Sunni or Later
Figuring out Iraq -- Picture courtesy Wikipedia
by blogSpotter
"Flexibility" -- that is the new word coming from Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Warner, regarding Iraq. Several prominent Republicans have now started bandying about these words. Who would imagine that the White House staff, of all people, now think that "stay the course" is too rigid a phrase. Those as high up as Tony Snow, and dare we say Bush have now suggested that "stay the course" might be scrapped. James Baker, an old family friend has recently done a study of the Iraq situation, and concluded that there are politically viable ways of "not staying the course".
It seems in Iraq that we've mired ourselves in a religious civil war. It is a war between a fundamentalist Shiite majority and a determined Sunni minority. The Shiites have "prevailed" in the current government by sheer numbers but numbers like that don’t always add up. Shiites, like their Wahabist brethren are rather fundamentalist and backward in their behavior. The Sunnis, on the other hand are a group of people who are better educated, more technological and much more Western-oriented in their way of thinking. I can only surmise that 6 Sunnis with technology, common sense and a plan are superior to 6,000 Shiites with "none of the above". Furthermore, the Sunnis are more aligned with Egypt and Saudi Arabia -- allies that the US holds near and dear. In previous decades, the United States has tacitly allied itself with Sunni governments, because of the very chaos we're seeing in Baghdad, when fundamentalist Shiites take the wheel.
Rumsfeld, the devil himself, has spoken recently of giving "amnesty" to Sunni insurgents. The "A" word finally surfaced, three years after the fact. Now, what would a Sunni Iraq look like? This Iraq would probably have an iron-fisted dictator to keep everyone in line. He would be the kind of guy that doesn't take crap from anyone -- not the kind of guy we'd want in America. But Iraq is not America; it requires a zoo keeper not a Speaker of the House. The Iraq you see now, is an Iraq without adult supervision --enough said. But the Sunni Iraq would probably allow women to attend college and drive cars. It would allow open Christian worship, and it would allow Sunnis to marry Shiites. Oh, and by the way, all of that was the case before we invaded Iraq. Is it the picture we would want for America? No, not at all. America embraces secular Democratic traditions, as well as Church/State separation. But "iron-fist" Iraq is probably the best they'll do under the circumstances, and far better than the pandemonium they have right now.
© 2006 blogSpotter.
Labels: Politics, War in Iraq
posted by blogspotter @ 8:08 AM
5 Comments:
The only problem with dividing it now is that the oil-rich property is in the Shiite south. Sunnis would not want to relinquish any of that.
Would be like a complicated divorce settlement.
Once George W. Bush is out of office on January 20, 2009, the tone of the Iraq situation will change to something more positive - even if the basic policies remain the same.
The far left's pathological hatred for Bush has tainted every position they take on all issues. I have no doubt that some would sacrifice their own grandmothers in favor fanning the fires of hatred for Bush.
It's all about Bush and the Florida 2000 recount. All about Bush. All about Bush. All about Bush...and will continue to be all about Bush until he retires.
Iraq will eventually work itself out - as a democracy, another police state, or will be taken over by Iran.
Muslims, in general, have proven themselves to be an uneducated, barbaric, close-minded, and savage culture destined not to change at any cost. What is worse is that Western civilization has buried its politically correct head in the sand.
Going to war with a culture that stopped progessing 1400 years ago is a lesson that the West has had to learn the hard way. Western Europe lives in fear of Islamo-fascists and cowtows to every demand, while at the same time living in denial that this backward civilization is a problem.
We are experiencing the beginnings of World War III and few people have the guts to acknowledge this. The sooner we admit what we are up against, the more effectively we will be in fighting this evil.
Unfortunately, much more damage will be done to this country and to other western countries before Worl War III is taken seriously.
I don't think anyone realized before the war that the Sunni/Shia split could be the cause for the escalating violence in Iraq. But, in Iraq, the tensions must have been there before hand. When Saddam Hussein was in power, the Sunni were the minority ruling party. Hussein clamped down hard on the uprisings in the Kurdish north and the Shia south.
After the first Iraq war, under daddy Bush, the Shia rose up against Saddam Hussein, thinking (wrongly) that the U.S. military was going to support them. Even though we had supported Hussein for decades and sold him the weapons of mass destruction, which he used against the Kurds and the Shia, he had become a pest. We wanted Hussein out. Except, back them, we didn't want to lose too many extra American soldiers removing a dictator which we helped bring to power. That’s where the Shia came in. We wanted them to fight our war for us. We let them believe that we were going to support them in a revolution, but we didn’t. Instead, we led them to slaughter. By themselves, they weren’t strong enough to overthrow Hussein. Hussein massacred over 100,000 Shia in the South as retribution for their uprising. Our government betrayed the Shia.
Now with Saddam Hussein gone, the power structure has switched. The Shia won the elections which many Sunni boycotted. That’s why we invaded Iraq, bombed them, killed them, and tortured them. Right? So they can have a democracy? It wasn’t because our government was holding the receipts for the weapons of mass destruction which we sold to Iraq, which the UN weapons inspectors said they destroyed, which Hussein said he didn’t have any more. It wasn’t because of those WMD’s was it?
I saw in the news that another bomb went off in Baghdad today, in the Sadr City region. Most of the victims were Shia. They were labourers looking for work. I don’t know which side in Iraq, the Sunni or the Shia, has more militants. I do know that the people who were killed today were targeted because they were Shia and that the perpetrators of the violence were extremists. It must be very difficult for the Sunni and Shia alike to be moderates. You see, in Iraq, the extremists on both sides want members of the other side dead. That forces people to choose alliances.
Good inputs from everyone. I also think we have a long-standing problem, which involvement in Iraq hasn't resolved. If a rogue nation like Iran ever uses nuclear weapons, it will be an invitation for US & European Union to occupy the Middle East w/ massive forces. This would be going 'out w/ a bang'.
Else, the backward nations will watch w/ envy as neighbors like Turkey join the European Union or India develops an affluent technical class. Smart people in Iraq will probably wish to 'assimilate' to pluralist Democratic ideals. Backward people will be consigned to equivalent of U.S. Indian reservations (but over there). This will be 'out with a whimper'.
Ethno-centric analysis? Yeah, but that's how it looks.
All the other great comments aside, your last line about the U.S. embracing seperation of Church and State is a falicious one. What the Constitution acutally says is that there shall be no state mandated religion.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That being said, Iraq is and will continue to be a religious state.
Post a Comment
<< Home