Its not a civil war...

[Ziggurat]

In his final years Saddam was killing members of his tribe, his clan, his family, as the noose of trust closed in on him. There are plenty of precedents to leaders like that being overthrown.

Yes. It happens all the time in Africa. And the replacement is generally a dictator as well, and given the almost certainty that his successor would also be a Ba'athist, we'd still almost certainly be left facing a dangerous dictator who opposed our interests. Perhaps one more rational and realistic than Saddam, but not likely one with democratic aspirations for the country.

 

[davefoc]

Yes. It happens all the time in Africa. And the replacement is generally a dictator as well, and given the almost certainty that his successor would also be a Ba'athist, we'd still almost certainly be left facing a dangerous dictator who opposed our interests. Perhaps one more rational and realistic than Saddam, but not likely one with democratic aspirations for the country.

Yes, and which ones of those African countries do you think the US should invade, depose the ruler and impose a Democratic government on?

FWIW, my point wasn't that the fall of Hussein by whatever means was likely to result in a Democratic government in Iraq. My point was that this was just one of many possibilities that needs to be considered when deciding whether this Iraq war was beneficial. And it seems just about impossible to decide how likely each of the various scenarios would be. But as difficult as it was to decide how likely the various scenarios are without a war deciding how likely the various scenarios were with a war was even more difficult. Which is certainly a reason to not be too ready to jump from one big pool of unknowns into the even larger pool of unknowns created by the war.

So now we've had three years of fairly bad stuff happening. It is now clear given the lack of WMD that there was no imminent threat that needed to be dealt with by an immediate preemptive war.

So one important scenario that needs to be evaluated as part of any analysis as to whether this war in the end will prove more beneficial than the alternatives is to look at the possibility of the US and the UK maintaining the status quo, in that time working closely with Iraq's neighbors to respond to possible threats and seeing what happens. Maybe a bloody coup ends in a more moderate Iraq, maybe Hussein realizes his military options are limited and moderates himself, something like Kadafi seems to have. So there were at least some non-war scenarios that had a chance to succeed, exactly how much of a chance will never be known but an attempt was not made to find out. Instead the war was initiated based on lies and made up evidence which were used to create a false impression of imminent threat..

 

[Kerberos]

That definition does nothing though to convey the changes going on in Iraq now. Per that pedantic and narrow definition...

You mean the correct one?

...there has been civil war in Iraq for the last 3 years. Also there has been civil war in Afghanistan, in Palestine, in Spain, in Peru, in Pakistan....etc....etc....etc....

All these places and more conform to the narrow definition you found.

No. not really you see to qualify as a civil war ıt has to qualify - as suprises of suprises - a war.

...However; a proper civil war tends to dissolve or splinter the government into warring factions.

Sure, that happens quite often in civil wars, but it's not a requırement.

...Since the government in Baghdad is still talking to each other and not out leading their factions in battle against each other I'd say the re-packaging of Iraq as a nation sundered by civil war is at best premature.

As I saıd I don't consider it a civil war, but it's a questıon of scala and how oeganized and open the fıghtıng is, not if the governement splinters.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes. It happens all the time in Africa. And the replacement is generally a dictator as well, and given the almost certainty that his successor would also be a Ba'athist, we'd still almost certainly be left facing a dangerous dictator who opposed our interests. Perhaps one more rational and realistic than Saddam, but not likely one with democratic aspirations for the country.

The Iraq War wasn't motivated by bringing democracy to Iraq. It was about de-fusing Iraq as a threat. Had Saddam been removed by, say, a group of military and police officers who immediately and publicly asked for a dialogue with the US and the end to all this madness ... would they be any more reprehensible than General Musharraf?

There's no chaotic interlude, the new regime is reasonably popular because sanctions are lifted, Iran is feeling far more nervous than it is at the moment, Iraqi democracy is coming but now is not the right time. The country must be made ready for democracy.

So no democracy but things are much better than they were for Iraqis, the US has a new regional friend and an ex-enemy, Haliburton still gets lots of contracts. Considerably better outcome - if not for the Iranians - than what we've seen.

 

[CapelDodger]

They were secular? And they chose the current site of Israel why exactly?

They were building a nation from a recipe - really - and in the recipe is national myths and symbols. Those are to be found in Palestine.

Theodor Herzl wasn't actually picky about where it was (sorry, Cleon). He wanted to be the Founder of a Nation, he considered Kenya and Argentina. He had only the fuzziest idea of nationalism and Judaism. It was the nationalist theorists who insisted on Palestine as the only place that would get any traction in the Jewish community. That was finally settled, IIRC, in 1905 at the 6th Zionist Conference.

 

[CapelDodger]

The story is indicative of a real trend which is eqasily observable even if you track all attacks: the number of attacks against US and coalition troops is dropping significantly, and so are US and coalition casualties.

I would hope that the US forces have been adjusting their tactics and SOP to take account of experience. This is only to be expected.

Attacks on US forces are carried out for prestige purposes these days, IMO. They're an on-going factor that can be factored in. One day they'll be gone, not because they're driven out but because they have something spinnable to leave behind. The Baathist-Badrist struggle going on now is about the shape of that something.

The Islamists have their own crackpot agenda, but they're a chip the post-Baathists can cash in anytime, as part of a deal.

 

[corplinx]

xx

 

[Dr Adequate]

... but when you look around the neighborhood they're in, they are quite CLEARLY the only country in the region capable of thinking even remotely rationally.

Damning with faint praise, I think.

"Welcome to Israel --- still saner than the rest of the Middle East."