IOW, stupidity got us into this mess, stupidity will get us out!!! Yay Dubya!
Just to further expand on Ravenman’s point, it is worth noting that many Iraqi tribes cut across sectarian lines. Indeed they occasionally cross national lines. The immense Shammar tribe for example extends from northern Iraq right down to Yemen and the UAE and contains both Shi’a and Sunni branches. The Al Bu Nasir tribe of Saddam Hussein in Tikrit also has a Shi’a branch in Najaf ( which was quite loyal to the regime, contrary to many other Shi’a ). Just as further example of tribal/sectarian complexity:
*The rapid conversion of Iraq’s tribes to Shi’ism was by no means perfect and by the twentieth century Arab tribesmen were still divided along sectarian lines as the conversion cut across confederations and tribes.
Thus, the Shurayyifat of the Muntafiq confederation became Shi’i whereas the Shuhayyim, a constituent of the Bani Humayyid section of the Muntafiq, remained partly Sunni as late as the twentieth century. The Fadagha tribe in the district of Kazimayn was split between Shi’is and Sunnis, and so were the Bani Sa’id of the Muntafiq and the Zubu’ of the Shammar, who lived in the districts of Suq al-Shuyukh and Kazimayn, respectively. Wheras the majority of the Bani Tamim became Shi’i, a few of its sections remained Sunni. Likewise, although the Zubayd confederation became almost entirely Shi’i, parts of the Bani 'Ajil and the 'Azza sections remained Sunni early in the twentieth century. The Jubur al-Wawi of the Euphrates valley became Shi’i but the Jubur of the Tigris remained Sunni, both being sections of the Zubayd as well. Still in the Zubayd, the Janabiyyin, who lived near Musayyib, remained mostly Sunni and only some of its branches became Shi’i. The Al Bu Muhammed confederation became almost entirely Shi’i except a few small branches who remained Sunni. The Muhaysin section of the Ka’b that settled along the Shatt al-'Arab chiefly below Basra was also mostly Shi’i, with the exception of parts of Bayt Ghanim, which remained Sunni. The Rabi’a confederation also became almost entirely Shi’i, save for the important Kawwam section that was to be found near both Kut al-'Amara and in the district of Kazimayn. The Shammar and Dulaym confederations were split along religiopus lines as well. The Shammar Jarba that migrated to Iraq only in the late eighteenth century and whose tribal domain was in Jezira in between the Tigris and Euphrates, remained Sunni. The Shammar Tuqa settled down near Karbala early in the eighteenth century and became Shi’i. Some of its branches frequented the Shamiyya and the Najaf districts and their tribesmen were converted to Shi’ism. Similarly, wheras most of the Dulaym confederation, whose domain was north of Baghdad remained Sunni, its Al Fatla branch settled in the Hindiyya district and became Shi’i.*
From The Shi’is of Iraq by Yitzhak Nakash ( 1994, Princeton University Press ).
I’ll note that the above is a pre-contemporary study, but nonetheless many of those divisions exist down to today. The Ba’athists attempted to ,outlaw tribal identification in the 1970’s, but predictably that failed and Saddam reversed that policy, patronizing many important shaykhs.
The Dulaym for example collaborated closely with the SH regime. One of the Dulaym’s principal strongholds? Fallujah. Another is Ramadi. Or we have the Sunni Shammar Jarba that by contrast with most of the Dulaym were a bit less friendly ( though not unremittingly hostile either ) to the regime. Current president Ghazi Al-Yawir is a Sunni Shammar shaykh from the Mosul area ( by the way the Shammar, sections of which were driven into Iraq by the Wahabis, have a branch married into the Saudi royal family as well - the current crown prince’s mother is a Shammar from Ha’il ).
The lesson to take home is that Iraq is hideously complex with many more than just three factions and many more layers within and ties between factions.
For that matter nobody has even mentioned smaller groups like the Turcoman ( with links to Turkey ) or the Assyrians.
- Tamerlane
I do. Let’s take a sample.
Really? Afghanistan is an example of how voting should go? Are these people aware of the situation in Afghanistan? 70% of the country isn’t even under the government’s control, much less registered to vote.
As for the attack on Riverbend herself as “Sunni who comes from a prominent family who used to be able to walk all over their compatriots because she belonged to a group which had prominence in the Baa’th Party”… why the bloody hell would she want, as Cry Me a Riverbend II says, an Iraqi civil war? She’s a minority member of a group of people who repressed a majority, and she wants civil war. Right. As for Cry Me a Riverbend II’s evaluation of her: “Riverbend, an Iraqi in her late twenties whose family, apparently, were important muckity-mucks in Saddam’s governmen” - a cite would be nice, generally more than “apparently.” Just like any other blogger, he selectively collects what supports his viewpoint - his links to “Western Bloggers on Iraq” doesn’t even include a mention of Juan Cole, who is recognized as a leading authority.
I also looked at most of the blogs he links to, but most of them (done mostly by dentists and teenage girls, strangely enough) are defunct or haven’t been updated in several months.
Here’s a snippet from one of the larger ones:
Yep, I’d like to see a statement from the US President like that, too.
Sounds a lot like Riverbend, actually.
Definitely a resounding depiction of a nation not on the brink of civil war…
http://neurotic-iraqi-wife.blogspot.com/
Can’t make any sense out of this one.
So anyway, yes, I do suggest reading the issues from all angles. I do read them from all angles. Some of them are more accurate than others. That’s the problem with blogs- you can’t be sure if the person writing actually knows what they are talking about, or if they’re just saying what they wish.
Your leading man yourself, Cry Me a Riverbend II:
What?
And for what it is worth, Ryan_Liam, I do think that a pull out of American troops would be a bad idea. I don’t know if I agree with CMRII or not, because he is inconsistent, but I did agree with Riverbend’s analysis of the IGC and PVA. Her knowledge of Chalabi in all of this seems a lot more informed than CMRII, who generally just bitches and snipes at people.
This is one of those weird situations where “the US should pull out” is an option used by both the left and the right, as well as opposed by both the left and the right.
Did you know what I preferred based on my blog cite?
That’s bias for you.
Here’s an analysis of where Riverbend is coming from based on what she has told about herself in her blog (granted, she has to right to tell as little about herself as she chooses, but I have the right to infer what she has clearly left out).
Her POV is definitely outside that of the average Iraqi on the street which is “I’m glad the US removed Saddam. I wish they could leave tomorrow, but the MUST stay until the government can defend itself from insurgents and civil war, and can defend the public from criminals and terrorists.” That’s not a worshipful attitude toward the US, but it is a ringing endorsement compared to what Riverbend says.
Among Iraq English-language bloggers the tilt is toward enthusiastic US endorsement and hostility toward their Arab neighbors that supported Saddam. Especially after you take the “blogger blocks” out of the analysis: the Anti-Invasion Jarrar family (A Family In Baghdad, Raed In the Middle, Tell Me Secret) and the very adamantly pro-Invasion, pro-elections Fadhil brothers (Iraq the Model and Free Iraqi).
I have no way of gaging the opinions of Arab-language Iraqi bloggers.
Using these same bloggers as a reference, I would say G.W.B. would do quite well in an election for Iraqi president. He might lose, but if he were to suddenly discover an Iraqi heritage, then he would probably win hands down. Some of the Iraqi bloggers have actually said they would like to see G.W.B. run.
Incidentally, the Kurdish bloggers are not applicable to all this. They are pro-Invasion, pro-elections, and mostly pro-Bush, but there is regular complaining that the US has “betrayed” them in not supporting Kirkuk becoming a “Kudish” city and not greasing the their path to their own homeland.
Well, that certainly leaves out a lot of the population. So basically, we’re only dealing with well-educated, and probably western-educated, people here?
Well, Saddam was a good start.
Well, I agree there. The Kurdish issue is another thing entirely (and possibly a more realistic danger (in general) than an Iraqi civil war).
Well for one thing, Turkey would likely not tolerate an independent Kurdish state in the north. We would not tolerate expanding Iran and Syria in the south.
GW is who we have unfortunately. I might not like it, obviously you don’t like it, but its reality. I don’t see how tucking tail at this point is justified because GW is at the helm. I don’t see it as stupidity for the US to actually stay in Iraq and try and fix the mess we made. I see it as political cowardice and lack of will for the US, at this point, to even be considering running away and leaving the mess for someone else to fix…and for the Iraqi people to have to foot the bill in terms of blood and death.
Perhaps you’d like to expand a bit on what YOU think should be done. Partitioning perhaps? Something else?
-XT
Not to hijack my own thread but just based on what I’ve read here today I’m assuming that everyone at least agrees that Iraq is an extremely complex “situation” if you will.
I’m also assuming that that information was available (even to me if I cared to know bad enough) long before we did go to war.
I paid relatively close attention to TV news leading up to the war and no one (media or government (openly anyway)) seemed to be concerned about what would happen in light of all this information as far as a post war scenario would look.
Was the focus too heavy on making a case for war (right or wrong aside) and not enough attention paid to what would actually happen when we poked a stick into what looks to me like a hornets nest disquised as a hornets nest?
Isn’t what’s happening now the rational outcome to anyone who paid close enough attention?
If so, is this just a “procedural revamping” that one would expect to take place after any war?
I agree 100% with this post. Strangely enough. I would prefer a less unilateral conclusion, and I don’t have very much faith that the elected Iraqi government will be able to support itself. Which means longer “occupation” (choose your words depending on your point of view). In fact, I think we owe Iraq a few hundred billion in restructuring, a la the oft-cited Germany, Japan, and South Korea. But less unilaterally.
Go back in the Straight Dope archives to when the war was first announced and started, and see who was right.
The government didn’t care because they (in the form of the Bush Administration) wanted a war with any excuse possible. The media didn’t care because they’ve been reduced to spineless lapdogs of the corporation-coddling conservatives.
There were lots of people warning about the repercussions of invading Iraq, but they were all branded as “nervous nellies,” “pessimists,” and “liberals” by the war zealots.
Yes. Unfortunately, no one in the seats of power were paying attention at the time. It’s not even certain if they’re paying attention now…
I think the assumption was that Iraq was more nationalized than it was in fact. Saddam had put a light coating of ‘Iraqi Nationalism’ on top of the existing tribal structure, and enforced it with a iron fist…and it was assumed that that Nationalism and national identity went deeper than it in fact did. Basically Iraq was held together the same way Yugoslavia was…its probably a comparable model. When the strong central government was removed the ‘nation’ splintered into multiple factions along ethnic and religious lines. Thats what we are seeing now. And it might be the case that if you overturned ANY of the regional governments, the same sea of factionalization and tribalism is what you’d find. Maybe this is a good thing to know…though the price of this knowledge is too high IMO.
I have no idea how much the ‘experts’ knew about this prior to the invasion. My guess is, some theorized this scenero, others didn’t…even in the Administration and at the Pentagon. But they were drowned out or marginalized by others who didn’t see it that way. And the Adminstration picked the scenerio that most appealed to how they wanted it to go.
In hindsight, at least from my own perspective, its certainly a much more complex issue. Thats why I don’t see partitioning as a viable option ironically enough…because I don’t think the Iraqi’s themselves WANT to partition, or maybe more accurately wouldn’t be able to agree on HOW to partition the nation. As to the OP its to far fetched a scenerio…as I said earlier the Iraqi’s themselves wouldn’t want to be anexed by the various other neighboring states and would resist. This is assuming that the US or Europe would allow more oil rich lands to go to Syria and Iran (unlikely), or that Turkey wouldn’t have a fit with a Kurdish home land (it would probably mean war unless I miss my guess). On all sides its HIGHLY unlikely.
-XT
That 70% includes a lot of unpopulated wasteland that no one has any intention of “controlling”. Until a highway (that is currently under construction) has been completed there is not much of a way to define the word “control” means. If you are saying 70% of the country is hostile to the central government, then that’s bunk. 70% of those eligible voted in the last election. That’s better than the US. How much of the US is “under the government’s control”?
A civil war would mean the collapse of the present government leading to a) a segregation of the country between Sunni Arab, Kurd, and Shi’a or b) a potential return of the Ba’athists (which her family most surely were). A civil war would be the best way for Riverbend to avoid having to live in a country as an equal with the tribes her family used to oppress.
I’ve given a citation in my last post.
Hmmm…too bad about that. Here’s a link to Ali Fadhil (now posting from Free Iraqi) taking apart the scholarly Juan (Ferret-face) Cole on his analysis of Fallujah.
Here’s one where he takes on Riverbend for being less than honest in her blog.
It was ME (whom you did not credit) with point out how many Iraqi English-language bloggers are dentists or dental students. I do not have time only move to the top, Iraqi bloggers that have posted most recently. But Iraq The Model, Free Iraqi, and Hammorabi post the most often – far more than precious Riverbend. Link to blogs even when they are defunct because I think their testimony is still interesting. I post to Iraqi bloggers that oppose Bush, the invasion, and elections as well…in fact, I list them FIRST.
Responding to MY quote:
Demorian asks:
Strange as it may seem, if you can get those who say the US should pull out immediately (like Riverbend) to answer the question “What about the civil war that would immediately envelop the country?” they will respond “It will be better than in injustice of leaving the MNF to occupy the country.” Most English-language Iraqi bloggers consider an MNF pull out now to be unthinkable because of potential for civil war. Riverbend and a few other extremists who either opine about all the good things under Saddam or say baloney like “Saddam was more of a phenomenon than a person” would rather have seen Saddam rule for the forseeable future rather than the US take him out, and they would rather see a civil war than MNF-led elections.
[QUOTE]
Well, that certainly leaves out a lot of the population. So basically, we’re only dealing with well-educated, and probably western-educated, people here?
[QUOTE]
Not western-educated (except for Riverbend) but educated enough to have studied English and figure out a computer. The English language does not seem to be as elite a skill in Iraq as you might imagine.
But I can’t analyze Arabic language blogs and neither can you (I presume). I’d be very interested in a dispassionate analysis of where Arabic-language IRAQI bloggers stand. BTW just because a blogger writes in Arabic, doesn’t mean he can’t speak English.
The Bush 41 Administration knew about the expense and complexity of establishing a democratic government in Iraq and that was why it attempted the “Hail Mary pass” of sanctions combined with (tragic as it turned out) urging of the Iraqi people to revolt.
But by 1998, the Clinton Administration had decided that Saddam would never VERIFY (this is key) the destuction of his WMDs and if he did he would only restart them once the sanctions were lifted. That was why Sen. John Kerry as early as then was talking up an invasion of Iraq.
After 9-11, the Bush 43 Administration seems to have become convinced that the policy of letting the Middle East “determine it’s own future” even if that determination meant universal rule by dictatorships and warlords would make the world increasingly unsafe for democracy. So they chose to bite the bullet and undertake the expense and human losses to seed the region with democracies.
The fact is that it has not required as many American lives as the experts predicted. In two weeks we will have taken out two terror regimes and conducted two of the first three elections in Muslim ME nations (Palestine only recently included itself)…all this in three years and costing less than 2000 American lives. Pretty amazing, when you think about it.
Are you serious? I think theres more of a leftist side to the News in terms of bias more than ever.
I’ll come back to this later today, a tad busy at the moment. I’m also going to look into some of your points (primarily the challenge against Dr. Juan “weaselface” Cole and Rashid Khalidi. History is rarely black and white, and in the incidence of conflicting versions I prefer a little research.
Obviously this is a very complex issue, and those involved in Iraq have a lot of emotions and prejudices (even Riverbend - and you. And me).
I read through some of your link to Ali at Iraq the Model CMAR II…intersting perspective. Normally I avoid most bloggers, but I found some of his statements differ radically from whats normally projected about Iraqi’s on this board. Of course, he could just be an isolated minority view point…which is why I usually avoid bloggers.
Still, it would be interesting if someone emailed him a link to this board…it would be interesting to get some actual Iraqi’s views in the myriad Iraq thread that always pop up on this board. It would be interesting to get Riverbend on the board as well IMO for some perspective. I read through a bit of that cite as well.
My guess, reading through both very different blogs though is that neither of them would want Iraq annexed by regional powers though. 
-XT
I think you mean the Bush 41 Administration knew there was no legal reason to invade.
I think you mean the Bush 43 Administration became convinced that terrorists were violently objecting to US troops in Saudi Arabia.
Since pulling out of Saudi might persuade Saddam to try repeated invasion himself, it was necessary to neutralise Iraq first.
So they chose to bite the bullet, invade on a WMD pretext (and take over all the oil contracts as a bonus).
I admire the way you consider US casualties and not Iraqi ones. this point of view is why the US (and Bush) is so respected. :rolleyes:
Funny, which ever one I go with (your scenario or mine), it still seems like a good idea and is in the US’s interest to invade (you didn’t turn off your electricity and sell your car yet? Why then you, glee, must be a lacky for the Saudis!)
And I dislike how some critics of the Liberation fail to count Iraqi deaths by Saddam & Sons over the next 50 years if we had not taken him out. I dislike how they don’t add to that count Iraqi casualties by Saddam’s “orphans” (as they are referred to in Iraq). I dislike how instead they ascribe all those deaths to the MNF and put the bodies of the dead terrorists and those that support them on the same tally sheet with their victims.
No, I didn’t mean that at all, but I put this challenge to you glee – accept it or take back the suggestion that removing Saddam was illegal:
If Saddam was removed “illegally” then he should released from jail, returned to power, and compesated with the funds and weapons necessary to put down the newly empowered opponents of his regime. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t really consider the act illegal. Pick one.
For me, I don’t see how the notion of illegality can apply to putting down a lawless regime of thugs and installing an elected representative goverment in its place.