As Lebanon burns, Iraq continues to boil. It's getting so bad that they are talking about the division of Baghdad as a near term possiblity, with actual plans already in existence. ANALYSIS-Gloom descends on Iraqi leaders as civil war looms 21 Jul 2006 13:02:08 GMT Source: Reuters By Mariam Karouny BAGHDAD, July 21 (Reuters) - Iraqi leaders have all but given up on holding the country together and, just two months after forming a national unity government, talk in private of "black days" of civil war ahead. Signalling a dramatic abandonment of the U.S.-backed project for Iraq, there is even talk among them of pre-empting the worst bloodshed by agreeing to an east-west division of Baghdad into Shi'ite and Sunni Muslim zones, senior officials told Reuters. Tens of thousands have already fled homes on either side. "Iraq as a political project is finished," one senior government official said -- anonymously because the coalition under Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki remains committed in public to the U.S.-sponsored constitution that preserves Iraq's unity. One highly placed source even spoke of busying himself on government projects, despite a sense of their futility, only as a way to fight his growing depression over his nation's future. "The parties have moved to Plan B," the senior official said, saying Sunni, ethnic Kurdish and majority Shi'ite blocs were looking at ways to divide power and resources and to solve the conundrum of Baghdad's mixed population of seven million. "There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into east and west," he said. "We are extremely worried." On the eve of the first meeting of a National Reconciliation Commission and before Maliki meets President George W. Bush in Washington next week, other senior politicians also said they were close to giving up on hopes of preserving the 80-year-old, multi-ethnic, religiously mixed state in its present form. "The situation is terrifying and black," said Rida Jawad al -Takki, a senior member of parliament from Maliki's dominant Shi'ite Alliance bloc, and one of the few officials from all the main factions willing to speak publicly on the issue. "We have received information of a plan to divide Baghdad. The government is incapable of solving the situation," he said. As sectarian violence has mounted to claim perhaps 100 lives a day and tens of thousands flee their homes, a senior official from the once dominant Sunni minority concurred: "Everyone knows the situation is very bad," he said. "I'm not optimistic." RESIGNED TO INEVITABLE? Some Western diplomats in Baghdad say there is little sign the new government is capable of halting a slide to civil war. "Maliki and some others seem to be genuinely trying to make this work," one said. "But it doesn't look like they have real support. The factions are looking out for their own interests." The presence of 140,000 heavily armed foreign troops, most of them Americans, is keeping a lid on open grabs for territory by armed groups from various communities. But few see Washington willing to keep troops in Iraq indefinitely and many analysts question the new, U.S.-trained Iraqi army's cohesion. Broadly speaking Iraq could split in three: a Shi'ite south, Kurdish north and Sunni Arab west. But there could be fierce fighting between Arabs and Kurds for Mosul and for Kirkuk's oil as well as urban war in Baghdad, resembling Beirut in the 1970s. Officials say the Tigris river is already looking like the Beirut "Green Line", dividing Sunni west Baghdad, known by its ancient name of Karkh, from the mainly Shi'ite east, or Rusafa. The U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, and Washington's top military commander issued a public appeal this week: "We call on Iraqi leaders to take responsibility and pursue reconciliation not just in words, but through deeds as well," they said. But a European diplomat said: "I wonder if accepting there must be division, and civil war, might be the only option ... It may be unavoidable and so it's better to get it over with." GRAVE SITUATION In public, Iraqi and U.S. officials make no secret of the gravity of the situation, five months after the destruction of a a Shi'ite shrine at Samarra launched a new phase of conflict, with Shi'ite militias now as lethal as Sunni insurgents. Maliki has called his national reconciliation plan, offering amnesty for some rebels and promising to rein in militias, the "last chance" for peace. Khalilzad has said the government, hailed by Bush as a major success for U.S.-installed democracy in the Middle East, has just months to prove itself. Even militia commanders say popular anger means ordinary people, most of them armed, are ignoring calls for restraint. Shi'ite member of parliament Takki said: "People are taking the protection of their neighbouroods into their own hands." Maliki meets Prime Minister Tony Blair in London on Monday before seeing Bush at the White House on Tuesday. Both leaders, penalised in polls since the 2003 invasion, will expect him to tell U.S. and British voters of his hopes for a new Iraq. He may focus on Saturday's meeting of the Reconciliation Commission, expected to feature loud public calls for unity. In private, however, one of his top officials confided earnestly: "To be honest, it's all over. I'm just still doing this job because it's the only way to fight my depression." (Additional reporting by Alastair Macdonald) http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L21908240.htm
Wasn't Baghdad already divided? One Vatican-sized colony for American imperialist (aka the liberator, aka the benefactor in SamFisher's term), one for the rest of the Iraqis (liberatees).
It should be divided into blocs as old Germany was. Eastern bloc, Western bloc...Let's see who can run the place more efficienty.
Call me a bleeding heart, but if we start a war for nonexistent WMDs... ooops, I mean to spread Democracy and create a transformation in the Middle East, an "efficient" government may not be the best way to establish liberal democratic values in the population. And by the way, how come we don't hear the argument "Iraq/the world is a better place without Saddam" anymore?
Except that Xizang is and has been part of China since the dawn of age. PS, Sam, the insistence and pursuit of "ethnic purity" are not a staple of liberalism either.
....except for when it wasn't, which is why the PLA invaded "Xizang" and occupies it to this day. Anyway, let's not bog this down, continue being the non-violent anti-imperialist that you are and continue cheerleading Soviet and Chinese expansionism. The enemy of your enemy is your friend! No matter what kind of resume they have! If you have to cast your lot with Stalin, Mao, and Kim in order to accuse someone else of being authoritarian -- then do it! you go girl!
You know Sam, your revisionist POV isn't gonna change the facts and history, and your continuing attempt to words into my mouth is all the more laughable given your own hypocrisy wrt U.S. foreign policies.
Ok so asuming Iraq does end up in a full blown civil war, who is the scapegoat? GWB isn't responsible for anything apparently... so who is? Cheney? The Democrats that screwed up the masterplan? TERRORISTS?
That's right folks - if you don't say "USA BAD, ALL THE TIME, NO MATTER WHAT" you're a hypocrite ! Only an ideologically pure person like you can weed out the true enemies of the people! No wonder you were such a good red guardsman.
the middle east sucks period. You dont see North America fighting each other? What about Europe (excluding soccer matches) you realize there's always been fighting in the middle east.. since the beginning of time. so if splitting baghdad up would make sense then do it.
See Sam, again you are resorting to hyperbole, reflecting a very weak stance on your own conviction. We were comparing the Korean War and the Iraq War, weren't we? Let's see: - Both were Preventive in nature, proxy wars fought on basis of unrealistic fear-mongering. One you are for, one you are against; - Ends justifying means. To shoot and bomb innocent civilians in order to liberate 'em, right? I am pretty sure you oppose the current one, but you clearly endorse the other; - Unabashful about American Empire; believe that imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate; - Elitist Anglo-Saxon centric attitude (at best) towards people of different races, implicit/subtle racism (at worst). Weeding out enemy? What enemy? I thought you were my friend. Geez, you broke my bleeding liberal heart. BTW Sam, I wasn't old enough to be a red guard. Swing and miss.
wnes, on what basis to you accuse Sam Fisher of being for imperialism of a so-called progressive nature. So wnes, you think that Tibet should be part of China and that the issue is simple? I must have missed some extneded debate judging from the heatedness of the charges.
His unbashful support of and uncritical view on the Korean War speak volumes. What I think is irrelevant, but the facts and history are unequivocally on my side.
Clearly, you two should get a room, one adjacent to Hayes and rhadamanthus... the 4 of you could take turns duking it out. Since the train has left the tracks for a moment, wnes, what does- "We were comparing the Korean War and the Iraq War, weren't we? Let's see: "Both were Preventive in nature, proxy wars fought on basis of unrealistic fear-mongering." -this mean, exactly? North Korea suddenly assaults the South and the United Nations. Many countries, the US being chief among them, but hardly alone, fight back and push the North to defeat, the North being, "saved," not a term I would use, personally, by Chinese intervention. I simply don't understand, "Both were Preventive in nature, proxy wars fought on basis of unrealistic fear-mongering." Does not compute regarding the Korean War. Keep D&D Civil.
So what is justified then? Sounds like isolationism at its core if you're arguing that the Korean War is illegitimate. If you're comparing the Korean War to the first Gulf War in 1991, then yes the comparison makes sense. One country invades another, the UN signs off on intervention to protect the invaded party, and then the other side gets pushed back. Granted there are some fairly large differences but overall it really isn't that different.
The US created the Korean divide in the first place out of its self-serving interest, and worse yet, deprived Koreans' long waited opportunity to establish an independent, sovereign, and unified country. The Koreans were NOT consulted when their country was forceably split apart. They didn't ask for this kind of liberation. Let's not forget the puppet Rhee regime supported by the U.S. was much more repressive and brutal than the Kim regime in the North in the beginning. There are tons of records to show that, so don't pretend to be an altrusitic humanitarianist. Moreover, NK only turned more reclusive and lagged behind SK years later, after the War. So don't be a revisionist either. Oh, the UN part, let's not forget two of the 5 founding members were absent when US coerced the rest to form a nominal allied force, which was all but US own forces. You guys are making hayes proud. NK didn't consititute a threat to the US at the end of WWII. The military campaign from the NK should be viewed in the context of the long brewing conflicts between the two sides. The South were equally provocative during that time. All things considered, the War was fought by US out of unfounded fear as a preventive means. Let me make it clear, once for all, I am not in favor of one side over the other in the conflict, if it was all about a genuine self-determination. It's my firm belief it should be up to Koreans to decide their fate. If the South win, congrats to them, rest of the world should move on. Same for a North victory.
It was preventable if the North Koreans had decided not to invade the South. That is correct. The North Koreans could have prevented it. Do you believe the North Koreans didn't shoot or bomb innocent civilians?
