In Iraq, Bush is laying the foundations of an Islamic Republic

On June 4, Jalal Talabani, president of Iraq, attended the inauguration of the Kurdistan National Assembly in Irbil, northern Iraq. Talabani, a Kurd, is not only the first-ever democratically elected head of state in Iraq, but in a country that traces its history back to the Garden of Eden, he is, as one friend observed, "the first freely chosen leader of this land since Adam was here alone." While Kurds are enormously proud of his accomplishment, the flag of Iraq - the country Talabani heads - was noticeably absent from the inauguration ceremony, nor can it be found anywhere in Irbil, a city of one million that is the capital of Iraq's Kurdistan Region.

Ann Bodine, the head of the American embassy office in Kirkuk, spoke at the ceremony, congratulating the newly minted parliamentarians, and affirming the U.S. commitment to an Iraq that is, she said, "democratic, federal, pluralistic, and united." The phrase evidently did not apply in Irbil. In their oath, the parliamentarians were asked to swear loyalty to the unity of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Many pointedly dropped the "of Iraq."

The shortest speech was given by the head of the Iranian intelligence service in Irbil, a man known to the Kurds as Agha Panayi. Staring directly at Bodine, he said simply: "This is a great day. Throughout Iraq, the people we supported are in power." He did not add "Thank you, George W. Bush." The unstated was understood.

When Bush spoke to the nation on June 28, he did not mention Iran's rising influence with the Shiite-led government in Baghdad. He did not point out that the two leading parties in the Shiite coalition are pursuing an Islamic state in which the rights of women and religious minorities will be sharply curtailed, and that this kind of regime is already being put into place in parts of Iraq controlled by these parties. Nor did he say anything about the almost unanimous desire of Kurdistan's people for their own independent state.

Instead, Bush depicted the struggle in Iraq as a battle between the freedom-loving Iraqi people and terrorists. Without the sacrifices of the American servicemen and women, and the largesse of the U.S. taxpayer, the terrorists could win. As Bush put it, "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11 - if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi."

Bush's effort to revive the link between Iraq and September 11 produced a flood of criticism, leading some of his critics to dismiss him as a habitual liar on Iraq matters. Alas, the comment may be more indicative of how disconnected administration strategy is from the realities of Iraq. Unfortunately, many of the administration's sharpest critics seem to share its assumption that there is a people sharing a common Iraqi identity, an inaccurate assumption that provides fodder for misleading Vietnam analogies.

There is, in fact, no Iraqi insurgency. There is a Sunni Arab insurgency. And it cannot win. Neither the Al-Qaeda terrorists nor the former Baathists can win. Even if the U.S. withdrew tomorrow, neither insurgents nor terrorists would be knocking down the gates to Iraq's Presidential Palace in Baghdad.

Basically, the military equation in Iraq comes down to demographics. Sunni Arabs are no more than 20 percent of Iraq's population. Even in Baghdad - once the seat of Sunni Arab power - Sunni Arabs are a minority. To succeed, the insurgency would have to win support from Iraq's other major communities - the Kurds at 20 percent and the Shiites at between 55 percent and 60 percent. This cannot happen.

While the Kurds are mostly Sunni Muslims, they have a history of repression at the hands of Sunni Arabs. A few dozen Kurds have been involved in terrorist acts, but Al-Qaeda and its allies have no support in the Kurdistan population, which is one reason Kurdistan has largely been spared the violence that has wracked Arab Iraq.

The Shiites are completely immune to any appeal by insurgents. Sunni fundamentalists consider Shiites apostates, and possibly a more dangerous enemy than they do even the Americans. (The Americans, they know, will leave. The apostates want to rule.) For the last two years, Sunni Arab insurgents have targeted Shiite mosques, clerics, religious celebrations and pilgrims - with a toll in the thousands. The insurgent goal is to provoke sectarian war, and they seem to be succeeding. In spite of calls for restraint by Shiite leaders, there are growing numbers of retaliatory killings of Sunni Arabs by Shiites.

For most of his 35-year rule Saddam Hussein faced guerrilla warfare from Kurds or Shiites - and sometimes both. Even the most brutal of tactics could not pacify communities that did not accept Sunni Arab rule. Today Sunni Arabs reject rule by Iraq's Shiite majority. It is unrealistic to think the American military - operating with a fraction of the intelligence of the Saddam Hussein regime and with much less brutality (Abu Ghraib notwithstanding) - can quell a Sunni Arab resistance that is no longer solely anti-American but also anti-Shiite.

In his speech, Bush outlined a two-pronged strategy for dealing with the insurgency: the training of Iraqi military and security forces to take over the fight ("As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down") and the continuation of Iraq's democratic transition with the writing of a constitution as its centerpiece.

Building national security institutions is a challenge in a country that does not have a shared national identity. Saddam's army consisted of Sunni Arab officers (with a few exceptions) and Shiite and (until 1991) Kurdish conscripts. Today, the Iraqi military and security services are a mixture of Kurdish Peshmerga, rehabilitated Sunni Arab officers from Saddam's army, and Shiite and Sunni Arab recruits. What is little-known is that virtually all of the effective fighting units in the new Iraqi military are in fact former Kurdish Peshmerga. These units owe no loyalty to Iraq, and, if recalled by the Kurdistan government, they will all go north to fight for Kurdistan.

The Shiites, naturally, want a Shiite military that will be loyal to the new Shiite-dominated government. They have encouraged the Shiite militias - and notably the Badr Brigade - to take over security in the Shiite south, and to integrate themselves into the national military. Neither the Shiites nor the Kurds want the Sunni Arabs to have a significant part in the new Iraqi military or security services. They suspect - with good reason in many cases - that the Sunni Arabs in the military are in fact cooperating with the insurgency. No Kurdish minister in the national government uses Iraqi forces for his personal security, nor will any of them inform the Iraqi authorities of their movements. Instead, they entrust their lives to specially trained Peshmerga brought to Baghdad. Many Shiite ministers use the Shiite militias in the same way.

A few months after the Iraqi elections, U.S. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld flew to Baghdad to warn the new Shiite-led government not to purge Sunni Arabs from the police and military. He got a promise, but the government has no intention of keeping on people associated with Saddam's regime. Too many of them have the blood of Shiites or Kurds on their hands, and neither group is in a forgiving mood. But the Americans, with little comprehension of Iraq's recent history, seem not to understand. Recently, the Kurds identified the retired Iraqi officer who personally carried out the 1983 execution of more than 5,000 members of the tribe of the Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani. The killer's son holds a senior security position in Iraq, appointed by the American occupation authorities.

A Shiite list won a narrow majority in Iraq's January elections. Sponsored by Iraq's leading Shiite, Ayatollah Ali Sistani (himself an Iranian who was therefore ineligible to vote), the list includes Shiite religious parties, some secular Shiites including the one-time Pentagon favorite Ahmad Chalabi, and even a few Sunni Arabs. Real power in Shiite Iraq rests, however, with two religious parties: Abdul Aziz Hakim's Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and Al-Daawa ("Call," in English) of Iraq's Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari. Of the two, SCIRI is the more pro-Iranian. Both parties have military wings, and SCIRI's Badr Corps has grown significantly from the 5,000 fighters that harassed Saddam's regime from Iran in the decades before the war; it now works closely with Iraq's Shiite interior minister, until recently the corps' commander, to provide security and fight Sunni Arab insurgents.

SCIRI and Daawa want Iraq to be an Islamic state. They propose making Islam the principal source of law, which most immediately would affect the status of women. For Muslim women, religious law - rather than Iraq's relatively progressive civil code - would govern personal status, including matters relating to marriage, divorce, property and child custody. A Daawa draft for the Iraqi constitution would limit religious freedom for non-Muslims, and apparently deny such freedom altogether to peoples not "of the book," such as the Yezidis (a significant minority in Kurdistan), Zoroastrians and Bahais.

This program is not just theoretical. Since Saddam's fall, Shiite religious parties have had de facto control over Iraq's southern cities. There Iranian-style religious police enforce a conservative Islamic code, including dress codes and bans on alcohol and other non-Islamic behavior. In most cases, the religious authorities govern - and legislate - without authority from Baghdad, and certainly without any reference to the freedoms incorporated in Iraq's American-written interim constitution - the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL).

Daawa and SCIRI are not just promoting an Iranian-style political system - they are also directly promoting Iranian interests. Abdul Aziz Hakim, the SCIRI leader, has advocated paying Iran billions in reparations for damage done in the Iran-Iraq war, even as the Bush administration has been working to win forgiveness for Iraq's Saddam-era debt. Iraq's Shiite oil minister is promoting construction of an export pipeline for petroleum from Basra to the Iranian port city of Abadan, creating an economic and strategic link between the two historic adversaries that would have been unthinkable until now. Iraq's Shiite government has acknowledged Iraq's responsibility for starting the Iran-Iraq war, and apologized. It is an acknowledgment probably justified by the historical record, but one that has infuriated Iraq's Sunni Arabs.

Through its spies, infiltrators and sympathizers, Iran has a presence in Iraq's security forces and military. It is virtually certain that Iran has access to any intelligence that the Iraqis have. Not only does Iran have an opportunity to insert its people into the Iraqi apparatus, it also has many Iraqi allies willing to do its bidding. When I asked an Iraqi with major intelligence responsibilities about foreign infiltration into Iraq, he dismissed the influx from Syria (the focus of the Bush administration's attention) and said the real problem was from Iran. When I asked how the infiltration took place, he said simply, "But Iran is already in Baghdad."

On July 7, the Iranian and Iraqi defense ministers signed an agreement on military cooperation that would have Iranians train the Iraqi military. The Iraqi defense minister made a point of saying American views would not count: "Nobody can dictate to Iraq its relations with other countries." However, even if the training is deferred or derailed, it is only the visible - and very much smaller - component of a stealthy Iranian encroachment into Iraq's national institutions and security services.

So far, the Bush administration seems surprisingly untroubled by the influence in Baghdad of a country to which it has shown unrelenting hostility. But should Bush want to understand why the Shiites have shown so little receptivity to his version of democracy, he need only go back to his father's presidency. On February 15, 1991, former President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi people and military to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The Shiites made the mistake of believing he meant it. Three days after the Gulf war ended, on March 2, a Shiite rebellion began in Basra and quickly spread to the southern reaches of Baghdad. Then Saddam counterattacked with great ferocity. Three hundred thousand Shiites ultimately died. Not only did the elder President Bush not help, his administration refused even to hear the pleas of the more and more desperate Shiites. While Bush's behavior may have many explanations, no Shiite I know of sees it as anything other than a calculated plan to have them slaughtered. By contrast, Iran, which backed SCIRI and Daawa and equipped the Badr Brigade, has long been seen as a reliable friend.

Days after the Kurdistan National Assembly convened in June, it elected Kurdistan Democratic Party leader Massoud Barzani as the first president of Kurdistan. Before so doing, it passed a law making him commander in chief of the Kurdistan military, but specifically prohibited him from deploying Kurdistan forces elsewhere in Iraq, unless expressly approved by the assembly. (Kurdistan retains some 50,000 Peshmerga under the direct control of the Kurdistan government.) The assembly also banned the entry of non-Kurdish Iraqi military forces into Kurdistan without its approval. Kurdish leaders are mindful that their people are even more militant in their demands. Two million Kurds voted in a January referendum on independence held simultaneously with the national ballot, with 98 percent choosing the independence option.

Kurdistan's leaders would like Iraq to be a loose confederation in which Kurdistan makes its own laws, retains its own military, the Iraqi military stays out, and Kurdistan manages its own oil and water resources. Although Iraq's interim constitution, the TAL, talks of "federalism," it has been implemented so as to create no more than a confederal relationship between Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq. The Kurdish leaders would accept its continuation provided the text was clarified to assure Kurdistan's ownership of petroleum in the region and if the status of the disputed region of Kirkuk were resolved.

While the Shiite religious parties accepted the TAL when it was promulgated in 2004, the Kurds now believe they don't mean it. When he swore in his Cabinet on May 3, 2005, Jaafari eliminated reference to a "federal Iraq" from the statutory oath of office; this so angered Barzani that he forced a second swearing-in ceremony. Some Shiite drafts for Iraq's permanent constitution would sharply restrict Kurdistan's autonomy and demote Kurdish from its current status at the federal level as an official language equal with Arabic. The Kurdish leaders also worry that the Shiites will try to eliminate Kurdistan's current ability to modify the application of national law in Kurdistan; they fear that the Shiites will, at least, stop secular Kurdistan from rejecting the imposition of Islamic law.

In his speech, Bush alluded to the importance of Iraqis meeting their deadlines. The deadline that looms is August 15 for the National Assembly to adopt a constitution. Because the differences among Iraq's three communities are great, it seems unlikely that they can find common ground on a constitution by August 15, if ever. But the deadline could be met if the assembly agrees simply to continue the TAL, with some modifications of the provisions on oil and Kirkuk. The Shiites have a desire similar to the Kurds' for oil to be owned and managed by the regions. The Shiite south sits on top of nearly 80 percent of Iraq's known oil and, like the Kurds, the Shiites feel the old system of central management enriched Baghdad and the Sunni Arabs without providing benefits to the regions owning the oil. Shiite leaders from the three oil-rich southern governorates have already proposed creating a southern region that, like Kurdistan, would have its own oil.

Control over Kirkuk, an ethnically mixed governorate, will be much more difficult to solve. The Kurds insist it is the heart of Kurdistan, and believe a great injustice was done when Saddam expelled Kurds from the area and resettled Arabs in their place. But Kirkuk also has indigenous Arabs, Turkmen, Assyrians, and Chaldeans. The Kurds and Shiites could make a deal to have a referendum to determine Kirkuk's future, which, since the Kurds are now again likely to have a majority, could be significantly at the expense of the Sunni Arabs. But not entirely, since Kirkuk's Arabs and Turkmen are both Sunni and Shiite.

In the constitutional battle, Kurdistan leaders - and many secular Arab Iraqis - have drawn the line on three principles: secularism, the rights of women and federalism. They fear that Bush will be more interested in meeting the August 15 deadline for a constitution than in its content, and that they will be under pressure to make concessions to the Shiite majority. It may be the ultimate irony that the United States, which, for among other reasons, invaded Iraq to help bring liberal democracy to the Middle East, will play a decisive role in establishing its second Shiite Islamic state.

In fact an agreement on the constitution in the National Assembly may not end Iraq's sectarian divisions but set the stage for new battles. Voters must approve the constitution in a referendum scheduled for October 15, and under the TAL two-thirds of the voters in any three governorates may veto it. There are three Kurdish governorates, but also three Sunni Arab governorates. Even if Kurdistan's leaders reluctantly accept a Shiite-written constitution, the independence-minded Kurdistan electorate may reject it. Moreover, the Sunni Arabs could easily use the referendum to torpedo any Shiite-Kurdish agreement.

The ratification clause of the TAL creates a timed fuse that could blow Iraq apart, and as is true for so much else that has gone wrong, it is American arrogance and ignorance that are to blame. When Iraq's Governing Council was considering the TAL in February 2004, the Kurds came up with a simple proposal to protect their existing autonomy: the permanent constitution would come into effect if ratified by a majority of Iraqis, but would only be operative in Kurdistan if ratified by a majority of Kurdistan's voters. This simple formula, which involved no veto on the ratification of the constitution but only a geographic limitation on where it would apply, was largely acceptable to the Arab Iraqis. But it was not acceptable to the American administrator, Paul Bremer, who did not want to concede that Iraq's ethnic communities should be treated differently. He came up with the three-governorate formula, preparing the way for a future train wreck.

There are two central problems in today's Iraq: the first is the insurgency and the second is an Iranian takeover. The insurgency, for all its violence, is a finite problem. The insurgents may not be defeated but they cannot win. This, of course, raises a question about what a prolonged U.S. military presence in Iraq can accomplish, since there is no military solution to the problem of Sunni Arab rejection of Shiite rule, which is now integral to the insurgency.

Iraq's Shiites endured decades of brutal repression, to which the U.S. was mostly indifferent. Iran, by contrast, was a good friend and committed supporter of the Shiites. By bringing freedom to Iraq, the Bush administration has allowed Iraq's Shiites to vote for pro-Iranian religious parties that seek to create - and are creating - an Islamic state. This is not ideal but it is the result of a democratic process.

The Bush administration should, however, draw the line at allowing a Shiite theocracy to establish control over all of Iraq. This requires a drastic change of strategy. Building powerful national institutions in Iraq serves the interest of one group - today it is the Shiites - at the expense of the others, and will inevitably produce conflict and instability. Instead, the administration should concentrate on political arrangements that match the reality in Iraq. This means a loose confederation in which each of Iraq's communities governs itself, and is capable of defending itself. It may not be possible to accomplish this in a constitution, since the very process of writing a constitution forces these communities to confront issues - religion, women's rights, ownership of oil, regional militaries - that are hard to resolve ideologically.

Many of these issues, however, could conceivably be worked out practically. For example, the Iraqi Oil Ministry and the Kurdistan government are currently cooperating on fulfilling oil contracts made by the Kurdistan government, without having to face the constitutional issue of who owns the resources. Without having to make a constitutional decision on religion, the Shiite south can apply Islamic law as it now does and Kurdistan can remain secular.

War always has unintended consequences. Currently, the U.S. is pursuing a strategy that will not end the insurgency but that plays directly into the hands of Iran. No wonder Agha Panayi, the Iranian intelligence official, was smiling.

Peter W. Galbraith is a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia and, as a staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he documented Saddam Hussein's "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds in the 1980s. He is the senior diplomatic fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, and a partner in a law firm specializing in international negotiations. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary, which originally appeared in The New York Review of Books, by permission.

I have trouble believing any intelligence assessment concerning the Middle East. DEBAKa file is often "WRONG" in its reporting and conclusions. The CIA and FBI dropped the ball prior to 911. The State Department is filled with ROUGUE political hacks who all think they are smarter and carry greater authority than the elected officials who appoint and hire them. I have listened to intel assessments regurgitated back to me and my crew during pre-deployment briefs, the very source of which was derived from our units reports, specifically from source written by me and approved by our operations officer and CO, with out the Knuckle head Intel Official even realizing that he was talking to the folks that submitted the original intel. Worse I listened as he made a complete fool of himself by making crap up.
Intel assessment is like playing Fantasy Football, you can gather all the information that you want on a particular player, you can look at the Coaching staff, you can look at the weather reports, you can look at last years record, the opposition defense, the health of the O-Line, BUT YOU CANT PREDICT THE ACURATE PERFORMANCE OF A PLAYER FOR A PARTICULAR GAME.
Sunni, Shiite, Kurd or any other Middle Eastern religious or cultural group will always act human, unless they do not. They will always be predictable until they are not. My point is there are a Thousand and one opinions on the eventual outcome in IRAQ. I don't care why we went, I really don't care at this point whether or not they succeed at being a democracy, I just feel a hell of a lot better knowing that we have a President willing to break something and thumb his nose at world opinion. We could have curled up in a ball after 911 and sucked or thumbs, begging the world to forgive our evil ways, empathized with the pigs from the middle east and ask them nicely not to attack us, we did not. We went out and kicked the crap out of something. I say Iran is next. This time we should just POP off a little Hydrogen Air Burst and be done with it.

What's ethnicity have to do with it?

Well, as far as I know, the Iranians are Indo-European, the Iraqis are Semitic. Iranians hate Arabs.

I found this on Google® :

The Difference Between Iranians And Arabs

By Thomas Keyes
Feb. 7, 2005

Many Americans seem to entertain the illusion that Iranians are Arabs. This may be due to the fact that many people in both communities practise Islam, which I'll mention below. Another coincidence that may have contributed to this confusion is the apparent similarity of the names Iran and Iraq. It is true that the Persian language and the Arabic share the same alphabet, namely the Arabic alphabet, which was imposed upon the Iranians centuries ago. But originally Persian had its own alphabet. Anyway, in Arabic script the names of the countries are entirely different, 'Iraq' beginning with the letter 'ain' and 'Iran' beginning with the letter 'alif'. The words 'Iranian' and 'Persian' are virtually synonymous, the former being the preferred term nowadays.

The Arabic word 'Iraq' means 'Veins' and, apparently, refers to the Euphrates and the Tigris Rivers.

But the clincher is that the word 'Iran' is cognate with the English word 'Aryan', as the Iranians are Aryan, that is, Indo-European, while the Arabs, as is well known, are Semitic, so ethnologically there's a definite disjunction. The Indo-European languages, which probably coincide in fair measure with ethnicity, are divided into Centum and Satem groups. Centum languages further divide into Germanic, Italic, Celtic and Greek, while Satem languages divide into Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Albanian and Armenian. Thus we find among Indo-European languages such widely divergent specimens as English, German, Spanish, French, Greek, Russian, Persian (Farsi), Hindi and many others. There are a great number of Arabic loan words in Persian, just as there are a great number of Latin loan words in English, but no one classifies English as an Italic language, nor should anyone classify Persian as a Semitic language. There are Persian loan words in Arabic too, but etymological dictionaries of the Arabic language are scarce, if they exist at all, and one is often left guessing which words might be from Persian.

Semitic languages are a subgroup of Afro-Asiatic languages. Only two strictly Semitic languages survive--Arabic and Hebrew. Extinct Semitic languages include Assyrian, Phoenician, Aramaic and others. Among languages in other subgroups of the Afro-Asiatic languages are Amharic, Tigrinya and Hausa of Ethiopia, Chad and Nigeria.

This ethno-linguistic disjunction is not merely an academic hypothesis. I have met many, many Arabs and Iranians, and there is a definite Arab look and a definite Iranian look. It's not infallible, of course, but I think I could probably tell them apart 75% of the time.

But even more conclusive is the historical aspect. Now we know that all ethnic groups must have sprung from primitive human beings, so likely they're all of great antiquity. But when we speak of 'history', we generally mean written records. And here we see that Persians appear on the scene much in advance of Arabs.

Generally, Persian history is said to have begun with King Cyrus the Great, who unified Persia and conquered vast tracts of land. He is also famous for liberating the Jews from captivity in Babylon around 538 BC, as is amply recorded in the Bible, in the Books of Isaiah, Daniel and Ezra. The next four Persian kings were Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes, all in the Bible. These names are all in the Greco-English spellings. Xerxes, whose name is Khashayarsha in Persian, Achashverosh in Hebrew and Ahasuerus in the English Bible, is vividly portrayed in the Book of Esther as the rescuer of the Jews from the persecutions of Haman, which is celebrated to this day by Jews as Purim, the Feast of Lots. All of these kings are also famous for their exploits in the Middle East, Anatolia, Greece and Egypt. Much later, another Persian king, Shapur I, defeated the Roman emperor, Valerian. And their have been many, many others.

In antiquity, Persia had various religious, such as Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, Mazdaism and Manichaeism, all to be largely supplanted by Islam. A more recent Iranian religion is the Baha'i faith.

As far as I know, the Arabs enter history around 305 AD, with the Nabataean Inscriptions, but these are scant. Their real entrance into history was the appearance of Mohammed (570-632 AD) Arabs conquered Persia in the seventh century, spreading Islam. Subsequently, in the 10th and 11th century, Turks took over the leadership of Islam, so Islamic history is not strictly the same thing as Arabic history. In the coming centuries Islam would extend its sway all the way from China and Indonesia to Spain. But the Ottoman Empire, once the world's greatest power, was a Turkish, rather than Arabic or Persian, Islamic Sultanate.

So Iranians are definitely not Arabs.

About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far.

I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents.

Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com

"Sunni, Shiite, Kurd or any other Middle Eastern religious or cultural group will always act human, unless they do not. They will always be predictable until they are not. My point is there are a Thousand and one opinions on the eventual outcome in IRAQ. I don't care why we went, I really don't care at this point whether or not they succeed at being a democracy, I just feel a hell of a lot better knowing that we have a President willing to break something and thumb his nose at world opinion. We could have curled up in a ball after 911 and sucked or thumbs, begging the world to forgive our evil ways, empathized with the pigs from the middle east and ask them nicely not to attack us, we did not. We went out and kicked the crap out of something. I say Iran is next. This time we should just POP off a little Hydrogen Air Burst and be done with it."

This opinion somewhat made sense until the Hydrogen bomb thing. Arabs respect strength, we surprised them and the world by going into Iraq. The support from Saddam to terrorists and the oil-for-food was enough justification for me. The best short term strategy is to withdraw our troops from the entire world, reinvest in having our own synthetic energy supply and redeploy to the hot spots 10-15 years from now.

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.