Subscribe to our RssFollow us on Twitter!
< Return to MilitaryGear.com

True Origin Of Iraqi Civil War

Information April 10 2006
 — By CJ

New York Slime Headline today: Democracy in the Arab World, a U.S. Goal, Falters
Washington Post Op-Ed today: Does Civil War Threat Loom Beyond Iraq?
CNN International April 4: Arab nations plan for Iraq civil war
And many, many more…

More and more we see articles about the looming civil war in Iraq. Most, if not all of them, pointing to the US military and/or President Bush as the reason behind this. The media has a short term memory loss problem.
zarqawi
In February 2004, a courier was intercepted in the Kurdish region of Iraq. The courier was transporting a message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru…Osama bin Laden. The letter passed along the belief that the goal of coalition forces in Iraq was “to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates” and “accelerate the emergence of the Messiah.”

But, that’s not all that the letter contained. It also spoke in frank detail about the terrorist’s plans to create civil war. “These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political, and military depth will provoke them (the Shia) to show the Sunnis their rabies…and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger.”

The Wall Street Journal published the story of this letter way back on page 14 on March 21st.

Zarqawi speaks of the Shia as an “insurmountable obstacle, the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom.”

He rants about how he thinks that Shia have been hiding their inner feelings. “However, their religious and political `ulama’ have been able to control the affairs of their sect, so as not to have the battle between them and the Sunnis become an open sectarian war, because they know that they will not succeed in this way. They know that, if a sectarian war was to take place, many in the [Islamic] nation would rise to defend the Sunnis in Iraq.”

President Bush is not responsible for the civil war taking place in Iraq right now. Look at when the “insurgency” began to get real hot. Since February 2004, when this letter was written and sent, there have been numberless attacks on Shiite religious processiona and precincts.

The author of the Wall Street Journal piece, Mr. Christopher Hitchens, makes a remarkable statement of wonder: “I could not help noticing, when the secret prisons of the Shiite-run “Interior Ministry” were exposed a few weeks ago, that all those wishing to complain ran straight to the nearest American base, from which help was available.”

This is indicative of Iraqis true feelings toward the American presence. They want us to leave, but not until they are safe. If they feel they don’t need us, why are they constantly running our way when problems arise? The next time someone tries to throw that whole “what about the civil war” argument at you, remember who started it and why. Zarqawi has a lot of help in the form of the American and international media in exploiting his goal of making us responsible for a war he started.

If you’d like to read the full text of Zarqawi’s letter, it is posted HERE.

(5) Readers Comments

  1. Anthony

    04/10/2006 at 2:57 pm

    CJ,

    First, thanks for your service and also for your support of the wounded warriors at Walter Reed.

    Regarding the violence in Iraq, I agree that Zarqawi and his followers are to blame, and I have read many accounts of Iraqis welcoming the presence of American soldiers. I agree with the assessment that they want us to leave, but not until they are safe. That being the case, though, I’d like to know your take on why the Pentagon has been so hesitant to put enough troops on the ground to really give the Iraqis security while they try to build a country and a government. From the outset, when Rumsfeld laughed off the looting as blowing off steam like after a football victory, he has not seemed to take it seriously. Early on the provisional authority or whatever it was called disbanded the Iraqi military and police without replacing them with enough forces to maintain order. This was after Saddam had emptied the prisons of all the actual criminals, who took to the streets along with the Baathists and followers of the likes of Zarqawi.

    I guess my point is wouldn’t this have been a lot easier if there were enough troops there to keep order? It’s been said that we don’t want it to look so much like an occupation, but like you said, the good Iraqis seem to appreciate us being there.

    I hope this does not come off as being argumentative or insulting. I really don’t mean to offend you or any other service members. I appreciate your service greatly.

    Thanks,
    Anthony

  2. 04/10/2006 at 6:09 pm

    Anthony, I’m an ardent believer that we didn’t go into Iraq with enough soldiers. When Turkey told us we couldn’t send our troops there, we should have waited for the 4th Infantry Division to get to Kuwait before we invaded. That would have helped exponentially. I remember running “patrols” with just one truck. My 4-man team personally rounded up 9 criminals and had to call in reinforcements. It took them an hour to arrive and the situation was tense, with shots coming from where we couldn’t see anyone. More soldiers initially would have helped this.

    Frankly, I don’t know why the Pentagon is being so stubborn about it. I can theorize, though, a few things. One: if we commit too many troops, what happens back home when another incident occurs? Also, we need soldiers who can go into North Korea, Iran, or some other rogue country if they get testy thinking we are “strung out”. Now, these are just theories. I have no inside knowledge.

    As it is, I think the Navy and Air Force should start picking up a little more slack, performing some of the functions that the Army is doing that are taking us out of the fight. This would not only add numbers on the ground, but warfighters to target the terrorists.

    Another reason I think is because Rumsfeld and Bush want it to look like we’re doing well in Iraq. To send in more troops would send a (rather incorrect) message that we’re losing. We’re trying to build up the Iraqis and force them to take control of their country. If we put more troops in there, they will forever lean on us for their protection and never evolve. The Iraqis need to start taking some responsibility.

    With all that said, look at what we’ve accomplished with what we have!! Our Army will ALWAYS be too small, but the things we can accomplish are innumerous. I’m proud of the fact that one division (the one I was in :) ) single-handedly captured Baghdad.

    No insult or arguments taken. Very good questions that I wish I had answers to. The President and SedDef need to be a little more vocal on these points.

  3. 04/10/2006 at 7:35 pm

    Thanks for the reminder that we need to get the good news out instead of all the gloom and doom and garbage the MSM puts out there.

  4. Donna

    04/10/2006 at 7:40 pm

    Thanks CJ for posting about civil war in Iraq and how the media is always talking about it. They want civil war there I’m afraid or anything to make President Bush look bad…even lies.

    I read Zarqawi’s letter to OBL. What a vicious man if you can call him a man. It all comes down to religion and control of Iraq. What he spoke about, I mean trying to cause the Shia to rise up is happening now with all the bombings of Shia mosques etc. Hope we capture or kill this creep soon! :(

  5. Janet

    04/11/2006 at 4:13 am

    Thank-you for your insights! I do not necessarity believe that what we are seeing currently in Iraq constitutes a civil war because there is a clear and incredible degree of restraint on the part of the Shia in regard to these incredible provocations. Nevertheless that is the purpose behind the violence.

    The MSM and America’s far left want this to deteriorate as much as Zarqawi does. The Administration is fighting a two front war: here at home and in Iraq. It will be won or lost here at home. Zarqawi is feeding off the Far Left here and the dissention they cause has given him and his minions the belief that to win they have only to step up the attacks in Iraq and sustain them. American staying power (not our troops – I mean here at home) is minimal in comparison to that of what we face from these committed individuals for whom no sacrifice and no time factor matters. Out troops and the contributions they have made are being sold out by the far left and the stupidity of those that are swayed this way and that by the headlines. Americans seem more than willing to be led by the MSM and the far left.

    The left keeps talking about more troops, and you have asked about that but had we sent more we would have left ourselves open to adventurism by other dictators and it would still have not assauged the left here at home. Nothing will do that. The training of Iraqis has come a very long way. They are the force that will need to be the front line in this and they are assuming that role. However an insurgent war can take years to overcome just by the secretive nature and the hidden quality it intails. Historically they can be and have been overcome but it is a long drawn out process. American staying power will not support that because the left will not allow it. Hence the Iraqis must assume this vital role with support from us.

    Thank-you again for the insights. Keep them coming!! We need positive forces speaking out. Bless you!