Iraqi Civil War? Some Experts Say It's Arrived.

[Thom Little]

The term "civil war" conjures images of armies massed against each other, and ultimately the breakup of a state — a far cry from the democratic paradigm the U.S. government meant to achieve in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein 2 1/2 years ago.

.......

James Fearon, a Stanford University political scientist and an authority on modern conflicts, believes that Iraq's civil war began almost as soon as Hussein was ousted, and that it is now obscured and partly held back by the presence of foreign forces.

"I think there is definitely a civil war that has been going on since we finished the major combat operations," Fearon said. He rejects the position of many observers that a civil war is still only a possibility for Iraq.

"When people talk about 'Will there be a civil war?' they are really talking about a different type of civil war," he said.

.......

"Since 1945, almost all civil wars, a big plurality, have been guerrilla wars where it is kind of insurgency versus counterinsurgency," he said. "Most civil wars look more like what we are seeing in Iraq now."


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-civilwar1jan01,0,7399089.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[RagingInMiami]

1. It's obvious

Everyday we're reading about Iraqi insurgents killing Iraqi civilians, police officers and politicians.

[Flabbergasted]

2. Undoubtedly this is a Civil War

Wait till the Kurds Succeed and grab Kirkuk then it will get worse.

[babylonsister]

3. Civil war? Yes, it's pretty obvious from

what little we're hearing. When whole families are murdered,
and 11 people at a clip,
that sums it up for me, and that's been
happening often.:(

[ECH1969]

4. Iraq has been in a civil war for decades

What the hell do people think the 91 uprising was all about or the Anfantal campaign.

[Erika]

5. and it will be for decades

but W is now controlling their oil. He could have cared less about Iraqi rights. He and his corporate buddies got what they wanted paid for by the U.S. military.

[libodem]

6. ya think?

they are blowing each other up like crazy.

[countmyvote4real]

7. And who’s blood (although not shed) is ultimately responsible?

Our own Dear Leader. And anybody that supports his war, but is too much of a coward to serve in the front. These chicken hawks are so predictable and sanctimonious.

They will never get a clue about the casualties of war (or “collateral damage” as they like it) until it affects their world. On the surface it’s ironic given that the SC appointed * on the 2000 campaign claim that he’s not divisive. He’s a uniter (sic) and he made that word up like so much of his Presidential policies. So even here at home our country is reported to be geographically red and blue. What? No purple here?

Actually, I think there is much more purple here than the pundits will admit, but like *, they are determined to divide and conquer everything. That includes our Constitution, civil rights as well as the free market.

In the words of * at the staged event declaring that the (illegal) war was supposed to be over, * begs for retaliation in the declaration of “Bring it on.” The forces within Iraq have responded. And to add irony on irony, it’s only a matter of time, monetary security and future stability before we splinter under the tyrant or unite to overthrow him.

[stevenleser]

8. I wrote this article over at www.opednews.com on the same topic

Feel free to email me at [e-mail] and let me know what you think... Steve

Original Article at
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_051231_the_fight_over_the_i.htm


---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
December 31, 2005

The Fight over the Iraq vote and the strange hypocrisy of the
American Right regarding Iraq

The Islamic Republic of Iraq?

By Steven Leser

Traverse any blog or website geared to Republicans and the
Conservative Right here in the United States (such as Free Republic
or http://www.freerepublic.com ), and a strange dichotomy becomes
evident with regard to Iraq. First, they talk about every practicing
Muslim and everyone of Arab descent as if they were a member of Al
Qaeda and an animal. A popular photo on Free Republic shows a Grim
Reaper with a skull and proclaims "Islam - It's the Evil of our
Time, let's NOT leave it for our children". See
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1487236/posts and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1548226/posts and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1548198/posts and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1548214/posts and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1508903/posts . Invariably,
any discussion of Islam on these websites involves description of
Muhammad as a pervert and a pedophile. In almost the same sentence,
these people have no problem saying that they support Bush going
into Iraq to promote Democracy for the people there. Yes, such
wonderful things they and their President want for Iraqis. Then, in
a later thread, which might describe insurgents blowing something up
in Iraq, they again continue their diatribe that all Muslims and
Arabs are animals and should be killed or 'nuked'. Queer folk these
conservatives. Oops, they are going to be upset I called them Queer
given their ridiculous hatred of gays. Ah well, what can one do? I
get the feeling that most Republicans secretly feel this way about
Muslims and Arabs. I know President Bush has publicly said that he
is not warring against Islam or Arabs, but against Saddam Hussein
and the Terrorists, but I have this feeling that he and Uncle Dick
say things altogether different in private. In any case, the
Republican electorate is virulently anti-Islam and that is a shame.
Most practitioners of Islam that I have had the pleasure to know are
wonderful, law abiding and hard working people.

The Iraq war is continuing to evolve into another phase that was
predicted by many; anarchy and civil war. The Shiites, who vastly
outnumber Iraq's other two ethnic groups, Sunnis and Kurds, are
naturally going to win any fair democratic elections in the country.
The Sunnis and Kurds are not going to like this for many reasons
among them that both groups are generally less observant of Islamic
laws and traditions than the Shiites and the Shiites seem to want to
steer Iraq toward fundamentalist Islam. George Bush may claim (now,
since no WMD were found) that he went to war to bring Democracy to
the people of Iraq, but the net effect of his actions will likely be
a Muslim Theocracy. Women in particular are going to suffer when the
country becomes "The Shiite Islamic Republic of Iraq". Democratic
elections aren't going to turn out to be a good thing here and the
Sunnis and Kurds know it. That is why they are protesting these
elections tooth and nail. All the protesting and new elections, if
they are able to attain them, will not help Sunnis and Kurds
overcome the massive Shiite majority in the country.

Where does this leave us? The Freepers (as they like to call
themselves) over at Free Republic deserve credit for some of the
wackiest and creepiest (nuke all the people in over several dozen
countries? Hello? Any humans on that site?) hypocrisy in history.
And President Bush, who was re-elected by an army of evangelical
Christians for being such a "good Christian man" is going to be most
remembered for establishing a radical Islamic Republic in Iraq. All
of which proves the old axiom, truth is stranger then fiction,
particularly when dealing with Republicans.



Authors Bio: Steven Leser is a freelance journalist specializing in
Politics, Science & Health, and Entertainment topics. He has held
positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and
Public Relations Chair within county organizations. His coverage of
the Ohio Presidential Recount in 2004 was distinguished by actual
interviews with Carlo Loparo, spokesperson for the Ohio Secretary of
State, along with Supervisors of Elections of several Ohio counties.
Similar efforts on other topics to get first hand information from
sources separate Mr. Leser from many of his contemporaries.