Framing the violence throughout Iraq is a recent report from the Brookings Institution, a pro-imperialist U.S. research institute. The report concluded that 75 percent of attacks are directed at occupation forces, while a further 17 percent are directed at puppet Iraqi forces. This means that at least 92 percent of all attacks are directed at U.S. forces or its proxies.
The so-called “civil war” in Iraq is a myth. The war is aimed squarely at the U.S. occupation, and it is growing stronger by the day.
8 thoughts on “The myth of Iraq civil war”
Comments are closed.
See Custer, General George Armstrong; @ Little Big Horn.
So there will be peace and harmony in Iraq as soon as the Americans leave?
There is the chance of a resolution if the US leaves and lets Iraqis try to settle it, yes.
It will never get better as long as the US is there.
And the resistance is winning.
Just like in Vietnam.
Just like in Vietnam, we are prohibited from talking to “the enemy.” So we really don’t know whether resolution is possible. But we do know all sides (except Al Queda) want the same thing: the U.S. out, and a move beyond the current chaos toward a fair sharing of power. Why this can’t be negotiated– with or without our troops still there (and I tend to think a solution is more likely BEFORE we pull out– is beyond me. Except that none of the powers that be on the U.S. side seem to really want the war to end.
My Rule #1 of conflict analysis: It’s never about what the combatants say it’s about.
My Rule #2: Where a conflict exists, it’s because it serves someone– usually someone on both sides.
I’m reading and will post a review soon of “Buda’s Bomb. A Short History of the Car Bomb.” Car bombs are often successfully used by hardliners to destroy the possibility of peace talks in a dispute.
I’m with DJ in that I think a settlement could be negotiated if we use the threat of withdrawal wisely, ie, to scare the Shi’a into realizing that the Ba’athists have most of Saddam’s arms and will come out fighting openly if the US leaves. The Kurdish problem is more thorny and has the potential of dragging in Turkey and even Iran if it’s not handled carefully, not something that it likely or possible by this administration.
I don’t see the secular Sunnis giving in to theocratic Shi’a rule, especially after centuries of bieng the 15% that runs the government. All this was clear, of course, before we went in.
Hegemony in the Middle East has been a stated goal of US foreign policy for decades under both parties. That’s why they’re there. The chances of the US doing the noble thing and negotiating a withdrawal are, I think, slim and none.
Plus, few if any of the other parties have the slightest reason to trust the US.
Trying to play one faction of against another has had disastrous consequences there and is just more imperialism, as in, the US knows what’s best for you and you don’t.
Beacause those who benefit from war are usually in charge (at least of the combatant forces, else they wouldn’t be fighting), the ONLY way a settlement can be negotiated is by mobilizing the constituencies of those in charge. External political pressure can help, but without the voice of the people, the leaders will continue to fight. And it can’t be a one-sided process. All parties have to be pressured at the same time.
This isn’t an easy path: witness our near success in Sri Lanka in 2001, after two decades of fighting, which promptly returned to conflict because the peace movement didn’t follow through after the Cease Fire Agreement. (I do not exempt myself from blame for this, either.) Nevertheless, I continue to believe it is the only hope for most conflicts today.