> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of jdiebremse > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 8:34 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Iraq Re: "Someone Must Tell Them" > > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > And that's because the policy of the rest of the world was to > > > support the reign of terror of Saddam Hussein ad infinitum???? > > > > Only if you share Bush's Manichean world-view. I don't. But we have > > covered this ground earlier, before the invasion. > > > Ritu, it seems that you, Nick, and even Dan missed the point here. > > The proposition was made here that the US is responsible for all the > deaths currently occuring in Iraq. While this was a reasonable > proposition when the deaths in Iraq were occuring largely as a result of > US military action, or else as a result of an anti-US insurgency in > Iraq, that no longer seems to be the case. As the events of the past > week have painfully demonstrated, the predominant form of violence in > Iraq is of an inter-sectarian kind as the various Iraqi factions jockey > for position in the post-Saddam order.
I think that it is reasonable to assume that the overwhelming majority of the recent violence is sectarian. And, it's also reasonable to think that if the Bathist party fell (Hussein's death alone would not have been sufficient if the strongest of his relatives/lieutenants took power afterwards), that there would be some violent score settling. But, from what I've read, there were many factors involved in Iraq sectarianism. For example, even at this late date, there are still mixed Sunni/Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad where Shiites look out for Sunni neighbors as best they can. There have been a number of inter-sect marriages. Unfortunately, the way we've handled things, we have fostered the development of multiple militia. Chaos reigns. As things continue to slip, I expect the civil war to become extremely nasty. By extremely nasty, I mean noticeably worse than what we had seen in the Balkans. > In my mind, if one is to blame the US for these deaths, then the > alternative would be to support the prolonged the perpetuation of Saddam > Hussein or similar ad infinitum as a means of holding the country > together. > Alternatively, I suppose you could explain why you think > that there would have been less sectarian violence in Iraq if the regime > of Saddam Hussein (or similar) had only collapsed *without* 150,000+ US > troops on the ground trying to help keep the peace... I think I understand your point. Collapses of minority sect totalitarian rule can often be the source of tremendous chaos. Civil wars often result. In Iraq, some of the factors that would lead to a civil war were present. But, I think that our presence allowed various militias to form up under the banner of anti-Americanism as well as tribal loyalties. Then, by keeping a lid on things with our troops, we allowed this mess to simmer for 3+ years. We also tied our own hands concerning a sharp intervention to prevent Shiite genocide against Sunni. If we hadn't occupied the country for almost 4 years already, we would have had options...as would other countries. When Bush Sr. pushed for the fall of Hussein after Gulf War I, the projected levels of violence after an overthrow were nowhere near what the level of violence is now. I think there is significant historical evidence to show that Bush. Sr.'s team was far less likely to underestimate problems than Bush Jr.'s. My projection for Iraq is dismal. I think the best we can hope for is a swift and decisive Shiite victory in a civil war, and the death tool in the aftermath to be kept in the tens of thousands...as ethnic cleansing takes place. The reasonable worst case scenario is now a horror. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
