To me the interesting question is how Al-Qaeda will react. My sense would be that they need to switch tactics pronto: i.e., stop killing Sunni “collaborators,” and reach a deal with them instead. After all, who’s going to aid and abet them, if not the Sunnis? But so far, they seem to be acting like they can cow the Sunnis into submission. Maybe they can, in part by exploiting existing divisions (tribal and otherwise) within the Sunni population. But my bet would be that that’s the road to perdition for Al-Qaeda.
But I seem to recall asking in another thread: if the whole purpose now is to use the Sunni “dead-enders” to keep Al-Queda down, can somebody remind me why we got rid of Saddam in the first place?
I was under the impression that Al Queda was “mostly Sunni” in much the same way that the Klan was mostly white. And I don’t understand how the Baathists even enter into this, much less pose any threat to “roll over” the Shia, being outnumbered and surrounded, and all.
Perhaps if you would clarify the reasoning underlying these conclusions?
The Shia are about 15% of all Muslims. They are outnumbered by like 5-1 by the Sunni. The notion of ethnic cleansing is just patently ridiculous.
The fact is, we should be backing the Shia, and reducing our backing of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are harboring the most virulent ‘Death to America’ strain of Islam in the world, Wahabism, their success in fact, is predicated upon the support of the Wahabit clerics. The Saud family and Wahabit Islam rose to power together. The Saudi royal family funds more terrorism than Iran.
Arabs don’t do maintenance. We wouldn’t need to attack Saudi Arabia, or even worry about them at all, because we maintain their country. Without American parts they’d be screwed in a short time. The Persians have a better chance to make Islam work with Democracy than just about anyone. Iran is going to run out of oil sooner than Saudi Arabia, so they have every incentive to play the first world game, and have a strong reform movement that was sort of bashed in the face by Bush when he made the “Axis of Evil” speech.
Al Qaeda wants to attack us to get us out of Saudi Arabia, so fine, we get out of Saudi Arabia. The bloated Saudi Royal family stripped of their American benefactors will begin to feed upon it’s own excess flesh causing dissension within the ranks that is only kept in check by keeping pampered princes hooked on the nipple of a prada pacifier.
The great mistake has already been made, and that was excluding the Baath party from the government. They removed all the people who knew anything about running Iraq on an administrative level by doing so.
However, there is a valuable strategic reason to arm all sides in a war. It gets your enemies to kill one another. The greater the chaos in the region the easier it is to be kleptocrats and suck their oil out.
The Baathists, are trained, old Republican Guard and ex-military etc… Those are a lot of who the Sunni insurgents are. The Shia were the ones out of power under Saddam, and not as significant a portion of the multi million man army that Saddam maintained.
Well, Osama is (nominally) a Sunni, so I suppose you could say that AQ is ‘mostly’ Sunni. Its sort of like saying that Timothy McVeigh represented all Christians though.
:dubious: Where do you get this stuff? The Ba’athist’s weren’t able to ‘roll over’ the Iranian Shi’ite’s when Saddam was in control and they actually had a decent military for gods sake. Iran’s population far outstrips that of Iraq (combined Shi’ite and Sunni and everything else under the sun)…there is no way that simply arming the Ba’athist’s would have this effect.
I find your bbs excommunication of bin Laden from Sunni Islam deserves a bagpipe eulogy commemorating what a brave Scotsman the man is.
What do you think about Zawahiri or Mohammed Atta? What about Said Qutb? Should I break out the bagpipes for them too?
We aren’t talking about rolling over Iran. We are talking about rolling over Iraqi Shia. You are talking about arming trained troops when you talk about arming the Baathists.
Do you think these guys:
Fair enough. Do you think that might galvanize the Sunni into a more cohesive entity to fight back against the Shia? Who would be either killing Sunnis or driving them across their borders.
It’s not a “NT Scotsman” argument that’s being made - it’s just that saying “all AQ are Sunni” (and I think it is all rather than most) is logically totally different to “all Sunni are AQ”
And what is Iran doing while all this rolling-over is going on - given the massive political/social/religious connections between Iranian and Iraqi Shia? The Iran / Iraq border is an artificial modern construct, and we know the Iranians are already involved to some degree in arming Iraqi Shia.
With the US increasingly unable to control the situation on the ground, Turkey is looking increasingly likely to ignore the pesky issue of borders, why would Iran not send it’s trained troops in to prevent ethnic cleansing of Shia?
Naw…you should just look up the definition of the No True Scotsman thingy.
You are obviously confused…
Um…first off, you are aware I trust that the Shia greatly outnumber the Sunni in Iraq. Right?
Secondly, I don’t think that the arms we are providing to the Sunni are going to be all THAT decisive. The country is, after all, awash in old Soviet weapons (with the odd French and Chinese weapons laying about) from the Saddam era. I don’t think the US providing body armor and basic personal arms is going to suddenly allow the Sunni to overcome the numerical superiority of all the Shia in Iraq and wipe them out…or whatever it is you are saying.
What sorts of corroboration might we require? Can they bring us evidence of their fierce enmity for AlQ? A collection of AlQ dogtags, or secret decoder rings, taken from the slain? Maybe an intercepted communication from the No. 3 man, saying “Gosh, Osama, those Sunni dissident guys are kicking our butts, but good! Send prayer beads and ammo!”
How do we know they’ll shoot anybody? What’s to stop them from selling it all and using the money to buy bootleg Borat tapes?
It’s untrusting cynics like you who undermine the Free World at every opportunity. I’m sure only people with Bush’s super ‘looking into people’s eyes to discern their souls powers’ are handing out the gear.’
Plus there is the rigorous Intelligence questioning. Something along the lines of
“Do you hate Al-Queda?”
“Yes, absolutely.”
“How much?”
“I REALLY hate Al Queda.”
“Cool. Have some guns.”
“Much obliged Infidel.”
Besides - it says in the article they are taking biometric data of the people they give guns to.
Thank Jesus that Iraqi’s are too stupid to consider sending dupes along to pick up weapons before handing them on to Evil Doers.
So, despite your unwarranted and morale corroding cynicism, the plan is pretty much foolproof.
I still don’t get it to be honest. Assuming the US is arming these folks with our own weapons (and not the abundant Soviet era stuff that is basically ubiquitous throughout the ME and Africa) then these folks basically become dependent on America CONTINUING to supply them…and so to a certain extent on their basically behaving themselves. You can’t interchange parts and ammo with the Soviet stuff after all (and frankly, were I an insurgent I’d rather have the Soviet stuff…though a nice bullet proof vest would be a good thing to have, to be sure :)).
So, I’m unsure of A) How effect this could possibly be, considering that small arms aren’t exactly difficult to get in the region and B) Why the outrage.
