The massacre of more than 200 persons in Baghdad on the American Thanksgiving Day holiday highlighted anew the violence that is now tearing Iraq apart. During the 2006 U.S. political campaign, progress in Iraq was overstated and setbacks were discounted at times. Behind the scenes, the situation in Iraq was growing steadily worse. At present, the real situation in Iraq is grim.

Semantics and political posturing aside, Iraq is embroiled in a civil war. Various sectarian groups are fighting one another over power and authority. “The fight to define post-Saddam Iraq has been primarily an intra-Arab struggle to determine how power and authority will be distributed… The conflict…is increasingly a sectarian struggle for power and the right to define Iraq’s future identity,” Lieutenant General Michael Maples, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency told the Senate Armed Services Committee on November 15, 2006. In speaking before a business forum in the United Arab Emirates, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that he would describe the current situation in Iraq as a civil war. "I have been using it [the term “civil war”] because I like to face the reality," Powell explained.

For historic perspective, both recent wars in the Balkans, which were sparked by secession efforts rather than a quest for control over the fragmenting Yugoslavia, were termed civil wars. Iraq certainly fits that definition. Moreover, just as “set piece” ground battles no longer fully define conventional warfare among states, tactics and technologies have also evolved in civil wars. Across Africa and parts of Asia, guerrilla tactics have taken precedence over large-scale ground battles in civil wars.

However, in Iraq, the situation is even more complex. The Shia are seeking domination. Some Sunnis are seeking a restoration of Sunni power. Other Shia and Sunni groups are seeking to break away from Iraq. Al Qaeda is seeking to re-establish a base from which it can export its jihad. One senior member of Iraq’s government described the violence as “worse than a civil war.” He explained, “In a civil war, you at least know which factions are fighting each other. We don’t even know that anymore. It’s so bloody confused.”

Brutality, ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate attacks, and the targeting of religious institutions characterize the furious storm of violence now raging in Iraq. “What is happening round the clock, in detail, is kidnapping of all that is living in a nation that washes in its blood and counts its days and nights with the number of those missing, killed and tortured from among its sons,” Khayri Mansur, an Iraqi commentator wrote Al-Bayan, a Baghdad daily newspaper. In Al-Zaman, the Baghdad edition of a London-based newspaper, columnist Fatih Abd al-Salam observed that police patrols “which are supposed to exude a sense of security, cannot move safely in many Iraqi towns and cities.” He also explained in an earlier column, “The failure to stop sectarian displacement in Baghdad is a clear indication that that situation is out of control and that the centers of political power are isolated; except for ambiguous and general statements that make no difference.”

In the ongoing maelstrom of violence, Iraqis have increasingly lost confidence in the ability of the United States to stabilize the situation. Columnist Khamis al-Rubay’i, writing in Baghdad’s Al-Dustur daily newspaper stated that U.S. troops have proved to be “incapable of establishing security and curbing terror.” In Sotaliraq, an electronic newspaper published in Baghdad, Muhammad Abd al-Jabbar al-Shabbout, declared, “The U.S. is no longer capable of solving the Iraqi problem on its own.” Alwan Hilayil, another columnist for the same publication, asserted, “America’s gift to the people of Iraq has boiled down to this huge parade of turbaned, bearded clerics with silver rings on their fingers, who have done irreparable damage to the essentially tolerant doctrine of Islam and stooped to the basest depths of corruption to hoard enough money to last their next kin for generations to come.”

Some U.S. commanders also believe the situation threatens to become unmanageable. A classified Marine Corps intelligence report written by Col. Peter Devlin warned that unless an additional 15,000 to 20,000 troops and billions of dollars in assistance were added to the ongoing efforts in the Anbar Province, “there is nothing” that the U.S. “can do to influence” the insurgency in that region. ABC News reported on November 28 that the Pentagon is now considering a plan to pull U.S. forces out of the Anbar Province. “If we are not going to do a better job doing what we are doing…, what’s the point of having them out there?” one senior military official asked. With Al Qaeda forming an “integral part of the social fabric” in that part of Iraq according to Devlin’s assessment, such a decision would have the potential to concede territory to Al Qaeda on which it could establish the base it had lost when the Taliban were driven from power in Afghanistan.

Violence along the lines of ethnic cleansing is also manifesting itself. “The intimidation and killing of ethnic and religious minorities is of particular concern,” the United Nations observed in June 2006. According to that UN report, 2,400 Christian families fled Mosul to areas in which there is a Christian majority. That development is occurring on a much larger scale. Increasingly, Iraqis are moving to areas dominated by their own ethnic group or fleeing the country outright. Iraq’s Immigration Minister, Abdul-Samad Sultan observed that approximately 890,000 Iraqis have moved to Jordan, Iran, and Syria since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Another 300,000 have fled to other areas within Iraq, largely to areas in which their ethnic group predominates.

The situation has grown so bad that some Iraqis are even yearning for the “old days” under Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. “There is no question that democracy is important, but more important still is to pluck Iraq out of this runaway chaos, which is the direct result of unrestrained democracy,” Dr. Abd al-Khaliq Husayn explained in Sotaliraq. “What is more, I do believe that security with tyranny is better than insecurity with unlimited democracy. The unspeakable suffering of Iraqis as a result of continuous deterioration in security and public services has grown so acute that they have come to regard any talk of democracy as absolutely otiose, many of them even wishing for a return to Saddam’s dictatorial reign.”

Neither Iraq’s government nor its security forces are currently capable of meeting the challenges presented by the ongoing civil war. Presently, two Shia militias comprise a significant share of seats with Iraq’s Shia-dominated government. The Mahdi Army and Badr Militia, both of which have been active in the sectarian violence, currently hold more than 20% of the seats in Iraq’s parliament.

Aside from the Sunnis who are politically-disenfranchised in such an arrangement, Iraqis now have little confidence in the Iraqi government. In a November 14 op-ed piece in Al-Sabah al-Jadid, a Baghdad political daily newspaper, columnist Hasaballah Yahya complained, “Even as death carries on with its relentless daily harvest of Iraqi lives, our elected legislators, who represent none but themselves, continue to wallow in peace and wealth, totally unconcerned that their nation is drifting fast into the realm of the unknown or that their motherland is being burnt to cinders.” Hasan Hatim al-Madhkur, a columnist for Sotaliraq described the present government as “promoting their own ‘divide-and-rule’” agenda at the expense of Iraq’s welfare and charged that its leaders are “engaged in a feverish race to stoke up sectarian tension.”

Iraq’s security forces remain largely impotent and heavily tainted by militia elements. Lieutenant General Maples told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “The Ministry of Interior and the police are heavily infiltrated by members of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraaq or SCIRI’s Badr Corps and Moqtada al-Sadr’s Jayish al-Mahdi. The Jaysh al-Mahdi often operates under the protection or approval of Iraqi police to detain, torture, and kill suspected Sunni insurgents and innocent Sunni civilians.” Of Iraq’s current 134,000-man army, just 10 battalions or fewer than 10,000 men are deemed effective. In contrast, Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army now has 40,000 to 60,000 fighters. Worse, if provincial elections were held, a U.S. intelligence officer predicted that Sadr’s group would win most of the seats from southern Iraq and in Baghdad.

All said, the current on-the-ground situation in Iraq has grown very bad. The violence has advanced to the extent that one commentator, Mahdi Qassim proclaimed in Sotaliraq that “Saddam managed to ruin half of Iraq in thirty years” but the present arrangement has “succeeded in ruining the other half in just three.”

If a better outcome is still to be realized in Iraq, the United States, its allies, and moderate Arab states will need to proceed from the vantage point of the harsh reality that currently defines Iraq. The task ahead will be difficult. It will entail developing a legitimate Iraqi government, drafting a constitution that safeguards the rights of all Iraqis, establishing security, disarming the militias, developing political and legal institutions, allowing Iraqis to share ownership of the nation’s oil wealth, and reconstructing Iraq’s economic infrastructure. Otherwise, Sunni disenfranchisement will only grow, Al Qaeda could attain a new base, the ongoing civil war could intensify, and Iraq could ultimately fragment, with mixed-ethnicity areas becoming horrific killing zones as the country breaks up.

By: Don Sutherland
Don Sutherland has researched and written on a wide range of geopolitical issues.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle directory for attorneys, lawyers and the internet public.

What is going on with the California home sales market? According to the California Association of Realtors, there were twice as many California homes, on the market unsold, in October than a year ago, reflecting a 28.7 percent plunge in sales.

Colleen Badagliacco, president of the Realtors’ association, says

the median price for an existing home in October was $548,680, a 2 percent increase over the revised $537,930 median for October 2005, the October 2006 median price decreased 1.5 percent compared with September’s revised $556,920 median price.

We’re seeing a seasonal decline in the median price characteristic of this time of year, although the overall trend is a slight year-over-year increase.

Prices at the regional and county level have shown greater variability, with some areas posting year-to-year declines while others continue to register price gains compared with last year.

Leslie Appleton-Young, chief economist for the state association says,

The existing home market continues to be impacted by the inventory of new homes for sale, especially in areas where there has been excess capacity since the start of the year.

The unsold inventory of existing homes is at 7.2 months, twice last year’s inventory. Higher inventory levels are a key factor in the moderation of home price appreciation.

The median number of days it took to sell a single-family home was 57 days in October, compared with 34 days (revised) for the same period a year ago.

I wonder, have home prices gotten to high, or are there not enough people interested in buying a home or are developers just building too many new homes? Does this mean that now is not the time to sell your home or does this mean that it is time to sell and get out as prices are going to start falling?

In my opinion, our housing market is still OK. I find only three problems with the market. Developers are building too many small homes, sellers are asking too much for their homes and real easte people are bending the truth considerably when listing houses.

In example, I have a neighbor who recently put her home on the market. She bought the home three or four years ago for $360,000.00 and now has it listed for $749,995.00. It's a 1300 square foot home on a fairly small lot, with no pool and only a decent view, yet when you read the listing for the home it sounds fantastic. The listing is so exagerated that it is ridiculous. I will admit that the residence is probably worth close to the asking price due to the area it is in, however when people come to look at the residence they are expecting so much more that they become very disapointed. Our house is far more than twice as big, sits on a much larger lot, has a swimming pool, has much better views, much better aminities and far more privacy, yet when we read our neighbors listing we joked that we should sell our home and buy her's as her's sounded so much better than ours.

If our neighbor dropped her asking price to $700,000.00 and had a listing that told the truth, the residence would probably sell very fast. Instead, I believe that, the residence will sit on the market for a very long time.

If enough sellers are using these tactics, the time to sale will continue to lengthen and the statistics will continue to grow worse.

Additionally, developers are building more and more small houses on smaller lots. These houses are bound to sell for less than normal California houses and this of course will affect the medium home price.

My conclusion, the statistics may be starting to look bad but the market is doing just fine.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
For Resources For Attorneys, a Legal and Lifestyle resources directory for attorneys, lawyers and the internet community.

With Hezbollah threatening protests to topple Lebanon’s current government as part of a bid to change the balance of power within the government, Lebanon has been described in news accounts of being in the midst of one of its worst political crises in a generation. A few have even raised the prospect of renewed civil war. Although Lebanon is a country that is at an enhanced risk of sectarian conflict, the odds are against an outbreak of civil war within the next few months or less.

To be sure, Lebanon has many of the characteristics common to states that have experienced such conflict. Its population is mixed in terms of religious affiliation with the existence of two sizable major groups: Muslims (59.7%) and Christians (39%). The Muslim share of the population is increasing. Among the Muslims, 40% are Shia, and that proportion is also growing. These dynamics translate into longer-term pressure for a change in the fundamental sectarian calculation on which Lebanon’s post-civil war government has been organized. On account of the fragile, often uneasy, balance among Lebanon’s sectarian groups, Lebanon’s government is weak. In the recent past, Lebanon experienced a destructive and bloody civil war. The Shia-based Hezbollah group is heavily armed—and more than capable of taking on Lebanon’s relatively weak armed forces—and Shia sections of Lebanon have already suffered significant damage during the recent Israel-Hezbollah fighting, so the Shia have much less to lose in a new civil conflict.

The ongoing political crisis stems from a number of recent developments. First, Hezbollah has been emboldened by what it terms its “Divine Victory” over Israel. Second, its position has been stiffened by the narratives proclaimed by its Iranian and Syrian sponsors. Following the conflict with Israel, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared, “The myth of the invincibility of this contrived and decayed regime [Israel's Government] crumbled thanks to the faith and self-belief of Lebanon's Hezbollah.” Syrian President Bashar Assad predicted, “We tell them [Israelis] that after tasting humiliation in the latest battles, your weapons are not going to protect you - not your planes, or missiles or even your nuclear bombs ... The future generations in the Arab world will find a way to defeat Israel." Third, the establishment of a mixed international-Lebanese tribunal to try those responsible for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri has the potential to implicate Syria, and that has motivated Lebanon’s pro-Syria elements to try to preclude the creation of this court. A change in the Cabinet that grants Shia factions veto power would accomplish that objective. Fourth, in September, anti-Syria leaders in the Lebanese government called for the disarming of Hezbollah consistent with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701. Fifth, Lebanon is a pawn in a growing geopolitical struggle unfolding in the Middle East between Iran and the United States. With its difficulties in Iraq, the United States is perceived by Iran, Syria, and their allies in Lebanon, as a fading power that increasingly lacks diplomatic and military credibility. Hence, the stage was set for a political confrontation against a Lebanese government that still leans toward the United States and the West.

Recent events in Lebanon suggest that the overall risk of sectarian conflict is now rising. On October 31, 2006, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah demanded that the “March 14 Forces”—Lebanese political leaders who were instrumental in organizing a protest to demand that Syria withdraw its forces from Lebanon—agree to a national unity government by November 13. Such a government would mean a change in its current balance of power, a Shia veto over major decisions, and an end to Prime Minister Fouad Siniora’s tenure. Furthermore, Nasrallah threatened that if his ultimatum were ignored, “we will work to topple the government and establish an interim government, and then we will call for early parliamentary elections” and vowed “we will [no longer] hold back.” In his call for a “national unity government,” Nasrallah was backed by fellow pro-Syrian leader General Michel Aoun.

On November 8, Iran’s Kayhan newspaper, affiliated with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, opined that Lebanon must grant the Shia the largest representation in its government. In effect, the newspaper called for an abrogation of the framework established at the conclusion of the civil war that formally ended in 1990.

November 13 came and went. Shortly afterward, talks aimed at addressing Nasrallah’s calls proved unsuccessful and six pro-Syria ministers, including all of the Hezbollah representatives, resigned from the Cabinet. On November 19, Nasrallah declared that the talks had failed and pledged that Hezbollah would proceed with its objective of toppling the Lebanese government. On November 20, Nasrallah called the current Lebanese government “illegitimate and unconstitutional.”

A day later, Pierre Gemayel, a prominent anti-Syrian Christian political leader was assassinated in Beirut. Mr. Gemayel, the Minister of Industry, was the son of former President Amin Gemayel. Such a development was likely intended to intimidate Lebanon’s Christian community, which has strongly backed Lebanon’s “March 14” movement and has strongly opposed Hezbollah’s quest for greater power.

Nevertheless, even as the clouds of renewed sectarian conflict darken Lebanon’s future, historic experience suggests that any outbreak of significant sectarian war is not likely for at least the next few months. Many such conflicts incubate at a lower level of intensity for months or years before they finally erupt in full fury. In Yugoslavia, nationalistic riots began erupting periodically in 1968. Long periods of calm followed each riot. Civil war did not commence until 1991. In Iraq, low-level violence by Ba’athist elements and Al Qaeda in Iraq continued for months before the current sectarian strife began unfolding in an environment in which central authority and security were largely absent.

Even if Lebanon’s Shia heed Nasrallah’s possible call to engage in mass protests, such protests need not lead to violence, much less civil conflict. The peaceful “Cedar Revolution” that followed the assassination of Hariri and saw huge protests by both anti-Syria and pro-Syria elements suggests that Lebanon has some capacity to handle protests. At the same time, Druze political leader, Walid Jumblatt, who has been among the most influential anti-Syria and anti-Hezbollah voices in Lebanon, ruled out counter-protests that could create opportunities for violent clashes.

As a result, the next few months will likely see angry political posturing, renewed negotiations that may be brokered to some extent by Saudi Arabia, Syria and/or Iran, possible protests, and perhaps one or more riots, along with some assassinations. Compromise that would defuse the current political standoff might still be possible. It is not assured that Prime Minister Siniora will retain his post afterward. Agreement to hold early elections is a possibility but not a certainty. A political solution that revamps the current governing arrangement is probably unlikely in the near-term until after the international-Lebanese tribunal is in place. A compromise that falls just short of granting the Shia a veto is possible.

If Lebanon is to experience a fresh civil war within the next few months or sooner, one or more of the following events would likely be the proverbial spark that would ignite the fuse. An assassination of a highly prominent leader such as Hassan Nasrallah, Fouad Siniora, Nabih Beri, Walid Jumblatt, or Sa'ad Hariri, son of Rafiq Hariri and the Majority Leader of Lebanon’s Parliament. One or more attacks on important places of worship or cultural symbols that are revered by Lebanon’s Christian or Shia communities. Those attacks could instigate a self-sustaining and growing cycle of retaliation and revenge. A massacre of Christians or Shia. An effort by a region within Lebanon i.e., Shia-dominated south Lebanon or the predominantly Christian northern part of Lebanon, to secede and form its own independent state. Such an effort could spark conflict as occurred when Yugoslavia began fragmenting in 1991. The heaviest fighting and human toll would be likely to occur in mixed areas in which people from the rival sectarian groups live in close proximity. An economic crisis that forces harsh austerity measures might also precipitate a “zero-sum” competition among Lebanon’s sectarian groups that could grow violent.

Finally, if some of the major dynamics driving the current political standoff do not change or are not resolved, the risks of major sectarian violence could begin to increase from mid-February onward. On February 14, 2005, former Prime Minister Hariri was assassinated. On March 8, 2005 Hezbollah organized a sizable protest backing Syria’s continued de facto occupation of Lebanon. That date coincided with a car bomb attack in a predominantly Shia suburb outside Beirut in 1985 that killed 45 people and wounded 175 others, as they were gathering outside a mosque for Friday prayers. On March 14, 2005 anti-Syria elements staged an even larger protest demanding Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon. On April 13, 1975, following an attack on a Maronite church in Ayn ar Rummanaha, a predominantly Christian suburb of Beirut, the spiral of violence that became a full-fledged civil war commenced.

Will Lebanon join Iraq in sectarian conflict? For the next few months, odds suggest that it won’t, but the path ahead could be treacherous. Afterward, the probability could increase, especially in the medium-term and beyond.

By: Don Sutherland
Don Sutherland has researched and written on a wide range of geopolitical issues.

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle directory for attorneys, lawyers and the internet public.

My computer is in the kitchen, beside a big bay window. Outside the window is a tree. I love watching the birds and squirrels romp and play in and around that tree as I type and think.

Last year at this time, I watched as the leaves on that tree changed from green to bright oranges and yellows. I watched as the winds blew and those leaves came tumbling down. And I watched as one lonely leaf stayed green and connected.

All winter long, as the harsh winds blew, temperatures dropped and snow landed on the tree branches, that one lone green leaf survived.

That one lone leaf inspired me last year. It was a reminder to me of the importance of staying connected to the One who cares the most about me, and that by being connected, I could survive all the winds and cold the world wants to dump on me.

And what a strange world it has become out there on the other side of my window. The US census reports that over 85% of Americans still say they believe in God. If that is true, how have we allowed God to be taken from our schools?

Benjamin Franklin once said, "I have lived, Sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this Truth, that God governs in the Affairs of Men. And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?"

I believe it was also Benjamin Franklin who said that the only true history is in the Bible. (Although I cannot find the quote that I read again just yesterday.) Our children are being taught a history of our country that is false or is only half true. Most of the founding fathers were godly men and they knew that without God, our country could not survive and thrive.

Our children are told (and so many adults believe) that Thomas Jefferson was adamant about the separation of church and state. Many, wrongly, think those words are in our founding documents. They are not. They were penned by Jefferson in a letter where he was assuring the recipient that our government would not dictate or form a religion that all must follow - as had been the case in Europe for years.

Jefferson did say, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever."

In his 28 Principles of Freedom, Ben Franklin said:

The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law. (God's Law)

A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.

Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.

All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible .

To protect human rights, God has revealed a code of divine law.

The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity.

The United States has a manifest destiny to eventually become a glorious example of God's law under a restored Constitution that will inspire the entire human race.


John Adams wrote: "I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."

Our founding fathers thought they had a divine mission. I wonder what they would think of the United States now.

By doing nothing, each US citizen is partially to blame for outcome of today’s society, today’s children, today’s educational system. We think that one person cannot make a difference, but that is just not true.

Voting just took place, and changes were promised in many of the ads proceeding the election. It is up to each one of us to watch over those elected officials to make sure they are doing the right things for our entire country, not just for one individual area of the country.

Another of Ben Franklin's 28 Principles was this: "The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders."

Do you think we elected virtuous leaders? Do you think they will stay that way if we choose to just let them become “Washingtonized”?

By: Marilyn Mackenzie
Marilyn Mackenzie has been writing about home, family, faith and nature for over 40 years. She is an author on http://www.Writing.Com which is a site for Creative Writers. Her portfolio can be found at http://www.Writing.Com/authors/kenzie

Featured by Resources For Attorneys, a Legal Resources and Lifestyle directory for attorneys, lawyers and the internet public.