Posted on 08/28/2006 10:13:44 PM PDT by TheConservativeCitizen
Headline: Shiite militiamen clash with Iraqi forces south of Baghdad; 40 people killed
This spells trouble, maybe, but maybe not. The government forces are standing, fighting, and actually bringing in reinforcements to fight some more. Good news.
The bad news is that Iraq is probably going to have to experience a 'civil war' to actually become a truly functional nation-state.
This is the opening salvo of the civil war among the Shiites.
The sides in this war is what really makes this interesting. There are multiple personalities here.
The Sadr wing of the Shiites are the ones backed by Iran and are anti-West and anti-US. The more moderate 'wing' of the Shiites is represented by the weak but growing US backed government and army and they, in turn, are backed by the Iranian leery and ageing Grand Ayatollah of Iraq.
The Sunni's have their forces in the field, a mix of die-hards, Saddam loyalists, remnants of the old regime and army etc. that are fearful of being frozen out of the new Iraq.
The Kurds in the North basically have aligned themselves with the moderate Shia, have their own army and flag, and have basically seceded from the rest of the country and achieved their dream of a US backed Kurdish homeland.
That leaves the contingent of Al-Qaeda and foreign fighter types who are a serious threat on the battlefield due to their tenacity and spectacular attacks though they are relatively weak in numbers they are well financed and well organized.
The US needs to pick a side, get the troops out of the streets and into the big bases while using them a rapid reaction force as well as to guard the oil fields and infrastructure. Not to mention as a trump card against both Iran and Syria.
Otherwise, we've just got to get out of the way and quit playing policeman. Let them fight it out. Just make sure 'our side' has the troops, the organization, the international recognition, the oil money, the military and financial support and the training to at least hold out, if not to win outright as time goes by.
The side who can outlast the others will win this game.
I agree. I don't think its a good call to "pick a side" because then we become targets and combantants. I also think its important to continue the humanitarian aspect of the mission. But yeah, I'm all for letting them fight it out. We had a civil war. It was terrible, and by far the worst thing to ever happen to this country. But I'm gonna have to say we turned out all right in the end. They want to see civil war, they need to take a walk around Gettysburg.
The bad thing though (from another article I read) was that the casualties were listed as 25 soldiers, 10 civilians, and 5 "militiamen." I have no doubt these figures are inaccurate. Even so, if they are anywhere near correct, that means there's a 5:1 kill ration--in the jihadis' favor! If that's not wrong, I don't know what is.
It is good that they are standing up, but as of that article I read, they've made a truce which is very bad.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.