General civil war erupts in Iraq. Thanks Dubya.

[Brian_Expat]

The long-feared and oft-predicted civil war has begun within Iraq. The first target? US troops. The likely second target after the US pulls out or is defeated? Each other. Likelihood that al Qaeda will benefit from the chaos as a result of Bush's invasion? 100%.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/international/middleeast/05IRAQ.html?hp>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/internat.../05IRAQ.html?hp

A coordinated Shiite militia uprising against the American-led occupation rippled across Iraq on Sunday, reaching into Baghdad and the sprawling Shiite slum of Sadr City on the capital's outskirts and roiling the holy city of Najaf and at least two other cities in southern Iraq.

Seven American soldiers were killed in Sadr City, one of the worst single losses for the American forces in any firefight since Baghdad was captured a year ago.

. . . snip. . .

Within hours of a call by Mr. Sadr to his followers to "terrorize your enemy," his militiamen, said to number tens of thousands across Iraq, emerged into the streets of Baghdad, Najaf, Kufa and Amara, a city 250 miles south of Baghdad where four Iraqis were reported killed in clashes with British troops.

Forbidden to bear arms under a decree issued last year by the American occupation authority, the Sadr militiamen bristled with a wide array of weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades that were fired at American tanks in Sadr City.

Taking advantage of an American policy that has largely kept American and other occupation troops out of volatile Shiite population centers like Sadr City, Najaf and Kufa, the militiamen succeeded in taking control of checkpoints and police stations in all three cities that had been staffed by the new Iraqi-trained police and civil defense force.

. . . snip. . .

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

The summary? Prepare for a lot more death on all sides, prepare for the domestic draft, and prepare for potential efforts by Iraqi insurgents to "bring the war home" to US soil. Thanks, Dubya.

[Jacobin]

1. Dick Cheney was right:

At least in 1998, he was:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/cheney.htm

"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

:-)

Can we borrow him to be Kerry's running mate??

[ewagner]

2. Boneheaded policy

Everybody predicted this and now it has come to pass.

From what I've read, it's not only the initial mistake of going into Iraq but also the bone-headed and heavy-handed policies of Bremer and his Coalition Provisional Authority which is spawning hatred.

Decisions are being made by unqualified boobs./

[Jacobin]

3. It's not nice to invade a country to steal its oil

PNAC dreamer's justifications aside, the citizens of such a country are very likely to blow the invader's asses up and send them packing.

This thing is Vietnam on steriods. It is unfolding very quickly.

[ewagner]

4. We've managed

to make the worst of all possible scenarios come true here. We have the Shi'ites in open rebellion and the Sunni appear to be joining the fray. The only thing we haven't done is incite the Kurds into the battle.

[Karenina]

8. Seems the Kurds are in too...

It's hard to keep track but looks like

Kirkuk
Basra
Fallujah
Baghdad AND
Sadr City

ALL GOT IT GOING ON right about now.

:SIGH:

[Beetwasher]

5. It's All Out War Now

It finally went over the edge...Fuck...

[kentuck]

6. Is it civil war or is it anarchy?

I'm not sure it fits the definition of a civil war?? Perhaps not anarchy either??

[Minstrel Boy]

7. NOT civil war. The Sunnis and Shiites have the same targets:

the US military.

[Moderator]

9. Brian_Expat

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.

Thank you.


DU Moderator

[paulk]

10. it's not a "general" civil war

yet.

The insurgent groups still represent a minority of Iraqi's. The majority of Shiites would rather not see Al-Sadr's faction come to power (not to mention the Sunnis and Kurds). If Al-Sistani throws in with Sadr, then things will get really bad.

The situation is still salvageable, though when I watch Bremer, I can't say I have much faith. There are times when I feel the Bush Administration WANTS destabilization of the middle east, and for Iraq to crash and burn is step one of the plan.