Pat Buchanan has an interesting article about the problems we face in Iraq. According to Pat, our presence both stimulates the insurgency and prevents it from taking over (I'm not entirely certain myself that the Sunni Arabs would win a civil war).
So apparently he thinks that we either leave now and they take over, or we stay and prevent them from taking over, but in the process keep making them stronger so that they will be in an even better position to take over in a year. The only solution he sees is to train an indigenous force to fight them.
However, it seems to me that there is a more likely answer to how the administration will deal with the insurgency. If it continues to be run mainly by Sunni Arabs, then eventually the conclusion might be drawn, no Sunni Arabs, no problem.
After all, guerillas can't keep recruiting new members if there is no one to recruit from.
Being a little less hyperbolic, I don't see genocide per se as happening, but a huge campaign to suppress and subjugate the entire Sunni Arab population of Iraq does not seem unlikely.
Of course, once the threat of the Sunni Arabs is gone, will the Kurds and the Shiite Arabs be so willing to bear with us? And are they participating in the elections because they share our goals, or because they see it as a way to achieve their own?
Something tells me that the neocon oversimplifiers who look at this as simply democracy vs. non-democracy are in for a BIIIIIIG surprise.
That is all.
No comments:
Post a Comment