Nadine, with respect to my second question, i.e.;
"Second, if you have any dim notion of an answer that question, then what do the recent developments of the Sunnis accepting arms and money from the US in return for cutting back on killing our troops have to do with those "insurgency" goals?"
You answered:
"They have to do with positioning themselves for the ethno-sectarian struggle for power that is Iraq today. Paradoxically, as Shia power established itself in the central government, Americans became de facto allies of the Sunnis because only the American have a strong interest in not seeing the Sunnis driven out of Iraq entirely, which would be a-okay by most of the Shia and Kurds. Situations change and develop. In their own ways.
So there we have it. The Sunnis ARE currently accepting our "help" in order to strengthen themselves so that they can effectively resist the will of the majority of Iraqis...the Shiite Iraqis.
Their goals have not changed, the thing that changed was that instead of attempting to crush their resistance to a "democratically ruled Iraq" we are now busy aiding them in their efforts to resist the rule of the majority in Iraq.
And, in return, their response has been to stop fighting us and to accept our help. (Help means not only that we're not killing them but that we're providing arms, money, training and rebuilding in Sunni areas.)
So there you have it, their "insurgent" goals have not changed. What has changed is the goals of the "US." As I said in an earlier post; they didn't join us so much as we joined them. Or maybe you don't remember my analogy to the essential arms dealer who's supplying both the rebels and the government.
So, spin it all you want as an end to the "Sunni insurgency" but your own post shows that you know better.
I'll address the "we beat Al Queda" assertion in my next post. Ed |
