Skip to comments.Iraq Was Supposed To Become Like The USA - But The Reverse Has Happened: Part II
Posted on 02/05/2007 4:15:14 AM PST by theothercheek
In the days before the mid-term election, The Stiletto observed that Americans were dividing themselves into political and ideological tribes, creating schisms that parallel those between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq the inevitable outcome being utter destruction of national identity and purpose.
Now, The New York Times reports that the Iraq war and Saddams trial and execution are escalating sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia right here in the US a country that has no state religion, and in which millions of (legal) immigrants of every creed and color have hitherto lived together in harmony because they assimilated, became citizens, adopted American mores and values and left ancient hatreds and rivalries behind in the Old Country:
Escalating tensions between Sunnis and Shiites across the Middle East are rippling through some American Muslim communities, and have been blamed for events including vandalism and student confrontations. Political splits between those for and against the American invasion of Iraq fuel some of the animosity, but it is also a fight among Muslims about who represents Islam.
Before, most major cities had only one mosque and everyone was forced to get along. Now, some Muslim communities are so large that the majority Sunnis and minority Shiites maintain their own mosques, schools and social clubs.
Americans are watching albeit at a distance - Muslims agitating to impose Sharia law in Europe because they refuse to adapt to the laws and customs of the countries in which they now live. Its about to get up close and personal, as Muslims living in the US dont all consider themselves Americans.Heres what one Iraqi immigrant tells The New York Times (emphasis, The Stilettos):
"The Shiites were very happy that they killed Saddam, but the Sunnis were in tears," Aqeel Al-Tamimi, 34, an immigrant Iraqi truck driver and a Shiite, said. "These people look at us like we sold our country to America."
The paper cites other examples of Sunni-Shia animosity: "Stabbings and other violence between Sunni and Shiite prisoners in New York state jails prompted a long-running lawsuit by Shiite inmates seeking separate prayer facilities" and concludes that, "Some Muslims worry that the friction might erupt in greater violence in the United States. Others, in both camps, think the tension could prove healthy, forcing American Muslims to start a dialogue about Muslim differences."
The only civil war this country fought was to settle fundamental human rights issues, and to make America a more perfect union in which states north and south of the Mason-Dixon line realized the vision of our Founding Fathers.
Americans are not about to let blood to run in the streets over whether fatwas based on Koranic interpretation can only be issued by descendants of Mohammad, or whether a consensus among religious "scholars" is as legit.
Frankly, we dont give a damn.
Note: In case I did not put all the links in correctly, please go to the original source.
In case it was bad, boo on you.
Nor should we. Like a man helping his neighbor put out a fire in the other man's house. He does it as much (if not more) for his own house as for his neighbor's. We did not go to Iraqi to make it like the United State, we went to Iraqi to protect the United States by fighting the enemy on their soil, not ours.
I know that, and you know that, but our president doesn't seem to know that. In the SOTU he again talked about the Golden Mosque being blown up as one of the reasons we need to be in Iraq. Those mosques are weapons caches so instead of waiting for a Shia to blow up a Sunni mosque or vice versa we should be blowing them all up ourselves. To think that one drop of Amernican blood has been shed over a mosque.
THANK YOU! Someone besides myself gets it!
The Left hates the United States so much they ought to be happy Iraq isn't turning out like it.
Our President is not as dumb as you make him out to be. He has said that we are fighting over there to keep the WOT off of our shores over and over!
I do agree with you that the mosques should no longer be off limits, but we hit the first one, and the cowards will be filling them with women and children, along with arsenal.
That excuse is so 2005.
Like it or not, we went in because we thought - as far as I can tell, reasonably but wrongly - that Saddam Hussein was seeking and actually had WMD's. We also justified it on the grounds of creating a neo-conservative "city on a hill," believing ourselves to be on a mission from God to create a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. This "flypaper" theory didn't come into vogue until it was clear there were no WMD's, but that Saddam Hussein instead took advantage of the prestige the innuendo that he did gave him. The Flypaper theory, additionally, has been discredited by the London tube bombings and the countless stopped terrorist attacks here.
There's only one defense of the war necessary - with the best intelligence we had at the time, we reasonably believed Saddam had WMD's and so acted appropriately. Our mistake was not in going in, but trying to do it cheap so that the occupation was incredibly botched. Iraq is a quagmire, yes, but it is one because of actions that happened in 2004-2005, not 2003-2004.
I don't see the reverse happening at all. Iraq looks EXACTLY like Ameria. There are those that try and help build and protect the country and those that constantly try to intiminate and tear it down? Where is the reverse?
The flypaper theory doesn't have a single credible counterterrorism analyst behind it. It's a political invention. It sounds good to people who don't understand militant Islam, but it's completely false. Most of the counterterrorism experts in the intelligence community was afraid that attacking Iraq would inflame tensions elsewhere, and lead to an increase in overall radicalization worldwide.
They were right. The only thing that's kept America safe in the interim is better intelligence cooperation between the various agencies, which was lacking before 9/11. While the idea of invading Iraq had some noble and worthwhile rationales, stopping terrorism was not one of them.
Islamic terrorism a complex problem that defies easy solutions like "kill em' there so we don't have to kill 'em here". It's a community-based social phenomenon, not a conventional military threat. Trying to apply a military solution to a social problem is bound to fail, as hindsight is bound to show us in a few years.
I'm just wondering about something that I haven't seen it being discussed. In every major US involvement post WWII, we saw an influx of population (refugees, etc.) from the country in question. Hence, we see many Koreans, and Vietnamese in the US. Will the same happen to Iraqis?
In this case, I believe the reverse is happening - we have not rolled out the welcome mat for Iraqi refugees. Countries in the middle east that have, are sorry as their Muslim populations have lived in peace until the Iraqis come and bring the Sunni-Shia animosity with them. There was an article in the WaPo about this yesterday:
HELL NO !!!
Okay, I guess I missed the news about folks blowing themselves and others up in our big cities on a daily basis.
Or it could prove healthy in that it might just force at least some Americans to see just what it is that we have so eagerly imported.
Iraq was supposed to be one nation under Allah. It is fractionalized by Sunni v. Shia hatred, Sunni v. Sunni tribal rivalry, Shia v. Shia tribal rivalry, Kurds v. Iraqi animosity, Islamists v. secularists, etc., etc. The US used to be one nation under G-d. Now, we are pro-abortion Americans v. pro-life Americans; pro-Iraq war Americans v. anti-Iraq war Americans, pro-Pres. Bush Americans v. anti-Pres. Bush Americans. We, too, have broken up into tribes just like the Iraqis. Instead of elevating them to our level of enlightened democracy, we have descended into their level of chaotic animosity.
Precisely my thoughts when I posted this.
The left desires the sort of chaos in the ME that this portends in order to "wean" us from oil and substitute universal public transportation and severe limits on Americans' mobility which has always anguished them.
If you read the NYT article, you will see that we are on our way to Shia v. Sunni violence here in the US. It's been a fact of life in England for years.
So far, it's true that the surrounding countries (being fellow Muslims) have accepted them. But, at one point, I think there will be a push that the US should also welcome the refugees. For Afghanistan, I believe there have been some small groups entering the US as refugees. I'm not suggesting this to happen. I simply want us to be prepared if such pressure comes up.
Whenever a lib or dem tells me that going to Iraq was a mistake or that we went in for illegitimate reasons I always point out that at the outset of the WOT our enemies were scattered in 450 countries and we cannot fight a war on 450 fronts. At least now the Islamofscists and terrorists have flocked to Iraq where we can fight inone place at one time. That always shuts them up - except for those who want the terrorists to win.
If that Iraqi truck driver quoted in the NYT is any indication (and I know several Arabs, and they all feel this way) he wil never "be" an American, he will always be an Iraqi - apart from us. Our agenda will never be his agenda. Our national interest will never be his interest. We should think long and hard before we bring more Iraqis - or Muslims in general - into the US, if they cannot live in peace with each other and with Christians, Jews, secularists, atheists, and anyone else who is likely to be his neighbor in the US.
Check out the actual speeches getting authorization. WMDs was almost an afterthought. In the press it was and is, of course, the only cause because it is the one that did not pan out. Actually, it did and lots of stuff has been found but Bush refuses to talk about it. The discoveries are made over and over again then the press is allowed to belittle them and then deny them with no further reaction from the administration or the military or Bush allows as how well maybe they are not so big a deal. Bush has not supported the war to the people. He has allowed the enemy to monopolize the war in the media. Bush is, well, a Bush. He is his Daddy's son and seems to have the same lacunae in his vision and conceptualization that GHWB had. That is the primary reason that I would be very leery of a Jeb Bush candidacy much as I respect his term as governor in Florida.
If WMD's had been found, their finding would have been trumpeted loud and clear - not these inane WorldNetDaily stories about 1980's artillery shells containing decayed nerve gas.
It is undeniable that WMD's were the impetus to go to war. WMD's were the basis for the UN Authorization under which we invaded. WMD's were the entire case made by Secretary Powell before the UN - not democracy, not this flypaper theory. WMD's. And WMD's haven't been found.
So you can post cute little cartoons all you like. The cold, hard facts are on my side.
I agree with you. However, an argument such as 'the US started it, now they have to do something about it' may be too strong for the liberals to resist.
Right. That must be why Bush himself has admitted no WMD's have been found.
Check out the actual speeches getting authorization. WMDs was almost an afterthought.
Three words: London Tube Bombings..
Two more words Gel explosives.
The terrorists are all in Iraq? Baloney.
The truth is, after suffering incredibly brutal military defeats, the Japanese and German peoples were ready to save themselves - and did an admirable job of it.
Like most Arab Muslims, the Iraqi people are not ready to save themselves. Whether from religious delusion or misplaced ethnic pride, there aren't enough Iraqi citizens who "get it"...some, certainly, but too few. If they would take lessons from Jordan or the UAE, Baghdad could have become another Dubai. Instead, it has become another Gaza.
Jude24 - you are truly the Patron of Lost Causes! the two items you claim prove the existance of WMD were claims made before the invasion.
The subsequent developments are that no-one has found them and the administration (well, Dick Chenney) claims on a regular basis that they did exist, but that Saddam had a big tag-sale before we got there, or swept them under the (Persian) carpet.
Bush has publicly downplayed finds of sarin projectiles, chemical labs and huge stockpiles of precursors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.