The End of Iraq
There were pretty big peaceful demonstrations against the election results in Iraq today after Friday prayers. The main groups in the streets were the Sunnis joined by a much smaller contingent of secular Shia who don't want their country to fall into the hands of hardline religionists(just like me.)
They are threatening to boycott parliament(approx 80 seats out of 275) and are already obliquely making statements threatening further violence. Looking at what I see as the possible mid term outcomes for the Iraqis, it is essential that a significant portion of these 80 or so parliamentarians be convinced to participate in the government.
I've been thinking alot about the possible outcomes in Iraq for the Iraqis, and here's a short list of possibilities going from best to worst case outcomes.
1. Somewhat turbulently, the fledgling Iraqi parliament comes together and manages to form a government that almost all factions accept. This would involve significant concessions on all sides, and my sense is that at this point, with the extremists winning the elections on both sides, this is not the current will of the people, so I would rate it as fairly unlikely without a really unique leadership.
2. A Shia government forms and manages to corral enough of the anti Shia factions to form a government. Violence is still carried out, but the cooperation of some Sunnis marginalizes the remaining fighters and turns the violence from sectarian to anti-Iraq.
3. A religionist Shia dominated government forms with which the Sunnis refuse to participate to some degree, and in that we get a civil war with many possible midterm outcomes.
We'd better really get going to guarantee that results one or two take place, the formation of a viable government with at least some Sunni and secular participation to give it legitimization in the eyes of the people. Because after looking at the battle lines of a civil war, and the vast amount of munitions spread throughout the country, that outcome would be even more disastrous than where we are now with Iraq occupied by a foreign power.
And, I do believe that a large portion of Iraqi society wants no part in current or future violence, but, again looking at historical examples, it takes only a small dedicated percentage actively fighting to keep a civil war going. And, whether they support the violence or not, history also shows that the civilians of the warring ethnic factions will suffer the most.
What a freakin' mess. Who the hell thought this was a good idea?
No, Cassandra, there is no Santa Claus in Iraq.
I'll go back to Christmas posting tomorrow. But this has just been on my mind for the last day or so and wanted to get it out.
They are threatening to boycott parliament(approx 80 seats out of 275) and are already obliquely making statements threatening further violence. Looking at what I see as the possible mid term outcomes for the Iraqis, it is essential that a significant portion of these 80 or so parliamentarians be convinced to participate in the government.
I've been thinking alot about the possible outcomes in Iraq for the Iraqis, and here's a short list of possibilities going from best to worst case outcomes.
1. Somewhat turbulently, the fledgling Iraqi parliament comes together and manages to form a government that almost all factions accept. This would involve significant concessions on all sides, and my sense is that at this point, with the extremists winning the elections on both sides, this is not the current will of the people, so I would rate it as fairly unlikely without a really unique leadership.
2. A Shia government forms and manages to corral enough of the anti Shia factions to form a government. Violence is still carried out, but the cooperation of some Sunnis marginalizes the remaining fighters and turns the violence from sectarian to anti-Iraq.
3. A religionist Shia dominated government forms with which the Sunnis refuse to participate to some degree, and in that we get a civil war with many possible midterm outcomes.
And then, of course, there's the issue of the longterm influence Iran has won as a result of our invasion, or the probability of a mass refugee exodus into neighboring countries in the face of increasing violence and the resulting humanitarian crisis that would bring.
a. Both sides continue violence against each other until there is enough blood spilled that the two sides compromise and come to some sort of agreement. I view this as pretty unlikely even with a lot of blood. Historically, this doesn't happen very often.
b. After years of violence, one side has so destroyed the other, that there are no longer enough resources or men left to fight. This would also involve a whole lot of blood, and the winning group would then set one sided terms for the future of Iraq which would guarantee periodic flare ups of violence in the future.
c. A fracturing of Iraq into several smaller countries. At first this sounds like the best option until you consider that although there are heavily Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish regions, there are no recognized historical, geographic, or regional boundaries to fall back on. And not only would the area around the boundaries be contested, but what would happen to the people left inside the other factions' new borders, Sunnis left in Bagdhad for instance. Are we looking at an ethnic cleansing? A mass migration?
We'd better really get going to guarantee that results one or two take place, the formation of a viable government with at least some Sunni and secular participation to give it legitimization in the eyes of the people. Because after looking at the battle lines of a civil war, and the vast amount of munitions spread throughout the country, that outcome would be even more disastrous than where we are now with Iraq occupied by a foreign power.
And, I do believe that a large portion of Iraqi society wants no part in current or future violence, but, again looking at historical examples, it takes only a small dedicated percentage actively fighting to keep a civil war going. And, whether they support the violence or not, history also shows that the civilians of the warring ethnic factions will suffer the most.
What a freakin' mess. Who the hell thought this was a good idea?
No, Cassandra, there is no Santa Claus in Iraq.
I'll go back to Christmas posting tomorrow. But this has just been on my mind for the last day or so and wanted to get it out.
posted by mikevotes at
5:28 PM
4 Comments:
The exodus of refugees is already occuring, though not outside the boarders...yet. Shiites and Sunnis have been abandoning their traditional neighborhoods for over a year now due to escalating sectarian violence.
Your spot on. The breakup is coming.
By
Anonymous, at 7:18 PM
But don't forget about the oil. Like the 3rd largest reserves in the world?
Oil in the north. Oil in the south. No oil in the middle. No oil = no money.
If breakup occurs, it will only happen after a bloody civil war in which the middle (the sunni's) losses, and losses big.
By
greyhair, at 11:01 AM
OH. And....
Don't forget that Shia makes up about 10% of Muslims in the world. Iraq and Iran are surrounded by Sunni's. How will they feel about a majority Shia theocracy, closely allied with Iran, running a country will all that oil.
And what about Israel? Anyone sincerely think they'll sit back quietly with a nuclear Iran -> Iraq? Uh huh.
By
greyhair, at 11:05 AM
Good points, Greyhair. I did leave out the resource battles.
Also, good mention about the greater regional possibilities. I left them out, but, yes, we do have a fair possibility of a regional religious war. The one restricting factor on that is that all the countries involved would also have to find some way to deal with their minority populations. Most of the Sunni dominated countries of the region have already unhappy Shia minorities somewhere within their borders. But it could spin into a Shia Iran vs. nearly everybody regional war.
More likely, I would expect the various foreign governments to fund their sides in Iraq creating a proxy war. But that would mean that fuel would be continually added to the Iraq conflict and that it would not cool down for decades.
Good points, thanks for the comment.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:27 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home