Addressing The Claims Of Civil War: The MSM Would Like It To Be True
For the last couple of weeks we've been reading and hearing about a "civil war" in Iraq. Today, the WSJ's editors offer up a response that I believe is fitting:
That task has clearly been complicated by recent events--including more blood in Baghdad and the Republican wipeout in Congress caused in part by frustration with the Iraq war. There's also this week's spectacle of the wannabe Walter Cronkites at outlets like NBC News and the Los Angeles Times patting themselves on the back for declaring that the Iraq conflict is a "civil war." Mr. Cronkite is often credited with helping turn public opinion against the war in Vietnam, and today's media point seems to be to declare the war unwinnable, as if this were actually desirable. ...
... Which brings us back to the alleged "civil war." The term seems to have acquired a totemic meaning in Iraq, although the U.S. has intervened successfully in civil wars before: the Balkans and Afghanistan, most recently. Regarding Iraq, the goal of the "civil war" chorus seems to be to delegitimize the war by painting what is a false picture of the balance of power and legitimacy between the Iraqi government and the terrorists.
The sectarian violence is a horrible problem. But by any reasonable definition, a "civil war" implies at least two militarily strong factions with a popular claim on political leadership. Neither of those conditions exists in Iraq.
The country's elected, pan-sectarian government and its several hundred thousand security forces remain the only legitimate power center. The Sunni insurgents, meanwhile, are a mix of Islamists and Baathists who enjoy little support and are capable only of terrorist-style attacks. They hold sway only through murder and intimidation in areas where the government lacks enough troops to assure public safety. Shiite militia leaders are also divided and what support they enjoy is due to the perception among ordinary Shiites that the government has been unable to protect them. Few Shiites would be eager to see Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric, in Mr. Maliki's chair.
The next Iraqi or American official to be asked about "civil war" might want to reply by asking the journalist who, precisely, is fighting whom, and why Iraqi security officers of all backgrounds continue to risk their lives for the elected Baghdad government. The truth is that the enemies of Mr. Maliki's government are terrorists and thugs. Mr. Bush could help give Mr. Maliki the confidence he needs for the tough fight ahead--first against the Sunni terrorists, then against the Shiite revenge killers--by assuring him that U.S. policy will be based on this fact.
Now, before our Left-leaning fans start to fire up their e-mails, let me state for the record that we're not saying there isn't violence in Iraq. There is, but this is anything but a civil war. This is sectarian violence promulgated through people like the deceased Zarqawi, and the very-much-alive Moqtada al-Sadr. Their goal wasn't to rule Iraq, but rather topple the government for their respective masters. Zarqawi wanted to create another fertile ground for his al Qaeda buddies, and al-Sadr is setting up Iraq for an Iranian takeover. Al-Sadr's Shi'ite militia is as hardcore as Iran's Shi'ite militants.
This is anything but a civil war for exactly the reasons cited by the Journal's editors. Neither the Sunnis or the Shias have a legitimate claim to the government. They aren't as popular with the people as the MSM would have us believe. And they're anything but militarily strong. These animals are using the worst tactics executed by terrorists. They sweep into a town, and begin by beheading the males--targeting specifically the security and military forces there. They engage in bombings targeting innocent people. FEAR is the ultimate tool they utilize, and it works well, until reinforcements arrive. Then they scatter like roaches.
The point of ending this violence lies in three specific areas. The first is that we need to reassure al-Maliki and Jalal Talabani that we're still behind them. We need to encourage them to do more to curb the violence on their own, but we need to finally take the gloves off and go to town on these people. The first step, and the most difficult one, is that al-Sadr needs to go. Whether thats in handcuffs or a body bag matters not. He is inciting this violence despite his pledge to disband his militia. He goes; preferably permanently.
Second, the Sunnis need to be dealt with, and that comes in removing not only the foreign terrorists there--such as those from al Qaeda, Syrian Hezbollah, and Iranian Hezbollah--but ending the native insurgency still running rampant. The Iraqis can't offer these people the chance to lay down their arms and join the government. It's already been offered, and we've seen what happens when they do join. They continue to encourage their "militias" to continue fighting the coalition and Iraqi forces. That has to end.
Third, and next to removing al-Sadr, most importantly Iran needs to be engaged. Not at the negotiating table, but on the battlefield. With the report today covered by Marcie regarding Iranian weapons found in Iraq, and the report on Monday detailing Hezbollah's involvement in training elements of al-Sadr's army, it's clear that Iran is ginning itself up for an engagement with the US. Let's accomodate them. If I were the president, I'd order a strike against their nuclear sites; a pre-emptive action that should back them down a tad.
If we take out al-Sadr, it removes part of Iran's plan to destabilize Iraq. If we strike Iran, they will think twice about continuing their interference in Iraq. Iran is the nexus of all of this strife going on right now. If we could remove them from the equation, Iraq may start to balance itself out. But this isn't a civil war. It's not even close to the dictionary definition of a civil war. These aren't political factions fighting for control of the country. They're religious factions that are continuing an ongoing religious war. We just happen to be in the middle, hoping that these two groups can come to terms.
Coming to terms starts with the removal of the elements creating the unstable environment. Whether we do it or the Iraqis do it doesn't matter. What matters is getting it done, and quickly. Enough of this idea that a limited war can be fought. We roll in with the full might of the military, and end this now. Mosque gets flattened? So sorry, but it can be rebuilt. A few homes get nailed? Again, they can be rebuilt. Just tell the civilians to get the Hell out of Dodge, and let those with the training and manpower deal with the animals in the country.
Publius II
For the last couple of weeks we've been reading and hearing about a "civil war" in Iraq. Today, the WSJ's editors offer up a response that I believe is fitting:
That task has clearly been complicated by recent events--including more blood in Baghdad and the Republican wipeout in Congress caused in part by frustration with the Iraq war. There's also this week's spectacle of the wannabe Walter Cronkites at outlets like NBC News and the Los Angeles Times patting themselves on the back for declaring that the Iraq conflict is a "civil war." Mr. Cronkite is often credited with helping turn public opinion against the war in Vietnam, and today's media point seems to be to declare the war unwinnable, as if this were actually desirable. ...
... Which brings us back to the alleged "civil war." The term seems to have acquired a totemic meaning in Iraq, although the U.S. has intervened successfully in civil wars before: the Balkans and Afghanistan, most recently. Regarding Iraq, the goal of the "civil war" chorus seems to be to delegitimize the war by painting what is a false picture of the balance of power and legitimacy between the Iraqi government and the terrorists.
The sectarian violence is a horrible problem. But by any reasonable definition, a "civil war" implies at least two militarily strong factions with a popular claim on political leadership. Neither of those conditions exists in Iraq.
The country's elected, pan-sectarian government and its several hundred thousand security forces remain the only legitimate power center. The Sunni insurgents, meanwhile, are a mix of Islamists and Baathists who enjoy little support and are capable only of terrorist-style attacks. They hold sway only through murder and intimidation in areas where the government lacks enough troops to assure public safety. Shiite militia leaders are also divided and what support they enjoy is due to the perception among ordinary Shiites that the government has been unable to protect them. Few Shiites would be eager to see Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical cleric, in Mr. Maliki's chair.
The next Iraqi or American official to be asked about "civil war" might want to reply by asking the journalist who, precisely, is fighting whom, and why Iraqi security officers of all backgrounds continue to risk their lives for the elected Baghdad government. The truth is that the enemies of Mr. Maliki's government are terrorists and thugs. Mr. Bush could help give Mr. Maliki the confidence he needs for the tough fight ahead--first against the Sunni terrorists, then against the Shiite revenge killers--by assuring him that U.S. policy will be based on this fact.
Now, before our Left-leaning fans start to fire up their e-mails, let me state for the record that we're not saying there isn't violence in Iraq. There is, but this is anything but a civil war. This is sectarian violence promulgated through people like the deceased Zarqawi, and the very-much-alive Moqtada al-Sadr. Their goal wasn't to rule Iraq, but rather topple the government for their respective masters. Zarqawi wanted to create another fertile ground for his al Qaeda buddies, and al-Sadr is setting up Iraq for an Iranian takeover. Al-Sadr's Shi'ite militia is as hardcore as Iran's Shi'ite militants.
This is anything but a civil war for exactly the reasons cited by the Journal's editors. Neither the Sunnis or the Shias have a legitimate claim to the government. They aren't as popular with the people as the MSM would have us believe. And they're anything but militarily strong. These animals are using the worst tactics executed by terrorists. They sweep into a town, and begin by beheading the males--targeting specifically the security and military forces there. They engage in bombings targeting innocent people. FEAR is the ultimate tool they utilize, and it works well, until reinforcements arrive. Then they scatter like roaches.
The point of ending this violence lies in three specific areas. The first is that we need to reassure al-Maliki and Jalal Talabani that we're still behind them. We need to encourage them to do more to curb the violence on their own, but we need to finally take the gloves off and go to town on these people. The first step, and the most difficult one, is that al-Sadr needs to go. Whether thats in handcuffs or a body bag matters not. He is inciting this violence despite his pledge to disband his militia. He goes; preferably permanently.
Second, the Sunnis need to be dealt with, and that comes in removing not only the foreign terrorists there--such as those from al Qaeda, Syrian Hezbollah, and Iranian Hezbollah--but ending the native insurgency still running rampant. The Iraqis can't offer these people the chance to lay down their arms and join the government. It's already been offered, and we've seen what happens when they do join. They continue to encourage their "militias" to continue fighting the coalition and Iraqi forces. That has to end.
Third, and next to removing al-Sadr, most importantly Iran needs to be engaged. Not at the negotiating table, but on the battlefield. With the report today covered by Marcie regarding Iranian weapons found in Iraq, and the report on Monday detailing Hezbollah's involvement in training elements of al-Sadr's army, it's clear that Iran is ginning itself up for an engagement with the US. Let's accomodate them. If I were the president, I'd order a strike against their nuclear sites; a pre-emptive action that should back them down a tad.
If we take out al-Sadr, it removes part of Iran's plan to destabilize Iraq. If we strike Iran, they will think twice about continuing their interference in Iraq. Iran is the nexus of all of this strife going on right now. If we could remove them from the equation, Iraq may start to balance itself out. But this isn't a civil war. It's not even close to the dictionary definition of a civil war. These aren't political factions fighting for control of the country. They're religious factions that are continuing an ongoing religious war. We just happen to be in the middle, hoping that these two groups can come to terms.
Coming to terms starts with the removal of the elements creating the unstable environment. Whether we do it or the Iraqis do it doesn't matter. What matters is getting it done, and quickly. Enough of this idea that a limited war can be fought. We roll in with the full might of the military, and end this now. Mosque gets flattened? So sorry, but it can be rebuilt. A few homes get nailed? Again, they can be rebuilt. Just tell the civilians to get the Hell out of Dodge, and let those with the training and manpower deal with the animals in the country.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 2:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home