Chatham House: Iraq On Brink Of Collapse

[Admiral Valdemar]

Greetings, I bring sad tidings.

Iraq is on the verge of collapse - report

17 May 2007 11:23:00 GMT
Source: Reuters

By Ibon Villelabeitia

BAGHDAD, May 17 (Reuters) - Iraq's government has lost control of vast areas to powerful local factions and the country is on the verge of collapse and fragmentation, a leading British think-tank said on Thursday.

Chatham House also said there was not one civil war in Iraq, but "several civil wars" between rival communities, and accused Iraq's main neighbours -- Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey -- of having reasons "for seeing the instability there continue".

"It can be argued that Iraq is on the verge of being a failed state which faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation," it said in a report.

"The Iraqi government is not able to exert authority evenly or effectively over the country. Across huge swathes of territory, it is largely irrelevant in terms of ordering social, economic and political life."

The report also said that a U.S.-backed security crackdown in Baghdad launched in February has failed to reduce overall violence across the country, as insurgent groups have just shifted their activities outside the capital.

While cautioning that Iraq might not ultimately exist as a united entity, the 12-page report said a draft law to distribute Iraq's oil wealth equitably among Sunni Arabs, Shi'ites and ethnic Kurds was "the key to ensuring Iraq's survival".

"It will be oil revenue that keeps the state together rather than any attempt to build a coherent national project in the short term," the influential think-tank said.

The oil law, among benchmarks Washington has set Baghdad as critical steps to end sectarian violence, has yet to be approved by parliament. Ethnic Kurds, whose autonomous Kurdistan region holds large unproven reserves, oppose the draft's wording.

Rather that one civil war pitting majority Shi'ites against Sunnis nationwide, the paper said Iraq's "cross-cutting conflicts" were driven by power struggles between sectarian, ethnic and tribal groups with differing regional, political and ideological goals as they compete for the country's resources.

The author of the report, Middle East expert Gareth Stansfield, said instability in Iraq was "not necessarily contrary to the interests" of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

"(Iraq) is now a theatre in which Iran can 'fight' the U.S. without doing so openly," Stansfield said, adding that Iran was the "most capable foreign power" in Iraq in terms of influencing future events, more so than the United States.

The rise to power of Iraq's long-oppressed Shi'ite majority has caused concern in Sunni Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, which deeply distrusts non-Arab, Shi'ite Iran's influence in Iraq, Stansfield wrote.

Should a U.S. withdrawal herald the beginning of a full-scale Sunni-Shi'ite civil war in Iraq, Saudi Arabia "might not stand by", the paper said, "with the possibility of Iran and Saudi Arabia fighting each other through proxies in Iraq".

A fitting end to Blair's "legacy" and the special relationship that helped this come about.

[Lord Zentei]

I was about to post this. Sad news indeed.

[K. A. Pital]

Crashing and burning.

But I think most of the people on this board knew with an almost 100% certainity that the "surge" of Dubya the Greatest would not work. And knew it full well.

Moreover, everyone (minus the completely oblivious-to-news rightwingers, which we don't have here) understood that the Maliki Government is a powerless puppet the decrees and measures of which don't extent anywhere behind the Green Zone (as if the self-introduction of Sharia law in several provinces weren't proof of that). And knew that full well, before this report.

And I think everyone, even a year ago or more knew that Iraq was pretty much capable of violent desintegration with the three large camps and smaller insurgent groups tearing the country apart.

What this does, it just confirms something we knew already - Iraq is burning, the surge is a pathetic idiocy which is not working and wasn't going to work from the start, and there's quite possible destruction of Iraq as a political entity in the near future. Duh.

[wolveraptor]

I hate how we always half-ass our invasions. If we really think it's so important for us to "win" this war, we should throw away our pretensions of liberating the country and admit that we came for entirely imperialistic reasons. If we had a British Empire-style occupation of Iraq, they could become stable. At least until the rest of the Middle East becomes angered by the continued US presence and we suffer another terrorist attack.

Jesus, there is no good way out of this. Bush wasn't just a dumbass - he was a fucking bastard.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Now if only a Palpatine would be there tell Dubya, "Now, your failure is complete".

[Lord Zentei]

I think for us to get American millitary personel involved in a civil war inside Iraq would literally be a quagmire. Once we got to Baghdad, what would we do?

-- Dick Cheney, 1991.

[Ritterin Sophia]

No... these are clearly the Death Throes of the Insurgent acivities... really..

[Lord Zentei]

Crashing and burning.

But I think most of the people on this board knew with an almost 100% certainity that the "surge" of Dubya the Greatest would not work. And knew it full well.

Especially since the numbers involved in the "surge" were less than the difference between initial troop levels (when the invasion took place), and the levels immediately prior to the "surge".

And the initial levels were much less than what millitary planners had wanted.

And by then, the insurgency was already well underway.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Well...iif i may be so bold, just about EVERYONE here called it. Well over a year ago, folks around these parts were calling Iraq "Africa: Part 2" and sure enough, there it is. On the one hand ,y short-sighted spiteful side would love to rub Bush's "legacy" in this crap so everyone remembers him as a completely amoral retard; on the other hand my more ethical, long-term side sees this as a horrific end to an already horrific event, and it will no doubt herald the death of thousands or tens of thousands of people. And as predicted decades will pass as war becomes so much part of the civilization over there that they forget what peace looks like, and Iraq eventually becomes a synonym for "Drafur".

Depressing. And yet, predictable.

[Darth Wong]

I'm sick of the way right-wingers try to bash the anti-war crowd whenever we say that we were right about Iraq. They try to change "stating the truth" to "cheering for disaster".

[Medic]

I'm sick of the way right-wingers try to bash the anti-war crowd whenever we say that we were right about Iraq. They try to change "stating the truth" to "cheering for disaster."

Those people exist, the mistake is the hasty generalization in ascribing that to every single person against the war for believing that for those reasons, actively wanting America and GWB to fail.

[Uraniun235]

I hate how we always half-ass our invasions. If we really think it's so important for us to "win" this war, we should throw away our pretensions of liberating the country and admit that we came for entirely imperialistic reasons. If we had a British Empire-style occupation of Iraq, they could become stable.

No, I think it's too late for the US to have any hope whatsoever of stabilizing Iraq. The damage is done. We pooched the invasion, we pooched the occupation, and we are now seeing the results.

And as predicted decades will pass as war becomes so much part of the civilization over there that they forget what peace looks like, and Iraq eventually becomes a synonym for "Drafur".

I personally think that's part of the problem we're already facing. In a way, Iraq has been in a state of warfare - whether military or economic or insurgent - in some way, for almost thirty years now, going back to the Iran-Iraq War. That can't be healthy for a people's morale or psyche.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

No... these are clearly the Death Throes of the Insurgent acivities... really..

Oh definitely.

They aren't going to be called insurgents now. They will be civil war factions. Insurgents my ass... more like a pretense that there exist a govt in the first place.