Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Is A Civil War in Iraq Inevitable?

By Robert Dreyfuss, TomPaine.com. Posted January 25, 2006.


Friday's election results make it nearly impossible to stop the country from descending into full-blown civil war.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Robert Dreyfuss

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

There's no one left to put Humpty Dumpty together again in Baghdad. Zalmay Khalilzad, America's feckless ambassador in Iraq, is trying. But, unwilling or unable to reach out to the Iraqi resistance, Khalilzad instead finds himself immersed instead in gooey egg mass. The Iraqi body politic is shattered, with little hope now of avoiding an all-out civil war. That's the only conclusion that can be reached by looking at the results of the Dec. 15 elections in Iraq, whose official returns were announced on Friday.

Those results gave the Shiite religious bloc 128 seats out of 275. Their junior partners, the two Kurdish warlord parties, got 53. The religious Sunnis got 44, the secular Sunni parties got 11, and Iyad Allawi's non-ethnic, secular alliance got 25. So the coalition of Shiite fundamentalists and Kurdish warlords controls 181 seats, at least, just a few votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed to form a government. Let's look at the bad news, item by item.

First, the Arab League's peace initiative for Iraq is dead. It was, I've written, perhaps the last best hope for holding Iraq together and avoiding an ethnic-sectarian war. The effort began last fall, when Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan organized an initiative to hold talks between Iraq's Shiite-Kurdish government, the Sunni-led opposition, and the resistance. Scheduled for Cairo last November, the first meeting failed when the two fundamentalist Shiite parties, Al Dawa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, said that they would not talk to the insurgents, whom they describe as "terrorists." (That word, in fact, is increasingly used by SCIRI and Al Dawa to refer to all Sunnis in Iraq, not just to Abu Musab Al Zarqawi's Al Qaeda or even to the Baathist-military resistance.)

In December, I wrote for TomPaine.com that the Arab League effort would collapse if the SCIRI-Dawa forces, augmented by the fanatical Mahdi Army of Muqtada Sadr, won big in the elections. They did, winning nearly half of the seats in the new parliament. So, no surprise: on Saturday, Iraq's foreign minister, a Kurd, announced that the scheduled Arab League follow up meeting in February, which had been dubbed a National Accord Conference, would not be held.

Second, the notion that Iraq can form a "national unity government" now, led by the SCIRI-Dawa-Mahdi Army coalition, is beyond absurd. Khalilzad, described by The New York Times, as the "unabashedly hands-on U.S. ambassador," is pushing hard for the inclusion of some docile Sunnis in the new government. "The advice of Zal, as he is known here, will not be subtle," says the Times , hopefully. And listen to the pathetically naïve musings of a "senior U.S. official" in Iraq, quoted by Reuters:

For us Iraq can't build on a relatively narrower sectarian or ethnic basis. It has to be inclusive. We support a unity government as the best means of bringing Iraqis together after a hard-fought election contest, and we are encouraging all sides in this to look to the advantages. In the end it's an Iraqi decision not an American decision. We are prepared to help the Iraqis in any way we can to reach an agreement that brings the country together, broadens the base of support of the Iraqi government and results in a competent and capable government.

In fact, however, the all-or-nothing sectarianism of Iraq is now set in stone. That is thanks to nearly three years of U.S. mismanagement in Iraq, during which time the United States first insisted on installing in power the creatures that populated Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress and its exile allies, then forced every Iraqi institution from the 2003 Iraqi Governing Council to the interim government of Iyad Allawi on down to apportion its power according to some ethnic and sectarian census, meanwhile encouraging the SCIRI-Dawa alliance to establish its power, and its paramilitary forces, throughout southern Iraq.


Digg!

Robert Dreyfuss is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Va., who specializes in politics and national security issues.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
USA promotes civil warfare
Posted by: afrothetics on Jan 25, 2006 4:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My take is that the internecine conflict in Iraq is a part of the neocon's strategy to destabilize the region and promote access to the fossil fuel resources in the Middle East. Unfortunately, they and their Bush proxies have learned little from the 60-year Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At $250 billion and counting, it would appear to even a fool that investment in alternative energy would have been a better use of this money. But, when you have irrational leadership that operating at a psychological level beneath that of a fool -- whatever that is called (Oh, right, ownership society!)-- and who are bent on destroying any plan or program that smells of a liberal agenda, what you get is Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: USA promotes civil warfare Posted by: mythbuster
» Did Hitler care about world opinion? Posted by: Citizendeane
USA promotes civil war
Posted by: Democritus on Jan 25, 2006 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whereas the present and future civil war in Iraq was not desired by the US, I don't think it has changed the Bush administration's big plan for Iraq. I fully expect whatever government is formed there to accede to US demands for a Status of Forces Agreement. With the SOFA in place, our military can withdraw most of its forces, yet still leaving a "footprint" by means of the heavily fortified bases we have already built there. So with civil war swirling in the country, our forces can hunker down, prepared to unleash air attacks, if necessary, against our old enemy--Iran.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Amerika, Amerika, Uber Alles Posted by: Ellen Remore
Good question this one...
Posted by: Colin on Jan 25, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and one I asked myself before we went to war. There's a side of me that thinks that in trying to determine the answer, you'll have to accept that 'conventional' politics is irrelevant.

My take is that civil war, one way or another, is inevitable unless another dominant power replaces the old regime. People were talking about 'power vacuums' long before the war started and they were entirely right to do so. The US/UK coalition may have taken out Saddam but they will struggle to fill the power vacuum with which ever puppet they are pointing their cameras at today. And, at some point, they'll leave Iraq and the only thing keeping their puppets in power is either the threat of violence from a force that isn't even there anymore or, however unlikely, a universal desire for harmony adopted by everyone in Iraq. However, given it only takes a few powerful individuals to disrupt that and given how much money there is to be made out of Iraq, I can't see that happening.

I predict, at some point, an implosion will come. It might be public in the manner of a civil war or - just as likely - it will be behind closed doors in the form of political conniving to the max as everyone wrestles for power and ownership of natural resources. Both are equally destructive as both remove the average Joe in Iraq from the political debate. In the same way they can't engage with an uzi, they can't engage with political collusion at the highest levels. However, one version will be reported on endlessly (the all out civil war) whilst the other will be ignored as it doesn't offend our immediate moral sensibilities.

In short, Iraq has far too many resources for things to just 'fall into place'. That means it has to be worked out one way or another. Do you see many people talking?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Forget Iraq, the civil war's going to be here !!
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jan 25, 2006 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
100,000 displaced for good in New Orleans,close to 10 million homeless, poisoned air amd water,stolen Presidency and our Rights being trashed for a fools dream is the crux of the bisket. Every night 50,000 children go hungry. Elders freeze in the colder states becuase of power company tyranny. The sick are turned away from hospitals because of the wrong or no insurance certificate. Minimum wage is a slow motion death sentence. Inner city housing is a joke where slumlords laugh all the way to the bank. The People are taxed to pay for stadiums for multi million dollar pro sports teams they may never even see. We are taxed to pay back insurance companies for paying claims on 9/11 because they are trying to hide the insolvency of the insurance industry. We are held hostage by the oil,gas,and eletric companies. Helpless against their ever increasing rate hikes.
Mostly to pay for fines they've gotten for over pollution.
Don't you wish you could tell your boss you need a 60% payraise to pay a fine? And get it.
No the civil war won't be in Iraq. It will be here at home.
There is already real fighting going on in the big cities. It won't be in the news,just like all the protests. We have two ways we can do this. As a People or as a Mob. As a People we stand the chance of getting the Police and Military on our side because everyone hates injustice. As a Mob we'll have to face them and the Govt. I say bring the cops and the military in on our side, then all we have to do is set things right. We can do it,but we have to do it as a People,because that's where the true Power really is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I live in Saluda North Carolina! Posted by: Againstthewindwalking
» re: crux of the biscuit Posted by: rollo
The goal is to put the puppet military regime in place
Posted by: ng1944 on Jan 25, 2006 3:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pentagon is training 200 or 300 hundred Irakis in US.
So called future military elite command officers in Iraki army.
The idea is to commit military coup and place
military puppet goverment like in Jordan, Pakistan
or Egipet. Money will flow to support Dictator.
That's what happened in Pakistan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Civil War, you bet
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Jan 25, 2006 6:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I said before we invaded that the aftermath would be a three-way civil war in Iraq, and I thought there was a good chance that Iran and Syria would invade Iraq. I didn't count on the the terrorists making it a four-way civil war. By the end of the year our troops may have to fight their way out of Iraq to Kuwait.

Isn't it a no-brainer that we should stop occupying Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? And isn't is also a slam-dunk no-brainer that we should end our support for Israel? Those two policy changes would end the terrorism that is directed against us. We are all going to end up broke and starving to death if we keep pouring money down those ratholes.

Who care if those countries are monarchies, dictatorships, or whatever. ALL we need to do if pay the bastards for their oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Civil War, you bet Posted by: agitatur
» RE: Civil War, you bet Posted by: Rod in 83706
Someone help me
Posted by: Llama11 on Jan 25, 2006 11:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've taken to posting on the hannity.com/forum page, and I'm running into a wall against neocons. We need to get our viewpoint there, where we can reach the true neocons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Someone help me Posted by: Rod in 83706
» RE: Someone help me Posted by: Ellen Remore
Bush made the hurricanes too.
Posted by: Soldier_X on Jan 26, 2006 3:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh chicken little. Many of you keep repeating that this is a war for oil. Will anyone show me how Bush is profitting from Iraqi oil? Show me some documents, show me how he or his family personally profit from Iraqi oil.

Just because you repeat the 'war for oil' mantra doesnt make it true.

I fought in Kuwait in 1990 and 1991, when I was there fighting reporters were saying that the casaulties among americans would be as high as 60% in some cases, and protesters chanted about how we were spilling blood for oil.

How many oil wells does any american company own or operate in Kuwait? ZERO. Write to the Kuwait embassy find out for yourself. Its the same in Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush made the hurricanes too. Posted by: IndyElliott
» RE: Bush made the hurricanes too. Posted by: IndyElliott
True!
Posted by: London on Jan 26, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good point!

I personally never believed the invasion was about oil. If America was purely motivated by the need for cheap oil all they had to was to lift the sanctions against Iraq.

So what was the reason for the invasion? Iraq could never have been a threat to the USA. We all know that the US administration knew that. We know for sure that the US does not act purely for the sake of justice, nor has it ever before invaded a country for the purpose of promoting true democracy there. So what was the reason?

To get at the reason you only need to look back to what the neocons were aiming at back in 1996, in their advice to Netanyahu. In the paper, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the need to overturn the Oslo Accords and Middle East peace process is emphasised. The paper advises that Yasser Arafat be blamed for every Palestinian terrorist action; it specifically called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and also the Ba'athist regime in Syria; and it further recommended the use of force against Iran.

The neocon's only concern, then and now, is the strengthening of Israel's hand in the region. They may dress their objectives in the garb of American interests, but if you look at their actions objectively and logically you will see disclosed as their first and foremost priority the defence and strengthening of Isreal.

To understand what will happen next you need to look at Israel's interests more so than those of the USA. What threat could Iran possibly pose on the USA or EU. None whatsoever. But a Shiite led Iraq joining forces with Iran cannot be tolerated by Israel. So we must expect further turmoil and upheaval in the region.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Coming out of the woodwork!! Posted by: Ellen Remore
» RE: True! Posted by: yellow
Promoting Sectarianism
Posted by: yellow on Jan 26, 2006 9:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Since the very beginning of the Occupation and reconstruction it has been obvious that the US has been promoting civil war to its own advantage based on sectarian rivalries. The constitiutional promotion of unprecedented regionalism based on sectarian rule and ethnic cleansing was obviously designed to destroy Sunni Nationalism and empower currently separatist ethnic and religious leaders whose power rests on an accomidation of US economic interests. But the real struggle to control Iraq through balkanization isn't taking place in Iraq at all but in Iran! It has been widely suspected that terrorist acts provoked by UK agents to incite the Arab minority in the southwestern province of Khuzistan is intended to deliberately provoke an uprising of Shiite Arabs against their Shiite Persian overlords. The wealthier and largely urban Persians are resented by the impoverished, mostly rural smallholding Arabs of the Iranian province who tend to bond with their fellow Shiite Arabs across the border. The US/UK coalition hopes a massive uprising of Khuzistani Arabs against their Persian neighbors will allow the Coalition a humanitarian excuse to invade the easily accessible province similar to the one whereby NATO attacked Kosovo on behalf of Albanians resisting Serbs. The invasion is designed to (a) compromise Tehran's control of this strategic area rich in oil and fresh irrigation water sources, (b) bring about a crisis and collapse of the rogue Tehran regime, (c) strengthen the bond of Shiite Arabs on both sides of the Shatt al-Arab waterway empowering the new pro-US Iraq while debilitating the US's Iranian enemy, (d) open up new sources of oil to western corporations. Such a strategy not only ignores the dangers of spreading the war and further destabilizing the region but exaggerates the efficacy of irredentism. Invasions intent on bonding members of a single ethnic or religious identity separated by a national/political boundary often misread underlying national loyalties (witness the failed attempts of the Afghan Regime in the '50s, '60s, and early 1970s to initiate a Pashtun uprising on the Pakistani side of the border). Only further bloodshed can result from this strategy. All of this goes to say that the only real solution is a hasty Coalition withdrawl from Iraq and a turning over of the problem to the international community where it belonged in the first place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Are all of us racists?
Posted by: Citizendeane on Jan 27, 2006 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The assumption that the Iraqis' cannot find a political settlement for their divisive issues and that they must descend into civil war is pure racism! There is no reason whatever to believe if left on their own they will not come up with an excellent political solution to meet their diverse needs. The American presence in Iraq will assure that does not happen. Juan Cole and Robert Dreyfuss both are good guys but their assumption that Iraq's cannot act in a politically intelligent manner is racist!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Are all of us racists? Posted by: nickptar
"Inevitable" - wrong question
Posted by: nickptar on Jan 29, 2006 8:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Was this article written a year ago, or something?

A civil war is not just inevitable. A civil war is happening RIGHT NOW. It might have been evitable in the past... not anymore.

Sorry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]