Why We're Fighting in Iraq




 
--
 
December 8th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 

Topic: Why We're Fighting in Iraq


Why We're Fighting in Iraq

December 6, 2005 | WILLIAM TUCKER


PRESIDENT BUSH'S war critics have made a remarkable discovery - some people in Iraq want us to leave! "The people of Fallujah love Cindy Sheehan," Farouk Abd-Muhammed, a Sunni candidate for National Assembly, told The Washington Post in a front-page story fetchingly titled, "U.S. Debate on Pullout Resonates As Troops Engage Sunnis in Talks."

After describing how Abd-Muhammed had "watch[ed] recent television reports with his family showing Americans waving banners that read 'Stop the war in Iraq,' " The Post quoted him again: "I salute the American people because we know after watching them on satellite that they are ready to leave."

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was right in the thick of things, too, condemning the presumed "scandal" of our military paying for newspaper stories.

"The Pentagon's devious scheme to place favorable propaganda in Iraqi newspapers speaks volumes about the president's credibility gap," the senator declared. "If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn't have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people."

Let's get a few things straight. The Sunni are unhappy we are in Iraq.

The Shi'ites, a 60 percent majority, are generally glad we came. The Kurds, a persecuted minority in the north, think we're the greatest people on earth.

Why is this so?

Maybe it's time for a little historical background. The Muslim world is divided into two main sects, the Sunni and the Shi'ites. The Sunni are a kind of aristocracy, claiming to be the original followers of the prophet. The Shi'ites are centered in Iran and Iraq. The division goes back to the wars of succession after Mohammed's death in 632 A.D.

Under the banner of Islam, the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula quickly conquered most of the Middle East, from Granada to Kabul. In the process, they subjugated many people, forcing them to convert. All were now Muslims, yet the Sunni held themselves apart.
Those outside this Meccan old guard grouped around Ali ibn Abi Talib, a cousin of the prophet, who had married his daughter Fatima. A scholarly man, Ali abjured the wars of succession but was finally asked to become caliph in 656. Five years later he was assassinated, but his mantle fell to his son, Hussein.

In 681, Hussein and an entourage of 72 soldiers were intercepted by a Sunni army of 40,000 in southern Iraq. The Sunni demanded Hussein yield his claim to the caliphate. After deliberating eight days, Hussein rejected the offer and elected to do battle. He and his small band were slaughtered to the last man. The Shi'ia still celebrate this martyrdom in the "Ten Days of Muharram."
Today, the rivalry between Sunni and Shi'ia persists, with the Sunni a ruling caste and the Shi'ia an underdog splinter group.
Although a minority in Iraq, the Sunni have ruled since the days of the caliphate.

Saddam Hussein's Baathist party was a minority-within-a-minority, the entire clique coming from one small town, Tikrit. It was as if the Los Angeles Crips or the Chicago Mafia had seized control of America.

Inevitably, they ruled ruthlessly.

In invading Iraq, we have deposed the Sunni and are trying to give power to the Shi'ites. Naturally, the Sunni are unhappy. The real test is whether the Shi'ites will be mature enough to govern democratically or will degenerate into vengeance and repression.
When the radical young Shi'ite mullah Moqdata Al-Sadr assembled militias and started fighting both Americans and Sunni, we were in big trouble. But Al-Sadr has calmed down and agreed to join the political process.

The Baathist holdouts are a desperate and fanatical lot, ready to die before submitting to minority status. Worse, they are ready to kill any Sunni who show signs of compromise. It is an old story - extremists wiping out the middle so they can go toe-to-toe with the other extreme.

The communists were experts at this. The Viet Cong always made a point of assassinating South Vietnamese village officials.
"So aren't we just in another Vietnam?" you may argue. But there are differences. Vietnam was a peasant country that had been arbitrarily split in half. Although most South Vietnamese wanted peace, our only true supporters were the thin Westernized elite.
In Iraq, we are on the side of the majority.

In truth, the Sunnis are skilled and educated enough to hold their own in an elected government. The problem is the Baathist die-hards - plus al-Zawahri and his al-Qaida brigades - who are determined to rule through violence. It will take patience to get through this. But the Dec. 15 election should be another step in the right direction.

http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=...FlZUVFeXkxNA==
December 8th, 2005  
King
 
The only thing i can hope is that this doesn't turn out like Vietnam War, 55,000 soldiers dead. I hope they pull out the soldiers as soon as possible.
December 8th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 
the military should get out once the job is done and Iraq is a secure place or at least Iraqis can put up the fight to defend their free society
--
December 8th, 2005  
Chief Bones
 
 

Topic: Bunk


The real reason we are fighting in Iraq is because Bush Jr. got a hair up his bum because Saddam planned to assassinate Bush Sr. (PURE AND SIMPLE) and out of revenge sent our young men and women into harms way.

The rest of it is just plain camouflage. (Whether you agree or not - my opinion).
December 8th, 2005  
phoenix80
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Bones
The real reason we are fighting in Iraq is because Bush Jr. got a hair up his bum because Saddam planned to assassinate Bush Sr. (PURE AND SIMPLE) and out of revenge sent our young men and women into harms way.

The rest of it is just plain camouflage. (Whether you agree or not - my opinion).
December 10th, 2005  
Welshwarrior
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Bones
The real reason we are fighting in Iraq is because Bush Jr. got a hair up his bum because Saddam planned to assassinate Bush Sr. (PURE AND SIMPLE) and out of revenge sent our young men and women into harms way.

The rest of it is just plain camouflage. (Whether you agree or not - my opinion).
Nothing to do with oil or weapons of mass distraction then?
December 14th, 2005  
Mohmar Deathstrike
 
 
Why didnt they invade any of the other dozens of regimes as despotic as Saddam's?
December 14th, 2005  
nasa88
 
For the crude oil , showing military power in middle east and stimulating domestic economy rising.
December 14th, 2005  
Chief Bones
 
 
Remember - I said it was "my opinion" that the "REAL" reason was personal on Bush's part.

Oil or ten thousand other things may ("MAY") have entered Bush's mind when he made his decision - but (six-two-even) - revenge was uppermost in Bush's mind when he ordered our forces into harms way.
December 14th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Chief have you read the manifesto of the Neo-Cons aka the Center for A New American Century?? This war and others were laid out in detail with all of their reasoning and its available on the net in a nice 70 something page PDF download. I highly recommend it for reading.

Nothing in life is as simple as a soldier must see it.