...And so began the Iraqi Civil War

Remove all ads!

@Bion - I wasn't seriously suggesting that bringing back Saddam was a feasible option. I said it to prove a point that things were safer for most Iraqis before he was removed from power. I agree that bringing him back now is just not possible, and won't ever happen. Still, it seems to me that Saddam was capable of doing a much better job of keeping terrorist groups under control that the U.S. is doing right now. Granted, part of the reason terrorists weren't as big of a deal with Saddam was that they shared a common ethnicity and religion. In other words, terrorist like to terrorize people who are different than they are, and it doesn't work too well when everyone is both Arab and Islamic. Although that does not explain the rash of sectarian violence we've seen recently, does it?

 

I disagree here. I think the part with terrorists like to terrorize people that are different is huge misconception. It's more the opposite. La terreur in terror is that it is your neighbour that's after you. Most countries in that part of the world (Middle-East and North-Africa) are plagued by some kind of low-level civil war that's mostly done through terroristic means throughout the last 100 years and more. The main part of the victims and their killers are pretty much the same people. That's the same for Nigeria, Somalia, Algeria, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, Lybia, Marroko... (And Egypt. Damn Egypt. Egypt is a good example for a non ending civl war that yearly takes its toll through terroristic acts. Mostly Egyptians, but sometimes, tourists too. And Presidents)

Saddam was himself a terrorist and with his iron hand, he managed actually to repress a civil war that in reality is looming since Iraq was founded. Founded after the First world war out of three random Ottoman provinces by European colonial powers. It might be that this map-drawing in Europe is not the best fundament for national cohesion. There's the potential civil war.

And to Arabic and islamic... I am European and christian. But I am neither British nor Russian nor Croat nor Dutch. I could be, given the broad description Christian European. But this description contains about 60 tribes, that pretty much all were with war at eachother at some time. The term Islamic/Arab is too broad to contain meaning, to make a differentiation.

 

No it did not.
But IMHO there were two fundamental problems with the whole issue of invading Iraq.

First it was the fact that US administration made a plan based on counteractions and actions that the Iraqies would do as if they were US and not Iraq. Which is beggan to show right after the successfull outcome of the invasion.

Secondly the arguments for the invasion, were lies and even though at the beginning that was a speculation (or not so widely accepted), the events made this a fact. Which of course added to the hatred an Iraqie can feel for the US, since the invasion is not easily justified anymore, not even with the ousting of Shaddamm from the power.

As for the terrorist argument, terrorists do not look upon ethnicities. They prefer to be part of the people, because that makes the whole thing more frightening for the rest, and because they can easier hide in a mob that looks like them (in matter of race that is).
What we watch now in Iraq is not terrorism, it is a religious conflict between two sects of the same religion. Nothing unheard of. And the US soldiers are more likely to end up in the middle of the fight than to manage to hold it down.
I've read that Rumsfeld said that US army will not involve in this civil war. Well if the soldiers are there, at some point they will whether US wishes it or not.