Thanks, Peter.
I, too, do not believe that all is lost... but the sooner we get more realistic, and start playing the game *smarter*, the better it will be for us.
IMO, standing in the middle between all sides of the Iraqi Civil War (with a target on our backs) is *not* the smart way to play it.
We've toppled the Sunni Dictator, we've poured hundreds of Billions into the effort, so it would not be stretching the truth to 'declare victory' and go home.
Without having the US to blame everything on, events would proceed in a different (more beneficial to us) manner....
The Iranian-backed Iraqi Shi'a government would be pitted against the Saudi Arabian-backed Sunni Iraqi insurgents (with the Kurds trying to stay as neutral as possible, consistent with defending their own territory against all interlopers... while also trying to keep from antagonizing Turkey too much), with the most likely resolution being a partition of the territories in the end.
In the meanwhile, Authoritarian leaders on BOTH SIDES of the battle (Saudi, Iranian, Syrian, etc.) would find themselves in an expensive, no-win conflict that would keep them occupied and internally focused... and would likely weaken their hold over their own populations.
All this would have much more benefit then harm to US interests.
Islam itself might ultimately come to reject religious extremism... moving closer to the centuries-delayed 'Islamic Reformation' as a result of the ultimate insanity of an Islamic religious war, formented by extremists on both sides. |
