It is no secret that Iraq continues to struggle in developing its government and economy in order to be able to withstand the fight against the al-Qaeda and other insurgents. But how bad has it become since the rushed withdrawal of US troops that started in 2009? It was thought that the majority of al-Qaeda senior members were either captured or killed prior to withdrawal, and that the Iraqi government together with the Iraqi army would be trained and equipped enough to counter any insurgency that might have popped up after the US withdrawal, but that is just not the case. Instead, the al-Qaeda presence in Iraq has increased greatly with an equal surge in activity (BBC). This recent surge has caused enough concern for Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki to meet with President Obama and discuss the possibility of the US providing support asking for weapons and military assistance to “prevent his security forces from being overwhelmed” (Economist). The interesting part however, is that the Sunni Muslims have shown a strong distaste for the Shia Muslim Maliki. This difference has been said to have arisen because Maliki has been unfair in representing the minorities and disallowed them to have greater roles within the government.
Erica Chenoweth, an associate professor at the University of Denver, states that calling this indifference in Iraq a civil war would bring the attention to Iraq that it needs to help solve this problem faster. (PoliticalViolence @ a Glance). While President Obama has made it clear that the US will not be offering any military aid, he has urged Maliki to allow the Sunni minority to hold stronger roles within the government and give them greater representation. Chenoweth explains that after any hostility has been declared “over,” people will regard any continued violence as normal, and that it is that type of denial that prevents Iraq from getting the help it needs to quell the insurgency. However, President Obama has acknowledged the rise in insurgents, and continued to urge Maliki to pass an election law that would allow the two denominations to discuss their differences politically (BBC).
This brings a couple questions to mind. Should Iraq really be called a civil war and would calling it a civil war make any difference in the possibility of states intervening? If this is a civil war, what incentives might the Sunnis have to rebel against the Iraqi government and potentially side with al-Qaeda?
Other references:
Great article! Thanks for sharing! I believe that Iraq is in a civil war. Historically most civil wars are based on ideological differences. In this case we see a clear war being fought between two separate religious factions. I believe that other states may be more likely to intervene if this was labeled a civil war. As a recent example I would point to Syria and the international involvement that occurred during its civil war. The sunnis have incentive to overthrow the shia power. To do this, they might have to ally with al-qaeda.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great example of the consequences of intervention. If America had not involved itself, the country would have a centralized government and political stability. Yes, Sadam was a corrupt and terrible leader, but Iraq is not in a better state once America withdraws. The country will be open to multiple factions once again vying for power. We have armed and trained the existing government just well enough to draw out their war for a long time to come. Calling it a civil war would be accurate . My hope would be that in calling it a civil war, the international community would draw their attention to how ineffective military intervention has been in the area.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely an interesting issue that has not received enough attention in the news. People tend to disregard what is happening what is happening in Iraq because they view the conflict as over after the US left the country. What the country really needs is a government that includes both the Shi'ite and Sunni population so that some kind of cohabitation can exist. The government seems to think that it can just rely on the US to prop it up through political instability. It needs to find a better way to exist on its own.
ReplyDeleteI think that the distinction between state violence and civil war needs to be drawn. As we've discussed in class, outsider intervention in civil wars can escalate violence and worsen the situation even more. However, I don't think it's right to call Iraq a civil war just yet, although it certainly has a lot of the components that lead up to it. Especially given the religious based tensions and the relative instability of police and military in the country, I think it could face conflict soon.
ReplyDeleteWhile i understand the want to call the situation in Iraq a civil war with Sunni's and Shi'ite engaging in a conflict that is essentially intractable, i think it's important to remember the legacy of Western and European colonialism in nations that ended up de-stabilizing into civil war. Much like the French in Vietnam losing control of the situation, what i believe is happening in Iraq is essentially a colonial power has come in (the United States) and destabilized the country to a point where latent ethnic tensions have turned outwardly violent. As far as if Iraq could be labeled a "civil war", with the influx of fighters from outside countries, it begins to look very quickly as though the Iraqi government is devoid of legitimacy, however to what extent non-native Iraqi's comprise the fighting populations on both sides i think says a lot with regards to calling it a proxy war for religious powers in the region versus an actual state civil war.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! Thank you for sharing this topic! I have not read into this topic in depth, so I have a very limited knowledge on the specifics of this conflict in Iraq. But based on things that we have learned in class and some other classes the line that is drawn that turns state violence into a civil war is unclear. It seems like there are two clear sides: the government and the minority groups. But has there been enough deaths because of this conflict to call it a civil war? And does terrorist activity make it difficult to make this call?
ReplyDeleteI think that if we look to James Fearon for the definition of a civil war, I think you can classify whats going on in Iraq between the Sunnis and Shiites a civil war. He defines it as essentially a conflict involving violence between two groups within the boarders of a country where one side is fighting for control. The Sunnis do not feel fairly represented by their Shia-Muslin president and are protesting their grievances by the use of violence.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to point out that while Obama's suggestions to have Maliki grant fair representation in government to the Sunnis seems logical and obvious, it also seems like "well-yeah" advice that doesn't seem like it will help. Maybe Im oversimplifying it, but if that is something Maliki was going to do, wouldn't he have done it already? What do you think?
I would not go as far as calling it a civil war at this point. If anything, Iraq may be on the verge of a revolution. As we discussed in class approximately a week ago, the minority Sunni population may be experiencing relative deprivation. If Iraq's Shia president does not begin to understand the grievances that the Sunni population holds, the already prominent insurgency may continue to grow with the potential of civil war on the horizon
ReplyDeleteI think that since the US ended combat operations in Iraq a few years ago, Iraq has become more and more unstable. Clearly, the ethnic struggles between the Sunnis and the Shiites demonstrates that the society is not probably functioning as well as it could be. It seems like sometimes the distinction of what a civil war is can be very arbitrary. However, it seems like this ethnic conflict will continue to drive Iraq into chaos.
ReplyDeleteThe instability in Iraq is clearly a hindrance to any further political or economical progress in the country. This request by Maliki demonstrates the ineptitude of the current administration, or the government as a whole. Corruption and poor governance throughout the country have lead to terrible conflict. Proposing an unaffordable and vulnerable new pipeline system is not a solution for the country.
ReplyDeleteThis is an opportunity for Obama to demonstrate his willingness to take a stance against the government we helped develop. Especially at a time when the US cannot afford to waste resources on a literal pipe dream. If he is able to tie economic aid to visible progress within the country, that would be a significant step in the right direction. Otherwise, this aid money will likely be squandered, much of it wasted by the government, and even more threatened by instability throughout the country.
This issue needs to be looked at more by politicians as well as the general public as a whole. These things need to be fixed within Iraq's government so that they can make progress in their nations new beginning and move passed pointless conflicts
ReplyDelete