Posted on 11/26/2004 6:10:46 AM PST by presidio9
In 1864, 11 of the 36 United States did not participate in the presidential election. Was Abraham Lincoln's election therefore illegitimate? In 1868, three states did not participate in the election. Was Ulysses Grant's election illegitimate? There has been much talk that if the Iraqi election is held and some Sunni Arab provinces (perhaps three of the 18) do not participate, the election will be illegitimate. Nonsense. The election should be held. It should be open to everyone. If Iraq's Sunni Arabs - barely 20% of the population - decide they cannot abide giving up their 80 years of minority rule, tough luck. They forfeit their chance to participate in the new Iraq.
Americans are dying right now to give them that chance. The U.S. is making a costly last-ditch effort to midwife a new, unitary Iraq. The Fallujah and related offensives are designed to reduce the brutal intimidation of the Sunni population by the dead-end Baathists and others seeking to retake the power they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein.
But when those offensives are over, the Sunnis will have to make a choice. Either they join the new Iraq by participating in the coming election or they institutionalize the civil war their side has already begun.
People keep warning about the danger of civil war. This is absurd. There already is a civil war. It is raging before our eyes. Problem is, only one side is fighting it. The other side, the Shiites and the Kurds, are largely watching as their part of the fight is borne primarily by the U.S. Both have an interest in the outcome. The Shiites constitute a majority of Iraqis and inevitably will inherit power in any democratic arrangement. The Kurds want to retain their successful autonomous zone without worrying about new depredations at the hands of the Sunni Arabs.
This is the Shiites' and Kurds' fight. Yet when police stations are ravaged by Sunni Arab insurgents in Mosul, U.S. soldiers rush in to fight them. The question is: Why don't we unleash the fierce, well-trained Kurdish Peshmerga militias on them?
Yes, some of the Iraqi police/national guard units fighting with our troops are largely Kurdish. But they, like the Shiites, fight in an avowedly nonsectarian Iraqi force. Why? Because we want to maintain the idea of a unified, nonethnic Iraq. But at some point, we must decide whether that is possible or not, and how many American lives should be sacrificed in its name.
Six months ago, I wrote: "Our goal has been to build a united, pluralistic, democratic Iraq in which the factions negotiate their differences the way we do in the West" but that "may be, in the short run, a bridge too far. ... We should lower our ambitions and see Iraqi factionalization as a useful tool."
I understand Shiite wariness about fighting with us. It is not, as conventional wisdom has it, because of some deep-seated Iraqi nationalism. In 1991, the Shiites begged the U.S. to intervene during their uprising against Saddam. They were dying, literally, for the American Army to help them. Unfortunately, they were betrayed. Having encouraged them to rebel, we did not lift a finger as Saddam slaughtered them.
Given that history, they are understandably wary about American steadfastness and intentions. If they do go out on a limb and pick up the fight against the insurgent Sunnis, will we leave them hanging again?
Our taking on the Sunnis is a way of showing good faith, as is our intention to hold the election no matter what. Everyone knows the outcome will be a historic transfer of power to Shiites (and, to some extent, Kurds). We must make it clear that we will be there to support that new government.
But we also have to make it clear that we are not there to lead the fight indefinitely. It is their civil war.
He makes a very good argument that we are basically doing Sistani's dirty work. He can piously remain above the fray and stay in good with the rest of the Arab world.
The Sunnis are a hopeless case. I don't want to be reading a month from now about all the money we are spending to rebuild Fallujah. Let it smoulder.
He was in an auto accident as a young man and is paralyzed from the waist down.
thats what we should do. we should help to make sure that fight is as bloody as possible also.
right now we are just helping terrorists kill other terrorists. the risk is that democracy will make terrorists into civilized people and i dont think it will pay off.
The USSR tried that in Afganistan, and look where it got us.
What are ya, a glutton for punishment? ;-)
Coming up on one year here. It's getting a little chilly and windy about now.
There seemed to be a large majority against the US troops in Kosovo being under UN command. Now we see everybody happy to see our troops under a former Saddaam Sunni leader calling the shots in an Iraq that is 60% opposed to Sunnis. Does this make sense? Please, can we do more to inflame the situation?
Errrr...ummmm....I don't know. What do you suggest?
(Psssst....I'm not really in charge here. I just work here.)
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.