When the people of a country split into two different factions and begin fighting over their opposing views, it's called a civil war. Various politicians and "spin doctors" (professional liars) have been consistently denying that Iraq is engaged in a civil war. Instead they call it an "insurgency", whatever the hell that is, and by using that word, imply that the combatants are not native Iraqis.
Well then, what do you call
THIS? [**UPDATED**-Joe S.] or
THIS?"BAGHDAD - It was terror Thursday in Baghdad as suicide car bombs and mortar attacks shook the very foundations of Sadr City killing at least 144 people and leaving more than 230 injured, police confirmed.
The Shia-run health ministry was an easy target as insurgents aimed rocket propelled grenades and machine guns. Only the intervention of US helicopters and ground forces prevented this attack from escalating sharply. Around were wounded in the Health ministry attack.
This attack was apparently the cue as well-coordinated suicide bombers and mortars struck at various places at 3pm (12pm GMT) in the Iraqi capital. The first attack took place in a vegetable market in Sadr City.
There was chaos in the street as Shia residents began hurling abuses and started attacking Sunnis. Sadr City, which has been targeted in recent months, is the stronghold of Shia cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr." (Note that muslim preachers are also generals.)
Scan back up to the underlined part about intervening US forces.
Let this sink in. Our troops are taking sides in a civil war.We are attacking the Sunnis that are attacking the Shiites. Specifically the Shiite terrorists of that insane extremist, Moqtada al-Sadr, who has been directly responsible for the deaths of a lot of our boys.
Yes, I know, the idea is to stop both sides from fighting and give the government a chance to take control. The same government that is now embracing Syria, which is mostly Sunni. No doubt a deal is being made for the Syrians to control the Iraqi Sunnis. In exchange for what? One thing is for sure, all the blood our people are spilling over there will not be repaid with an Iraq democracy.
It's pretty clear now what our government hopes to achieve there and why we're not squawking about Syrias involvement. The Sunni minority in Iraq used to rule with Saddam. Now the majority Shiites are in power and want to "cleanse" the Sunnis, the "insurgents" who are fighting back. So if the Syrians can control the Sunnis by guaranteeing them a fair share of government and if al Sadr can then be brought into the fold, since all he's killing people for is to gain power for himself anyway, a sort of peace can be reached. We're trying to keep things from completely exploding until the Arabs, in their own slow, self-serving, brick-headed way, hopefully finally manage to reach an agreement that will satisfy them all and allow us to leave.
The problem is there's no guarantee on this and we aren't dealing with very sane people. They aren't reasonable and not one will give up his greed for power for the sake of his country. None of them are patriotic. Islam doesn't allow patriotism.
The only possible outcome of this is the only one there ever was to begin with. Once Saddams iron grip was gone, the grab for power began. It will continue until the area is either consolidated by a new dictator or divided up by various war lords. Our presence there may help shape the outcome but it will not fully determine it, and the terrible price in lives and cash that we're paying for it isn't worth the oil.
We should withdraw to our bases there and let the Arabs sort it out, because that's what they've made plenty clear to us they're insisting on doing anyway. Afterward we'll be there to keep them in check. Makes sense to me.
Labels: Iraq, Shiite, Sunni, US Troops
Socialize this! 
Personalize this! 
Radicalize this!
Digg This!
