The excitement in your writing is breathtaking. It seems to be filled with hope that things WILL deteriorate.
Is that your intention?
Posted by jj at February 20, 2008 01:30 PMum. jj. excitement? reporting facts is excitement?
Posted by Turkana at February 20, 2008 01:55 PM"...the Iraqi civil war may soon get much worse. With our troops caught in the middle, and our presence in Iraq fueling it."
Not to put too fine a point on it, but your troops are not caught in the middle of a civil war in Iraq, and are not merely fueling it by their presence. Prior to your troops' shocking and awing their way into Iraq and using massive violence, and your government and your troops using one spectacularly stupid, brutal tactic after another in their attempts to dominate and subdue the population, Iraq had zero history of serious, widespread, or protracted civil conflict. Zero. And I am talking about hundreds - no, thousands - of years of history here.
So, it's not as if your troops suddenly, innocently found themselves caught in the middle of something. They, along with your government, created it by their actions, and they perpetuate it by their actions, not passively by merely being there.
Posted by Shirin at February 20, 2008 01:59 PMshirin,
"fueling it" implies a causal relationship. i think pretty much everyone (other than jj and his ilk) understands that.
Posted by Turkana at February 20, 2008 02:03 PMShirin, you are correct on all counts. The Republican running for president intends to fan the fire of this conflict. One Dem says keep some troops there, another says his first act will be to order the American troops home. I wonder if that has anything to do with his popularity? McOld will use any intensification of fighting as reason to continue the Surge (which was supposed to be a success) and paint the Dems as quitters. The public is done with that. McOld has a problem and his name is Sadr.
Posted by T2 at February 20, 2008 02:09 PMI appreciate what you are saying, Turkana, and understand. My point is that they are not fueling it by their mere presence, but are taking a very active part in making it happen, keeping it going, and making it worse.
To add a bit of information, the struggle between Muqtada Sadr and Al Hakim is not merely a vying for power, though that is certainly part of it. It is also a battle between the separatist/collaborationist element (Al Hakim, who is not surprisingly vastly preferred by the occupation), and the nationalist/pan-Iraqist (for want of a better term) Al Sadr. Al Sadr poses a threat to the Americans mainly because he is a very powerful, and popular nationalist leader.
Posted by Shirin at February 20, 2008 02:14 PM"One Dem says keep some troops there, another says his first act will be to order the American troops home."
I suggest that if you look carefully at everything Obama has to say - and not just the stuff is marketing people put in the speeches and on the website - he is no more likely to bring all the troops home than Hillary is. Like Hillary, he has specific long-term missions in mind that would require tens of thousands of troops to remain indefinitely, and those missions are mostly combat-type missions.
Posted by Shirin at February 20, 2008 02:18 PMOne of the things that makes me shake my head about those so enthralled by Obama is when the "first act will be to pull out of Iraq" pledge is thrown into the mix. To believe that this will be the case is truly absurd.
Posted by snark at February 20, 2008 02:26 PMum. jj. excitement? reporting facts is excitement?
Posted by Turkana at February 20, 2008 01:55 PM A
Answer the question. You must have been out of breath after writing that.
Sadr is a very courageous fellow is he not?
When was the last time you saw him? And why is that?
Posted by jj at February 20, 2008 02:27 PMAnd to think that on January 21st Hillary was taking full and personal responsibility for the success of the surge. I wonder how she is going to back-peddle on this one? I know! Bush tricked her into it.
Posted by phidipides at February 20, 2008 02:27 PMjj-
you're very smart. or something. it doesn't matter whether or not al-sadr is courageous, or in hiding, or whatever. he commands a large, armed following. even our military leaders acknowledge that his cease-fire has been enormously helpful. hence, if he calls it off, there will be problems. is basic logic that difficult for you?
Posted by Turkana at February 20, 2008 02:38 PMWhen was the last time you saw him? And why is that?
Is it because Baghdad is such a safe place?
Maybe George Bush should take a stroll through Baghdad? Ya know, set an example.
Posted by snark at February 20, 2008 02:39 PMWell, McCain helped trick her, too, phid. They double-teamed her!
I can't tell if shirin is saying there is no civil war in Iraq or if we caused the ongoing sectarian violence. It seems to me that someone was involved in driving sunnis out of their homes in Baghdad, cleansing mixed areas of the city and reversing the confessional make-up of the city during the "surge".
And it certainly seems as though there are many reports about sunnis firmly opposed to the al maliki government and shi'ite "rule". And shi'tes dissatisfied with our arming of the sunni "awakening councils". So while we piled the kindling and lit the fire, I don't see how one can deny there IS a fire.
Posted by euzoius at February 20, 2008 02:46 PMeuzoius, he's saying that as long as Iraq was under an iron-fisted dictator, these factions didn't openly fight. When we created the power vacuum...off it went.
Posted by T2 at February 20, 2008 02:52 PMt2,
which pretty much everyone other than the trolls understands.
Posted by Turkana at February 20, 2008 03:01 PMI think you're giving Sadr way too many creds. His group has been degraded over the six month period. Many of his crew has seen what's been going on. Seen how the Iraqi military has evolved. I doubt he's a fraction of who he was before. I think he'll be signing his own death warrant if he tries anything.
Your 'reporting' Turkana did have some wishfulness in it. Your wording could be at fault, it certainly wasn't a matter of fact statement, but that's the norm over here.
Posted by peter at February 20, 2008 03:41 PM"Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army is among the most powerful militias in Iraq."
And when these folks decide to take on the US Military under the new rules of engagement*, they will find themselves the smallest militia in Iraq.
*"Have a Plan to Kill Everyone You Meet." (From here: http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/01/a-plan-to-kill.php)
Posted by Bagley at February 20, 2008 04:40 PMYour 'reporting' Turkana did have some wishfulness in it. Your wording could be at fault, it certainly wasn't a matter of fact statement, but that's the norm over here.
Well, the norm for right wing trolls, anyhow. Here's your wishfulness right here:
And when these folks decide to take on the US Military under the new rules of engagement*, they will find themselves the smallest militia in Iraq.
Oh, yeah, someone's looking forward to the carnage, petey, but it ain't the left you should be worryin' about.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 20, 2008 04:50 PMcoyote,
shorter bagley: bring it on!
Posted by Turkana at February 20, 2008 04:53 PM"I can't tell if shirin is saying there is no civil war in Iraq or if we caused the ongoing sectarian violence."
You caused it indeed. I can cite chapter and verse as to what you did to 1) bring it about, 2) keep it going when it threatened to abate, and 3) exacerbate it every single step of the way, if you like. It should, however, be sufficiently convincing for most people to realize that prior to March, 2003, Iraq as a modern-day nation state, and as a socio-geographic-political region with centuries - no, millenia - of history, had exactly zero history of serious, widespread or protracted sectarian conflict. On the contrary, in fact, sect was something that most Iraqis simply ignored (you are probably unaware that all of Iraq's major Arab tribes and most of its smaller ones are mixed Sunni and Shi`a).
In addition, in the initial year or two of the occupation, there were many efforts on the part of various Iraqi groups to form a united front against the occupation. Demonstrations were not comprised of Sunnis or Shi`as, but of Iraqis, period. During the first celebrations of `Ashura and Arbe`in Sunnis and Shi`as alike made the pigrimages to Kerbala and Najaf, some walking all the way from Mosul. The Americans managed to prevent these efforts from bearing fruit, of course.
Shi`a mosques were set up as gathering and distribution points for humanitarian aid, and Shi`as lined up to give blood for the victims of the American atrocities at Falluja and other predominantly Sunni cities, and by the same token Sunnis did the same thing when the Americans devastated Najaf, and attacked Sadr City and other predominantly Shi`a areas (the Americans raided Abu Hanifa mosque in Baghdad multiple times, destroying the food and other aid that was gathered there, and desecrating the mosque).
As for the "ongoing sectarian violence", it is as nice and convenient, and as inaccurate to label it all sectarian violence as it is to label everything Sunni as "the insurgency", or sillier and more inaccurate yet, "Al Qa`eda". The reality is that the majority of violence in Iraq is committed by the American occupiers, and the great majority of violence on the part of Iraqis is directed at the occupation and its agents. After that there is political violence, which is not sectarian (much of it is Shi`a-on-Shi`a or Sunni on Sunni or Kurd on Kurd, if you want to bring Kurds into this). Violence based on sect or ethnicity is very far down the list.
"It seems to me that someone was involved in driving sunnis out of their homes in Baghdad, cleansing mixed areas of the city and reversing the confessional make-up of the city during the "surge"."
WHAT "confessional make-up"? Not Baghdad and not Iraq has ever had a "confessional makeup" prior to March. 2003.
And it seems to you that "someone" was involved in all that? Well, of COURSE someone was involve in it, and so what?
"And it certainly seems as though there are many reports about sunnis firmly opposed to the al maliki government and shi'ite "rule"."
First, do not make the mistake of conflating opposition to the "Al Maliki" puppet government with opposition to "Shi'ite rule". The majority of Shi`as are less than thrilled with the current so-called government, and there are a number of Shi`a factions, Al Sadr's being the biggest and best-known, that would overthrow it in a nanosecond if they thought they could get away with it. Most of the objections to the "Al Maliki" government has nothing to do with sectarianism.
"And shi'tes dissatisfied with our arming of the sunni "awakening councils"."
Do you really think that is about sectarianism?!
"So while we piled the kindling and lit the fire, I don't see how one can deny there IS a fire."
No one is arguing that there is a fire, and given that I have stated repeatedly that you not only brought in the kindling with you, piled it up, brought the logs, split them, and added them to the fire, and continually throw more logs and douse it with your own kerosene that you brought with you, I am hardly denying that the fire is there.
What is obvious to me, as it is to the great majority of Iraqis who are in Iraq, is that the only way the fire is going to begin to die down is if you are no longer there to continue to pile logs and pour kerosene onto it.
Posted by Shirin at February 20, 2008 04:56 PM. hence, if he calls it off, there will be problems. is basic logic that difficult for you?
Posted by Turkana at February 20, 2008 02:38 PM
If he "calls" it off as you say, he is toast, and he knows it. Assets have been "viewing" him for a while. This is not 2004, but if he is your hero, go for it.
"shorter bagley: bring it on!"
Very precise!
Posted by Bagley at February 20, 2008 04:58 PMjj,
we don't make heroes out of butchers. you do.
Posted by Turkana at February 20, 2008 05:01 PM"he's saying that as long as Iraq was under an iron-fisted dictator, these factions didn't openly fight. When we created the power vacuum...off it went."
No, That is most emphatically NOT what I am saying. The notion that Iraq was only held together by the iron fist of Saddam is another convenience that ignores the reality of Iraq's social history that goes back many, many centuries.
Posted by Shirin at February 20, 2008 05:05 PM"which pretty much everyone other than the trolls understands."
Well, I guess that makes me a troll, Turkana, because that is not how I understand it at all, nor is it how I have ever experienced it.
It is a convenient fiction that all it took was removing "the iron fist of Saddam". Iraqi society has always been extremely diverse, and has never before had serious sectarian or ethnic conflict. In fact, Saddam did more than any other Iraqi ruler to create divisions among different groups in Iraq.
Posted by Shirin at February 20, 2008 05:09 PMwe don't make heroes out of butchers. you do.
Posted by Turkana at February 20, 2008 05:01 PM
And the "butchers" would be? You folks are getting quite silly, your drivel would actually be humorous if were not part of such a serious series of events that have happened and yet to happen. You have yet to learn that.
The trolls are eating dead, burnt bodies; and their man George is at 19%.
Posted by Copeland at February 20, 2008 05:57 PMThanks for your information, shirin, I always take what you write about Iraq and our occupation quite seriously, although having to get punched in the mouth repeatedly for being an ally to your view gets a bit tiresome. But whatever.
And yes, I know that the Iraqis have it much worse than getting hectored on a blog.
My understanding is that the religious makeup of Baghdad has gone from majority sunni before the war to 70% shi'a now, and that this driving out of sunni was intentionally carried out by shi'a militias---do you think this is wrong?
Posted by euzoius at February 20, 2008 06:25 PM
shirin,
if you really want to get into the history, we need to go back to the invention of modern iraq, by europeans, after world war i. we all know that so many of the racial and religious tensions throughout the region were greatly exacerbated by artificial borders, nations ruled by people who had no historical basis for doing so, relentless colonialism and neo-colonialism, and petropolitics.
Posted by Turkana at February 20, 2008 07:12 PMit is a complete contrast to read the careful and measured observations of shirin and several other regular commenter's as opposed to the shrill, whining opinions, presented as "facts", from our squad of criminal party supporting trolls...
Posted by headxray at February 20, 2008 07:21 PMShirin,
I lost the link; but some time ago I saw an amazing history lesson (a web video) about World War I, that was laying out the rivalry of Germany and Great Britain for Mesopotamia's oil resource, as one of the major (but under-appreciated) causes of that war. It seems that Germany largely funded the construction of the Orient Express railway that ran through Austria (I believe) and on through Turkey, and whose proposed terminus was Baghdad. This raised all kinds of political hackles in London, and aggrevated the naval rivalty going on between the British and Germans at that time. The British subsequently sent a force to occupy Baghdad and the surrounding region.
Posted by Copeland at February 20, 2008 08:04 PMcopeland,
great book:
A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East
Posted by Turkana at February 20, 2008 08:09 PMTurkana, if you really want to understand the history of Iraq you have to go back way before the creation of Iraq as a modern-day nation-state. You also have to take much of what you read with a grain of salt, including in some of the semi-scholarly works popular in the west.
Iraq and Iraqis have a history of a cohesive and very diverse society that goes back way before the end of the Ottoman empire.
And yes, in a very real way George Bush's imperial project in Iraq and what has transpired from it is part of a continuum of western interference, but never, ever in all of Iraq's history as a nation-state or as a region has anything remotely like this ever happened.
I repeat, prior to March, 2003 Iraq had no history of serious, widespread, or protracted sectarian or ethnic conflict. What has happened since 2003 is a common occurrence in diverse societies that have a history of harmonious and cooperative coexistence when an outside force causes a cataclysmic upheaval and allows the entry of unscrupulous politicians.
Posted by Shirin at February 20, 2008 08:15 PMThanks Turkana. That's an era of history that fascinates me. I'll keep an eye out for that book.
Posted by Copeland at February 20, 2008 08:18 PMshirin,
i agree. but you also have to take into account the fallout from the iraq-iran war, which is certainly a factor in the tensions. of course, nothing compares to being occupied by a completely foreign people.
Posted by Turkana at February 20, 2008 08:21 PM"My understanding is that the religious makeup of Baghdad has gone from majority sunni before the war to 70% shi'a now..."
I have heard it was a majority Sunni Arab, but don't really know what the breakdown of Baghdad was. We just never thought in those kinds of terms. And I don't know how reliable the information is. Anything that comes from the Americans and their collaborators is certainly suspect. Baghdad may have been a majority Sunni. It also had the largest urban Kurdish population.
And I don't know how anyone can say what per cent Shi`a it is, but I would not be surprised to know that it is now a majority Shi`a.
"...and that this driving out of sunni was intentionally carried out by shi'a militias---do you think this is wrong?"
I would say that it is not accurate to say that ALL the driving out of Sunnis was done by Shi`a militias, but most of it, probably, yes. And the militias that are doing most of it are affiliated with the puppet government, specifically with Al Hakim. Al Sadr has been blamed for much too much of it, and I believe that what may be attributable to the Mehdi army was done by out-of-control members, and not on his orders (one of the reasons he called for a cease fire was to allow him to regroup and get his militia more under his control).
Posted by Shirin at February 20, 2008 08:33 PMThanks, Copeland, and Turkana. I am acquainted with that book.
You need to keep in mind that virtually every book on Middle East history, including this one, has been written by westerners and very much from the western point of view. That does not mean the book is not extremely valuable. It does, however, make it limited, it does mean that some of the information may not be entirely and fully accurate, and it does mean that many of the analysis is wanting because it lacks the Arab experience and sensibility. (Some western experts can spend a lifetime studying the Middle East, can be extremely conversant linguistically, and have all kinds of valuable facts and information, and still never, ever "get it" - Juan Cole is an example. As well informed as he is, and as much as I respect him for that, he does not "get" Iraq or Iraqis. He is also, by the way, not really an Iraq expert as he is being presented - he's never even been there.)
Turkana, I don't think the Iran-Iraq war had as much to do with creating tensions within Iraqi society as did the aftermath of the 1991 war on Iraq. But I do agree that the Iran-Iraq war was the end of Iraq's ascent and the beginning of its descent, and put terrible strains on every aspect of society - another bad effect of western interference, though the west is not entirely responsible, of course. Still, the war would not have gone on as long as it did or have as devastating effects without the eager assistance of the west in general, and the United States in particular.
Posted by Shirin at February 20, 2008 09:01 PMEuzoius, I neglected to point out that a great many Shi`as have also been ethnically cleansed, mainly from mixed, and predominantly Sunni districts. And in addition, of course, non-Muslim minorities have had a terrible time.
It is also important to know some of the things that have been happening between and among Iraqis behind the scenes. Neighbors protecting neighbors, keeping an eye on their homes and belongings. And one of the very interesting phenomena that has arisen in the last several years is the "house exchange" in which a Sunni family and a Shi`a family will temporarily trade houses. Brokering such exchanges has become a thriving business for some enterprising Baghdadis. This, not the image being painted in the American press, is the real spirit of Iraqis.
Posted by Shirin at February 20, 2008 09:20 PMWell, McCain helped trick her, too, phid. They double-teamed her!
Ooo...ah...(thinks better of it). Exit stage left.
Of course, I had to go back and look at all the legislation Hillary proposed and passed. Then one realizes it is zero, zip, nada. Ain't that unique.
Posted by phidipides at February 20, 2008 10:07 PMshirin,
absolutely- as i've previously written, another reason for the relative decrease in violence was that ethnic cleansing had created much more separation between rival groups. and of course you're right about reagan's support of iraq during the war with iran.
Posted by Turkana at February 20, 2008 11:28 PMTurkana, GWHB was neck deep in the support for Saddam thing as well!
And - again, not to put too fine a point on it, but it is an important distinction - I am not sure specifically what you mean by putting separation between rival groups. That gives me the very wrong impression that the population as a whole has flamed into a neighbor-killing-neighbor kind of thing, which is not the case at all. But maybe that is not what you intended to convey.
You know, in a place like Iraq, where families might stay in the same house for generations, your neighbors become almost like your families, and when someone moves away who has lived next door or across the street from you ever since you can remember the neighborhood goes through a kind of mourning. You don't really care or think all that much about what their ethnicity or religion is, and you are not going to suddenly turn deadly on them over it.
Posted by Shirin at February 20, 2008 11:51 PMshirin,
there have been many reports of ethnic cleansing, with once friendly neighbors, and once mixed neighborhoods, having separated. 2 million refugees having fled the country, and another 2+ million internally displaced.
Posted by Turkana at February 21, 2008 12:21 AM"I think you're giving Sadr way too many creds. His group has been degraded over the six month period."
been to Bagdad, have you, pants pissing peter? no, because you're too much of a yellow cur to enlist
"And when these folks decide to take on the US Military under the new rules of engagement*, they will find themselves the smallest militia in Iraq."
wow, bagless bagley, that's some powerful boasting coming from someone hiding out in mommy's basement
and right on cue jarjar jj pipes in
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 21, 2008 05:27 AMThanks for this thread, I found it very helpful.
And GV, grocerybagger is quite a talker, just like his Dear ("bring it on!") Leader---of course Bag's supply lines aren't runnin' through hundreds of miles of shi'ite provinces into Kuwait.
The bluster of a militarist pinhead, par for the course.
Posted by euzoius at February 21, 2008 06:09 AM"there have been many reports of ethnic cleansing, with once friendly neighbors, and once mixed neighborhoods, having separated. 2 million refugees having fled the country, and another 2+ million internally displaced."
Turkana, not sure what you are responding to here. Of course there are. And the reports of refugees and displaced are, from what I can determine, gross underestimates. The number of refugees and internally displaced Iraqis is undoubtedly much higher.
A couple of points:
"Once friendly neighbors" implies that those people are now unfriendly. That is probably true in some cases, but by no means is it always the case, or even necessarily the norm.
It is easy to blame the problem of refugees and displaced persons all, or nearly all, on the ethnic cleansing, but that would not be accurate. In fact, the problem of displaced families and refugees began very early as a direct result of the destruction of houses and infrastructure by the Americans, who have destroyed or rendered uninhabitable entire neighborhoods, villages, towns, and in some cases most of some major cities (Falluja, for example). Many Iraqis have fled their homes as a result of American violence and/or insecurity brought about by the Americans presence and their actions. I personally know hundreds of Iraqis who fled outside the country or to other parts of the country three or four years ago before the ethnic cleansing began, and they are not even the tip of that particular iceberg.
I am not aware of any studies that provide actual numbers, but by a rough estimate, AT LEAST a million Iraqis are now homeless as a direct result of the American military destruction of their homes or the infrastructure necessary to live in their homes.
This, like the number of Iraqis, particularly women and children, killed or maimed by the Americans, is one of the undisclosed, undiscussed issues.
Posted by Shirin at February 21, 2008 06:56 AMeuzoius: "And GV, grocerybagger is quite a talker, just like his Dear ("bring it on!") Leader---of course Bag's supply lines aren't runnin' through hundreds of miles of shi'ite provinces into Kuwait."
true, bagless bagley's supply line runs through mommy's kitchen
Posted by Gay Veteran at February 21, 2008 10:19 AMPS Neglected to mention another very early cause of thousands of family displacements, and that was ethnic cleansing of non-Kurds, particularly from the area in and around Kirkuk, by the Kurdish mafias led by Talibani and Barzani - something to which the Americans pretty much gave a wink and a nod.
Posted by Shirin at February 21, 2008 10:51 AM