Can You Say "Proxy War"?
International
| December 1, 2006
| Tim
ABC News (via PowerLine):
U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.
This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.
Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons.
Well, that puts a whole new light on things. Previously, I thought, whatever we thought about the reasons for going in, that we should do our best to leave Iraqis with the best situation possible.
But now that we have clear evidence Iran is behind much of the terror, I think we should abandon Iraq as soon as we are able. We have absolutely no business preventing or thwarting or discouraging any of Iran's schemes in the world. Iraq should become a puppet of Iran, I say. It's a darned good thing the Democrats leading Congress are wise enough to see this.
An excerpt from 60 Minutes:
Lara Logan: "We hear very little about victory in Iraq these days. We hear a lot about how to manage the defeat. And a lot of Americans-"
John Abizaid: "What defeat?"
[...]
Logan: "Increasingly in this country, people are talking about how to manage defeat in Iraq. There's a loss of support for the war, very clearly showing in the present. Not a loss of support for the military or for the soldiers which still remains strong."
Abizaid: "Again, let me say I don't think people in the country are trying to figure out how to manage defeat in Iraq. I think people in the country are trying to figure out how to manage our involvement in Iraq so that Iraq can stabilize. You just can't walk away from these problems of the Middle East and hope that things are going to get better."
Hey, whaddya know? It is just like Vietnam.
Only, like, more important, because Vietnam only had rubber plants, but Iran has oil, and nuke research programs, and stuff -- and a serious jones for building Arabic-only seaside resorts on newly-cleared land at the east of the Mediterranean.
Even more so than people might imagine. If we walk away now I can see the possibility of the Shia setting up, under Iran's influence, a government just like their neighbors, and then we might be looking at an Islamic version of the massacres in Cambodia that were a result of us leaving Vietnam unprotected from the Reds, this time with the Suni and maybe even the Kurds (once again) as its victims.
I have to say, I'm against pulling out of Iraq until things are stabilized. I'm actually a fan of the "Go Big, Go Home" school of thought, that we should send it a large number of soldiers for the next six months to reenforce the troops and help train up the Iraqi forces faster. My one big worry in all this though has to be with the Kurds. If we leave that people now, I'll be ashamed of my country for the first time in my life so far. What a backstabbing blow that would be, to give them all this hope for a SECOND time in 20 some odd years and then to just leave them high and dry again at the mercy of their enemies who surround them on all sides. The Kurds have been the only tribe in Iraq that has been more than stable, they been entirely stable with our help. They WANT peace, they WANT a country to call their own, be that Iraq or Kurdistan, and if we leave without giving them that . . .
I believe that the very LEAST we have to do in there is give the Kurds some chance at lasting peace. If the Suni and Shia can't stop killing each other, then fine, lets leave them, but IMO if we leave Iraq at large we MUST stay in the Kurdish territories and help them set up an independent nation. The Kurds are probably the only group in the Middle East who genuniely like America and are willing to help make things work, which would make it so much easier to set up an independent Kurdistan. Its a much smaller area, so it would be easier to control the borders and stop the terrorists from coming in to mess things up, the Kurds themselves would not support the terrorists like many Suni and Shia do so it would be much easier to root out the ones that did make it in, and the Kurds have no ethnic wars with themselves that I know of, so talk of civil war would be gone completely. Basicly all the problems we're having with Iraq as a whole would largely go away with just a Kurdistan government to setup and train. Hell, training probably would be a lot easier, the Kurds WANT their own country and they want safety and peace so they'd be more receptive, and from what I hear, the Kurds are known as a tribe of fierce warriors anyway. The bonus would be that they would most likely gladly allow us to maintain some kind of military presence there, we would have accomplished our goal even if it was to a smaller degree, we would have helped set up a thriving democracy in the Middle East, and that democracy would most likely be our closest Middle Eastern ally (besides Jerusalem).
Troy - I agree with you on the moral and political need for an independant Kurdistan.
Regarding unity, there have been significant, bloody, internicean Kurdish conflicts in the past 40 years or so.
Regarding one in particular;
Rebelling against the Iraqi government in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, the KDP became perhaps the single most influential Iraqi anti-Saddam group.
...
Accepting the assistance of the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein, the KDP fought a civil war against its rivals, the PUK, who in turn accepted the assistance of Iran.
wikipedia link
I don't think these are insurmountable barriers to unity. Frankly, I'm still trying to puzzle out the Kurds myself. I hope this info sheds a little more light on the situation.
I think the important thing is that they're not fighting US, hehe. Anyway, all people fight within themselves, the Kurds seem to have it quite a bit more together than other Islamic tribes/sects however. I can't say anything for sure though since I'm no expert on the region or its people, so I could very well be totally off base about them.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Isolationism |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Walid Shoebat: Excusing Jews »
|
Even more so than people might imagine. If we walk away now I can see the possibility of the Shia setting up, under Iran's influence, a government just like their neighbors, and then we might be looking at an Islamic version of the massacres in Cambodia that were a result of us leaving Vietnam unprotected from the Reds, this time with the Suni and maybe even the Kurds (once again) as its victims.
I have to say, I'm against pulling out of Iraq until things are stabilized. I'm actually a fan of the "Go Big, Go Home" school of thought, that we should send it a large number of soldiers for the next six months to reenforce the troops and help train up the Iraqi forces faster. My one big worry in all this though has to be with the Kurds. If we leave that people now, I'll be ashamed of my country for the first time in my life so far. What a backstabbing blow that would be, to give them all this hope for a SECOND time in 20 some odd years and then to just leave them high and dry again at the mercy of their enemies who surround them on all sides. The Kurds have been the only tribe in Iraq that has been more than stable, they been entirely stable with our help. They WANT peace, they WANT a country to call their own, be that Iraq or Kurdistan, and if we leave without giving them that . . .
I believe that the very LEAST we have to do in there is give the Kurds some chance at lasting peace. If the Suni and Shia can't stop killing each other, then fine, lets leave them, but IMO if we leave Iraq at large we MUST stay in the Kurdish territories and help them set up an independent nation. The Kurds are probably the only group in the Middle East who genuniely like America and are willing to help make things work, which would make it so much easier to set up an independent Kurdistan. Its a much smaller area, so it would be easier to control the borders and stop the terrorists from coming in to mess things up, the Kurds themselves would not support the terrorists like many Suni and Shia do so it would be much easier to root out the ones that did make it in, and the Kurds have no ethnic wars with themselves that I know of, so talk of civil war would be gone completely. Basicly all the problems we're having with Iraq as a whole would largely go away with just a Kurdistan government to setup and train. Hell, training probably would be a lot easier, the Kurds WANT their own country and they want safety and peace so they'd be more receptive, and from what I hear, the Kurds are known as a tribe of fierce warriors anyway. The bonus would be that they would most likely gladly allow us to maintain some kind of military presence there, we would have accomplished our goal even if it was to a smaller degree, we would have helped set up a thriving democracy in the Middle East, and that democracy would most likely be our closest Middle Eastern ally (besides Jerusalem).
Posted by: Troy on December 1, 2006 10:07 AM