There is no question this is a civil war. And I agree with some who say it is worse. This is the kind of violence that unless there is a greater power intervening, these people will kill themselves to the last man. That's the kind of hatred I see daily over there. This civil war is not about who controls the country. We're way past that with some of these groups. This is now about vengeance and hatred. They kill my brothers, so I must go kill theirs. This is a well lit fire, with plenty of backwind to keep it going.

Posted by: Dan at December 5, 2006 01:48 AM | Permalink to this comment

And in terms of the erstwhile Iraqi Army taking over the burden, this is also a must-read:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-fadhil4dec04,1,6609137.story?coll=la-headlines-world

I've read some things where the Sunni resistance thinks it can take over the Green Zone at any time. With us still there--and our air support, I wonder. With the Iraqi Army there, I'm afraid I would have to bet on the Baathist resistance.

Posted by: dell at December 5, 2006 04:01 AM | Permalink to this comment

Which is to say, our policymakers need to understand at very least that significant ethnic cleansing is taking place in certain parts of Iraq, and that Baghdad today is seeing conditions not unlike (and often worse) those that prevailed in Beirut from '75-'91 during the Lebanese Civil War.

Greg... I highlighted the phrase "certain parts" because my perception (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that what we are seeing is not "ethnic cleansing" per se, but indiscrimate revenge killings --- and that these acts are concentrated in Baghdad and its immediate suburbs.

What I'm not reading much about are concerted efforts by Sunni death squads targetting Shia in areas under Sunni control like Anbar (nor withstanding the acts of al Qaeda, whose strategy appears at this point to perform acts of provocation to incite a cycle of revenge killings), or Shia death squads targetting Sunni's in areas under Shiite control (southern Iraq). -- in other words, from what I'm seeing, the presence of Islamic minorities in areas controlled by a majority is being tolerated/accomodated, and the violence is concentrated in those areas where there is no truly "dominant" majority.

The problem, as I see it, is that the continued presence of US troops contributes to the instability in Iraq, and is prevent a "natural" re-organization of Iraq (with Anbar as a virtual Syrian protectorate, and the non-Kurdish areas as virtual Iranian protectorates). It would not be in the interests of either Syria or Iran to engage/support/permit "ethnic cleansing" in the areas under their control --- since both nations have not-insignificant religious minorities within their own borders.

I see a "post-occupation" Iraq as one in which both the Syrians and the Iranians take "harsh measures" to restore order in their respective spheres of influence to restore order -- but that the goal will be the restoration of order, not "ethnic cleansing" as such. (both Syria and Iran would have an abiding interest in getting rid of the "foreign fighters" who are in Iraq under the auspices of al Qaeda --- and I have the feeling a lot of these foreigners will be "disappeared"....)

Posted by: p.lukasiak at December 5, 2006 07:52 AM | Permalink to this comment

I first read Nir Rosen months ago thanks to a link provided by Professor Juan Cole in his blog, Informed Comment. Rosen has been giving the unvarnished truth, not what you wil find in the msm. He is truly embedded in the civil war though his prose is dense and very detailed, requiring an acitve participation with his essays. I like his writing. He gives truth to the power, a true wordsmith, who can bend words to his own will. Of course, one will never find any references to his writing in the deformed Western punditocracy. So, bravo, to your discovery of truth. May it lead you to reasoned opinion in the future for your posts in this blog.

Posted by: george hoffman at December 5, 2006 07:59 AM | Permalink to this comment

p. lukasiak:

Greg... I highlighted the phrase "certain parts" because my perception (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that what we are seeing is not "ethnic cleansing" per se, but indiscrimate revenge killings --- and that these acts are concentrated in Baghdad and its immediate suburbs.

Sorry, both points are incorrect. In addition to revenge killings, people get messages warning them to move out of neighborhoods where they are in the minority. It's not just in Baghdad, but also in Diyala province. The Sunni have been driven out of Balad in Salaheddin province. And, as I noted in an earlier thread, the 'pacification' of Tall Afar seems to have involved ethnic cleansing of much of its Sunni population.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/05/3ed4908e-8ce3-42a8-81a2-65c40090a510.html?rapage=2

http://tinylink.com/?XFcy9kGOjw

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/22/AR2006102201071.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12016224/site/newsweek/

Posted by: David Tomlin at December 5, 2006 10:25 AM | Permalink to this comment

Hi -

I know that this will run counter, but I don't think it's a civil war at all, at least the ways that civil wars have been in the past, with opposing armies in the field (think Spain, Russia, China, Congo and many, many other examples). And it won't become one, because the moment when the opposing armies show each other, they would be instantly pummelled and destroyed by the Americans.

But the root cause for the fighting is much deeper:

http://21stcenturyschizoidman.blogspot.com/2006/12/iraq-and-disaster.html

John

Posted by: John F. Opie at December 5, 2006 04:01 PM | Permalink to this comment

Errmmmm..... Doesn't the very fact that "serious" people play semantic games over the term "civil war" indicate a certain airiness in our foreign policy "discourse"? Would it mollify Bush and Cheney and Rice if we talked instead about the Iraqi "Mad Max-style anarchy"?

Posted by: sglover at December 5, 2006 04:08 PM | Permalink to this comment

We could call it a banana.

Posted by: David Tomlin at December 5, 2006 04:47 PM | Permalink to this comment

Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

Posted by: Martin Morgan at December 5, 2006 08:57 PM | Permalink to this comment

Iraq's not even (NOT EVEN) at such a peaceful state as a civil war.

Posted by: Chris at December 5, 2006 09:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

Having been in Iraq and stayed in Bagdad for quite a while, I can only add my observations. Which are very quickly: Not a civil war, instead tribal revenge based on twenty plus years of deceit and suppression. Using religion as a crutch is the easy way out. The tribes have mixed groups (sunni and shia) within the families. These people are taking out each other as if they were the McCoys and Hatfields. The US made mistakes early on. Chalbi (sp?) was an idiot. We needed a "MacArthur" type Leader in there to set up an authoritian temporary government to stabilize the society, ensure scores were not acted upon. Then after many years, when the populace had matured, handed over power (responsibility and accountability). Instead in our Fast Food World, we thought "hey, democracy is easy, the Iraqi's will love it and get on board quickly". But people forget, one to two generations of Iraqi's have been victimized by oppressive policies (brain washed to an extent). Imagine a kid in a candy store who's not eaten in days. The Iraqi people are in a similiar situation. We in the US expect them to understand the limitations and responsibilities of democracy. We still struggle in the US with our own Federal form of government. And we expect the Iraqi's to "get it" in less than 4 years? No, this is not "Civil War", that implies there is a civil faction to begin with.

Posted by: Calculated at December 6, 2006 12:47 AM | Permalink to this comment

All together now: so there's a civil war in Iraq. How refreshing to affirm that Rome is burning. (We may as well add, as Hitchens reminds, that the place has also become the global salt-lick for terrorism. Hmm...silver lining?) Anyway, polemical minds can now rest easily.

But why the stupefaction overload? For three decades, the Shia got the snot kicked out of them between those epiphanic moments when Allah deconstructed their martyrish soul and when Hussein's angels weren't soiling it with anthrax. Pick your poison.

Along comes team USA, hard-sell democracy in one hand and soft-sell greed it the other, and suddenly the Shia no longer have to play second fiddle. Uh, oh. Somebody email the Sunni-Baathist clan and tell them there's a new species of affirmative action in town-better yet, tell 'em the chickens have come to roost.

Next thing ya' know, Muqtada becomes Baghdad's Torquemada. Everybody duck. Can't say as I blame the young boy. All is fair in love and war. Besides, you try kissing the ass of Usay and Quday (whatever) for thirty years, as daddy Muqtada did and did and did. Hell, I'm surprised the Muslim grand-cyclops Sistani didn't get off his Gandhi-ish perch and pick-up the rod.

There's a point where civil war is the only civil thing to do, ladies.

-resh

Posted by: reshuffle at December 6, 2006 12:54 AM | Permalink to this comment

We needed a "MacArthur" type Leader in there to set up an authoritian temporary government to stabilize the society, ensure scores were not acted upon. Then after many years, when the populace had matured, handed over power (responsibility and accountability)

Well, this is the one thing that would have united the Sunnis and Shia. (Against us.)

Posted by: guy at December 6, 2006 04:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

It is shameful that there are people who claim that the US is in the midst of a "War on Terror," and yet deny that Iraq (with many citizens who are at risk daily) are NOT in a "civil war."

If "war" is the right word to describe what the US is experiencing, than the language needs a significantly stronger term than civil war to describe what is currently happening in Iraq.

Posted by: mccleary at December 7, 2006 02:43 AM | Permalink to this comment