Friedman (9/27/05): The Endgame In Iraq (Kill All Sunnis!)

[wellst0nev0ter]

So now we know what kind of majority the Kurds and Shiites want to be, the question is what kind of minority the Iraqi Sunnis want to be. Do they want to be the Palestinians and spend the next 100 years trying to mobilize the Arab-Muslim world to reverse history and restore their "right" to rule Iraq as a minority - a move that would destroy them and Iraq?

<snip>

That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be. If they come around, a decent outcome in Iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. If they won't, then we are wasting our time. We should arm the Shiites and Kurds and leave the Sunnis of Iraq to reap the wind. We must not throw more good American lives after good American lives for people who hate others more than they love their own children.

LINK. . .
It's shameless genocidal appeals like these that makes me glad people like Friedman have their "deep thoughts" hidden behind a pay-per-view firewall.

[Teaser]

1. Friedman Comes Out for Genocide.

When all your Iraq dreams are shattered, all your wannabeocon theories have been smashed, find an Iraqi minority to blame for the problem and...

...wipe them from the face of the earth.

That's the spirit Tom. A few more columns like that the Bushies might give you a cabinet post.

[mattclearing]

2. Wow.

I'm still trying to get over the mental leap Friedman has made here. That's just unbelievable, and somewhat surprising that the NY Times would print it.

[Teaser]

3. He's gone from merely stupid to evil.

He's on my list of "If I ever meet him in person...".

[RaulGroom]

7. The Lesson of Dubya

The Lesson of Dubya (which applies to the Stache to a lesser degree) is that when a person is in a position of great power, stupid IS evil.

[enigma000]

4. Then Iran will arm the Shiites and Kurds

Friedman is only putting into words what the vast majority here at DU advocate: a quick withdrawal of coalition forces and the turning of a blind eye to the inevitable civil war to follow.

Let the Iraqis have a civil war and watch from the sidelines on your big screen TVs. Console yourself with the knowledge you tried your best and sacrificed the lives and health of many of your soldiers.

[MostlyLurks]

5. So if we did that, wouldn't we be the ones sowing the wind? n/t

[K-W]

6. "Do they want to be the Palestinians" Wow. EOM

[bemildred]

8. Brilliant idea Tom.

Make sure to give them plenty of RPGs, SAMs, and military grade HE.
That will teach those disobedient Sunni fellows a thing or two.
Bush ought to put you in charge of strategery right away.

[ElectroPrincess]

9. We already tried that Tom?!

To bomb those bastards back to the Stone Age ... ring familiar?

Guess what? We can't kill them all! This ain't a Bruce Willis action movie but the illegal occupation of a foreign country. Well duh!

[bemildred]

10. Guess what, they might not go after the Sunni.

There are other handy targets the Iraqis hate even more.

[cyberpj]

11. Wow. What a philosophy. Arm the majority to obliterate the minority.

Be afraid of these people. Be very afraid.

On edit: (and this is different from Robertson's suggestion HOW?)

[ConservativeDemocrat]

12. WAIT. ISN'T THIS WHAT YOU WANT?

I mean really, even if we don't arm the Shiites and the Kurds, do you think they're incapable of getting arms themselves? Seriously?

Please don't be hypocritical. The U.S. leaving Iraq will nearly certainly lead to civil war, and quite possibly tens or hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. It's OK to hold the position that we should leave anyway - that U.S. soldier's lives are more important that Iraqi civilians' - but don't then try to pretend that your view is any less "genocidal" than Friedman's.

Fundamentally what Friedman is saying here is that he's beginning to agree with the "Out of Iraq NOW" movement. You should be happy, not angry.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[bemildred]

14. Friedman wanted this shit, he's a main cheerleader for the whole sheebang.

Don't compare us to this fuckwit, we fought it all the way,
and he's been telling us how good it's going to be. The fact
that he's down to throwing this sort of pompous tantrum now
doesn't get him a free pass, people are dead. Good people are
dead. He can kiss my ass. And he's not arguing we should leave,
he's arguing that we should let Iraqis kill Iraqis, a bit of
genocide by our stooges against the intransigents, until they
come to their senses, its just the thing. He's not talking
about leaving Iraq, he's talking about retreating into garrisons
like the Brits are doing in Basra and hiring Iraqi stooges to
do our fighting for us, and that means making it a much dirtier
war than it already is.

[thebigidea]

15. and this asshole wanting Sunnis to "reap the wind" isn't civil war?

how the hell can you say the alternative is civil war when that's the plan this bozo is presenting us?

[wellst0nev0ter]

16. No, I Don't Believe In Letting This Country Off The Hook THAT Easy

If you don't like hard option number one, immediate withdrawal and letting the Iraqis violently sort it out for themselves, then there is always hard option number two, taking actual responsibility for the invasion and putting in enough troops to actually secure the country. I choose option B because I want the public who supported the war in the first place to actually experience the sacrifices of war. If the war is going to be hard for the Iraqis, it should be hard for us as well.

[K-W]

17. We should leave because it is the best possible scenario for all people.

Military occupation doesnt cure ethnic tension. Our staying wont prevent a civil war. A balance of power needs to be established in Iraq that doesnt rely on US military control, and whenever this happens it will stand a good chance of causing a civil war. At the very best, our occcupation is delying that civil war (and placing a war of occupation in its place).

[ConservativeDemocrat]

18. Reply to all 4 of you...

bemildred> Don't compare us to this fuckwit, we fought it all the way, and he's been telling us how good it's going to be. ... He's not talking about leaving Iraq, he's talking about retreating into garrisons like the Brits are doing in Basra and hiring Iraqi stooges to do our fighting for us.

I might be mistaken, but I'm starting to get the impression that you don't like Friedman. I just hope that if he ever says something you agree with, you won't let your emotions keep you from admitting it.

Anyway, when he says "We must not throw more good American lives after good American lives for people who hate others more than they love their own children", it seems pretty obvious that he's talking about retreating from Iraq, since that's about the only way to guarantee our soldiers won't be killed.


thebigidea> and this asshole wanting Sunnis to "reap the wind" isn't civil war?

Why yes, it is. That's what I was saying. People who want out of Iraq now are essentially on the same side as Friedman is: "Let Iraqi's kill each other now. NOW!"


wellst0nev0ter> If you don't like hard option number one, immediate withdrawal and letting the Iraqis violently sort it out for themselves, then there is always hard option number two, taking actual responsibility for the invasion and putting in enough troops to actually secure the country.

Well, yes. That's a possibility. So (putting on my D.U.-screamer hat for a moment), SINCE YOU'RE FOR THIS WAR, WHEN ARE YOUUUUUUUUU SIGNING UP FOR IT? HUH? HUH HUH HUH????


K-W> Military occupation doesn't cure ethnic tension. Our staying wont prevent a civil war. A balance of power needs to be established in Iraq that doesn't rely on US military control, and whenever this happens it will stand a good chance of causing a civil war.

I agree with much of what you're saying. But I'd put it differently: no military occupation run by Bush and the corrupt Republican party is going to prevent a civil war. On the other hand, Democratic presidential administrations actually have a good track record of defusing civil wars. Clinton was a master at it: Bosnia, Haiti, Indonesia, etc.

I always disagreed with Friedman about Iraq. I've been against it from the very beginning. But given how easy Clinton made fixing incredibly difficult foreign policy problems look, I'm willing to forgive him his mistake of believing that just anyone (like Bush) could do it too.

Please remember that to win, Democrats are going to have to persuade former Bush voters back to the right side. That requires some magnanimity on our side. Telling them that they're all fuckwits isn't likely to be helpful.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[bemildred]

19. Right.

I might be mistaken, but I'm starting to get the impression that you don't like Friedman.

Seeing the obvious is a start.

I just hope that if he ever says something you agree with, you won't let your emotions keep you from admitting it.

Tsk, you accuse me of being emotional? After saying:

"WAIT. ISN'T THIS WHAT YOU WANT?"

No, it isn't what I want. This is Sunni bashing propaganda, not very
original at all.

Anyway, when he says "We must not throw more good American lives after good American lives for people who hate others more than they love their own children", it seems pretty obvious that he's talking about retreating from Iraq, since that's about the only way to guarantee our soldiers won't be killed.

He's just saying we should not thow any more good American lives
away for the Sunni ingrates. We should get the Shi'ia to kill them
for us.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

20. Heh...

To me, capitals don't indicate emotion, they call attention. So many posts in the D.U. are predictable "mega-dittos" (to use the right wing colloqulism), I'm always afraid any non-orthodox comment will be lost in the shuffle.

He's just saying we should not thow any more good American lives away for the Sunni ingrates. We should get the Shi'ia to kill them for us.

I don't think anyone other than Bush really expected Sunnis to be grateful; we overthrew their little murderous regime, after all. Saddam was hardly the only Bathist in the country.

"Sane" was the hope, and they've failed almost as miserably as Bush has.

One of the interesting effects of Republicans' "Going to War to Save People (from themselves)" is that hostile forces quickly get used to the idea that they can hide among sympathetic and/or terrified civilians, because the U.S. soldiers aren't allowed to use the traditional methods of dealing with those sorts of tactics.

The deadly mistake the Sunnis are making is thinking that Shiites are like Americans. They're not. Make them play "who's the guy who just shot at us" in a group of 20 Sunni civilians, and they'll just kill them all.

And, given that for every American soldier killed in this war, there've been at least 200 Shiites killed over the last 40 years by Sunnis, I don't think they need much encouragement from Friedman.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[bemildred]

21. That's very funny:

"The deadly mistake the Sunnis are making is thinking that Shiites are like Americans."

:rofl::rofl:

[ConservativeDemocrat]

24. Funny? Only if you laugh at people dying...

More generally, the Shiite/American difference is the same as between all first-world and third-world armies. Our societies care how we look to others, so our soldiers are taught to try to be police, attacking only combatants, and even then causing the minimal casualties to complete the mission. Third world leaders larely don't care how they seem to oursiders, so their militaries are more like armed thugs: they prefer to prey on civilians because civilians tend not to shoot back (and, as a side benefit, you can steal from them too).

We get into trouble this way. The U.S. Armed Forces should not be used to try to "save" people. They should be only used to kill people. The U.S. continues to try to wage war in the name of peace - and that doesn't work very well. It leaves us open to "terrorist" tactics.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[bemildred]

25. Funny that you think the Sunni are confused about the difference

between Americans and the Shi'ia. That is a ridiculous
assertion, and you have no evidence at all to back it up,
it's pure 100% bullshit.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

26. The evidence is clear from their actions

If they realized the danger they were in, they'd likely be more cooperative. Not with us, but with the Shiia-Kurd majority.

If you want evidence, here's an article dated today about what's really going on. The Shiia and Kurds, upset with Sunni unwillingness to compromise, were going to ram through a Constitutional change effectively disenfranchising them.

Who stopped this? The Americans. And why did they listen? Because of our troops. If we had none in the country, the Shiia/Kurd alliance would have done as they pleased, and if the Sunnis didn't like it, they would have started the mass disappearances.

Silent ethnic genocides happen all the time in third-world countries. But both you and the Sunnis are of the opinion that this won't happen to them, because -so far- the Sunnis have been able to successfully use their own civilian population as human shields against U.S. troops.

Problem is, the human shield tactic only works if your enemy actually cares about the people you're using as a shield. And for good reason, many Shiia don't. So if the Sunnis continue down this path they've set, will result in them being on the wrong end of a genocidal civil war. They will "reap the wind" as Friedman so euphemistically put it.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. You've offered absolutely no evidence of your own - because you have none. So your comment about "100% bullshit" is 100% bullshit.

[bemildred]

28. The Shi'ia and the Sunni have lived together in Iraq for over 1000 years.

The best thing one could say about the notion that they are
not very well-aquainted with each other is that it is ignorant.

The notion that the Shi'ia are now going to commit genocide
against the Sunni because they are annoyed about the "Constitution"
is ludicrous, however much of a hissy-fit Friedman may be having
about it.

A far more likely scenario if we arm the Shi'ia is that they will
turn those weapons on us.

The "human shield" argument is likewise bullshit. It assumes that
the fighters expect that "hiding behind" civilians will protect
them, when simple observation shows that it will not. We have
destroyed town after town in Iraq to "root out the insurgents" and
killed tens-of-thousands of civilians while doing it. The
civilians offer no protection at all to the insurgents, other than
camoflage and they know it.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

29. Oh they're well aquainted...

it's just that, like many ethnic tyrants, they underestimate how much hatred they've engendered, and they overestimate the willingness of the Shiite population to put up with it.

I know you're emotionally wedded to this "US bad/People who shoot at our troops good" motif, but maybe this a hypothetical might shake you loose - imagine if in South Africa, after Nelson Mandella took over, the white minority decided to begin a campaign of car bombings targeting Black children and Black churches. Imagine they wanted disproportionate power in the country, and a veto over anything that might shake them from their position atop the nation's economic hierarchy. And imagine there is presently some nation (say China), presently in the country, trying to stop this by trying to "root out" only the "insurgent" whites doing all this, while protecting the "civilian" whites who merely silently cooperate.

Now the Chinese leave. How long do you think it would take for the formerly oppressed Black South Africans to decide that easiest way to stop the bombings is to kill ALL the whites? Not thousands among millions - but millions among millions?

Even Mandella himself probably couldn't stop it.


- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. The very concept of "root out the insurgents" shows that the tactic of human shields in action. In WW2, we did not "root Nazis out" of German towns. We fire bombed them until there was nothing but smoldering ashes. The Sunnis are the people targeting civilians, 8175 documented cases in the last 10 months (nearly all Shiites).

[bemildred]

31. More far-fetched hypotheticals do not help your argument Sir.

Your notion that the Shi'ia hate the Sunni is imaginary.
It is nothing at all like the racial situation in S. Africa.
They are both muslims, and many of the Shi'ia are allies
with the Sunni in resistance to the occupation. That does
not mean the Shi'ia do not intend to take more political
power, they do, but it has nothing to do with taking some
imaginary revenge on the Sunni.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

32. Again, I offer evidence. You do not.

"Your notion that the Shi'ia hate the Sunni is imaginary."

No, it's reality.

BAGHDAD — The merchants were silent, their shops closed. A hush had fallen on the Jamiyat Shurta market. Earlier that morning, three bakers had been slain, shot silently as they prepared khubz, the popular pancake-like bread. A few hours later, two gunmen crept up on a fishmonger at another market nearby, felling him with bullets before disappearing into the crowd.

Around the corner, assailants had gunned down a bicycle dealer and a university teacher in separate attacks earlier this week. All the victims were Shiites living or working in Baghdad's Dora neighborhood.

On the streets of the capital, posters proclaim: "The constitution: Unity is from it, and hope is in it."

But, as Iraqis prepare to vote on a new constitution Oct. 15, hope and unity are in short supply, with gunmen redrawing the map of this age-old city in blood.

- - - -

It is nothing at all like the racial situation in S. Africa. They are both muslims...

Yes, like the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland are both Christian. (They'd never fight, would they?)

...many of the Shi'ia are allies with the Sunni in resistance to the occupation.

The only Shiite "resistance to the occupation" (shooting at U.S. soldiers) came from Al Sadr - and that was mostly due to an internal Shiite political play. Al Sistani has issued a Fatwah for all his followers (who outnumber Al Sadr's 20 to 1) to vote in favor of the new Constitution.

Again, I continue to offer evidence clipped from the daily headlines to back my views. You offer nothing but rank, uninformed, opinion, often posited in sweeping absolutes. So who's the "far-fetched" one here, eh?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. The best behind the scenes book about life in Iraq is A fist in the Hornet's Nest. Although I disagree with Engel's analysis - he's far too upbeat about the end-result of this misadventure - it's a stunning story with an incredible number of directly witnessed facts.

[bemildred]

36. "The only Shiite "resistance to the occupation ... came from Al Sadr"

Bwaaahaahaahaa. You really are ignorant.

http://icasualties.org/oif/Province.aspx

[ConservativeDemocrat]

40. You're laughing? That map DISPROVES your own point!

It shows that the huge majority of coalition deaths are in the Sunni triangle. US casualties from Anbar, Bagdad, Babil, and Salah ad Din are three times the entire rest of the country combined. And that's not even counting the fact that nearly all of the deaths in outlying areas are due to Sunni insurgents traveling to attack there - not because of any supposed Shiite "resistance joining the Sunnis".

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. I'm getting a bit tired of this conversation (and the other ones, in which you have some bizarre beliefs on the effectiveness of "civilian resistance" in China vs the Japanese). You're obviously as deep in your own little reality as Bush-istas and Evangelicals are in theirs. I wish you luck. Bye.

[bemildred]

41. Adios.

:hi:

[bemildred]

38. Here, a different point of view:

Four Years After September 11th: The Media Failure

By Stephen Schwartz

We have reached the fourth anniversary of the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001. I am sorry to say that, in my view, the U.S. and Western media have completely failed to meet the challenge of reporting on Islam, in the four succeeding years since then, or in reaction to the atrocities that followed, including the extremist violence in Iraq, which I would not dignify with the titles "insurgency" or "resistance," the Madrid metro and London underground bombings, and the terror assaults in Indonesia, Morocco, Turkey, and elsewhere.

On September 12, 2001, it was as if two civilizations, the Judeo-Christian and the Islamic, which had shared the planet and had contacts with one another for 14 centuries, sometimes violently, sometimes peacefully, but nearly always fruitfully, were completely unknown the one to the other. Indeed, it seemed that Muslims knew a great deal more about the West than the West knew about Muslims. To borrow a simile from the film industry: in this "war of the worlds" the Muslims may as well be "invaders from another planet," whose beliefs, customs and habits are completely unknown and incomprehensible to Westerners.

For example, in the current debate over the Iraqi constitution, it has repeatedly been stated with horror and condemnation in the West that the new national charter embodies the principle that Islam is a source of law, and that lawmaking shall not contradict the principles of Islam. This has been taken by U.S. and foreign commentators, both those who oppose the Iraq intervention and some alleged supporters of President Bush, as evidence that a Shia theocracy is being implanted in Iraq, or at least in its southern areas. Few seem to have fully understood the political alliance of the Kurds, who are Sunnis, Sufis, and, in many cases ultrasecular, with the Shias -- presumably, the Kurds would not support a theocracy. But this aspect of the question is too complex and deep for much Western media.

In reality, the concept that lawmaking should not conflict with Islam in a Muslim country is an entirely uncontroversial principle established in many moderate Muslim states: Saudi Arabia and Turkey are the only countries that consistently deviate from it significantly, with the Saudi kingdom requiring that all law be derived exclusively from a Wahhabi definition of shari'a and Turkey long banning shari'a altogether. An experiment in the imposition of monopolistic shari'a, in its most radical and exclusivist form, in Sudan, has essentially failed. Nearly all other Muslim countries, including even Iran, have legal systems based on the coexistence of shari'a with Western or Soviet law, either inherited from the colonial past or borrowed (as in the case of the non-Islamic legal components in the Iranian model.) I have the habit of referring to this state of affairs as the "Israeli" standard, and not merely to provoke discussion: Israel maintains Jewish religious law in personal and family matters (halakhah, which is structurally modeled on shari'a), alongside shari'a for Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Muslims, and criminal law inherited from the British. Indeed, the regulation of holy sites in Israel, including Christian monuments, remains based on Ottoman law.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091105B.html

[bemildred]

39. On the structure of the insurgency and Iraqi society:

A good read all the way through, by the way.

Building on O'Neill's typology, the soldiers actually classified much of the unfolding unrest in Iraq as a new category of insurgency called "restorationist" (defined as bent on restoring "an elite group opposed to an occupying authority in order to regain political and economic power"), and held that its unique matrix of constituencies and strategies would make countering it a complicated--though not impossible--matter. But these points merely framed the report's central thrust, which was criticism of the occupation's apparent inability to grasp that decades of urbanization in Iraq have not changed its fundamental nature as a nation of myriad tribes--not merely urban Baghdad or "three information environments made of ethnic and religious categories, the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia," as the coalition seemed to have concluded. The "center of gravity" under attack by insurgents was not--as everyone from President George W. Bush to the Pentagon brass had asserted--exclusively "American will."

Rather, the report noted, the real target was Iraq's tribal socio-political structure. Continued failure to understand this was dooming the occupation's chances of success. "Iraqi history has shown that there is a dialectical relationship between the authority of the state and the power of the tribal elites," it explained. "When the state was powerful, it would tend toward direct rule by avoiding, or even eliminating, the tribal elites. When vulnerable to external aggression and internal strife, the state, through the power of the tribal elites . . . would rule indirectly through key tribes." So far, the report held, occupation forces had not only done a poor job of realizing this and engaging with tribal leaders in a constructive and validating way; they were also engendering ill will by, among other things, the "rough handling of family heads in front of their families." Such things were deeply offensive, the report held, and "the greatest wild card that the insurgents can exploit is the Coalition's lack of cultural understanding and ability to communicate with the rural population to reinforce the idea that our policies are attacks against cultural norms, honor, and way of life."

http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3142&StartRow=1&ListRows=10&appendURL=&Orderby=D.DateLastUpdated&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm

[bemildred]

30. It really boggles the mind Sir, to think there are people who believe

that we are losing this stupid little war in Iraq because
of the moral sensitivities of our soldiers, and that if
somehow we were just to kill even more Iraqis they would
somehow come around and do as we tell them. After VietNam.
Still. Boggles. It's been tried many times. It does NOT
win wars. The Japanese killed around 22 million people in
Manchuria, about half the population, and NEVER ended the
resistance, and still got their asses kicked, and deservedly
so.

Genocide would work, nuking the place flat, but being a
morally sensitive person, I'm SURE you would not advocate
that.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

33. Stalin kicked Japan out of Manchuria...

...not any "resistance". In fact, Japan only lost it at the very end of WWII. Had it not been for them losing that war, they certainly would have gotten away with it. (Same thing for the Nazis and the Jews.)

But plenty of genocides have been successful, with no significant cost to the perpetrators:

U.S. vs Native American tribes (various)
U.K. vs Native Australians/New Zealanders (Maori)
China vs Tibet
Various Russian pogroms
At least half a dozen African genocides since the 50s, most recently Darfur.
Russia vs Chechnya
etc...


- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

p.s. The lesson isn't to be less moral. It's that you should never go to war unless the American public is really unconcerned with the morality of the enemy civilian deaths. That was the case in WW2 - because of Pearl Harbor. It was the case in Afghanistan - because of 9/11. It was not the case in Iraq or Vietnam.

[bemildred]

34. You do advocate that? nt

[bemildred]

35. You misread me.

I didn't say the Chinese resistance kicked them out, or
that it kicked their ass. We kicked their ass.

I said it never ended, the Japanese never succeeded in
gaining control, and it cost them resources they needed
desperately elsewhere. Likewise, we will never stop the
Iraqi resistance, short of genocide. Just like VietNam.

[enki23]

13. don't you reap the *whirlwind* and *inherit* the wind?

we sorta did the same thing in the eighties, didn't we? maybe these happy republican asshoes didn't *intend* for him to kill kurds, back then. they just didn't care. and so the kurds, long before rummy and crew decided they had become saddam's "own people," reaped the byproducts of our own toxic "wind".

so far as "do they want to become palestinians?" goes... that anology doesn't really work. palestinians make up the *majority* of the population in their contested region. let's put this in a form you could wrap your fucking noodle round. in truth, it would be more analogous to china, russia (or maybe france?) invading israel, disarming israelis, setting up an islamic theocracy, arming that theocracy to the teeth, and leaving.

and why not? one thing we know for sure, there are weapons of mass destruction in israel.

[MISSDem]

22. I don't understand why you are attacking Tom F. like this. To my

thinking he is absolutely correct. If the Sunnis won't get with the program what are we to do? He is not advocating genocide. Do you want to stay there forever? I've read that come 2008 the tables will have turned and the Republicans will be advocating "get out of Iraq NOW" and the Democrats will be advocating "send more troops". What gives?

[K-W]

23. Because he he is chearleading war crimes.

To my thinking he is absolutely correct. If the Sunnis won't get with the program what are we to do?

We arent to do anything. If the goal is democracy, the issue isn't how to force the Sunni's to accept US/Kurd/Shiite oppression, it would be how to get them involved in the process of forming a new government. Something that is unlikely ever to happen as long as the US insistes on occupying Iraq.

He is not advocating genocide.

So when he says that we should arm the shiites and kurds and let the sunni's reap the wind he isnt suggesting that the sunni's should be slaughtered?

Regardless even if he isnt advocating genocide he is rather obviously advocating oppression.

Do you want to stay there forever?

I think most people on DU advocate leaving asap without trying to destroy the Sunni population on the way out.

I've read that come 2008 the tables will have turned and the Republicans will be advocating "get out of Iraq NOW" and the Democrats will be advocating "send more troops". What gives?

The Democratic party remains quite hawkish and has thus stuck to complaining about Bush's execution of the war, and not the war itself. So, thusfar the mainstream Democrats have produced plans to fight the war more effectively, which means more troops.

As far as the right, while some rogue repubs may come out against the war, the speculation is that the mainstream republicans will come out with a bogus withdrawl plan before the election to try and get votes.

[yellowcanine]

27. "We should arm the Shiites and Kurds and leave the Sunnis of Iraq to reap

the wind." Yeah that's a responsible course of action for a superpower to take. How about DISARM the Shiites, Kurds, AND the Sunnis? Blow up every friggin tank, artillary piece, helicopter, fighter jet, bomber, etc. Melt down all the rifles, pistols, etc. Give them shovels, picks, axes, hammers, etc. Tell them they can either rebuild their country or use the farm implements on each other. Their choice.

[teryang]

37. Maybe the cynical Europeans were right

And we shouldn't have invaded for all the fraudulent reasons we gave. Friedman still tries to cloak or should I say guild his war mongering in idealistic sounding rhetoric.

He's off in lala land. The US and Sunnis have interests in common. Friedman is rotten to core to utter this lie. Historically, he is also wrong, it won't take the Sunnis a hundred years to retake control of Iraq. I predict less than five.

[DaveT]

42. Fascinating Thread

Although I have detested Friedman for years as a miserable power worshipping hack and toady, I do think it is a bit of a stretch to call this stupid column advocacy of genocide.

It really is a call for a return to the governing philosophy of Saddam Hussein within Iraq. Almost as bad, but definitely a distinct kind of evil from genocide.


I think that the neocons have been trying to set up a "civil war" in Iraq from the start. I know this sounds outlandish, but take a look at how things have fallen out -- cronyism gobbling up almost all of the infrastructure rebuilding funds; the Iraqi oil industry pumping at lower than Saddam era levels; the Constitution about to be voted upon is a transparent fraud that leaves the Sunni areas, including Baghdad, to be ruled by an underfunded central government, while independent militias in the Kurdish and Shiite areas will have free rein.

If you were trying to create a civil war in Iraq, is there anything else you would have done to make it inevitable?


The general assumption is that Shrub the Chimp and his ideologue goofballs running the war are just too damned dumb, arrogant and stubborn to realize that their policies would lead to where we are now. Now Friedman -- along with quite a few other Candides from a wide variety of political persuasions -- look upon this impending Civil War and despair at how limited "our" options have become.

Woe, is us! How could this have happened? The "Sunnis" just aren't accepting the inevitable fate that democracy will visit upon their hitherto privileged position under Saddam Hussein. What a shock this is to Friedman!

Well, I knew this would happen from the start of this idiotic war. I bet most of you reading these words realized it, as well.



So here's the political situation in the USA and you can see it ably articulated on this thread:

The USA has two choices. We can either let the Shiites and Kurds, probably with the support of Iran, conquer the Sunni areas, and impose a Saddam like Regime on them, with the boot now on the other foot. Or, we can "prevent" civil war by continuing to wage the war against the Sunnis ourselves.

If we do leave Iraq, and the Civil War ensues, the next propaganda barrage will say that we have now Opened the Door to Terrorist Attack on the USA. Either the Sunnis win and a Terrorist Regime takes power with a real hard on for Uncle Sam or the Shiites win and a Terrorist Regime allied with Iran takes power -- hitching up Iraq's oil industry to finance the wagon of the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

A half century ago, American politics was discombobulated over the question of Who Lost China?

The neocons have cleverly set up a similar scenario where any Democrat who might run the gauntlet of smears, MSM abuse and vote count fraud to retake the White House in 2008 will have to either "cut and run" from the chaos of Iraq/Iran and take responsibility for the next terrorist attack against the USA -- or "stay the course" of trying to turn Iraq into a Shining Example of American Leadership, Resolve, and Benevolence.

Solving the problems of Iraq, of course, is an utter impossibility for any American president -- so the occupation will go on, and the trumpeting for war against Iran will start to build. (If Bush has not already started it before leaving office.)


Remember, when these guys launched their Crusade against "evil" in the autumn of 2001, they said it would take 40 or 50 years to finish. Think about that for a moment. It means that politicians will come and go, while the overall project marches on. The neocons are savvy enough to realize that America is not ready for a draft or first use of nuclear weapons, yet.

It will take another decade of quagmire and a few more terrorist attacks to get our polity "prepared" for our role as Global Empire.


We are in a bad spot, friends. It will not be easy to get out from behind the NeoCon Eightball.