We can back the Sunnis since Iran already backs the Shiites. We can provide them with supplies and covert aid (as we withdraw our troops). Right now, only Iran (through the Shiites) is doing the fighting in Iraq.
We have met them (via Hezbollah) in Lebanon (via Israel). We could do the same in Iraq. This is sort of how we fought the cold war against the Soviets...always via proxies.
I know war is bad and I'd prefer a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuke development problem but this idea saves American lives by ending our overt involvement in Iraq yet forces Iran to pay attention to be on the defensive for a change.
Thoughts?
2006-08-10 17:01:33 · 11 answers · asked by Brand X 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I'm in Iraq right now for my second year. A few points:
(1) The insurgency is primarily Sunni. Whether it's secular Baathists or fundamentalist types, they're the ones who started the insurgency, and with their sectarian attacks, the current civil war, hands down. I do not know where you get "only the Shiites are doing the fighting in Iraq" but that is completely untrue and definitely NOT the case on the ground.
(2) Shiites outnumber Sunni by a margin of 2 to 1. They also control most of the security forces (Interior Ministry, Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army, Security Infrastructure Brigades, etc) by sheer numbers. By backing the Sunni, you are asking for a fight against superior numbers. Try walking through Shia strongholds like Najaf or Karbala, even the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad and tell me how the Sunni could take them down.
(3) By taking sides in a civil war, you are asking the United States to turn its back on the Iraqi government and condemn the country to total anarchy. Such a rupture destabilizes the region more, destroys what little American credibility is left in the Middle East and beyond, and removes beyond all shadow of a doubt that we have no sustainable presence in Iraq.
I understand you would like to see a "peaceful solution" but such is not accomplished by having others die for you. Ask the Kurds, who were our proxies twice - in the 70s against Iran, and in the 90s against Baathist Iraq - how they felt about being set up for massacre by the Americans.
Never mind that "covert aid" from Americans is more or less impossible in the region to begin with, or that the blowback from this is so severe that American lives will be lost throughout the world for years to come. The 80s produced hardened fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan, who became leaders in the terror movement; those who have survived combat in Iraq this decade have become a more seasoned, hardened sort of Jihadi that is media savvy, capable of complex attacks, and definitely a threat beyond Iraqi borders for years to come.
Cold War paradigms don't work anymore. Try again.
2006-08-10 17:32:13 · answer #1 · answered by Nat 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, when people ask about the threat of a civil war in Iraq. I keep coming back to the beginning of the USA.
As for Iran, I think they are worried about the Israelis taking out Hezbollah right now.
But, back to the civil war. I am not so sure this will be a bad thing in the long run. Most countries that are fledgelings have some type of civil war. Also, it is a great opportunity for the newly formed Iraqi gov to show what they can or can not do.
Being sneaky and favoring one side right now would blow up in our face. I feel we need to start letting the Iraqi gov and it's people begin to handle things with the promise of help if it is needed.
2006-08-10 17:18:17 · answer #2 · answered by Camping Chick 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have backed both sides: What planet have you been on?
We just uprooted the Sunnis who had the large Shi-Ite majority under control. Now the Shi-ites are in control and their paying the Sunni's back. This is a no-win situation -withdraw withdraw. It was a mistake to begin with. This will be always for us (our involvement) a vietnam. Nobody there wants us there except to protect them at the expense of our American soldiers.
One day they may wish Saddam was back in control. Now that this invasion has put Iran in the drivers seat.
We did for Iran what she could not do for herself: Iran fought a war for many years against Iraq to a draw. Then we came a did For Iran! (unwittingly)
2006-08-10 17:30:22 · answer #3 · answered by worriedaboutyou 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The three elements in Iraq are the kurds, sunnis and shias.
If the US supports the Kurds it will find itself at war with its major ally Turkey.
If the US supports the Sunnis it will return to power the supporters of Saddam Hussein.
If the US supports the Shias it will be indirectly supporting Iran.
So through their ignorance the White House has landed itself in a lose, lose, lose situation.
2006-08-10 19:35:41 · answer #4 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Siding w/ someone in an Iraqi civil war is like being the smartest kid in special ed, in the end you are still retarded.
We should bomb Iran into the stone-age, sanction Syria into the Middle ages and give the Israelis F-22 raptors to Level Lebanon.
Either that or we should become isolationists and say **** The Middle East.
2006-08-10 17:09:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why would we change the game plan this many years into it, we're trying to keep peace and encourage and help the iraqi govt stand up on its own and defend itsself.
2006-08-10 19:52:07 · answer #6 · answered by tjstarz82 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You give them (force down thier throats) democracy, then you sneak in and mess it up????
make your mind up and quit meddling in other peoples affairs
2006-08-10 17:08:27 · answer #7 · answered by a tao 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wow, great plan for the destruction of the middle east. i guess you sell weapons. or coffins.
2006-08-10 17:06:58 · answer #8 · answered by cassandra 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we choose sides we are more likely to be killed.
2006-08-10 17:07:14 · answer #9 · answered by Andrea 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Kill em all, let god sort em out.
2006-08-10 17:25:51 · answer #10 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋