.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} <$BlogRSDURL$>

Wednesday, March 29, 2006


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday that Saddam Hussein, not continued U.S. involvement in Iraq, is responsible for ongoing sectarian violence that is threatening the formation of a democratic government.

While I will stop short of completely disagreeing with GW's view, in all actuality the problems with sectarian clashing in Iraq goes back beyond Saddam. It starts after WWII, when what is called Iraq was created by the British, wherein at least three different social entities, namely the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shias, were thrown together into one poorly thought out 'nation'.

A marriage of convenience has turned violent.

I certainly agree that all these sectarian beefs predate Saddam. Saddam was only able to keep all of it in check by systematic torture, terror, and murder. I don't think U.S. involvement is responsible for it either other than yanking Saddam out of power.

I think the thing that mystifies me the most about the prospect of all out civil war in Iraq is why would the Sunni's and FRE be looking to pick this fight? They are so vastly out numbered they are assured nothing but annihilation. People talk about how Iraq would end up being split three ways, I don't see it that way at all. I see the Kurds and Shia plying their collective hatred for the Sunni/Baathists and exterminating every one of them. I'd say that's a two way split. I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but I still don’t understand why the Sunni’s haven’t come to grips with the fact that they are vastly out numbered.
"A marriage of convenience has turned violent."

Kind of like the Ike and Tina of the middle east.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?