Subj : The War Has No Clothes To : Frank Reid From : Angus McLeod Date : Sat Oct 08 2005 02:28 pm Re: The War Has No Clothes By: Frank Reid to Angus McLeod on Sat Oct 08 2005 10:27:00 > > > We're not trying to establish a "mini-US" there, and it will take some > > > time, but it's very reasonable to expect Iraq to flourish as a > > > democratic society. > > > > Hahahaha! > > I have a simple question, but I don't expect an honest answer. For a second > throw away all the conspiracy theories and set aside your obvious racism. D > you want the U.S. to fail in Iraq? My immediate reaction is to say "Of course not!", but then I stop and draw breath and ask, "Fail at what?" When you start talking in general terms, using emotive phrases with little actual semantic meaning (like "war on terror" and "freedom of the people") then I suppose the answer is "No, I do not want you to fail." But when I try to picture what those wonderful platitudes mean in real terms, it isn't so easy to decide. Power-politics in the middle-east are defined by various groups. In this particular case, the major players are the Sunni and the Shiia. Perhaps it's true to say that they are all a pile of rag-headed sheep-fondlers, but the Sunni are of a more progressive, secular disposition (as typified by the Saudis, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, etc) than the Shiites who are fundamentalist, religious fanatics (as typified by the Ayatollah Khomeini and his band of merrie men). In Iraq, the Sunni are outnumberedby the Shiites, two to one. During the Saddam Hussein regime, the Sunni were preeminent, despite their minority status, because SH brutally suppressed any opposition to his Baath party. I denounce SH's methods and behaviour, but it can not be denied that Sunni preeminence in Iraq over the last 25-ish years lead it to be one of the most progressive and developed of middle-eastern states. With the departure of SH/Baath, there is *bound* to be a readjustment in Iraq. With the two to one majority of the Shiites, it is highly likely that the nature of life in Iraq will swing back towards fundamentalism, with a theocratic leadership, and strict religious observances becoming the norm. This is particularly so, if you consider that Iran, a large, powerful regime located right next door, is firmly comtrolled by the Shiites/fundamentalists, and more than willing to assist their Shiite brothers across the border in Iraq. World leaders have, for the past 20+ years juggled with the conundrum: How to remove the Saddam Hussein regime, without allowing the Shiite fundamentalists to sweep to power. A Shiite controlled Iraq, should it align with a Shiite controlled Iran, would represent the larges political and military power-bloc in the middle east. Significantly larger, in fact, than ALL OTHER muslim groups in the region, put together. One wonders how long they would be willing to allow Mecca and Medina to remain in the hands of "godless Sunnis", before sweeping west across Saudi. I doubt it would be long before the Israelis were embroiled in a war to defend themselves against extinction. You know, the same Israelis who *do* most definately have WMD? George Bush seems to have acted without any knowledge of the above. Perhaps he was briefed and couldn't grasp the complexities. Perhaps he cared more about improving his own PR position in the face of an approaching election. Whatever. The fact is, the Baath party and Saddam Hussein are no more, and the swing towards Shiia and fundamentalism is now inevitable. The only reason the slaughter has not yet begun in full, is because there are a couple hundred thousand American troops on the ground in Iraq to prevent it. So what is America doing to stabilize the situation? They have built up a security force! They ignore the fact that initially, this force was 95% Shiite, and that the 5% Sunni have since been displaced, making the security force an agent of Shiite fundamentalism. They train and equip this force. They fail to recognise that every clash between this security force and "insurgent terrorists" is in actuality, a clash between the Shiites and the Sunnis who object to America arming and equipping and training their enemies. The acts of terrorism you are witnessing today are only tiny samples of what will happen the moment your troops depart, leaving the country to it's own devices. So to return to your question: do I want you to fail? Let me re-phrase it. Do I want you to successfully train a strong force of fundamentalist Shiites who will at the first opportunity, destroy or thoroughly subjugate the progressive Sunni muslims in Iraq, thus making a political and military union with Iran a real possibility, and jeopardizing the peace and stability of the *entire* middle-east? Answer: No. Do I think some peaceful alternative is possible? Answer: No, you've already screwed things up so bad that a bloodbath is inevitable. --- þ Synchronet þ Debatable wisdom from The ANJO BBS .