Posted on 02/24/2006 7:12:07 PM PST by CometBaby
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Some people are tone deaf on foreign affairs.
Okay.
OK.
***Warning*** spoiler follows:
Clue: The Sunnis and Shiite militas are attacking each others' hardline clerics, extremists and paramilitary groups rather than the IA and Coalition. Those same clerics and paramilitary groups were the ones agitating against the West, the Iraqi governemtn and the Coalition!
They are attacking and killing each others' extremists. They are in effect vetting the country of the very type of hardliners and paramilitary groups they've been controlled by for hundreds of years. This is good! It shows they no longer tolerate the lies and hatred of the extremists.
It is loose confederations of Sunni and Shiite secularists who are conducting the attacks. The armed people in the streets are just that -the armed people. They are lashing out at the very religious extremism they've been shackled with for centuries. Today it's 'the other guy' tomorrow it will be their own.
This is a huge win for the government of Iraq and the Coalition. In attacking the religious hardliners of other sects the Iraqi people are striking at the insular and extremist conduct of Islam in Iraq. Many don't like it and are fed up with it. By murdering each others' clerics they are, in effect, showing their preference for pluralism and secularism over an Islamic theocracy.
This is about reducing the influence of religion on peoples daily lives and government. With the advent of pluralism it was inevitable.
The Iraqis are not fighting each other; they are not fighting the government and they are not fighting the Coalition. They are fighting against the influence of religious hardliners and secular paramilitary groups. And this is a good thing.
What kind of bizarre mentality is it which sees Person #1 attack Persons #2-#10 and concludes blithely "I guess People #1-#10 don't want democracy"? There should be a name for it because it is very widespread.
Which people do you think you're talking about? The handful of people who attacked a mosque, or the millions who voted? Why don't the millions count, and why do the minority of terrorists get to speak for everyone there, in your eyes? Why do you slap this label "the people over there" on the most violent minority?
Snap out of it.
The ball is in their court now. What else can we do for them?
Of course the ball's in their court. We put it there, by overthrowing their dictator. So, yes, the ball's in their court. That was the idea!
I think the remaining thing we can do for them is to have patience and not to give up on them based on silly, bizarre reasoning such as "the democratic majority there are under attack therefore they don't want democracy". Open your eyes and try to see the silent, peaceful majority.
Why does a certain stripe of conservative have no trouble understanding the silent majority concept in his own country but cannot see it in others?
"Conservatives can be just as hypocritical and close-minded as liberals...."
O.K. SC33 and SteveMcKing: I just want you two guys to know I've got your backs. Not only hypocritical and closed-minded but many on this website can be downright mean-spirited if you are not in lock-step with their every thought and philosophy. I mentioned once before that Ann Coulter makes me nervous sometimes because she runs her mouth before thinking and some stuff she says is silly at best, stupid at worse.
Dear God; you would have thought that I said Mother Teresa was a lesbian, the scorn I received on this website. Oh well, hang tough.
Buckley knows less than he thinks he knows. He has never been quite sure that the other Yalies might not be right.
Sorry but that's just plain wrong. The violence that has followed the mosque bombing is not the expression of a sudden outpouring of desire for secular government, it is religious violence, plain and simple. Shias firing rockets at Sunni mosques is sectarian violence, plain and simple.
It's going to take years and perhaps decades. This should not be surprising. Iraq was a Stalinist dictatorship for decades. Yet for some reason people seem to want it to wrap up with a big "we're finished making a perfect democracy" ceremony faster than an episode of American Idol. Sorry, but, it's going to take years and perhaps decades. Ok? I knew this going in. Didn't you? Didn't everybody? If not, why not? And when are they going to come to terms with it do you think?
I have no clue, that's why I'm asking.
I don't see many useful points of comparison between WWII and the current war.
Oh boo hoo. We don't have a "guarantee of success". How spoiled we now are! I can only thank goodness that in 1943 we weren't so plagued by natterers braying about not having a "guarantee of success".
I'm all for being over there until the job's done, but how long's that gonna be given [...]
No honest person can tell you the answer to your question. We will just have to find out. Ok?
As you know, we still have troop presences in Germany and Japan.
A revolution is underway. People forget that during our own revolution, a minority were Whigs; a minority were Tories; the majority of people were in the middle. If Saratoga had not brought France into the war, things would have gone "differently." How we don't know, except that the majority would have gone to the winning side. And this will not be simply a sectarian battle.
It is a tribal society, and the tribes are divided religiously.
Agreed. They are the ones bemoaning the fact that some of us don't automatically agree with the contents of an article simply because it was written by a man named William Buckley.
Please cite other such "plain and simple" examples of sectarian violence occuring among Muslims.
Well, then it's not plain or simple is it?
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.