Down the Rabbit Hole
What could have recently incited Shiites (al-Sadr's Mahdi Army) to fight the Iraqi forces, which represent a majority Shiite government anyway ("Iraqi Troops Battle Shiite Militiamen In Southern City," Washington Post, 8/28/06)? No matter what the reason, I'd like to point out that another 13 Americans were killed over the weekend, and with a kill-to-wound ratio of 1:10, then at least 130 were probably wounded. Why are we sacrificing our soldiers on this Islamic alter?
The Sadr faction occupies a position within the Iraqi governmental power structure. If his forces engage U.S. and Iraqi military forces, then for what reason? Some possibilities:
(1) He is attempting to consolidate his power position within the Iraqi social network. The Iraqi's admire power and resistance to the foreign invading force of the U.S. This opposition strengthen's Sadr's power, and as well, is directly beneficial to Iran and the pan-Shiiaism of the region.
(2) He's directly under Iranian orders to foment violence and uncertainty in Iraq. This forces the U.S. to remain in Iraq, thereby reducing U.S. options in the region. If U.S. forces are tied down in Iraq, then they can't invade Iran. Ths is logical, and could be a factor in al-Sadr's actions.
Unfortunately, it doesn't factor U.S. non-logical actions into the mix. Even though our military is maxed out in Iraq there are indications of plans to militarily engage Iran. I can understand Iranian actions better than I can logically explain U.S. policy in the region.
(3) He is as mad as a neo-con . Any one of the above three make him a formidable adversary.
To sum up my position: In Afghanistan we have a consortium of warlords, drug lords and Islamic operators, and we call it democracy. In Iraq we have a Shia majority exacting revenge on the Sunni minority with an at least 100,000 man wild-card in the deck. The Sunnis in turn are killing Shiites either in reprisals or as acts of civil-type war. All of this keeps U.S. forces tied down in the region with no clearly defined mission or endgame.
The U.S. support of both regimes is not a policy; it's madness.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082800039.html
The Sadr faction occupies a position within the Iraqi governmental power structure. If his forces engage U.S. and Iraqi military forces, then for what reason? Some possibilities:
(1) He is attempting to consolidate his power position within the Iraqi social network. The Iraqi's admire power and resistance to the foreign invading force of the U.S. This opposition strengthen's Sadr's power, and as well, is directly beneficial to Iran and the pan-Shiiaism of the region.
(2) He's directly under Iranian orders to foment violence and uncertainty in Iraq. This forces the U.S. to remain in Iraq, thereby reducing U.S. options in the region. If U.S. forces are tied down in Iraq, then they can't invade Iran. Ths is logical, and could be a factor in al-Sadr's actions.
Unfortunately, it doesn't factor U.S. non-logical actions into the mix. Even though our military is maxed out in Iraq there are indications of plans to militarily engage Iran. I can understand Iranian actions better than I can logically explain U.S. policy in the region.
(3) He is as mad as a neo-con . Any one of the above three make him a formidable adversary.
To sum up my position: In Afghanistan we have a consortium of warlords, drug lords and Islamic operators, and we call it democracy. In Iraq we have a Shia majority exacting revenge on the Sunni minority with an at least 100,000 man wild-card in the deck. The Sunnis in turn are killing Shiites either in reprisals or as acts of civil-type war. All of this keeps U.S. forces tied down in the region with no clearly defined mission or endgame.
The U.S. support of both regimes is not a policy; it's madness.
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/28/AR2006082800039.html
posted by rangeragainstwar at 3:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home