NYT Article on Sectarian Violence

I’m wondering whether IAG should put some mind- and research-power into looking at this current development in Iraq? I for one feel under-informed, as the media reports are not usually in-depth enough and I have a feeling that, at least in the UK, the general public sense of what the issues are in Iraq has not caught up with the reality of civil war or impending civil war.

For example, an article in yesterday’s New York Times indicates that American military casualties have been significantly sinking as Iraqi casualties shoot up: I had not been aware of quite how dramatically USA army casualties had gone down recently, and I sense that most people in the UK have not perceived quite what a shift there has been in the last six months in how the coalition fits in to the violence in Iraq. The NYT article makes the following point:

“the debate [about whether Iraq is in civil war] could increase the political pressure that President Bush is facing at home to draw down significantly the force of 133,000 American troops here. Even if American deaths keep falling, polls show the American public has little appetite for engagement in an Iraqi civil war.”

If we might potentially face a situation in which the Coalition withdraws with the rhetoric that Iraq is in civil war and that this is nothing to do with the Coalition, how would this affect IAG’s mandate of scrutinising UK policy in Iraq? Could IAG usefully look more specifically at the nature and extent of the US/UK role in the new intersectarian violence in Iraq (as opposed to violence clearly directed at occupiers)? E.g. how far the coalition is to blame for aggravating sectarianism, exactly what role they are playing now? I wonder (aloud - or rather - online) if we might have the capacity to think about a briefing on this. At the least, maybe we should put a priority for a while on fleshing out the IAG site in terms of information on sectarian violence in Iraq.

4 Responses to “NYT Article on Sectarian Violence”

  1. Alison left comment:

    BBC News reports today that al-Zarqawi has been replaced as leader of a coalition of Iraqi militants. I don’t feel I have much handle on who these groups are or what they see as their goals. Would be an interesting area to explore, but all information has gone through so many filters before it reaches us. I wonder whether looking through the opinion polls would show up increasing sectarian divides or diverging attitudes to the insurgency?

  2. Dan left comment:

    US casualties have been falling over the past couple of months. But look at the figures in graph form, and you get the impression that this is a seasonal trend. There were sudden drops in deaths in Feb/March of 2004 and 2005, as well. I have no idea what would cause this trend, but I’d expect the death rate to go up again in a month or two.

    Despite that, I agree there has been a change, and that we don’t understand it very well at all. Yes, it would be a good focus if anybody has the time to read up on it.

  3. Iraq Analysis Group Weblog » Blog Archive » Displacement left comment:

    […] As Rachel wrote recently, this is part of a change over the past few months, which has deeply affected the country in all kinds of ways. […]

  4. Rachel left comment:

    In reply to Dan - yes, interestingly there’s a report today in the Washington Post stating that

    “The American military on Tuesday announced the deaths of five soldiers, bringing the number of troops killed this month to at least 32. That figure already surpasses the American military deaths for all of March.”