Is civil war in Iraq inevitable?

[ringmastery]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7964129.htm

Even before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq last March, some Western and Arab scholars predicted the country would plunge into civil war as soon as Saddam's totalitarian rule collapsed.

So far, many Iraqis insist they are determined to keep the peace, saying their nation is already worn down by three devastating wars since 1980, decades of dictatorship and nearly 13 years of crippling U.N. sanctions.

"We never fought each other," said Hamid al-Kafaai, spokesman for Iraq's Governing Council. "We are one nation and we will stay united."

However, unity has always proven difficult in Iraq, cobbled together from three separate Ottoman provinces by colonial Britain after World War I.

Saddam's Baath party held the rival clans, tribes, ethnic groups and religious communities together through a mixture of terror against its domestic enemies and patronage to those who remained loyal.

That formula held the nation together after Iraq's defeat in the 1991 Gulf War after Shiites and Kurds rose up, only to be crushed by Saddam's forces.

With Saddam gone, signs of social disintegration are emerging. The Shiites and Kurds believe they now have a historical opportunity to regain their rights - to the alarm of the Sunni Arabs.

Majority Shiites expect to translate their numbers - an estimated 60 percent of Iraq's 25 million people - into real political power.

[Ardee]

1. first things first

While "coalition" forces remain in Iraq the main thrust of the freedom fighters there will be to oust these usurpers and invaders.After that goal is accomplished, and it surely will, there may very well be schisms between the various tribes and factions, only time will tell.

I guess it will depend in some part upon what sort of government remains after the last foreign soldier departs.

[Catch22Dem]

2. inevitable is hard to say

But certainly possible, and perhaps probable

[AG78]

3. Inevitable?

Probably. Not because they can't understand democracy, or because they're uncivilized. But because that's just how it works.

Which country is it that goes around the world spreading democracy that had a civil war? Oh yeah.

Did the problems find solutions after the end of said civil war?

Even after a civil war, problems still pop up.

Of course we always expect countries that we saved such as Germany to bow down before us. Even if they use the very freedom that our soldiers gave them to disagree with us. But that's one of those minor details.

Or Japan. Although we did nuke that country twice. Might be a reason why they don't say much.

So it would be surprising if Iraq didn't have a civil war. They were never one country until Britain carved it up. They weren't one country for thousands of years of history. The only reason America has lasted this long, was because before the Europeans got here, it wasn't a modern nation state. It didn't have the same kind of history. I'm not saying there wasn't warfare between Indian tribes. I'm sure they had their fair share. Once it was a nation state, and after hundreds of years of slavery and the like, it sort of had to become a "melting pot". Although that seems to be eroding these days.

Iraq is no different. They're human over there too. Human history is nothing if not for war. That's just existence.