I hear people say "well, now that we went in there and started this thing we have to finish it". Do you believe that the US started the rift in Iraq? Do you believe we need to 'solve' it? IS there a 'solution'? And what does it look like? Thoughtful answers appreciated...
2007-01-03 02:48:13 · 25 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
This isn't an easy subject Chef, pretty detailed.
The civil war was going on on a very small scale during the reign of Saddam. One faction killing another faction. We did not hear much about it because of state censorship in Iraq. When Saddam was removed from power, they saw it as a green light to have their way (differs by what faction you speak of).
Now, keeping Gulf War 1 in focus, former President Bush Sr did not remove Saddam as he was advised that to do so would leave a power vacuum in that nation. He made the correct choice on some levels and an incorrect choice on other levels. No doubt, that removing Saddam when we did was not planned out carefully. A far reaching plan should have been developed ahead of time. This is too important an effort to just "wing it".
Do we need to solve it? I think we have no choice really. As was said previously by Presidential advisers, "You break it, you fix it". And that's no less true today. I wish it were different but the sad reality is that the new Congress is going to have to allow this to happen and help implement the means to do so. We have to commit to this in total, for to do less will guarantee catastrophe in the near (20 years) future both at home and abroad. Our enemies made the prediction that we do not have the stomach for war and we cannot allow that prediction to become true. Like it or not, believe it or not, we are at war with radical Islam and have been for many years before 9/11. That day was the culmination of many years of hatred and planning.
This is more than civil war in Iraq. Unfortunately, we have weakened that nation and now must get it on it's feet or face the real possibility that Iran will take it over.
I hope I made sense. And did not mean to get so long winded.
2007-01-03 03:02:52 · answer #1 · answered by Rich B 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, not directly.
We removed Saddam and destroyed the military and government structure which basically removed the only thing that was keeping all of these different factions from attacking each other and THAT lead to the civil war. So we are indirectly responsible, but I believe that our intelligence may actually have been so bad that Bush and company didn't realize this is what would happen. I seriously doubt this is the outcome they expected or wanted.
The problem is they wanted a rosy scenario SO bad that they allowed themselves to believe Chalabi and didn't really use any solid intelligence to assess the case and conditions for war and the potential pitfalls. Now we are paying the price for this.
2007-01-03 03:05:57 · answer #2 · answered by Ryan 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Given the history of Shiite/Sunni hostilities, and the fact that there is and was a Shiite population majority within Iraq controlled and brutalized by a Baathist/Sunni minority for a generation...you can say the United States hurried along the inception of a Civil War in Iraq, however...if you think for one second that Saddam's death by other, more natural causes wouldn't have brought about an Iraq in a much worse situation than it is in now, you are wrong.
There would only be two other potential scenarios had the US not removed him from power. Once he died, either the Shiite majority would have risen up and brutally held down the Sunni minority (as they are right now), or Saddam's sons Uday and Qusai would have taken control of the country - or one of them, for that matter. If that were the case, you are looking at two young men quite sadistic, tyrranical, and even more inhumane than Saddam himself. I suggest you read their biographies and imagine an Iraq under their rule.
The united states did not cause the civil war, as Sunni/Shiite hostilities have existed long before our declaration of independence, however they did allow for it to finally happen.
In a sense, they are detracting from how bad it could possibly have been by doing it now and being there. If we were to leave iraq now, the Civil strife would escalate, and the Shiite majority would most likely eliminate the Sunni minority.
It was bound to happen eventually. Believe that, its the truth.
2007-01-03 03:05:46 · answer #3 · answered by justin c 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The US did not start the problems in Iraq. We have probably solved at least one.
The reason we cannot leave Iraq in a civil war, is the "court of world opinion." And the comparisons with Vietnam.
One of the biggest (and perhaps valid) criticisms the US has received over Vietnam are the millions killed after we left.
2007-01-03 03:10:15 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
in case you desire to call what's happening in Iraq a civil conflict, then you definately would desire to ensure it as 2 equivalent sides in a skill conflict over a huge mess that we led to. Why are we there? i think that we are helping the side it quite is maximum probable to win so as that we are able to have a stake in the advantages that come after the "conflict." As far has Darfur, its no longer a Civil conflict, its genocide. it quite is like calling the Holocaust a German civil conflict. we are going to help the peoples in Darfur because of the fact its crimes against humanity, no longer a skill conflict.
2016-10-29 21:45:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well... there was gas and wood already there... the US was just throwing matches at it is all :P ... in other words we sparked it, but it couldn't have happened if not for the people there willing to perpetuate it... as for should we stay and solve it? I would love to help the people of Iraq... but you have to ask 2 questions... do they want our help and what is the best way to help... I'd say it's fairly well split on do they want our help.. cuss us when we aren't there and praise us when we are type of thing.. but the best way to help is obviously in a way other than what Bush has done.. maybe he should try listening to the experts instead of being "The Decider"
2007-01-03 02:59:21 · answer #6 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. America did ruin Iraq, but they cannot solve it. It is not thier country, they cannot keep trying to decide who shall lead Iraq and by what ideology. It is difficult for us to see a solution when we are not living the life of an Iraqi citizen day in day out.
2007-01-03 02:55:39 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I'm not sure it reaches the level of Civil War (the ultimate oxymoron BTW). I think that those doing the killing are responsible for the killing. I realize that this is a radical concept.
2007-01-03 04:24:38 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The US is NOT responsible for the civil war in Iraq.
Personal Responsibility
If someone came into your town and got rid of your mayor would the town erupt into a war between opposing groups? NO
It is the way they CHOOSE to live their life that is the impetus for this war. If they were peaceful to begin with they would deal with a change in leadership peacefully.
2007-01-03 02:59:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Blame Mohammed. The Iraq "Civil War" is two sects of Islam playing a deadly game of "my Caliph is better than your Caliph."
Blame is infinite. Blame yourself for doing nothing to stop it.
-Aztec276
2007-01-03 02:54:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋