree that a civil war of its citizens to determine their future might be reasonable. In the real world, given their strategic location, oil reserves, and the vast number of outside influences roaming the country, there is no possible way that I can see for it to truly be self-determination in a civil-war scenario.

 

Ok, that makes it much more clear. I think honestly there is no way to know until we see the outcome of the civil war. It also depends on what you were doing in iraq prior to the invasion.

They certainly didn't have all the freedoms that one would think any citizen of any nation should have.

However, the majority of them weren't being tortured, lived in a secure environment, and were safe. It just depends on the priorities of those people.

I would rather have civil war than to live without those freedoms under a murderous, dictator who regularly used torture.

But it is just too ambiguous to speak definitively one way or the other.

I actually think that it would be closer to the African civil wars, based on what has been happening. Various militias vying for control, refusal of various groups to play nice with each other etc. It seems like a power grab, and if it ends with just one winner, it will be disasterous.

 

How was Saddam Hussein an artificial impediment if that's who the primary opponent was in the civil war? His government was the enemy - and the people of Iraq the choice the the costs (lives, etc) that would be required to change rulers was not acceptable. Now, we've changed that situation, but I'm not sure that's truly "self-determination".

The first is not a civil war; the latter is certainly possible. Neither of those addresses the part of my post you quoted - which was how to get outside influences out of the mix.

How many of those countries were in the center of a geopolitical hotspot? How many of those were already filled with an occupying force, an array of foreign fighters, and untold numbers of foreign intelligence agents? I'm not sure why you don't see how the situation would be unique in Iraq. None of the examples you listed were in any way similar to the situation in Iraq, where two unrelated groups are already fighting their own war (US and terrorists).

 

This whole paragraph doesn't make sense due to incompleteness and a wealth of typos. The point is that self-determination is something that, by nature, is self decided. At this point in time, we are forcing them to build a government. If they are forced into a civil war in the current situation, it is not of the type where a significant portion of the country is unhappy and has an uprising; it is a result of foreign influences - a frustration with US interference, instigation by Iran and Al Queda and others, etc. This is a situation where the people get dragged into a civil war rather than create it of their own volition.

 

It was clear that the bulk of Iraqis did not ask us to attack. The folks from the surrounding countries were like 95% against our invasion. It can not be justified from a hunanitarian poin tof view except in a bizaare theoretical way by those captured by their ideology. I believe that it should be up to the people in that country. Period.

Not people 7,000 miles ways ago ,nor exiles with foreign citizenships. Quite frankly when it is time, the folks who actually live there and will die in any civil war should decide. That is the way despots are overthrown with less blood shed.

OK, nothing has really changed. I'll try to turn down the personal, though I do consider you be enthralled by militarism for whatever reason.

 

I'm coming very late to this thread and haven't even read past the first page so forgive me if this has been brought up. (Also sorry for answering a question with a question but I don't understand what you're saying here.)

What dictator would the Iraqis be fighting a civil war against? Saddam isn't there anymore so this isn't a matter of oppressed Iraqis struggling against a dictator, unless you consider the insurgency oppressed Iraqis and the US the dictator. The civil war we are seeing in Iraq is between three main ethnic groups and in turn each sees the others as potential oppressors or rebels seeking to divide th country. Each group largely has legitimate claims too so its not like one side is clearly evil or one side good. This isn't the English or French civil war of peasents seeking to overthrow a Monarchy or even a civil war of indigenous people throwing out colonial masters.

 

If this is the case then why are you asking this question in the first place?

 

OK I understand your question and why you're asking it.

You're essentially recognizing that the removal of Saddam has taken the lid off simmering ethnic tensions that are now rising to a full boil and that civil war is breaking out between the groups. I believe you are recognizing that if Saddam had remained this might not have happened since the Iraqis would've been under a despotic dictator who out of sheer brutality kept the ethnic tensions underwraps and Iraq a single country. Therefore you are now arguing that while civil war is bad it is better than being under Saddam since eventually the Iraqis might reach a point of self-determination from it.

Is that correct?

Now to take your question directly my answer is yes I think civil war is a bad thing for Iraq, even buying the argument that the alternative would be a dictator. Now I will tell you why.

The three party civil war in Iraq bears a disturbing resemblence to Bosnia and Lebanon where we did see genocidal actions being taken by the parties. With suicide bombings, kidnappings and random executions being carried out on a small scale even now it seems highly probably that if a full scale civil war broke out there would be ethnic cleansing taking place. Your presumption that somehow after awhile fighting would subside and the three parties would settle into three separate states also seems highly suspect. Three main problems stand in the way of that. The first is that the Sunni territory is resource poor since the main oil fields are located in primarily Shiite territory in the south and Kurd territory in the north. The Sunnis will not accept being left with Anbar and a few other central territories depriving them of access to oil. Next Kirkuk is a very mixed city with Kurds, Sunnis, and Turkmen and is also the base of operations for the oil industry in the north. The Kurds very much want this city but the Sunnis and Turkmen aren't going to give this up without a fight so it will likely remain a long running sore point. While Kirkuk is an ethnic hodgpodge valued by three groups that pales in comparison to Baghdad which is also very ethnically mixed and its doubtful that Sunnis or Shiites will give up claims to controlling all or part of Baghdad. In an all out civil wars those two mixed cities will continue to be festering battlegrounds even other areas of territory can be demarcated. Finally the last reason while civil war will be very bad for the Iraqis is that it will have very major implications for Iraqis neighbors who are unlikely to sit around and passively accept a civil war or partition of Iraq, even voluntary on the part of the Iraqis. Turkey, Syria and Iran are extremely wary of a Kurdish state and Turkey has pretty much said that if the Kurds declare indepence and claim Kirkuk they will invade. Iran has a huge interest in a potential Shiitte state since that will be a strategic ally but it would be a huge threat to the other Arab states and they are not likely going to accept a new Shiite state that not only brings Iran up to their borders but also could be a springboard for restive Shiites in the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to rise up in rebellion. Finally a small poor landlocked Sunni Arab state would be an embarrasment to other Sunni Arabs and likely be very unstable. It wouldn't be much different than a possible Palestinian state but even worse off since its more out of the way location wise.

So to sum up yes I believe civil war in Iraq will be a very bad thing far worse than being under Saddam. It will most likely lead to genocidal actions and will continue to be fought for generations while greatly destabilizing the region. That said it very well might happen but I don't think it will be good.

In regard to your asking this question though pardon me for saying this but I'm seeing this as another attempt to justify the invasion and put a new spin on it now that you're begining to recognize the chaos and how shaky the Iraqi government is. It strikes me as you're looking for another angle since the argument that we're bringing democracy to a Iraq is falling apart under the idea that there might be an Iraq (at least a unified one) for long to still say that the invasion was an overall good. It strikes me as before saying we're bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq so they can build a stable peaceful country to well now they have the freedom to slaughter each other and that's not a bad thing if that's what they want to do.

 

is this how far you have moved the goal post now?

let x be attacking and bombing a sovereign country under false and exaggerated evidence of non-existent wmds, death of thousands of US soldiers, death of tens of thousands of Iraqis, cost of trillion US dollars, torture and rape of iraqi prisoners,birth of a new generation of terrorists, plus many more

I'd say definitely better not to have done x

also, your question proves that what Sishir has said is valid

 

Of course its unnecessary visiting Clutchfans at all is very unneccessary but as part of the debate why shouldn't I be speculating on why you would ask this question in this manner anymore than you might speculate on why I would post a thread asking a rhetorical question.

That said when you post something like this:

That to me very much strikes me as putting a positive spin on the situation on the very real possibility that Iraq will descend into full out civil war and a saying that at least they will have the freedom to slaughter each other.