Posted on 02/02/2007 10:36:56 AM PST by theothercheek
A National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq requested by Congress last August that was presented to President Bush yesterday, suggests civil strife is spiraling out of control in Iraq, though the 90-page classified document stops short of concluding that the Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence has reached a state of civil war, reports The Washington Post:
The document emphasizes that although al-Qaeda activities in Iraq remain a problem, they have been surpassed by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence as the primary source of conflict and the most immediate threat to U.S. goals. Iran, which the administration has charged with supplying and directing Iraqi extremists, is mentioned but is not a focus."
"Glimmers of optimism" are offset by "deep uncertainty about whether the Iraqi leaders will be able to transcend sectarian interests and fight against extremists, establish effective national institutions and end rampant corruption," according to the WaPo.
Elsewhere in the paper, columnist Charles Krauthammer offers this devastating bleak review of why the Iraqis will continue to choose to avenge ancient hatreds over nation-building:
This week the internecine warfare in Iraq, already bewildering - Sunni vs. Shiite, Kurd vs. Arab, jihadist vs. infidel, with various Iranians, Syrians and assorted freelancers thrown into the maelstrom - went bizarre. In one of the biggest battles of the war, Iraqi troops reinforced by Americans wiped out a heavily armed, well-entrenched millenarian Shiite sect preparing to take over Najaf … and proclaim its leader the returned messiah. …
There are, of course, many reasons for these schisms. Some, like the fundamental division between Sunni and Shiite, are ancient. Some of the wounds are more contemporary, most notably the social devastation and political ruin brought upon the country by 30 years of Saddamist totalitarianism and its particularly sadistic persecution of Shiites and Kurds.
America comes and liberates them from the tyrant who kept everyone living in fear, and the ancient animosities and more recent resentments begin to play themselves out to deadly effect. …
Among all these religious prejudices, ancient wounds, social resentments and tribal antagonisms, who gets the blame for the rivers of blood? You can always count on some to find the blame in America. "We did not give them a republic," insists Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. "We gave them a civil war." …We gave them a civil war? Why? Because we failed to prevent it? …
Our entire strategy has been to fight one side and then the other to try to prevent sectarian violence -- a policy that has been one of the leading reasons Americans are ready to quit and walk away.
But choosing sides in a civil war is as bad or worse, Ed Koch recently wrote in Real Clear Politics:
Militants on both sides … appear to hate us, and that includes the Shia and the Sunni. We had expected the Shia to welcome us, since they had been persecuted by Saddam Hussein when he was in power. However, any good will has been lost. The Shia, who represent 60 percent of Iraqis, are exacting vengeance upon the Sunnis for all of the persecution they inflicted upon the Shia when they ran the country under Saddam Hussein. The Sunnis, who appear to be more secular in their views, would normally be that part of the Arab population that would identify with us. But no. Even though they acknowledge American soldiers often protect them from Shia revenge, they continue to attack American military forces with roadside bombs and suicide bombers. Sunni militants also appear to be responsible for more casualties among Iraqi civilians than the Shia militias.
We should not take sides in this civil and religious war in which each side is engaged in imposing its will on the population and to establish itself as the rightful religious heir to the dynasty of the Prophet Muhammed. I assume the physical heir amongst today's descendants of the historical figures involved will be the candidate vying to be in charge of the new caliphate that these insurrectionists and terrorists see as the final outcome of the current war with the U.S. and among themselves. We should not spill the blood of American soldiers to assist one side or the other to prevail.
Whenever President Bush ticks through his laundry list of reasons justifying our continued presence in Iraq, one of the items he always mentions is "Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia … The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day."
If one Muslim sect cannot respect the holy places of another Muslim sect, The Stiletto doesn’t understand why a single drop of American blood need be shed over the Golden Mosque – or any other mosque, for that matter. If we are to put this troop surge to good use, we should let the bloodlust between Shia and Sunni take its course while we exclusively concentrate on hunting down Iranian and al Qaeda insurgents.
And one more thing: Let’s stop squandering our tax dollars to build soccer fields and schools to win Iraqi hearts and minds. That’s proved to be another losing strategy. When peace has finally been secured – that is, when all the insurgents are lying dead alongside all the Sunni and Shia extremists fueling the civil war – then we can start to use Iraqi oil revenues for nationbuilding.
NOTE: In case I didn't put all the links in correctly, this is the second item in a feature called "The Daily Blade" and follows an article titled, "Québec: Multicultrualism Has Its Limits."
This is what happens when you hand the Ferrari keys to a 16 year old. The Iraqi people are either too stupid or uneducated to think for and govern themselves
Saddam warned us we didn't know what we were getting ourselves into. Maybe he was EXACTLY the leader they deserved.
There seems to be no shortage of opinions, especially of the negative variety. I hope the new General will take what parts of it are relevant and then move forward with all due speed to bring victory.
As Hillary said it best the other day (paraphrased) "We're in it, to win it."
I can't remember who said it yesterday: "There are two possible results in Iraq, victory, or defeat."
Victory is obtainable, but it is not going to walk over and give itself up. We have to go take it. The additional troops and our smartest general can make it happen in a matter of time.
Yes, Hillary, we are in this thing, and we are in it to win. We could win it faster, but we would have massive casualties. I prefer the slower, more deligent approach.
One common thread I found with most of the educated people I met over there was they wanted out of that country pronto and wanted to move to the US. I told them that if they did not stay in the country the only people left would be the thugs. They, not the slime, could be the future of their country.
Did he say this before, or after, we found him in his little hidey-hole?
Not even Saddam (who is now dead, having met with justice at the hands of a democratically elected government in Iraq) could have predicted the weird phenomenon of people blowing themselves up.
The viciousness of the troublemakers in Iraq has been truly breathtaking, but they will fail. The way wasn't easy in Afghanistan, either. The enemy bombed a school for girls in Afghanistan a couple of years ago. In their backward way of thinking, women are not to be educated.
I quote myself again, with a slight adjustment: "When the world gets so bonkers that people are flying aircraft into our skyscrapers, its time to go kick some ass."
If you think things are bad, consider the enemies point of view. After all this time... we're still there, there is progress in democracy with an elected government. They only thing keeping some them going is a pipe dream about seven virgins in heaven.
Instead of handwringing about our losses, we should honor them and their families, and we should consider that we have killed and captured thousands and thousands of some of the bloodthirstiest people on earth. The world is far safer with these terrorists pushing up daisies.
Be strong. We are at war for freedom. This is our conflict. This is our war. As Hillary said it: (paraphrased)"We're in it, to win it." I agree.
Or maybe you're too stupid to avoid falling for the MSM anti-Bush hype. Whichever.
I have spent two tours over there and know firsthand. Who's the stupid one now?
You'd probably think the same after visiting any African nation, and that they'd be better off as slaves in America, too.
You're clearly an enlightened "people person". I apologise for calling you stupid. There are more applicable words I should have applied. Mea culpa.
Does underlining this phrase somehow make it more inspiring?
After all this time... we're still there, there is progress in democracy with an elected government.
Of course that's what they said the first time they tried democracy in Iraq. Course they didn't have purple fingers then so that may make it work this time eh? Or the many times western forms of government have been tried throughout history in certain areas of the Middle East. It just doesn't work the same. This is in no way a slur against the people in an invented nation that is less than 100 years old (which Iraq is). It's just that's not the form of government that works for them best. Don't worry they will choose. And in a very short time Iraq will evolve into another dictatorship or a theocracy.
We are at war for freedom. This is our conflict. This is our war.
Interesting. Didn't know that was 'our' business. Oh wait, it's not....
Let me educate you, but let me tell how disappointed I am that after all these years you still need this thing explained to you.
ITEM ONE: Saddam signed an agreement with the U.S. and the Allied Coalition at the end of Desert Storm which kept him in power.
ITEM TWO: Saddam thumbed his nose at those agreements for over 12 years and 17 United Nations directives were violated by Saddam.
ITEM THREE: We tried embargo, but Saddam just let his people starve. CNN began showing starving Iraqis on TV every day and hospitals without medicines.
ITEM FOUR: President Bush warned Saddam, and made a speech at the UN, that the UN Mandates "...must have teeth" or they have no meaning.
ITEM FIVE: Oil for Food program failed. Saddam corrupted UN officials, one of whom was finally arrested two weeks ago. Again, the Iraqi people starved, and Saddam just pocketed the money.
ITEM SIX: Saddams army fired on U.S. Aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone.
ITEM SEVEN: There are other things, but one of the most important, perhaps, was when Saddam kicked out the weapons inspectors. At that point, President Bush was obligated for the sake of our safety and the safety of the peoples of the world, to believe every rumor of WMD's because he had used them before, and we no longer had eyes or ears in Iraqi to verify.
FINALLY: For breaking just ONE of the 17 U.N. Directives, for firing just ONE missle at our brave pilots, we were right to take him out.
Now that we have removed Saddam and broken his fascist government, it is encumbant upon us to leave a solid government in its place. The lives of millions of innocent Iraqis are in our hands. (May God help us to be noble and just.) The Democrats are all too well aware that they can't do anything without resulting in millions of dead Iraqis. Even passing a non-binding resolution has resulted in 120 dead in Baghdad today, the worst bombing in a long time there. These are ruthless killers, and we must have victory and we must toughen up and stand with our brave soldiers as they win it.
Heres a good quote for you "The enemy failed to give us a front line on 9-11, so our President went out and made us one." - 1-Eagle
Here's a better quote for you.
She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
Let me make it crystal clear for you. I could care less that Hussein 'thumbed his nose' at UN directives. The UN is not part of these United States. Let them handle it. I had and still do have concern for the people in Persia (Iraq is nothing more than an 80 year old created state from another war these US had no business in). But that concern does not equate military power to 'fix' a situation that cannot be fixed by purple fingers.
But I will bide my time. 'Conservatives' can crow all they want about the 'help' they provided to the Iraqis. But in less than 25 years, Iraq will be either one of two things. A secular state controlled by someone much like Hussein or a theocracy. And there's nothing you can do about it, it just is.
If only the persians had abstained from flying into our skyscrapers and trying to blow them up repeatedly for over a decade.
This war is theirs, they want it, they will not stop. If we leave Iraq in disarray, they follow to Afghanistan. They will not stop unless we fight them.
This philosophy was tried, and it allowed Hitler to grow an army that slaughtered millions of people. Separatism doesn't work, because eventually we have to climb the cliffs and lose hundreds of thousands of brave men to save the world again.
Also, we would not have our own freedom if not for another country deciding 'it is our business'... namely France. Freedom is a prized possession, but it is an even better gift when given to others.
President Bush is correct when he states that when a small part of the world has lost its sense and reason to the point they send people to fly aircraft into our skyscrapers it is in need of fundamental change at all levels.
Its obvious that these people are in terrible need of liberty and freedom.
But in less than 25 years, Iraq will be either one of two things. A secular state controlled by someone much like Hussein or a theocracy.
I don't care about the type government as much as I care that we leave one that can protect the people. I agree with President Bush that democracy is good for all people. If we are going to put something in place after Saddam, let it be some form of democracy, even if it is more european than American by design. I don't care about that.
The goal is to stop the violence so Iraqi's can live in peace and the government can function. Let the will of the people decide what they do from there, it is their country. I pray that the Almighty will bring ultimate victory to ours and the Iraqis troops that bravely fight for freedom.
Ah yes because all Arabs are out to 'get' us. Oh that's right they aren't. The Taliban was supported by the Afghan government. Of course now they're supported by Iraqi rebels (with some implicit Iraqi government support), Iranians, Saudis. Wonder what changed that. Gee I see what you mean....
This philosophy was tried, and it allowed Hitler to grow an army that slaughtered millions of people. Separatism doesn't work, because eventually we have to climb the cliffs and lose hundreds of thousands of brave men to save the world again
Of course interventionists don't like it pointed out that Wilson's intervention in WWI helped to create the vacuum for Hilter to step into (not to mention Stalin, Lenin, etc.) Wow interventionism really works!!!
Also, we would not have our own freedom if not for another country deciding 'it is our business'... namely France. Freedom is a prized possession, but it is an even better gift when given to others.
What France did is France's business. Of course the support given by the French led to the French Revolution, overthrowing the monarchy. But that's a never mind right? And the fact that this was during a simmering war between France and Britain.
Its obvious that these people are in terrible need of liberty and freedom.
Fine, let them do it. It only took the Western world 500 years to evolve from the Magna Carta to the War of Independence.
I don't care about the type government as much as I care that we leave one that can protect the people.
Yes because that's in the Constitution, oh wait it's not is it?
I agree with President Bush that democracy is good for all people. If we are going to put something in place after Saddam, let it be some form of democracy, even if it is more european than American by design. I don't care about that
What's it our business to 'put something in place'? Oh forgot it's not is it? Look you can put candy canes and sliding ladders all over the damn country for I care. It's going to fail. This is not 'Democratic talking points', this is a fact based on historical data in the region.
The goal is to stop the violence so Iraqi's can live in peace and the government can function
Awww, how special. I seriously doubt a nation of peoples that were thrown together into a created nation state a little over 80 years ago are going to 'live in peace' or allow their government to function.
Let the will of the people decide what they do from there, it is their country
Wait but you just said it mattered. A government to 'protect the people'. Does it matter or not?
I pray that the Almighty will bring ultimate victory to ours and the Iraqis troops that bravely fight for freedom.
I just pray for the day our government quits engaging wars against nouns (drugs, illiteracy, poverty, terror, etc.). Course with the full support of party faithful I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon
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.