From the POV of the Sunnis, what’s the point? They don’t want to break up the country – that would leave most of the oil in the hands of the Kurds and the Shi’ites (since the oilfields are in regions where they predominate). OTOH, they are so far outnumbered that they cannot hope to win, by military means, a restoration of the status quo ante bellum, when a Sunni elite ruled all. It would be as futile as white South Africans mounting a rebellion to restore the old apartheid system. A well-organized minority caste that has the upper hand can hold onto it for a long time; but once you’ve lost it, you’ve lost it. They can hope to make things so uncomfortable for the Americans that we eventually withdraw our troops – but that would still leave them in a Shi’ite dominated country, with the Iranians over the border ready to lend the Shi’ites support.
They’re fighting for “a restoration of the status quo ante bellum, when a Sunni elite ruled all”. They’re probably not going to succeed, but that’s what they want.
Combined with that is the reasonable fear of reprisals by the majority Shiites, and the establishment in the longer term of a Shiite theocracy. Their only realistic expectation is probably partition and the establishment of a Sunni-controlled state, separate from the Shiite state and the Kurdish state, but to get it they have to fight for it.
Yeah, I made that same point in an earlier thread. My guess is that there isn’t a unified Sunni resistance, but the politicians trying to participate in the process do gain some bargaining strength if the threat of civil was is at least present, so they might not be too motivated to stick their necks out and try to actively suppress the Sunni insurgency. None of the 3 main groups in Iraq benefits from a civil war, but if only it were that easy. How many civil wars start out as a rational analysis of the situation and the consequences?
They are fighting for something that is becoming more and more common, an internationally brokered deal. There they have the chance to cause short term harm for long term gain (mostly because the international community is more worried about current violence than ‘fair’ solutions; which might or might not be a bad thing).
Well firstly alot of the really heinous attacks on Shi’ites have, in all likelyhood, been carried out by foreign insurgents rather than local Sunnis. The local Shi’ites had little to gain from these attacks whereas Al Queida are always going to gain from the conflict and strife that results (plus they have history of attacks on Shi’ites in places like Pakistan even before the Iraq invasion). This is the distressing thing about the whole situation, anyone with a basic understanding of the region and Al Qaida could have predicited it would end up like this.
The sectarian attacks the Iraqi Sunni Insurgents carry out are probaly viewed the same way as sectarian attacks by Sectarian Paramilitaries in Nothern Ireland during the troubles. They are “protecting” their community by carrying out attacks on the opposing community.
You realize of course, that white extremist under Eugene Terreblanche DID try to do just just that .
Wrong. They could have a partitioned state right now if they asked for it. They don’t want that, though, because all the oil is in the Kurdish and Shi’ite areas and they don’t want to lose those revenues. There are likely several different groups and several different reasons. In no particular order:
Spite. If they don’t get to run the country, then no one will.
They actually think they can win the civil war. Many Sunni groups have insisted that Sunnis are, in fact, not a minority population in Iraq. This could just be posturing (and it is with certain groups) but it could also be something that a good chunk have been told all their life and so they believe it now.
As per EEMan’s comment, a desire to wait for an internationally brokered deal that is more favorable than their current situation.
Forcing more concessions from the Americans and governing Shi’ites to hold the country together.
Of course I can’t come up with the cite now, I have no idea where I came accross it, but I read that the Sunni’s believe that they are anywhere from 40-60% of the Iraqi population. Shia sources put it at 15%. From what I could gather, dis-interested third parties seem put it in the low thirties, so that’s the numbers I have a little more faith in.
Also, Shia’s are a minority in the middle east. The wealthier nations are Sunni dominated, with only Iran, often seen as the odd cousin to many in the middle east, having a firm majority. Many of the ultra religious Sunnis see the Shia as an afront to god, while there isn’t a strong current the other way. I think that is why the Iraq Sunnis are more accepting of outsiders coming in, and Iraq Shias are leary of Iran. And the Kurds are standing by, enjoying every minute of it.
There isn’t a civil war in Iraq. A civil war requires defined borders. They are having a good old fashioned ethnic cleansing going on right now, so the borders can be defined. Only then can the civil war start outright. All the Kurds will do is swoop in and reclaim Kirkuk, and the Sunnis will let them becuse they are more organized and better armed than the Shia. The Sunnis are outnumbered, but they have the weaponry and training the the Shia’s were never given in Saddam’s time.
No, it doesn’t. You’re thinking in terms of American history. A civil war with defined borders – a sectional conflict – is relatively unusual and historians differ as to whether such a situation should be defined as a “civil war” at all. Most civil wars involve two or more factions fighting for control of the whole state.
This is stated as fact quite often in discussions about Iraq. I think we forget too easily that there is more to who rules then simple numbers. After all, I assume that the Shia have been in the majority in Iraq at least since the Turks left, but the Sunni have managed to remain on top for almost all of that period.
Power has momentum. The ruling class is more educated, has more money, dominated the higher military ranks, presumably knows where more of the weapons are buried, tend to be more organized, etc. etc. These things can easily outweigh the advantage of numbers.
Of course things have changed, and the new situation may indeed have swung things in the favour of the Shia and/or Kurds. But I don’t think it’s as obvious as just citing their relative populations would seem to show. The Sunni know they’ve come out on top before, I don’t think they’re being irrational in thinking they have at least some chance in coming out ahead again.
So why are they fighting? Because they think they can win.
If nothing else, get yourself a copy of The Economist from about a week ago. (I think it’s dated March 4, but remember, there’s a delay for those of us in the US getting it.) It’s obvious which issue it is, as the cover is “Iraq at war with itself.” It has a fairly good rundown of the history of the Sunni-Shia divide.
It is fairly interesting, though off course this is the same Economist Magazine that thought we had absolutely no choice but in invade Iraq back in 2003 :smack: So why their opinion on the matter should be more valid than yours or mine I don’t know…
“Odd cousin” makes it sound like some kind of mysterious family squabble. It’s not so mysterious. Iranians are not Arabs. That’s largely what makes them the odd man out in the Middle East.