"...do not comply with the orders of the army or police..."

Here's what the situation has come to in Iraq, for civilians.

"The Ministry of Defense requests that civilians do not comply with the orders of the army or police on nightly patrols unless they are accompanied by coalition forces working in that area."

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
Entry from Tuesday, March 26

It's just wonderful to see what $400B (and counting) can do for a country.

Very soon, I think we WILL have the justification to stay in Iraq -- to prevent Iraqis from a Yugoslavia-style mutual genocide.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Very soon, I think we WILL have the justification to stay in Iraq -- to prevent Iraqis from a Yugoslavia-style mutual genocide.

And if you are a Realist instead of a Neocon or Liberal Interventionist, you won't be able to escape the conclusion that that is NOT a justification to stay in Iraq.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Very soon, I think we WILL have the justification to stay in Iraq -- to prevent Iraqis from a Yugoslavia-style mutual genocide.

The killing of of ethnicities has been going on in that country, in that region, for many thousands of years. It's sort of like "Say, if we pour enough water on the sun, it should go out, right?"

Mills of the Serengeti wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Very soon, I think we WILL have the justification to stay in Iraq -- to prevent Iraqis from a Yugoslavia-style mutual genocide.

The killing of of ethnicities has been going on in that country, in that region, for many thousands of years. It's sort of like "Say, if we pour enough water on the sun, it should go out, right?"

I actually disagree with that. From everything I've read on the subject, the concept of a widespread ownership of sectarian violence is a relatively recent thing. It was mainly brought about through the power vacuum left behind after the fall of Saddam. That being said, it is a reality now and we aren't going to stop it.

Paleocon: disagreeing with abso-frickin'-lutely everyone since 2005!

Elysium wrote:

Paleocon: disagreeing with abso-frickin'-lutely everyone since 2005! ;)

No I don't!

Left blank

I actually disagree with that. From everything I've read on the subject, the concept of a widespread ownership of sectarian violence is a relatively recent thing. It was mainly brought about through the power vacuum left behind after the fall of Saddam. That being said, it is a reality now and we aren't going to stop it.

Actually, wasn't Saddam himself a major proponent of sectarian violence, even genocide?

Nomad wrote:
I actually disagree with that. From everything I've read on the subject, the concept of a widespread ownership of sectarian violence is a relatively recent thing. It was mainly brought about through the power vacuum left behind after the fall of Saddam. That being said, it is a reality now and we aren't going to stop it.

Actually, wasn't Saddam himself a major proponent of sectarian violence, even genocide?

That's a bit of a misreading. Saddam, although clearly brutal, was mostly so in a manner of supporting a Pan-Arabist, secular agenda. Christians, for instance, were a protected minority in his cabinet. There were secular divisions, but much of that was exacerbated by foreign influence. SCIRI, for example, was effectively a covert wing of the Iranian Supreme Council.

The majority of residents in the greater Baghdad metropolitan area were either not concerned or not aware of their sectarian identity until after the fall of Saddam. Many of those families intermarried. Now, it appears, that is the heart of the most intense violence.

Actually, wasn't Saddam himself a major proponent of sectarian violence, even genocide?

How do you mean, Nomad? I believe he was willing to kill any opponents of his regime, no matter what creed or ethnicity they were.

Paleo wrote:

The majority of residents in the greater Baghdad metropolitan area were either not concerned or not aware of their sectarian identity until after the fall of Saddam. Many of those families intermarried. Now, it appears, that is the heart of the most intense violence.

Exactly. I have heard a lot of interviews with Iraqis recently that confirm this. They state that they simply didn't know or care what sect their neighbors belonged to. Now they are brutally aware of these things.

Sadam was a uniter not a divider, baby! (J/K)

I just read the article and have to say that that is possibly the most screwed up thing I've read in a while. Basically, they are making announcements that you should not open the door and let folks in at night unless there are Americans in the breach party. Considering that the Coalition forces are making an effort to lead with Iraqi forces, there is no way in hell that a groggy resident is going to be able to tell there is a white guy in camo dressing 60 feet behind the breach team manning the .50 of a Humvee.

I foresee this order leading to a LOT of dead innocent Iraqis defending their homes from folks they believe to be abductors.

Why doesn't the media report the success stories in Iraq? For instance, guys who own gun shops are doing great over there:

Sectarian Strife Fuels Gun Sales in Baghdad

Paleocon wrote:

I just read the article and have to say that that is possibly the most screwed up thing I've read in a while. Basically, they are making announcements that you should not open the door and let folks in at night unless there are Americans in the breach party. Considering that the Coalition forces are making an effort to lead with Iraqi forces, there is no way in hell that a groggy resident is going to be able to tell there is a white guy in camo dressing 60 feet behind the breach team manning the .50 of a Humvee.

I foresee this order leading to a LOT of dead innocent Iraqis defending their homes from folks they believe to be abductors.

The solution is obvious: Design a special suit for the Americans to wear made of platinum and diamonds. Every American soldier gets one, officers get two. That way the citizens can easily recognize the good guys and the bad guys can't afford to fake it.

Second solution: (slap me if I've mentioned this before) Send Saddam back with a Nobel Peace Prize stapled to his butt and apologize.

How do you mean, Nomad? I believe he was willing to kill any opponents of his regime, no matter what creed or ethnicity they were.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/45...
http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/h...
http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.as...
http://www.newyorker.com/online/cont...
http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspective...

Here is a quote from this >>>article<<<. WARNING: This article includes a fairly graphic picture of death.

According to HRW/ME, "at least fifty thousand rural Kurds ... died in Anfal alone, and very possibly the real figure was twice that number ... All told, the total number of Kurds killed over the decade since the Barzani men were taken from their homes is well into six figures." "On the basis of extensive interviews in Kurdistan and perusal of extant Iraqi documents, Shoresh Resoul, a meticulous Kurdish researcher ... conservatively estimated that 'between 60,000 and 110,000' died during [al-]Majid's Kurdish mandate," i.e., beginning shortly before Anfal and ending shortly afterwards. (Randal, After Such Knowledge ..., p. 214.) Other Kurdish estimates are even higher. "When Kurdish leaders met with Iraqi government officials in the wake of the spring 1991 uprising, they raised the question of the Anfal dead and mentioned a figure of 182,000 -- a rough extrapolation based on the number of destroyed villages. Ali Hassan al-Majid reportedly jumped to his feet in a rage when the discussion took this turn. 'What is this exaggerated figure of 182,000?' he is said to have asked. 'It couldn't have been more than 100,000' -- as if this somehow mitigated the catastrophe that he and his subordinates had visited on the Iraqi Kurds." (Iraq's Crime of Genocide, pp. 14, 230.)

This is undisputible evidence of genocide, and it took me all of 5 mins using Google.

This is undisputible evidence of genocide, and it took me all of 5 mins using Google.

He also slaughtered Shi'ites en masse, displaced and killed large numbers of the Marsh Arabs while destroying their environment, and engaged in campaigns of terror against Sunni families and clans even within his political support base. Arguing that he was sectarian ignores the fact that he used violence against *anyone* who opposed his regime.

Saddam acted against his opponents not based on their sect or ethnicity, but based on the magnitude of the perceived threat. Iraq under Saddam saw institutionalized violence, but not violence driven by militias and religious allegiance as we see today. This is a fundamental shift for the country, although in no way an improvement.

Talk about timing...

Check out the front page of CNN today.

Looks like genocide to me.

Nomad, you are dancing away from your comment. Sectarian violence is not genocide. Saddam practiced genocide, I believe, but his violence was not sectarian in origin, which was to me the controversial claim you made. Violence in Iraq today is different in motivation from that under Saddam; that is, sectarian violence has not been the norm until the last few years, at least for the history of Iraq since the British rule.

Feel free to correct me about that. I'm still a bit sketchy on the nature of the conflicts that took place between the 20's and the late 70's, but my recollection is that they were mostly between Baathists and their opponents, not general Sunni/Shi'ite violence as is seen today.

Dancing away from my comment?

The actual title of today's front page article on cnn.com was " Hussein Charged With Genocide". I don't know how it gets any more obvious than that. The article even went so far as to give the actual definion of genocide as follows.

GENOCIDE
Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, including:
# Killing members of the group
# Causing serious bodily or mental harm
# Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction
# Imposing measures intended to prevent births
# Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

As defined in the statutes of the Iraqi Special Tribunal in accordance with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948

I'm not quite sure why you are even arguing this point. It seems clear to me that Saddam was a major proponent of genocide, as the prosecutors and most of the world would agree. It may not be all daffodills and lollipops in Iraq, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking things are worse off for the average citizen than before the war.

Nomad wrote:

Dancing away from my comment?

The actual title of today's front page article on cnn.com was " Hussein Charged With Genocide". I don't know how it gets any more obvious than that. The article even went so far as to give the actual definion of genocide as follows.

GENOCIDE
Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, including:
# Killing members of the group
# Causing serious bodily or mental harm
# Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction
# Imposing measures intended to prevent births
# Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

As defined in the statutes of the Iraqi Special Tribunal in accordance with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948

I'm not quite sure why you are even arguing this point. It seems clear to me that Saddam was a major proponent of genocide, as the prosecutors and most of the world would agree. It may not be all daffodills and lollipops in Iraq, but lets not kid ourselves into thinking things are worse off for the average citizen than before the war.

He was arguing your use of the word sectarian, not that it wasn't Genocide. You're either missing his obvious point or dancing away from it as he said..

Yup. That screaching sound you hear is the sound of the goalposts being moved.

The Russian extermination of Chechans can easily be characterized as "genocide" (largely a political term), but it is very difficult to argue that it is sectarian in nature. The same can be argued of the American massacres of Mexicans in 1848.

The issue here is whether or not Iraqis, prior to the current era, self-identified as "Shiite" or "Sunni" as a matter of primary allegiance. The evidence suggests that the answer is clearly NO and that the power vacuum created by the bungling of the Bush Administration created an environment in which only the most radical sectarian elements could thrive.