Posted on 07/25/2006 5:01:22 AM PDT by IrishMike
Before we get to the latest good news from Iraq, a brief clarification is in order concerning why it is important to compile this good news here in the first place: because it receives sparse or no coverage from the mainstream media. The purpose of these compilations is not to whitewash the situation in Iraq, nor to suggest that there haven’t been problems with the administration’s handling of the conflict. They are simply an attempt to fill in the news gaps, to help form a more complete picture of the current state of affairs, so that readers can be better informed about it. And now, some news you might not have heard from Iraq:
We begin with U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, urging Americans to be optimistic about his country’s fate:
I will give my bottom line up front. I believe Americans, while remaining tactically patient about Iraq, should be strategically optimistic. Most important, a major change—a tectonic shift—has taken place in the political orientation of the Sunni Arab community. A year ago, Sunni Arabs were outside of the political process and hostile to the United States. They boycotted the January 2005 election and were underrepresented in the transitional national assembly. Today, Sunni Arabs are full participants in the political process, with their representation in the national assembly now proportional to their share of the population. Also, they have largely come to see the United States as an honest broker in helping Iraq’s communities come together around a process and a plan to stabilize the country.
Moreover, al Qaeda in Iraq has been significantly weakened during the past year. This resulted, not only from the recent killing of Zarqawi..............
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
re: There is currently a civil war going on in Iraq
I've come to feel that all civil wars are not bad. Take our civil war for instance. As terrible as it was at the time in terms of loss of life and property there is little doubt in my mind that we came out of it as a nation much stronger and in the long run more stable. Sometimes it takes really bad events to promote healing and/or growth. As Rush says there will never be peace until there is a clear winner. The Union was the clear winner of that war. and although it cost both sides dearly, a century later there is little doubt that we are ONE nation. We have our differences, but it can be argued the civil war did for America what will have to be done for Iraq if there it is ever to prosper as a county.
The execution of Saddam Hussein will be even more good news.
No, not all civil wars are bad. It is, of course, better to prevent war if possible. But preventing war in the short term at the cost of war in the long-term is a poor choice.
As I wrote, I was being a realist in my choice of words.
I hope I didn't appear to be questioning your opinion on this! Not so, just observing that sometimes something that seems bad at first turns out to be not so bad in the long run. That's why God is in charge of things and not us!
This is not really a civil war. This is violent militia attempting to creat chaos and mini reigns of terror.
Most iraqis are civilians just wanted to live their lives and are in fear for lives due to senseless violence.
No good can come out of the violence. The only positive is that there is really no political program at play here except chaos... so, little chance that Government will fall per se. its the only game in town. once the democratic Iraqi Government asserts ORDER and SECURITY and defeats the criminals and terrorists, they will win and we will win.
I see groups of organized young men with weapons. That fill my definition of a militia. I see Shia militia's identifying Sunni's to attack and Sunni militia's attacking Shia's. I also see a Kurd militia keeping a close eye to make sure they protect their interests. I see about 100 civilians dying per day. To me that fills my definition of a civil war.
I know that one side isn't wearing blue and the other gray, but the American Civil War was an exception not a model.
As mentioned, I am fairly optimistic that things can work out, but I will not bend my perception of reality to meet anyone's poltical agenda.
Your are welcome, however to try and provide a definition of civil war that would exclude the current events in Iraq if you can.
bttt
"I see groups of organized young men with weapons. That fill my definition of a militia." It's also a definition of a criminal gang and terrorist cell, like the IRA and Bader-Meinhof or Red Army groups in Germany in 1970s.
My concern with 'civil war' as a term as opposed to terrorist insurgency is not to whitewash violence but to IMHO properly categorize it.
In civil wars, there are two contending wannabe governments struggling for power. Who are the 2 sides here? Civil war implies a Shiite/Sunni struggle, but that is not what is going on in Iraq;
both Sunni and Shiite majorities now support the democratic Government, as do the Kurds.
This sectarian violence that has flowed as a direct consequence of strategies of AL Qaeda and related terrorist insurgent groups, and it is out-of-step to equate these Iraq's government.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1672908/posts
"Iraq is free and the terrorists cannot stand this. They hope to undermine our democratically elected government through the random killing of civilians. They want to destroy Iraq's future by assassinating our leading scientific, political and community leaders. Above all, they wish to spread fear."
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.