Wash times, I know - but this is crazy. http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050629-095620-1536r So Sunni leaders are helping AZ kill americans just so that they can get more representation? Hopefully a prime leadership position such as Secretary of Cockpunch affairs? Loverly. Just loverly.
a) that a semi-credible story is in the Washington Times? b) that administration apologists are so blase about this, and that when it comes to sunni leaders who actively help terrorists kill american soldiers and innocent civilians - our solution is to give them more power. Talk about rewarding bad behavior.
So you suggest not trying to bring the Sunnis to the political process and just let the status quo continue? We wanted from the very beginning to give the Sunnis a voice in the democratic process and many of them boycotted. If they can be brought back into the equation, it will go a long ways toward restoring order. The Sunni leadership that is currently looking the other way towards the insurgency can then feel a stake in ownership, begin to police themselves and clean out the trash in their midst.
I thought this was old news. I would have posted on it if I had thought that there was interest. Anyway, this is the MO of central Asian politics. Pakistan supports elements of AQ fighting against India in Kashmir. Saddam supported Zarqawi before the war as a threat against Jordan. (In case everyone didn't know, Zarqawi was a AQ supported anti-Jordanian Palestinian terrorist. The Palestinians have just as much reason to hate Jordan as they do Israel. One conflict just gets more press.) Syria supports Hezbola against Isreal, etc. etc. It's been this way for 1000s of years. What's different now is AQ is fighting a power outside the region (the US), democracy in general and it's done by influencing public opinion through TV. The solution of course is for the Sunni's to hunt down the Jihadists and kill them themselves. They won’t do that though because AQ's end in Iraq would be the end of their influence. I would guess they think that simply not supporting Zarqawi is enough innocence. Yet we learn in a democracy that passivity is not enough. In order to be innocent of blame, one has to be part of the solution. That is the lesson that people in the Middle East need to learn.
Unlike Dubya, I have no easy answers to offer that would solve these problems. Of course sunni's need to be part of the government. But they also need to behave. Otherwise we reward bad behavior, and those who actively help terrorists (the ones we're supposed to be smoking out, not sharing a cigar with). I'd have an awful hard time shaking hands with an insurgent who has set bombs that killed american servicemen. It certainly evokes thoughts of the PLO/Hamas, and IRA/SinnFein. Neither of those outcomes is perfect, but it almost seems that we're turning a blinder eye. maybe not. Maybe it is exactly the same, when you consider the reputed past of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. What a lousy, ****ed up situation that we dove into, ignoring the 'shallow water' signs.
Well, its sort of obvious. Many posters wanted to know why Sunnis were not objecting to foreign terrorists - why they keep quiet and let this happen. this shows why. Sunni leaders are USING terrorists as a political weapon to try to gain more power. Perhaps I was too naive - thinking to good of humanity and the people we 'saved'. I had clung to the hope that Sunni people kept quiet because there was no decent security - and that anyone not 'supporting' the terrorists would wind up dead sooner or later. Kinda like italian-american neighborhoods and the mafia. But this is worse. Take italian-american in NYC ethnic neighborhoods -yeah, they may not have supported the mafia, but, well, they paid protection money, and at least got some nice Feast of St Anthony block parties, and got some nice presents back when their kids got confirmed by the church. This behavior by sunni leaders is worse, isn't it? It's not really about neighborhoods and local connections - its about sitting on your balcony and watching american soldiers die - just so that you get a few more representatives in government. And maybe I'm too naive in other ways. Bush is simplistic and wants to punish evildoers and terrorists. We don't negotiate with them or reward them. Ok, we do - when they serve our interests (mujahadeen in afghanistan, etc). But I guess I thought the extend of negotiations with enemy terrorists would end at cease-fire talks - not helping them achieve electoral reform after they kill 1700 american servicemen/women. This is worse. isn't it? Or par for the course?
Oh, i get that...but... the sunnis who don't mind american troops getting blown up are now our friends?
No, I was referring to the Sunnis supporting the terrorists to kill Americans. It serves their purpose, then when that purpose has been met, they will turn on their "enemy" and drive them out.
I...uh.....speechless. No, Ok, I'll try something here. Dead serious, no jokes, no bullcrap, no hyperbole, no partisanship - just straight talk. Sunnis use terrorists to kill americans. As a result, america, which wants peace and security, is willing to deal, and helps sunni leaders with blood on their hands to get some power back. We deal in good faith. they.... well, they use bloody ends and achieve partial success. Exactly why would they change their tactics? We've rewarded them for terrorist behavior. No stick, just carrot. Why would they stop? Compare the IRA/PLO. Both groups were forced to renounce violence before they got a seat at the real political table. the powers that be needed a period of lessened violence before progress was made. But here...? Why would the sunnis stop when they have used effective violent ends, and only got partial success?
Make no mistake, i am not supporting what the Sunni's are doing, what I am saying is that: 1. the sunnis do not like the US so they are just fine and dandy with having these terrorists kill US troops. 2. it serves their purpose if they can use the threat of the insurgency to gain political power. I think they understand that the US public does not want to tolerate loss of US lives so what better way to turn the war against the US by having the US Public against the war? 3. If the Sunni's do get what they want, they then will turn on the insurgents and "clean up" their areas thus making themselves look like they can keep and maintain control in their areas, all the while keeping unrest in shia areas. Just my thoughts though.
(QUOTE) Sunni leaders are helping AZ kill americans just so that they can get more representation? [/QUOTE] The Sunnis are probably bemused at the willingness of Muslim non-Iraqis to blow themselves up in car bombs in a mythical jihad. It's always helpful to have others die for your cause, which is not the liberation of Iraq but the restoration of minority-Sunni domination. By the same token, the Shiites are probably bemused at the willingness of the USA & its allies to die trying to free the majority! If the Shiites turn on US, it's time to get out. But why would they do that while we are battling the Sunnis?
OK, makes sense, but... I fail to see the logic of this conclusion. Sunnis - currently out of power (voluntary when you consider election abstention) - use terrorists to gain...minorty status in government? As compared to before, when they ran everything? I see no evidence that they would be happy becoming the democrats of Iraq, a hopeless minority party. Or even if they did settle for 40% of political representatives...exactly what lessons have they learned that would stop Karl-al-rove from thinking - "hey, i bet we can get 50% of the vote if we park suicide carbombs near Shiite voting stations." What motive do they have to get rid of foreign terrorists when american troops are still around, and they do not control the country? I'm not trying to be a sarcastic jerk - I'm seriously perplexed - so thanks for the answers you provided so far.
I see what you are saying, I wouldn't look for them to get rid of their terrorists friends until the US leaves. They may have them back down for awhile, but I would expect that once the US leaves, then they will use the terrorists to exert more power from the shia. Then when they acheive their goals, they will turn on their "friends" and proclaim how they and only they can provide security for the country. I am not taking you as being sarcastic jerk at all. I think we are having a decent conversation. WOW imagine that on this board in this forum huh?