The media constantly refers to ‘escalating violence’ in Iraq. As a matter of fact, in February 2007 it was reported in the news that the chaos in the war-torn country is worsening. America’s intelligence agencies – sixteen of them – have forecasted that it is sectarian strife that would continue to plague the country in the near future. In other words, Iraq is not asking for Americans to leave their country. Rather, Iraqi society is growing in polarization while the security forces and the state in general remain weak. In addition, all sides, including the U. S. forces presently in Iraq, are ready for violence at all times.
This is driving an increase in communal and insurgent strife besides political extremism (Mazzetti, 2007). America’s intelligence agencies have further reported: “Unless efforts to reverse these conditions show measurable progress during the term of this estimate, the coming 12 to 18 months, we assess that the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate at rates comparable to the latter part of 2006″ (Mazzetti).
According to George Wiegel, there have been four wars in Iraq since the U. S. -led coalition invaded the country in March 2003: (1) The first war to depose the regime of Saddam Hussein; (2) The second war against recalcitrant Baathists as well as Saddam’s die-hard followers; (3) The third war against the jihadists such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; and (4) The war between the Sunni insurgents and the Shiite militias in addition to death squads, which broke out after the Golden Mosque of Samarra, a major Shiite shrine was bombed in February 2006. The second, third and fourth wars continue to develop. Moreover, the fourth war is referred to as a new civil war in Iraq (Wiegel, 2007).
In this war, although the United States has tacitly sided with the Shiites of Iraq, its responsibility is to stop the war altogether and eventually end the violence in Iraq (Eisenstadt, 2006). The second major opponent of the newest war in Iraq is, of course, the newly formed Iraqi government, whose survival will remain threatened so long as violence continues in the nation. How the United States Might Deal with The Civil War in Iraq The United States Congress is responsible both for declaring war and also for controlling funding for the war; while President George W. Bush is the commander-in-chief of the U. S. armed forces.
On March 3, 2007, a Reuters report stated that the U. S. Congress is presently “skirmishing over how to bring Americans home from a war the public largely opposes but that the president insists is a noble mission and many lawmakers say cannot be abandoned. ” A similar situation had occurred through the Vietnam War. The U. S. Congress finally stopped sending more aid to South Vietnam. As a result, Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese (Cornwell, 2007). Americans continued to protest the war in Iraq through March 2005, at the second anniversary of the war’s beginning.
Rallies were held in approximately eight hundred cities and towns in the fifty states of America. Police arrested thirty people making speeches outside the United Nations in New York, and in Fayetteville, North Carolina, almost three thousands peace activists, war veterans in addition to their family members gathered to call for an end to the conflict in Iraq (Finer, 2005). Also in the year 2005, the Los Angeles Business Journal reported on behalf of the people of America: It’s possible to be against the war without being against the people who are there fighting.
It’s important to continue to demonstrate against the war because this is a country predicated on the principle that everyone can speak their opinions, and this war should not be happening. It’s tricky for the people fighting the war. It’s important to avoid a repetition of what happened when the soldiers were blamed for Vietnam (War Torn, 2005). Another news report published in February 2007 stated that according to a CBS News Poll, two-thirds of the Americans believe that violence in Iraq may be beyond the U. S. military’s ability to manage, and only 25 percent believe that the U. S. military can be helpful in reducing the violence.
What is more, 63 percent of Americans disapprove of the president’s plan to send more troops into Iraq. However, 44 percent believe that the U. S. Congress should pass a nonbinding resolution to express disapproval of the troop buildup, while 45 percent are opposed to such a measure (Special Report, 2007). Given the American faith in democracy, in the coming days, the U. S. Congress will either work on a measure to stop sending more U. S. troops into Iraq, perhaps by stopping its funding for the U. S. military in the war-torn nation; or remain with the president’s plan to continue fighting the violence in Iraq.