Vehicle Ban in Iraq...

flogen

Just yesterday, after watching a report on the measures being taken by Iraqi, US and UK forces to try and contain violence, I thought to myself "next thing they'll ban the use of cars"... half-joking of course.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4768846.stm

The Iraqi authorities have announced a daytime ban on vehicles in Baghdad and surrounding areas on Friday in response to the latest upsurge in violence.

The ban follows another day of attacks across the country, in which at least 30 people were killed.

I know some people here would say that there already is a Civil War in Iraq (and with two factions fighting each other on the streets, car bombs killing dozens on a daily basis and the seemingly helpless "authorities" standing on, I'm not sure what else I'd call it), but does anyone think that anything will stop an all-out, undeniable and unquestionable Civil War in Iraq?
I think the US/UK are in a serious Catch 22 situation; it's hard to deny that their occupation of Iraq is helping the insurgants gain support, and the longer they stay without a withdrawal plan the easier it is to make them out to be the enemy. If they impose a complete lockdown on the cities they'll just encourage anti-US sentiment (they came to free us, now they're worse than Saddam), if they don't then the battles and bombs will get worse, given that there are two fights going on (US/UK vs. insurgants and the Shia vs. Shi'ite), regardless of US actions there will be a fight going on; involving them or not.
If they go ahead with their plans to lower numbers this will make it easier for the insurgents, they've shown how easy it is to infiltrate the state forces and under less US supervision it will probably get even easier, if they don't they will look worse by the day and will have answers to give back home.

I wouldn't be surprised if they're both waiting for something to happen that will allow them to drop and run; whatever that may be... maybe when the government gets sorted they'll say they've done their job and anything that happens afterwards won't be their fault.

It really does look like an unsolvable situation.

Manic Moran

Vehicle bans are not new there. There are usually three-day bans on vehicles before the elections. There certainly were for the Jan05 and Oct05 elections. The reason for the three-day ban is to ensure that there's enough time for the word to get around to everyone where the polling stations are, which could not be done before the ban took effect: Otherwise it would be too easy to transport bombs to the polling station.

NTM

Ridire_Dubh

This is civil war in Iraq. To assume otherwise is to "call a rose by another name" (a metaphor, not an endorsement).

Sand

Civil war in Iraq will look like Yugoslavia and Srebinica tbh, and could get rather worse with Iran backing the Shias and Saudia Arabia and the other Sunni ME countries backing the Sunnis. Things arent half as bad now as they could be. Thats not a ringing endorsement of the current situation btw.

Freelancer

Ridire_Dubh wrote:

This is civil war in Iraq. To assume otherwise is to "call a rose by another name" (a metaphor, not an endorsement).

Its not broken out to full scale war yet. The Iraqi army has yet to engage fully, and we've not seen heavy miltary arsenals deloyed.

It will be a fully fledged civil war when either part of the army defects to the insurgents, or if the insurgents get their hands on enough milltary hardware to challenge the iraqi army.

Its not that bad, yet.

Ridire_Dubh

I guess it's how you define the term, civil war? The current cover of The Economist magazine shows an Iraqi civilian crying. The title of the lead article is something to the effect, Iraq at war with itself... could be defined as civil war (cannot remember the exact wording)?

The whole labeling issue is raised here. When someone of importance (obviously not me) says its "civil war," then there will be buy in. Until then, we can talk about various organised citizen factions fighting with each other for control of Iraq without labeling it "civil war."

This reminds me of the DOT COM bubble that occurred in the States. Few wanted to call it a "bubble" until well after it burst and was a matter not of the present, but an historical fact. Is there a labeling lag?

As far as getting commitment from the current Iraqi army on one side or the other, not sure this will happen. Saw a recent report on MS's news network that had a high ranked US military officer state that Iraq could not put an organised military force into the field, and was essentially defunct as an "army." At the same time, I would think it fair to assume that former members of the army have already joined sides in whatever is going on over there, whether we want to label it a civil war (or peaches and cream).

No matter what we call it, I would think it fair to assume that the US went into Iraq without a plan to followup conquest, aside from getting control of one of the largest oil producing nations on earth. It might be a coincidence, but the US oil companies have declared the largest profits in their history since the occupation of Iraq. Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten one of the major, "original" reasons given for the invasion (To topple a dictator who had weapons of mass destruction, which were not found afterwards). The WMD reason has been pushed under the carpet since, and bringing "freedom" to the Iraqi people has been substituted. The poor planning and questionable motives of a largely Christian nation invading and occupying a Moslem nation have resulted in, or will result in civil war (I would leave to others reading this thread to draw comparisons to the The Crusades... ).

Pazaz 21

I recommend reading Baghdad Year Zero which is on harpers.org.

Which is reccommend by Captain Trips on the "Iraq is much worse then we thought" tread. Great Article, very enlightening about the causes for the war in Iraq and the "Plan" for dealing with the country after the war.