If you think darfur and iraq a very simular as you say, then you are saying iraq is in a civil war?
Not in the sense that the MSM would have you believe. For one, the current discrepancy in population between Sunni and Shi'a negate the concept of an Iraqi civil war. There simply aren't enough Sunnis in the country to rise to the level of civil war, in the traditional sense.
But a REGIONAL ARAB civil war between Sunnis and Shi'a is a different question. There are significant populations of Shi'a who live in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and we could see this conflict in Iraq between Sunnis and Shi'a crossing borders.
The last thing we want to see, if we're interested in preventing a disruption of PG oil, and preventing further radicalization of the Islamic faith, is Arabs dividing along religious lines as we're seeing in Iraq.
What it comes down to for me as far as war is concerned, if you go in, mean it.
I would agree. And given that the US Congress, both Republican and Democratic, voted to grant the authorization to use force against Saddam, then both parties bear the responsibility of doing what is necessary to accomplish the mission.
Of course, it depends on how you define the mission now. If you believe that the mission ended when Saddam was overthrown, then you believe it's time to bring the troops home.
If you believe that the mandate of UNSC 678, 687, and 1441 calls for us to use all necessary means "to restore international peace and security in the area" then you have a different perspective. You recognize that any counter-invasion, or cross-border insurgent activity aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected government in Iraq, is a threat to "international peace and security in the area" and thus, the binding UNSC mandate remains in place and must be enforced.
And while I welcome the ISG as a bi-partisan effort to stop the partisan subversion of US-Mideast foreign policy, I'm hesitant when I see the Iranian and Syrian government warning us should we fail to implement it's recommendations:
time.com
We'd best not forget that there is one "civil war" we have a vested interest in promoting. That is the civil war between religious reactionaries and religious moderates/progressives. For this, ultimately, is what the Jihadist movement represents.. a war for the heart and soul of Islam and whether it will regress to its legacy of conquest, intolerance, and luddism, or realize it's own "age of enlightenment" that finds a compromise between religious belief and scientific discovery and understanding.
Hawk |
