We all know that the Pentagon report was pretty dire, and sectarian violence is on the rise. Neither Shi'ite or Sunni groups recognize Americans as being in legitimate control and would rather fight them than cooperate with them, with a few notable exceptions.

And recently Al Sistani, the leading Shia cleric, said no more politics for him, he is only available for religious instruction. He has given up calling for moderation in the war, and therefore it will likely mean Sadr's radical influence, already very strong, is now much stronger, and he wants to fight Americans.

So do we find ourselves between Sadr's Shi'ite army and Sunni terrorists now?

So when do we call this a civil war in Iraq, with violence spiking in sectarian violence? Is there some indicator of when to officially declare a civil war? Would there have to be some kind of organized military assault by one group against the other? I believe there were around 2000 murdered last month in this type of violence.

It seems that those who called insurgents "dead ender's" who were 'desperate' and 'defeated' are the same ones saying there is no civil war in Iraq, so I obviously cannot believe them.

Good question Danny,

A while back I posted the following article:



http://oldamericancentury.org/bb/index.php...mp;hl=civil+war

I personally think that we need to be in a mop up opperation and in a peace keeping mode. It no longer is about establishing an Iraqi government, and it was never about WMD's, Chem/Bio weapons, nuclear weapons, or ties to al-Qaeda. As long as our undefined "mission" continues to "stay the course," there will be no "victory" as this "Freedom Agenda" was never clearly defined to begin with.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...9/03/wirq03.xml


I no longer have power to save Iraq from civil war, warns Shia leader
By Gethin Chamberlain and Aqeel Hussein in Baghdad
(Filed: 03/09/2006)

An Iraqi Shi'ite supporter of cleric Moqtada Al Sadr
celebrates near a burning US Army truck

The most influential moderate Shia leader in Iraq has abandoned attempts to restrain his followers, admitting that there is nothing he can do to prevent the country sliding towards civil war.

Aides say Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is angry and disappointed that Shias are ignoring his calls for calm and are switching their allegiance in their thousands to more militant groups which promise protection from Sunni violence and revenge for attacks.


Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani
"I will not be a political leader any more," he told aides. "I am only happy to receive questions about religious matters."

It is a devastating blow to the remaining hopes for a peaceful solution in Iraq and spells trouble for British forces, who are based in and around the Shia stronghold of Basra.

The cleric is regarded as the most important Shia religious leader in Iraq and has been a moderating influence since the invasion of 2003. He ended the fighting in Najaf between Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi army and American forces in 2004 and was instrumental in persuading the Shia factions to fight the 2005 elections under the single banner of the United Alliance.

However, the extent to which he has become marginalised was demonstrated last week when fighting broke out in Diwaniya between Iraqi soldiers and al-Sadr's Mehdi army. With dozens dead, al-Sistani's appeals for calm were ignored. Instead, the provincial governor had to travel to Najaf to see al-Sadr, who ended the fighting with one telephone call.

Al-Sistani's aides say that he has chosen to stay silent rather than suffer the ignominy of being ignored. Ali al-Jaberi, a spokesman for the cleric in Khadamiyah, said that he was furious that his followers had turned away from him and ignored his calls for moderation.

Asked whether Ayatollah al-Sistani could prevent a civil war, Mr al-Jaberi replied: "Honestly, I think not. He is very angry, very disappointed."

He said a series of snubs had contributed to Ayatollah al-Sistani's decision. "He asked the politicians to ask the Americans to make a timetable for leaving but they disappointed him," he said. "After the war, the politicians were visiting him every month. If they wanted to do something, they visited him. But no one has visited him for two or three months. He is very angry that this is happening now. He sees this as very bad."

A report from the Pentagon on Friday said that the core conflict in Iraq had changed from a battle against insurgents to an increasingly bloody fight between Shia and Sunni Muslims, creating conditions that could lead to civil war. It noted that attacks rose by 24 per cent to 792 per week – the highest of the war – and daily Iraqi casualties soared by 51 per cent to almost 120, prompting some ordinary Iraqis to look to illegal militias for their safety and sometimes for social needs and welfare.

Hundreds of thousands of people have turned away from al-Sistani to the far more aggressive al-Sadr. Sabah Ali, 22, an engineering student at Baghdad University, said that he had switched allegiance after the murder of his brother by Sunni gunmen. "I went to Sistani asking for revenge for my brother," he said. "They said go to the police, they couldn't do anything.

"But even if the police arrest them, they will release them for money, because the police are bad people. So I went to the al-Sadr office. I told them about the terrorists' family. They said, 'Don't worry, we'll get revenge for your brother'. Two days later, Sadr's people had killed nine of the terrorists, so I felt I had revenge for my brother. I believe Sadr is the only one protecting the Shia against the terrorists."

According to al-Sadr's aides, he owes his success to keeping in touch with the people. "He meets his representatives every week or every day. Sistani only meets his representatives every month," said his spokesman, Sheik Hussein al-Aboudi.

"Muqtada al-Sadr asks them what the situation is on the street, are there any fights against the Shia, he is asking all the time. So the people become close to al-Sadr because he is closer to them than Sistani. Sistani is the ayatollah, he is very expert in Islam, but not as a politician."

Even the Iraqi army seems to have accepted that things have changed. First Lieut Jaffar al-Mayahi, an Iraqi National Guard officer, said many soldiers accepted that al-Sadr's Mehdi army was protecting Shias. "When they go to checkpoints and their vehicles are searched, they say they are Mehdi army and they are allowed through. But if we stop Sistani's people we sometimes arrest them and take away their weapons."

Western diplomats fear that the vacuum will be filled by the more radical Shia clerics, hastening the break-up of the country and an increase in sectarian violence.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former special representative for Iraq, said the decline in Ayatollah al-Sistani's influence was bad news for Iraq.

"It would be a pity if his strong instincts to maintain the unity of Iraq and to forswear violence were removed from influencing the scene," he said.

Iraq has been in a civil war for some time now.

What does it take, an official declaration from the Bush? From the Rummy? From the Cleric? I'm surprised at some people that they even know when to shit without someone telling them when, where and how to.

I'm actually pretty surprised the Media hasn't spontaniousely started calling it a civil war.
I would this the line would be fairly profitable and generate viewership for a bit.


edit to add....


Maybe WE of the Netroots and the Blogasphere need to help this along
and reframe this topic?

Instead of refering to it as "the Iraq War" Lets try refering to it as
"The Iraq Civil War" or "The Civil War in Iraq"
Maybe if WE put in that extra word, maybe the MSM will pick up on it?

I don't think that it is wise to begin to reframe it as a civil war for the MSM or the Administration, here's why:

Redefining the war in Iraq, or as the President puts it, "The central front on TWOT," diminishes the impact of why this war was wrong in the first place, minimizes the damage that the Administration has done to the people of Iraq. It makes the war crimes committed less important by shifting the focus on the people of Iraq and not the orders given bu the Administration. It changes the discussion from the crimes of the White House to the unfortunate situation in Iraq.

If the MSM begins to redefine TWOT, then rest assured, it is a PR campaign driven by the press secretaries marching orders as handed to him by the Bush. Classic Conservative tactic: When things aren't going your way, redefine, divert attention, create a new focus, shift the spotlight.

If the White House begins to outright call it a civil war, then America will begin to really question the role of this mission. A mission that the W.H. has refused to define. Then the W.H. will have to publicly state who's side they're fighting on/for. Will it be the governments? The Shiites? Or the Sunnis? Keep in mind that the W.H. has always asserted that their side is the side to fight on. They have always asserted that it is everyone else that must choose their side. Imagine if they begin to back track now.

I say, call it what it is, a civil war wrought by the presence of the USA's ambition to export Democracy at the end of a gun. An exorcise of US terrorism gone bad.

Yeah, that's what it is. Unfortunately that won't fit on a bumber sticker, if you get my meaning.


The civil war in Iraq illustrates exactly what it really is, and we all know who caused this to be the case.
Plus, explaining this to those who just don't get it has a magical way of putting the frame into the main stream thinking.

Framing the argument is what it's all about with the mid terms just 9 weeks away.
This is a fact the Bushits are absolutely aware of and have already shifted into full spin mode.

How 'bout this for a bumper sticker...

Jeez...if ONLY there was SOME WAY, they could have known this would happen...

well, IF they HAD a clue... The intelligence was wrong and they knew it. The evidence was falty and they knew it. They purposfully created the image that we would be greeted as liberators. Flowers and all. That, they KNEW.

It isn't referd to as a civil war yet by the media because it isn't a classic civil war they way we are used to seeing.

It is a series of small sectarian wars, being conducted on a limited scale in various parts of Iraq. Sure, you can call it a civil war, you can call it sectarian violence. Once it engulfs the entire country it will be a classic civil war, but that isn't what it is yet.

It appears we have still not acheived the level of understanding of the Arab culture yet. In this culture it is an eye for an eye, blood for blood, and "honor" means everything. If you dishonor an Iraqi man by breaking down his front door for no reason, you just created a blood debt for him. And whether he wants to or not he is obliged to regain his honor by striking back at those who dishonored him. Same thing is he is dishonored by a fellow Iraqi, if a Sunni or Shia is dishonored by the other, retribution is automatic.

And thus, when the holy mosque in Summara was bombed, it was on. It was just a matter of time.

Yea, i just finished reading 'Fiasco' myself, it mentions that in the book.

Great book. Col. McMaster of the 3rd ACR in Tall Afar is one isolated success story in this war to win over the Iraqi's.