Support NeoGAF

[razorman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17136646

Iraq attacks on Shia and police targets kill 50
At least 50 people have been killed and hundreds injured in a wave of bombings and shootings across Iraq, police say.
The violence targeted predominantly Shia areas, in particular police officers and checkpoints.
In Baghdad, nine people died in two successive blasts in the central Karrada district. Outside the capital, at least two were killed in Baquba.
No group has yet said it was behind the violence. Attacks in Iraq have risen since US troops withdrew in December.
Tolls from other attacks around Baghdad include:
six dead after a car bomb in Shia-dominated Kadhimiya, norht of Baghdad
six killed by gunmen at a police checkpoint in the Sarafiya district of the capital
two dead and five injured in an explosion in the western al-Mansour district
two killed and 10 injured in two explosions in Dorat Abo Sheer, southern Baghdad
two killed and nine wounded in an attack by gunmen using weapons with silencers, targeting a police patrol in Saidiya, southern Baghdad
seven injured, most of them policemen, in a blast in al-Madaen, south of Baghdad
five civilians injured in a bomb explosion in Taji, north of Baghdad
There were also attacks in Mosul, Kirkuk and the province of Salahuddin.
There are fears the death toll from Thursday's violence could rise.
A curfew is now in effect in Tikrit, the capital of Salahuddin province, and in Hilla, in Babil province, south of Baghdad.
Last week, at least 18 people were killed in a suicide attack near the Iraqi police academy in the capital.
Shia targets have come under increasing attack since the government of Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki moved against senior members of the predominantly Sunni Iraqiya political bloc.
The day after US troops withdrew, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Vice-President Tariq al-Hashemi, who is accused of financing death squads.
Mr Hashemi, who denies the charges, is currently in Iraqi Kurdistan, under the protection of the regional government. He is the most senior Sunni politician in the Iraqi government.
The BBC's Rafid Jabbouri, in Baghdad, says Shia government officials accuse people linked to Mr Hashemi of being behind recent outbreaks of violence.
Mr Hashemi appeared on TV to deny any involvement.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq said it carried out previous waves of attacks in December and January.

With all the focus on Syria at the moment, it's worth noting that the security and political situation in Iraq has been rapidly deteriorating since the US pullout a few months ago. This could easily end in civil war.

 

[SmokyDave]

Sunni to the left, Shia to the right, huge wall between them. Sorted.

It's interesting that attacks have risen since the US withdrawal.

 

[Salvor.Hardin]

Civil war would probably be the best solution for Iraq, but only if it leads to a victor that could create some enforceable and dominant structure in the country.

 

[twobear]

Sunni to the left, Shia to the right, huge wall between them. Sorted.

It's interesting that attacks have risen since the US withdrawal.

interesting, or depressingly predictable?

 

[Cheebo]

This was bound to happen soon as we pulled out. We had to pull out regardless however. We have to just wait while they sort this out themselves, which of course will sadly involve a lot of bloodshed.

 

[SmokyDave]

interesting, or depressingly predictable?

Oh yeah, that's what I meant. Depressingly predictable.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when they pull out of Afghanistan....

...oh look, I did it again! I meant depressingly predictable.

 

[Coppertracks]

I don't think anyone is going to be surprised if civil war breaks out in Iraq. It's been predicted for years.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

I'm at least somewhat glad that the Kurds kind of have their shit sorted out.

But yeah, this seems like it was inevitable. I'd be interested in seeing how Saudi acts.

 

[i_am_ben]

Sunni to the left, Shia to the right, huge wall between them. Sorted.

It's interesting that attacks have risen since the US withdrawal.

Here I am stuck in the middle with the Kurds?

Spoiler

the kurds are up north but whatever...

 

[Mohonky]

We have to just wait while they sort this out themselves, which of course will sadly involve a lot of bloodshed.

Meanwhile, hundreds of years later........

Why is this area so completely unable to go without slaughtering one another? Theres a few pockets of normality; otherwise the area is one big shitstorm.

 

[marvelharvey]

Here I am stuck in the middle with the Kurds?

Glad I'm not the only one who thought this.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Meanwhile, hundreds of years later........

Why is this area so completely unable to go without slaughtering one another? Theres a few pockets of normality; otherwise the area is one big shitstorm.

Sunni vs. Shia

 

[Steelrain]

Meanwhile, hundreds of years later........

Why is this area so completely unable to go without slaughtering one another? Theres a few pockets of normality; otherwise the area is one big shitstorm.

Religion is a hell of a drug.

 

[Phantast2k]

Yeah,
- the clinging to religion
- overall lack of social progress: Going through nationalism (Pan-Arabism), socialism and a mix of both (Baath party) in some 2-3 post-WW2 decades just to end up in dictatorships is a clear indication of this, imho. Only Sub-Saharan states are worse in this regard where the state ideology changed with each coup d'Etat.
- colonial past, including nation building with arbitrary, artificial borders
- wars against Israel
- being a battlefield for proxy wars during the Cold War

Not all arguments are universally applicable to the whole region, obviously.

/edit
Obviously nukes would help to establish peace. Each nation should just have nukes and then all wars and conflicts would stop...

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I'm at least somewhat glad that the Kurds kind of have their shit sorted out.

But yeah, this seems like it was inevitable. I'd be interested in seeing how Saudi acts.

Yeah, ever since settling the Kurd political power struggle in the mid 90s they have some an excellent job in security and administration. They even deal well with when Turkey launches air and ground attacks into their territory.

 

[speculawyer]

I think they basically have it under control. It is probably less killings per capita than Mexico but they get attention because they are bombs instead of shootings.

 

[crazy monkey]

Sunni vs. Shia

power struggle and politician taking advantage of dumb morons

 

[andycapps]

I don't think anyone is going to be surprised if civil war breaks out in Iraq. It's been predicted for years.

Yeah, the government isn't strong enough to keep the factions in check.. It's been predicted since the beginning, and everyone knew it would happen eventually. It's a sad state of affairs but hopefully it's over with quickly.

 

[JGS]

Not even remotely surprising.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Sunni to the left, Shia to the right, huge wall between them. Sorted.

It's interesting that attacks have risen since the US withdrawal.

This was forecast by intelligence agencies as early as 2006, the country has been on the brink of blown out civil war. In fact it can be argued the country has been in civil war ever since.

 

[Ptaaty]

This was forecast by intelligence agencies as early as 2006, the country has been on the brink of blown out civil war. In fact it can be argued the country has been in civil war ever since.

This country has been on the brink of civil war since it was a country. Saddam and the iron fist of dictatorship is the only thing that "held it together".

It was interesting when I was in college (in 1996) I had a class in mideast history....my professor pointed out the huge divides in the ethnic/religious groups and how they came to be. Essentially back then it was plain to see this country wasn't meant to be.

US idea of democracy for this "country" was doomed from the start. You could divide by ethnic areas, but that creates problems of resources completely imbalanced.

 

[Choke on the Magic]

Not our problem anymore.

 

[~Devil Trigger~]

So its Thursday...

 

[Jeff-DSA]

See guys, pulling out is not a substitute for proper protection.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Sad to say, but it has to happen.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

edit: double.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Here I am stuck in the middle with the Kurds?

Spoiler

the kurds are up north but whatever...

Kurds are actually all over, but yeah, the are predominantly up north.


Also, this type of violence goes in waves, the "civil war" shit was happening when we were there too. Until one side rules the other with an iron fist (like what happened with Saddam) this will continue to happen.

I don't think anyone is going to be surprised if civil war breaks out in Iraq. It's been predicted for years.

A "mini" civil war was already raging while we were there. Like I said, it will only end when one is dominant over the other.

This country has been on the brink of civil war since it was a country. Saddam and the iron fist of dictatorship is the only thing that "held it together".

It was interesting when I was in college (in 1996) I had a class in mideast history....my professor pointed out the huge divides in the ethnic/religious groups and how they came to be. Essentially back then it was plain to see this country wasn't meant to be.

US idea of democracy for this "country" was doomed from the start. You could divide by ethnic areas, but that creates problems of resources completely imbalanced.

The original issue stems back to post WWI and the dividing up of Mid-East and African territory into countries without thought toward who lived there or their ideological background.

 

[Dysun]

Let them sort it out while we chill, please

We are after all the global evil police

 

[Joel Was Right]

Not our problem anymore.

Unfortunately this is the predominant mindset of Americans who comment on Iraq nowadays on the Internet in my experience.

 

[Hari Seldon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17136646



With all the focus on Syria at the moment, it's worth noting that the security and political situation in Iraq has been rapidly deteriorating since the US pullout a few months ago. This could easily end in civil war.

Could? I'd say 100% guaranteed it will.

 

[speculawyer]

Unfortunately this is the predominant mindset of Americans who comment on Iraq nowadays on the Internet in my experience.

Why is that unfortunate? You hate it when we do nothing, you hate it when we intervene, you hate it when we leave.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Unfortunately this is the predominant mindset of Americans who comment on Iraq nowadays on the Internet in my experience.

What would you prefer them to say?

Why is that unfortunate? You hate it when we do nothing, you hate it when we intervene, you hate it when we leave.

Pretty much.

 

[SmokyDave]

Unfortunately this is the predominant mindset of Americans who comment on Iraq nowadays on the Internet in my experience.

What do you want from them?

They can't babysit forever.

 

[Cheebo]

Unfortunately this is the predominant mindset of Americans who comment on Iraq nowadays on the Internet in my experience.

Well it isn't. If the Sunni and the Shia hate each other there is nothing America can do. It's iraqs issue to solve.

 

[Azih]

The country is Balkanizing plain and simple. The calmest areas are the ones in which the different groups were already separate.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Why is that unfortunate? You hate it when we do nothing, you hate it when we intervene, you hate it when we leave.

I was opposed to the Iraq War, and so was opposed to it, so how can I have favoured the US to have done something in it? Where is the contradiction on my part? I don't understand the point you're making...

What would you prefer them to say?

Pretty much.

The issue isn't what is said but rather that that is the favoured opinion. It's illogical to think that a country that has become unstable during/following a decade long occupation will have no problems with it in the future. The situation in that country has arguably influenced foreign policy in the region in the short term.

What do you want from them?

They can't babysit forever.

My comment wasn't a criticism of US withdrawal

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I was opposed to the Iraq War, and so was opposed to it, so how can I have favoured the US to have done something in it? Where is the contradiction on my part? I don't understand the point you're making...



The issue isn't what is said but rather that that is the favoured opinion. It's illogical to think that a country that has become unstable during/following a decade long occupation will have no problems with it in the future. The situation in that country has arguably influenced foreign policy in the region in the short term.



My comment wasn't a criticism of US withdrawal

Again, what would you prefer them to say? Please stop sidestepping the question. Where did they state that a country that has become unstable will not have problems in the future? Please bold it for everyone to read. They're saying it's not the US's problem which is true unless you want them to occupy them which you claim to not want. It's not their problem so they're not going to get involved. I'm not sure where you can possibly extract the nonsense you claimed it said.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Again, what would you prefer them to say? Please stop sidestepping the question. Where did they state that a country that has become unstable will not have problems in the future? Please bold it for everyone to read. They're saying it's not the US's problem which is true unless you want them to occupy them which you claim to not want. It's not their problem so they're not going to get involved. I'm not sure where you can possibly extract the nonsense you claimed it said.

There are two fundamental reasons as to why I disagree with the position I responded to originally.

1. If you agree with the fair minded opinion that the stability of nations like Iraq and Afghanistan to be critical for both regional and international peace, termed nation building, then you must be concerned with the development. It's common sense. Whilst the withdrawal has coincided with increased instability and violence (some will argue that there is a direction correlation between the two), they would also concede that thousands have been killed in the face of the military. My post may have been misinterpreted to be referring to the withdrawal decision, it was not, the instability was there long before. I have no opinion on whether or not withdrawing now was the right decision - there are decent points made by both sides of that argument.

2. Too many people aren't interested in, or concerned, with the impact that these type of wars can have on the indigenous society; the consequences of this side of conflict are ignored. Those who supported the war, especially those who justified it on bringing liberty and democracy, should take more interest in the development of that said country.

Where did they state that a country that has become unstable will not have problems in the future?

They didn't, of course an unstable country will have issues later on. You misread my post. My point was rather that the US may likely have problems with it - a stable Iraq is important to US interest, and I said earlier, would influence foreign policy in the region. An example of this was when British Foreign Secretary William Hague, in response to the conflict in Libya, admitted that a ground force (occupation) was not an option, in part, because of the regional perceptions of the allies following the Iraqi expedition.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

There are two fundamental reasons as to why I disagree with the position I responded to originally.

1. If you agree with the fair minded opinion that the stability of nations like Iraq and Afghanistan to be critical for both regional and international peace, termed nation building, then you must be concerned with the development. It's common sense. Whilst the withdrawal has coincided with increased instability and violence (some will argue that there is a direction correlation between the two), they would also concede that thousands have been killed in the face of the military. My post may have been misinterpreted to be referring to the withdrawal decision, it was not, the instability was there long before. I have no opinion on whether or not withdrawing now was the right decision - there are decent points made by both sides of that argument.

2. Too many people aren't interested in, or concerned, with the impact that these type of wars can have on the indigenous society; the consequences of this side of conflict are ignored. Those who supported the war, especially those who justified it on bringing liberty and democracy, should take more interest in the development of that said country.




They didn't, of course an unstable country will have issues later on. You misread my post. My point was rather that the US may likely have problems with it - a stable Iraq is important to US interest, and I said earlier, would influence foreign policy in the region. An example of this was when British Foreign Secretary William Hague, in response to the conflict in Libya, admitted that a ground force (occupation) was not an option, in part, because of the regional perceptions of the allies following the Iraqi expedition.

And? You just projected a whole lot of shit that no one ever said. Don't badmouth americans and then put words in their mouths at the same time. Take an interest how? By recognizing it's happening? They obviously do so? You and others blasted the US over invading and getting involved, and you took exception to a poster saying they won't get involved any more. You have to pick one or the other, you can't have both.

Edit: So you weren't even responding to withdrawal? So it has nothing to do with this thread even in the slightest? So you're just trying to preach about something that's off topic that can't be changed?

 

[Pollux]

Not our problem anymore.

Considering we fucked their shit up to begin with, yea, it kinda is our problem. I doubt there's much we can do to fix it, but it's still our fault the country is FUBAR.

e: we should stay far away from Iraq, let them figure it out, but it still is our fault that they're in the situation they're currently in.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Considering we fucked their shit up to begin with, yea, it kinda is our problem. I doubt there's much we can do to fix it, but it's still our fault the country is FUBAR.

e: we should stay far away from Iraq, let them figure it out, but it still is our fault that they're in the situation they're currently in.

The issue that's going on here isn't from "us fucking up their shit." The only thing that's now allowing sectarian violence to happen more is the fact there isn't an oppressive regime in place to suppress the other faction (Saddam being removed).

Personally I wouldn't say that one is better than the other (oppressive regime vs. sectarian violence). The best outcome would be Iraq splitting into several new countries.

 

[andycapps]

Considering we fucked their shit up to begin with, yea, it kinda is our problem. I doubt there's much we can do to fix it, but it's still our fault the country is FUBAR.

e: we should stay far away from Iraq, let them figure it out, but it still is our fault that they're in the situation they're currently in.

I think you're mixing up the words fault and problem. We screwed it up, so this is our fault to a large extent, like you said. But we pulled out of the country so it's not our problem anymore.

 

[TheJollyCorner]

Considering we fucked their shit up to begin with, yea, it kinda is our problem. I doubt there's much we can do to fix it, but it's still our fault the country is FUBAR.

I KNOW MAAAAAAAN! Why did we have to fuck up such a fun-loving country constantly favored by loving, compassionate leaders?



holy shit, man. Are you serious?

 

[Something Wicked]

With all the focus on Syria at the moment, it's worth noting that the security and political situation in Iraq has been rapidly deteriorating since the US pullout a few months ago. This could easily end in civil war.

I wouldn't necessarily say "rapidly" as the numbers of attacks are still not near the values of 2005-2006, but there certainly has been an uptick still the US withdrawal.

Sunni vs. Shia

More like Al Qaeda vs the IRG.

I think a lot of Iraqis have already gotten weary of "Sunni vs Shia" violence, and just want to live in peace. However, international jihadists, like those apart of Al Qaeda, see Iraqi Shia as easy targets to satisfy their desire for death and destruction and the Iranian government can advance its hegemonic pursuits in the region with Iraqi instability.

 

[Joel Was Right]

And? You just projected a whole lot of shit that no one ever said. Don't badmouth americans and then put words in their mouths at the same time. Take an interest how? By recognizing it's happening? They obviously do so? You and others blasted the US over invading and getting involved, and you took exception to a poster saying they won't get involved any more. You have to pick one or the other, you can't have both.

Edit: So you weren't even responding to withdrawal? So it has nothing to do with this thread even in the slightest? So you're just trying to preach about something that's off topic that can't be changed?

Rather not pointing to the obvious that you completely misread my original and then latter responses, the projected volley of shit I induced in the previous comment was an attempt to clarify the original post. I can't even bothered to muster another attempt to siffle through your ooze and provoke yet another herp derp response.

You have a combative, condescending and argumentative attitude that you seem to revel in and that it isn't even mentioning your peculiar ability to misread comments on a consistent basis.

I have no problem on explaining my points or clarifying posts but I have a better chance in establishing communication with my shadow than with you. I have no desire in continuing to waste my time with anymore exchanges. I let you know this so you dont waste your time in the future responding to me by getting no reply.

The issue that's going on here isn't from "us fucking up their shit." The only thing that's now allowing sectarian violence to happen more is the fact there isn't an oppressive regime in place to suppress the other faction (Saddam being removed).

Personally I wouldn't say that one is better than the other (oppressive regime vs. sectarian violence). The best outcome would be Iraq splitting into several new countries.

That's the thing, the removal of Hussein didn't create the sectarianism but perpetuated and allowed it seep into Iraqi society through more violence. This was arguably inevitable.

“If we think there is a fast solution to changing the governance of Iraq, then we don’t understand history, the nature of the country, the divisions, or the underneath suppressed passions that could rise up. God help us if we think this transition will occur easily. The attempts I’ve seen to install democracy in short periods of time where there is no history and no roots have failed. ." - Marine General Anthony Zinni (retired) Head of U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000, 10 October 2002​

 

[twobear]

Why is that unfortunate? You hate it when we do nothing, you hate it when we intervene, you hate it when we leave.

this is a pretty spectacular misrepresentation of the situation, but don't let that get in the way of shirking national responsibility for creating what's increasingly looking like a failing state

 

[djplaeskool]

There's been decades of postponing the sadly inevitable.

As crass as it might be, I'm almost at the point of saying, "Let it ride."

 

[empty vessel]

I think a lot of Iraqis have already gotten weary of "Sunni vs Shia" violence, and just want to live in peace. However, international jihadists, like those apart of Al Qaeda, see Iraqi Shia as easy targets to satisfy their desire for death and destruction and the Iranian government can advance its hegemonic pursuits in the region with Iraqi instability.

These explanations are so facile and naive. In any country, at any time in history, during any conflict, it can be said that most people "just want to live in peace." Even in World War II, most people in the countries involved were entirely apolitical and can be said to have just wanted to live in peace and for all the fighting to end. So to say that most Iraqis do not want sectarian violence is just stating the obvious. All conflicts happen at the margins.

That said, all conflicts do not exist so at the margins that they can be written off as being undertaken by "international juhadists." I can assure you that the violence occurring in Iraq right now is domestic in nature and for domestic ends (power within Iraq). You have this weird thing of inventing demons to hate. There is no group of people who feel they must "satisfy [a] desire for death and destruction." Apologies in advance for going Godwin, but such a superficial and narrow description would not even suffice to characterize somebody like Hitler. Your attribution of this motive to certain Muslims suggests a certain kind of racism underlying it.

And it's truly fascinating that you bring Iran into it. You're like a walking propaganda megaphone, into your ear and out your mouth. Why on god's earth would Iran be trying to destabilize a friendly Shia government that, as the New York Times recently put it, "has shifted toward an axis led by Iran?"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17087687
http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9007273471

 

[Tideas]

Civil war would probably be the best solution for Iraq, but only if it leads to a victor that could create some enforceable and dominant structure in the country.

someone like a dictator...like Saddam?

 

[Azih]

Another thing to note is that Iraq (inevitably to anyone who isn't completely ignorant) has become one of Iran's friendliest allies in the region since it became democratic. Now which countries, also in the region, have a bizarre pathological hate/fear for Iran? Well Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE do. I would not be surprised one little bit if those countries weren't funding these attempts to destabilize the country especially not after what those countries did to Bahrain.

If there are any Irani and Arab posters here could you please chime in on the weird hate on between you guys? Confuses the hell out of me. Is it just as simple as Sunni dictators being afraid of their indigenous Shia populations? I mean I can understand that from the Arab side but what's up from the Iranian side?