As a newbie I had broached a couple of points on other threads but never got a response.
One had to deal with the obvious divide among Shia, Sunni, and Kurds - and the does anyone think that the goal of a unified democratic government is even pssible anymore?
Another speculative issue I brought up is our military forces are taking casulaties primarily from Sunni insurgents, while at the same time keeping a watchful eye on the Shiite millitia under Al Sadr.
Furthermore, given a recent visit by VP Cheney to Saudi Arabia, was our increase of naval forces in the Gulf tied exclusively with the nuclear issue with Iran - or also sending a message to Shiites that no ethnic cleansing of Iraq Sunni's will be tolerated, especially if supported by Iran?
Which brings me to a poser. If our military is taking so many casualties from Sunni insurgents (and I do throw in the whole mix bag of Saddamist/Baathis die-hardsand deadenders, as well as foreign fighters, including al Queda). Why would we be so concerned about Shiite militias (or even predominantly Shiite army/police units) rid us of the problem? This is certainly a two edged sword - on one hand we are actually protecting those who are doing most of the IED's and sniper attacks - on the other hand, letting the Shiites do a wholesale payback would not look good for us as we would seem to approve - and may make the House of Saud back up it's empty threat to protect Iraqs Sunni population (which again accounts for most of the casualties our forces are taking).
Given all the reasons that have divided our country for being in Iraq in the first place, is there anyone who would support our presence in the middle of an Isamic religious war?
We have long been tied to that region for 2 major reasons - oil and Israel. I see three positions we may have to face the longer we stay:
- supporting Shia Iran (a non-starter)
- pro-Sunni Saudi Arabia (haven't we always)
-being an honest broker (In an Islamic bar-fight? give me a break)
I know there will probably be someone who will latch on to a particular comment I made as a basis to start an argument. I don't want an argument that devolves down into ad hominen attacks.
if nothing else, please tell me I see something wrong with accepting casualties from the "insurgency" in Iraq, while also protecting them.
|