Is Reconcilation Possible?

**Ironduke** · 04-21-2007, 01:16 AM

With intercommunal violence at its worst levels, is reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites possible? Gates has said that the "surge" is buying valuable time for Iraqis to reconcile their problems, but the only news I see coming from Iraq are gunnings, executions, and suicide bombings...

What is the solution to the situation in Iraq? Partition? That option would not be acceptable to the powers that be. What else is there, perhaps a Swiss-style confederation?

Ray · 04-21-2007, 09:35 AM

One hopes.

But history proves otherwise!

**Shek** · 04-21-2007, 21:15 PM

30% of Iraqi marriages are mixed, i.e. a Shia-Sunni marriage. Many tribes have both Shia and Sunni factions. Thus, there are familial ties. Additionally, despite the fact that Iraq was a modern nation-state creation, a shared Iraqi identity was built amonst the Shia and Sunni, as not all Sunni shared the spoils of Saddam's reign, especially in the later years as Saddam's inner circle became more and more a familial and tribal cast of characters.

That is the foundation that exists. However, the past four years have been hard, and so there is definitely some strain. Are the sectarian tensions that have been fomented by AQI, which eventually unleashed the fury of Sadr's and Badr's death squads and created a cycle of violence once Sistani could no longer keep Sadr's and Badr's minions in check, irreversible? I don't think so. It will take a secure state to eliminate the zero sum game and Hobbesian behaviors that have been created in the security vacuum, but I think that this is achievable.

**Shek** · 04-21-2007, 21:17 PM

30% of Iraqi marriages are mixed, i.e. a Shia-Sunni marriage. Many tribes have both Shia and Sunni factions. Thus, there are familial ties. Additionally, despite the fact that Iraq was a modern nation-state creation, a shared Iraqi identity was built amonst the Shia and Sunni, as not all Sunni shared the spoils of Saddam's reign, especially in the later years as Saddam's inner circle became more and more a familial and tribal cast of characters.

That is the foundation that exists. However, the past four years have been hard, and so there is definitely some strain. Are the sectarian tensions that have been fomented by AQI, which eventually unleashed the fury of Sadr's and Badr's death squads and created a cycle of violence once Sistani could no longer keep Sadr's and Badr's minions in check, irreversible? I don't think so. It will take a secure state to eliminate the zero sum game and Hobbesian behaviors that have been created in the security vacuum, but I think that this is achievable.

Ray · 04-25-2007, 13:50 PM

This input is also of interest:

Quote:

The last thing the Middle East's main players want is US troops to leave Iraq

Across the region, ordinary people want the Americans out. But from Israel to al-Qaida, political groups and states have other ideas

Hussein Agha
Wednesday April 25, 2007
The Guardian

Overt political debate in the Middle East is hostile to the American occupation of Iraq and dominated by calls for it to end sooner rather than later. No less a figure than King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, arguably the United States' closest Arab ally, has declared the occupation of Iraq "illegal" and "illegitimate". Real intentions, however, are different. States and local political groups might not admit it - because of public opinion - but they do not want to see the back of the Americans. Not yet.

For this there is a simple reason: while the US can no longer successfully manipulate regional actors to carry out its plans, regional actors have learned to use the US presence to promote their own objectives. Quietly and against the deeply held wishes of their populations, they have managed to keep the Americans engaged with the hope of some elusive victory.

The so-called axis of moderate Arab states - comprising Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan - dreads an early US withdrawal. First, because it would be widely interpreted as an American defeat, which would weaken these pro-American regimes while both energising and radicalising their populations.

Second, if the US leaves, the emergence of a Shia regime in Iraq - in itself an offensive prospect to them - would only be a matter of time. Facing Arab antipathy, this regime would be likely to look eastward and forge close ties with its Iranian co-religionists. In the view of most Arabs, this would present a formidable challenge, setting in motion a series of dangerous events - an Iranian-Iraqi alliance; political and material support from Arab countries being offered to disgruntled Iraqi Sunni groups; retaliation by Iraqi forces; and the threat of broader regional involvement.

Third, a US departure risks triggering Iraq's partition. As some Arabs see it, the occupation is what holds the country together. So long as coalition forces are deployed, a full-blown breakup can be avoided.

In contrast, with the Americans gone, the odds of partition would increase dramatically, presenting a threat to the integrity and security of regional states. Exacerbating dormant, and in some cases not so dormant, secessionist tendencies would be one concern. Perhaps more worrying would be the ensuing challenge to the legitimacy of the fundamental tenets of nationhood, state, and national borders.

Paradoxically, the competing axis of so-called rogue states made up of Syria and Iran also wants the US to stay. So long as America remains mired in Iraq's quicksand, they think, it will be difficult for it to embark on a similar adventure nearby. This is true not only politically - the quagmire standing as a stark reminder of the invasion's failure - but also militarily: US capabilities will remain stretched for as long as the occupation continues.

Moreover, American forces in Iraq present relatively soft targets for retaliation in case Iran or Syria is attacked. In short, whether or not Syria and Iran are correct in their calculations, the occupation of Iraq is seen as the most effective insurance policy against a possible US attack against them.

For Turkey, America's presence ensures that the national aspirations of Iraq's Kurds will not metamorphose into a fully fledged independent state, a strict red line for Ankara, which has its own irredentist Kurdish problem. By containing Kurdish ambitions, the US diminishes the probability of a costly and uncertain Turkish military campaign to thwart them. Nor is Turkey attracted to the prospect of an Iraqi Shia state allied to Iran and tolerant of Kurdish aspirations - an outcome it hopes the occupation will make less likely.

For Israel too, an American withdrawal could spell disaster. Already, nothing has dented Israeli deterrence more than America's performance in Iraq - an inspiration to Israel's Arab foes that even the mightiest can be brought to heel. An early withdrawal, coming in the wake of last summer's Lebanon war, could put Israel in a dangerous position, handing a victory to Iran - the latest putative threat to Israel's existence - and providing a boost to Syria which may be considering military options to recover the Golan Heights.

There are risks for the smaller Gulf states too. With their large Shia communities and heavy dependence on American protection, they would be threatened by an early US departure from Iraq. In Bahrain, home to an unhappy Shia majority, the fallout could be imminent.

Inside Iraq, this is a period of consolidation for most political groups. They are building up their political and military capabilities, cultivating and forging alliances, clarifying political objectives and preparing for impending challenges. It is not the moment for all-out confrontation. No group has the confidence or capacity decisively to confront rivals within its own community or across communal lines. Equally, no party is genuinely interested in a serious process of national reconciliation when they feel they can improve their position later on. A continued American presence is consistent with both concerns - it can keep clashes manageable and be used to postpone the need for serious political engagement.

Shias in government would like the US to stay long enough for them to tighten their grip on the levers of state power and build a loyal military. Those Shias who are not in power would like them to stay long enough to avoid a premature showdown with their rivals. Militant Shia groups can simultaneously blame the occupation forces for their community's plight and attack them to mobilise further support. Pro-Iranian Shias, meanwhile, retaliate against anti-Iranian US moves with attacks on Americans in Iraq.

Al-Qaida and its affiliates arguably benefit most from the occupation. They established themselves, brought in recruits, sustained operations against the Americans and expanded. The last thing they want is for the Americans to leave and deny them targets and motivation for new members. Other Sunni armed groups need the Americans for similar reasons and for protection against Shias. For Sunni politicians, the occupation prevents a total Shia takeover of state institutions and helps increase their influence.

Of all ethnic groups, the Kurds have made best use of the Americans. Protected by the US from their powerful and ruthless historical foes, Arab and Turk, they have built quasi-independent institutions and prospered amid relative security. They have no reason to want this situation to end.

In common with neighbouring states, Iraqi Shias, Sunnis and Kurds are united in being able to use the Americans' presence to pursue separate and often conflicting political agendas. The grand disconnect in the region is between the political sentiments of ordinary people, which are overwhelmingly for an end to occupation, and the political calculations of leaders, which emphasise the benefits of using the Americans and consequently of extending their stay - at least for the time being.

In this grim picture, the Americans appear the least sure and most confused. With unattainable objectives, wobbly plans, changing tactics, shifting alliances and ever-increasing casualties, it is not clear any longer what they want or how they are going to achieve it. By setting themselves up to be manipulated, they give credence to an old Arab saying: the magic has taken over the magician.

· Hussein Agha is a senior associate member of St Antony's College, Oxford
comment@guardian.co.uk

Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | The last thing the Middle East's main players want is US troops to leave Iraq

Ray · 05-10-2007, 03:41 AM

Add this new dimension:

Quote:

The assault on Assyrian Christians

By Paul Isaac
Published: May 8, 2007

WASHINGTON:

A militant Islamic group in Iraq recently issued a fatwa, or religious edict, to the Assyrian Christian residents of the Baghdad suburb of Dora: Convert to Islam within 24 hours, or face death. At the same time, Muslim neighbors were instructed, over the loudspeakers of local mosques, to confiscate the property of Christians and enforce the edict.

Iraq's Assyrian Christians know quite well that these latest threats are not empty promises. Since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, over 25 churches across Iraq have been bombed, in highly symbolic and coordinated manners. The Islamic group claiming responsibility for the bombing of four churches in August 2004 issued a warning. "To the people of the crosses: Return to your senses and be aware that God's soldiers are ready for you. You wanted a crusade and these are its results."

Several priests have been abducted and beheaded, one in apparent retribution for the pope's public musings about Muhammed and the nature of Islam in October 2006. In March, two elderly nuns were reportedly stabbed to death in Kirkuk. Several Christian women have been beheaded or doused with chemicals for failing to wear the veil. And last October a 14-year-old Assyrian boy was crucified near Mosul.

More at:

The assault on Assyrian Christians - International Herald Tribune

How disgusting can it get?

Where are those advocates of 'peaceful religion' and 'not converting by the Sword@ votaries?!

04-21-2007, 01:16 AM	#1 (permalink)
Ironduke Burgomaster Join Date: 08-02-03 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 6,786 Country:	Is Reconcilation Possible? With intercommunal violence at its worst levels, is reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites possible? Gates has said that the "surge" is buying valuable time for Iraqis to reconcile their problems, but the only news I see coming from Iraq are gunnings, executions, and suicide bombings... What is the solution to the situation in Iraq? Partition? That option would not be acceptable to the powers that be. What else is there, perhaps a Swiss-style confederation? __________________ The Buck Stops Here

04-21-2007, 09:35 AM	#2 (permalink)
Ray Postmaster General *Military Professional* Join Date: 08-20-03 Posts: 25,850 Country:	One hopes. But history proves otherwise! __________________ "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA

04-21-2007, 21:15 PM	#3 (permalink)
Shek Moderator Join Date: 02-23-05 Location: Krblachistan Posts: 7,532 Country:	30% of Iraqi marriages are mixed, i.e. a Shia-Sunni marriage. Many tribes have both Shia and Sunni factions. Thus, there are familial ties. Additionally, despite the fact that Iraq was a modern nation-state creation, a shared Iraqi identity was built amonst the Shia and Sunni, as not all Sunni shared the spoils of Saddam's reign, especially in the later years as Saddam's inner circle became more and more a familial and tribal cast of characters. That is the foundation that exists. However, the past four years have been hard, and so there is definitely some strain. Are the sectarian tensions that have been fomented by AQI, which eventually unleashed the fury of Sadr's and Badr's death squads and created a cycle of violence once Sistani could no longer keep Sadr's and Badr's minions in check, irreversible? I don't think so. It will take a secure state to eliminate the zero sum game and Hobbesian behaviors that have been created in the security vacuum, but I think that this is achievable. __________________ "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

04-21-2007, 21:17 PM	#4 (permalink)
Shek Moderator Join Date: 02-23-05 Location: Krblachistan Posts: 7,532 Country:	30% of Iraqi marriages are mixed, i.e. a Shia-Sunni marriage. Many tribes have both Shia and Sunni factions. Thus, there are familial ties. Additionally, despite the fact that Iraq was a modern nation-state creation, a shared Iraqi identity was built amonst the Shia and Sunni, as not all Sunni shared the spoils of Saddam's reign, especially in the later years as Saddam's inner circle became more and more a familial and tribal cast of characters. That is the foundation that exists. However, the past four years have been hard, and so there is definitely some strain. Are the sectarian tensions that have been fomented by AQI, which eventually unleashed the fury of Sadr's and Badr's death squads and created a cycle of violence once Sistani could no longer keep Sadr's and Badr's minions in check, irreversible? I don't think so. It will take a secure state to eliminate the zero sum game and Hobbesian behaviors that have been created in the security vacuum, but I think that this is achievable.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)