Gary Monro’s blog

After giving reasons for why we should not have invaded Iraq in the first place I said that, once there, we really were in no position to bail out in the short-term. I suggested that if the coalition withdrew from Iraq then they’d leave the country facing a civil war.

My reasoning - such that it was - was that the coalition could keep the opposing sides apart long enough for the installation of something vaguely democratic while in the meantime training the Iraqi security services to carry out the formidable task of maintaining order once the coalition had left.

Recent events seem to be suggesting that one of my underlying objections to the war - that you can’t just install your own personal favoured government system in a country that has its own ideas about how it wants to be governed - is proving to be so. It seems that the Iraqi security forces - in Basra at least - are so heavily infiltrated by the very people they’re supposed to be fighting that the British Army is claiming to be in control of only about 25% of them. The infiltrators are going to be representing religious and tribal groupings and are probably positioning themselves for the final showdown when power is up for grabs and the strongest will get the booty.

If this is the case and if the declaration of war against Shi’ites is being taken seriously by Sunnis then maybe the civil war that is looming is about to become a fact.

If a civil war is inevitable should the coalition withdraw? Where is the advantage of being the common enemy of all three factions?

Would it be better to acknowledge an impending civil war (if, indeed, it’s agreed that one is inevitable) and actively partition the country rather than wait for it to take place in an uncontrolled - and violent - manner?

Or should we dig in and simply fight it out?

The Iraq situation seems muddled and confusing. What do people think we should do next?

Seems some suicide bombers, erm, weren’t.

A suicide bomber captured before he could blow himself up in a Shiite mosque claimed he was kidnapped, beaten and drugged by insurgents who forced him to take on the mission. The U.S. military said its medical tests indicated the man was telling the truth.

He might not be the only one.

His story was similar to those recounted by other captured militants. The captives routinely claim they were either coerced or fooled by insurgent leaders who promised them a role in the holy war against the U.S. military, only to find themselves as would-be suicide bombers sent to attack civilians.

Their confessions make good television:

Televised interrogations and confessions are becoming increasingly common as Iraqi and American officials capture more militants and use their confessions in an attempt to undercut support for militants.

Maybe the insurgency is running a bit short on volunteers?

“The kidnapping demonstrates the desperation of al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his ability to execute his strategy,'’ said Col. Billy J. Buckner, a U.S. military spokesman .

“He knows that he can’t win against Iraqi security and coalition forces, and is therefore willing to use innocent Iraqi citizens to further his cause to disrupt the election process and prevent a free and democratic Iraq,'’ he said.