Posted on 01/29/2007 10:48:38 AM PST by rob777
LIKE plenty of other Americans, I wish we could just be done with the Middle East. Unfortunately, the Middle East isn't done with us. And the situation is going to get considerably worse before it shows a hint of getting better. Thanks to abysmal policy errors (many pre-dating the current administration), we've caught ourselves between two irreconcilable sides - Sunni and Shia Muslims - whose enmity dates back 13 centuries. And we're now taking fire from every direction. Dreaming that all Iraqis could get along, we alienated potential friends and empowered deadly enemies. Short of Mongol-quality savagery, the traditional way to win in the Middle East has been to select an ally and stick with him - while avoiding the folly of trying to play honest broker. The administration has begun to realize that it has to make some hard choices. Yet our leaders still believe they can have it both ways. The result may be bad hard choices. At the strategic level, Washington is lining up regional allies - Sunni Arab states - to face off with Iran. But in Iraq, the administration continues to tilt toward Shia parties - hoping that Iran can be excluded from a decisive role in Baghdad. (Note that we've been fighting hard on Baghdad's Sunni-populated Haifa Street, but we're still avoiding a showdown in Sadr City.) For their part, our Sunni Arab "allies" support the Sunni insurgents and dread the prospect of a Shia-dominated democratic government or a partition of Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
In the long run the Saudis are our biggest problem. They are already pouring billions of dollars a year into funding the propigation of Wahhabi theology, which is the ideological heart and soul of the most radical brand of Islamic extremism. They will be an even bigger problem if the revolution predicted by this article comes to pass.
We need to find a strong man that can run Iraq, Saddam-like, despite the conflicting religious sects. And that necessarily includes looking the other way when this guy does what he has to do to keep order, as repugnant as we find that to be to our western sensibilities.
"We need to find a strong man that can run Iraq, Saddam-like, despite the conflicting religious sects."
Put a Christian in charge.
Which is, unfortunately, a pretty good argument for having left Saddam in place.
The proper geopolitical ploy in 2002 (20-20 hindsight) would have been to overthrow Hugo Chavez, break Venezuela and Mexico away from OPEC by paying them a premium price for guaranteed supplies to the US, form a North American energy cartel, expand drilling in Alaska and the Gulf Coast, back research into oil shale extraction and alternative energy technologies...
...and tell the entire Arab world to go eat sand.
you sure are a bottom liner. I like that in a person. No ambiguity
And that propaganda effort has redicalized muslims and schools in Pakistan, Indonesia, Europe, and ....the US.
Worse yet, the Saudis have funded centers for Islamic and Middle Eastern studies at our major universities, ensuring that the Saudi spin will be perpetrated for generations to come.
We need to have a "de-Saudification" program.
Meanwhile, its a one-way street with the Saudis.
Not a Church or Synagogue to be found in that country
Depends.
Tariq Aziz was a "Christian."
No guarantee that moral behavior will ensue, as religious labels that part of the world describe to which tribe one belongs.
Now if you'r referring to a genuine follower of Jesus, that would require a change from the bottom up in that society.
And THAT's what is really necessary.
That's the problem with governance everywhere - the Middle East, Africa, Europe, yes, the U.S.
The leadership reflects the citizenry.
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.