Backing the Shi’ites In A Civil War

December 11, 2006 at 9:59 pm | Posted in American politics, Iran, Iraq, King George, Lebanon, Muslim, Religion, War on Terror | 4 Comments

Josh Marshall critiques the possible plan of siding with the Shi’ites in a civil war with the Sunnis in Iraq. He states it like it is.

The irony of the plan to possibly back the Shi’ites against the Sunnis is that Iraq is surrounded on all fronts but one by Sunni majority countries, including our strongest Arab ally, Saudi Arabia. The Shi’ites’s biggest ally in the Middle East? Iran, of course. So the plan apparently is to support the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, brothers to the Saudis and the Syrians and just about everybody else in the Middle East except the Iranians and some Lebanese. Oh and those Lebanese happen to be Hezbollah. Oh and Al-Qaida sees Shi’ites as heretics, so they are fine with lumping them with Americans. Does this even make sense?

Of course, Bush could never side with the Sunnis in a civil war against the Shi’ites. Saddam Hussein is a Sunni. To back the Sunnis means backing the Baath party. Furthermore, Al-Qaida is Sunni. Wouldn’t they love to see America backing Sunnis in the sectarian conflict against the heretics!

The big question is why did no one really consider these before invading Iraq? Then again, as I’ve shown before, our leaders weren’t that caught up to the differences between Sunnis and Shi’ites, were they?

How tragically sad this whole situation is right now! All so that George W. Bush could be re-elected and not fall to the same trap his father fell in. Like I said, Shakespeare would write his greatest tragedy if he were alive today.


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. Well, don’t know if you saw this on the news today, but Congressman Reyes, newly appointed chair of the House Intelligence Committee, didn’t know the difference between the Shi’iites and the Sunnis, either. I thought the way the media played up his faux paus was a cheap shot, but I guess it does reveal a general lack of understanding about the fundamentals of Islamic beliefs.

  2. LOL – that’s faux pas, of course.

  3. ECS,

    Yeah, I actually talked about it in a previous post:

    They Still Don’t Know the Enemy

  4. Which Shi’a? SCIRI? Da’awa? Fadhila? Sadrists? What about the (at least pre-2003) large numbers of completely secular Arab or Iraqi Nationalist Shi’a? What about Shi’a members of the Iraqi Communist Party (once the most powerful Communist Party in the Middle East)? This sort of over-simplistic rambling by folks in circles of Washington power shows just how they created this mess in the first place, not how they’ll fix it (which they can’t in any case).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: