Anglican Cleric warns of civil war

[JoFerret]

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Articles.asp?Article=74942&Sn=WORL
BAGHDAD: An Anglican Christian clergyman mediating in Iraq said yesterday he feared civil war could erupt if the US-led administration failed to win over the Sunni Muslim minority.

Canon Andrew White's statement comes as a Sunni Muslim cleric, who was murdered at his home, was buried in Baghdad and a series of explosions were heard in the vicinity of Baghdad airport late yesterday the cause of which was not immediately known. The explosions, which started before 8pm, lasted for a few minutes, a US airforce spokeswoman said.

White, who is negotiating between the US-led occupation authority and Iraq's rival sects, warned of dire consequences if the once privileged Sunnis are increasingly marginalised as majority Shi'ites push for more power.

"My biggest fear is that if the Sunnis are pushed too hard, they will explode. They need to be won over, otherwise there will be dangers of civil war," White, special representative to the Middle East for the Archbishop of Canterbury, said
<more>

[Mari333]

1. bring the troops home. Now.

.

[mobuto]

2. Yup, that would do it

that would guarantee a civil war.

Out of curiosity, why is Paul Bremer using an Anglican bishop as a go-between?

[Art_from_Ark]

3. No, what guaranteed a civil war

was invading their country for the stupidest of reasons, upsetting their social order, destroying their infrastructure, playing sides against each other, and removing from power the only person who could be seen as providing stability.

[mobuto]

6. I agree that the war was wrong

but you're saying that there's nothing we can do to prevent mass murder - and while you may well be right on that, I think we owe it to the Iraqi people to do our best to prevent it.

[Art_from_Ark]

15. The way to do that is get the US out

and get the UN in. Leaving the US troops there is not going to help the Iraqis because the American troops are seen as part of the problem.

If the tables were turned, and it was the Iraqis invading and occupying our country, and conducting midnight raids, and shooting people for being suspected "terrorists", and they were signing contracts with their buddies to take our resources and "privatize" our industries, and all the while insisting they had to stay in the US to "clean up" the mess they had made, would Americans believe them?

[mobuto]

17. Um, no

the United Nations needs to be brought into Iraq, but they lack the firepower or the experience to ensure stability by themselves. Don't believe me? Go ask Kofi Annan - he'll say the same thing. The UN is much better at soft work - providing vaccinations, building hospitals, etc. - that's extremely important but not normally violent.

Americans may continue to be attacked so long as they're in Iraq. The problem isn't so much the attacks on Americans as it is the attacks by Iraqis on Iraqis. American troops can help stop that violence. But if they're gone, the UN won't be able to. It'll be a guaranteed civil war between religious and ethnic factions.

[Art_from_Ark]

21. So what you're saying is that an occupier

that invaded the country on the flimsiest of pretenses and destroyed the social order and infrastructure while pitting one faction against another can be trusted to prevent civil war??? Wow, have I got a bridge to sell you!

[Nlighten1]

4. Bring em on?

Yep...

[bemildred]

5. Shit, I warned of a civil war a year ago.

So did a lot of people here. We are already in the early
phases of a civil war. The only question is whether we want
the US Armed Forces squatting in the middle of it or not.

[Sagan]

8. You were right. A lot of said the same thing.

The parallels between Iraq and Tito's Yugoslavia are interesting.

Now that the Iraqi Tito is gone, the formula will play out again, sadly.

This was an EXCELLENT reason NOT to invade Iraq. But what do we know? We're just a "focus group".

[bemildred]

9. The comparison with Yugoslavia is well taken.

OTOH the Soviet Union managed to self-disassemble more or
less peacefully, so there is hope, especially if the external
meddling can be kept to a minimum. I cannot say I have much
optimism about the current situation in Iraq, though, unless
elections can be held and suitable security arrangements can
be made to give the various factions the warm-puppy feeling about
their human and political rights and safety.

[ablbodyed]

12. The USSR was already....

divided into fairly homogenous political entities. There was no personality holding it all together as in Yugoslavia, as well as less destructive historical hatred for the other ethnic groups.
Iraq, OTOH, was held together by personality and brute force and therefore much more like Yugoslavia. The religious and ethnic conflicts are as serious and as long-lasting as Yugo as well. That's why pappy DIDN'T go further. These noe-cons, for all their smarts, are ignorant of history (asking the Turks in was moronic). Unfortunately, so are almost all Americans. That's why the public can be led around so easily.
BTW, look at a map (in an historical atlas) of the pre-WWI "Iraq" and you'll see that what is now Kuwait WAS part of that political entity and had been for centuries. The claim by Saddam that Kuwait was historically theirs has more than a little truth. I remember reading about Kuwait during the late '50's. How it was the country with the highest per-capita income. As a map freak I was fascinated by the Saudi/Iraqi border with is two chunks of 'sovreignty-indeterminate' areas. Lots of oil there!!

[ithacan]

7. this is ALL Bush's fault!!

transition in Iraq was obviously something that would be good.

The question is HOW.

What the US has shown consistently is that using military force in this kind of situation is ALWAYS a disaster.

This is unfortunately not a surprise to most people who warned against a US military invasion.

[seasat]

10. The Problem that I see is that Iraq is really three countries.

It was pointed out before the war that the three groups Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia would split after Sadaam and unfortunately the critics were right. The problem is that the Kurds and the Shia hate the Sunnis for all the abuse that they took. The Kurds would like autonomy but Turkey would oppose that since the Kurds in their country would also like to break off. The Shia would like an Islamic style of government similar to Iran but the Shrubbites in Washington won't tolerate that. Unfortunately, I can't see how they're going to avoid civil war.

[mike1963]

13. I think you are right. If it were not for the enormous oil reserves in

the south and the north, there doesn't seem to be any good reason NOT to allow the partition of Iraq into 3 states, but there is essentially no way to reconcile the political reality with what will ultimately be the determining factor: who controls the assets. Maybe it could be worked out so that there are SIX "provinces"...northeast and northwest, central east and central west and southern east & west...draw the north/south line from Mosul to Basra, more or less, splitting the oil fields evenly and allow a Kurdish share in the north, a Sunni one in the middle and a Shia one in the south. Or some variation on the theme. Give each region a fair amount of autonomy and the option of electing/selecting their leaders.

Of course I have absolutely no expertise in this, just spiffballing...
:eyes:

[sweetheart]

11. Viet Nam, Korea, Lebannon

Seems like meddling in civil wars to kill 1000's of americans and
10's of thousands of local civilians has become an american pastime.

The CIA long warned about this possibility in the power vacuum
without saddam. Well, no surprises here except for the totally
deaf and blind republican dickheads...

I wonder if any of the republicans can read... perhaps literacy is
the real issue... no wonder the CIA is percieved as misinforming...
they can't read the reports.

I'm glad the archbishop of canterbury is doing his job. It infuriates me that it has come to having british religous emmissarys
to tell us what every frikking moron (literate moron) has known
for years.

[DifferentStrokes]

14. Look on the bright side

There will probably be no more squabbling about Kuwait pumping oil away from the Iraqi fields. Kuwait will probably annex the lower third and that will be that.

[xchrom]

16. i think the ground work has begun

the insurgent forces expect retaliation for their bombings -- and this maybe the tip of the iceberg.
the u.s. loses credibility on all sides every day we are there.
the u.s. must come out and a new international force must take over -- with iraqi consensus.

[Ganja Ninja]

18. We should do all we can to prevent a civil war but...

we need to recognize that it may not be preventable. The best we can do is try to keep one side from overpowering the others and committing genocide.
In any event I think we need to bring our troops home ASAP. We should stage our pullout from the more hostile areas first and allow time for the different factions to gain control over their territories. Then let the different sides negotiate a peace plan without any interference from us.

[Skidmore]

19. This administration wants war to continue there

to justify it's agenda.

[reprobate]

20. There is another possibility besides civil war, and worse for us.

Sistani has made moves to unite sunni, kurds, and shiia. He is calling for a united front of all iraqis. He also has spoken with UN reps while refusing to see bremmer. Word is he's willing to give the UN a chance to oversee the turn over, but if the UN is unable to handle it, iraq will unite against US. And that will mean massive casualties on both sides.

The whispering on the street is "remember 1920". Ask the british what that could mean.