In American theory, it is not to be selective. But the Iraqi government was elected by the votes of most of those in the Shia militias, and wants to continue to rely on that vote by protecting them. The Iraqi government stalled long enough that the Shia militias had time to prepare for the crackdown. Their weapons were not in the areas searched, and ione of their leaders, Muqtada al-Sadr, fled to Iran so he can come back as soon as there is no danger of American interference with his organized slaughter.
Meanwhile, America will do the Shia militias' job for them, cracking down on Sunnis, finding nothing among the Shia.
America already has handed the country over to the Shia, anyway. But that's not entirely a bad thing. The U.S. shouldn't take a side in the Islamic schism, but Al-Qaeda and most of the worst terrorists attacks over the last few years have been based on Salafism, an extremely radical branch of the Sunnis that the government of Saudi Arabia gives tons of money each year in order to maintain control.
Sunni or Shia shouldn't matter in the U.S., but Salafism (also known as Wahabbism) is a serious threat. The government is ignoring Salafism, which is the ideology behind 9-11 and all the rest of it, because we are beholden to Suadi Arabia.
So the threat of a "Shia crescent" and Iran's influence is really a distraction.
In a sense, the Iraqi government is doing the U.S. a favor by thwarting our attempts to be evenhanded. But that's not really fair -- the Shia militias are dangerous too, and the civilians who happen to be Sunni will be killed by those militias as soon as they have the chance.
The Sunni insurgency does, however, include Al-Queda in Iraq, a group that did not exist before we invaded, but nonetheless a dangerous group. And it was the Sunni insurgency that bombed the mosque in Samarra that really started the civil war.
Anyway, the story our generals are telling is they will crackdown on anyone they find in the nieghborhoods that has weapons. The Mahdi Army did a better job of getting rid of their's ahead of the crackdown because of their friends in the government.
2007-02-17 10:50:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by johnnybassline 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
1. The sunni minority dominated Iraq under Saddam. so they are the angriest at the change, and are producing the most violence. While the Shiite militias may be no better, they have not showed themselves to be as much of a threat to the existing regime, and have not made as many attacks on the US and British forces. I assume that is the reason.
2007-02-17 18:32:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mr Ed 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
because the leader is Shiite, which is giving Iran more reasons to become friends with Iraq, because Iran happens to be Shiite.
Iraq should be all Sunni, becuase Sunnis dislike Shiites, in that way, they will stay away from the presence of Iran.
2007-02-17 18:31:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by PROUD TO BE A LIBERAL TEEN! 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
yeah theyre so pro shiite, that Al-Sadr made a run for the border and into Iran
2007-02-17 18:32:12
·
answer #4
·
answered by chumpchange 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Stay tuned Sunni friend.
The crackdown will be EQUAL.
It has to be!!!!!!
2007-02-17 18:33:52
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most of the insurrectionists are sunnis.
2007-02-17 18:32:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋