| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Christopher Hitchins: The Real Sunni Triangle |
| 2006-12-19 |
| There are only three options in Iraq. The ructions on the periphery of the Saudi lobby in Washington—over whether Saudi Arabia would or should become the protector of its Sunni brethren in Iraq—obscures the extent to which what might or could happen has actually been happening already. The Sunni insurgents currently enjoy quite a lot of informal and unofficial support from Saudi circles (and are known by the nickname "the Wahabbis" by many Shiites). Saudi Arabia has long thought of Iraq as its buffer against Iran and for this reason opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein and would not allow its soil to be used for the operation. Saudi princes and officials have long been worried by the state of opinion among the Shiite underclass in Saudi Arabia itself, because this underclass—its religion barely recognized by the ultra-orthodox Wahabbi authorities—happens to live and work in and around the oil fields. Since 2003, there have been increasing signs of discontent from them, including demands for more religious and political freedom. In 1991, which is also the year when the present crisis in Iraq actually began, it was Saudi influence that helped convince President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker to leave Saddam Hussein in power and to permit him to crush the Shiite intifada that broke out as his regime reeled from defeat in Kuwait. If, when reading an article about the debate over Iraq, you come across the expression "the realist school" and mentally substitute the phrase "the American friends of the Saudi royal family," your understanding of the situation will invariably be enhanced. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #15 "In 1991, which is also the year when the present crisis in Iraq actually began, it was Saudi influence that helped convince President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker to leave Saddam Hussein in power and to permit him to crush the Shiite intifada that broke out as his regime reeled from defeat in Kuwait. If, when reading an article about the debate over Iraq, you come across the expression "the realist school" and mentally substitute the phrase "the American friends of the Saudi royal family," your understanding of the situation will invariably be enhanced." -IIRC the UN resolution/mandate was for the specific removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait proper. Regime change was not on the table or part of the "commander's intent" if you will. That's not to say politically, the Sauds didn't push for that, but there was more to it than GWH Bush being a lap dog. He followed the mandate to the tee. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-12-19 16:51 |
| #14 BA-And I'm not saying we should get out. I am suggesting that Americans, and certainly policy makers, thinking about the critical moment in this war had better consider some ugly possibilities as they form their opinions and plans. From my point of view, an awfully reckless conclusion may have been made. Let's make sure we get a good measure of this critical basic factor in planning for a happy ending. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-12-19 14:40 |
| #13 Whoops. "Means absolutely bupkis..." |
| Posted by: BA 2006-12-19 13:54 |
| #12 Jeebus, Jules. I see those #s, but I've gotta wonder several issues with them... (1) WHERE did they ask these questions? In downtown Baghdad, which has seen a lot more violence lately? Of course you'd get those results there. Anywhere else outside the Sunni triangle...my guess would be the reverse. (2) HOW did they ask the questions? This is key in how polls are done. They can all be slanted to "favor" what the pollster wants to say. Listen, I'm not saying they want us there forever, or that even the "average" Iraqi is o.k. with attacking troops. I'm more worried about Iraqis who WOULD attack our troops. Seems to be a VERY small minority. In fact, most of those attacking our guys seem to be foreigners (jihadis to the flypaper), and the violence has decreased against our boys, but has upped into sectarian violence (Shi'a vs. Sunni) in the race for the brass ring (power). I'm just saying...GET SOME PERSPECTIVE. What is it, like 16 of the 18 provinces are pretty much peaceful (no worse than any major urban area here in the US). You have Baghdad and Anbar province left. My last $.02....I quit believing in polls after 9/11/01. My absolutely bupkis if'n you're doing the right thing. We HAVE to see this one to the end, PERIOD (Cambodia redeux if not). |
| Posted by: BA 2006-12-19 13:53 |
| #11 Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents. Just like Israel's presence in the Palestinian Terrortories provoked more violence ... oh, wait. We really need to consider standing down our troops in place for a 30 day period so these asshole ingrates can get a whiff of their own bloody grapeshot. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-12-19 13:52 |
| #10 Certainly by no means comprehensive-I would like to find more conservative sources-but: www.fair.org (June 2004) Overall, 55 percent of Shi'ites and 57 percent of Sunnis said attacks against coalition forces were at least sometimes justified, while the proportion of Baghdadis who believe this has risen to 67 percent, up from 36 percent the last time Gallup asked them this question a year ago. www.defenselink.mil (Aug. 2005 poll) The percentages slip when it comes to disapproval of violence against Iraqis working with the coalition and attacks against coalition personnel. A total of 81 percent of those polled are against attacks against Iraqis working with the coalition, with 12 percent saying there is justification for the attacks and 7 percent with no opinion. Half of those polled said there was no excuse for attacks against coalition personnel, while 40 percent said there is a justification and 10 percent saying they don't know. www.parapundit.com (June 2006 poll) The British Sunday Telegraph has gotten a hold of a secret poll of Iraqis done by the British Ministry of Defence which shows that Iraqis strongly oppose the presence of US and British forces in Iraq and 45% support attacks against US and British troops... The Iraqi surveys, part of the ongoing World Values Surveys, are a collaborative project between the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research and Eastern Michigan University. When [Iraqis were] asked what they thought were the three main reasons why the United States invaded Iraq, 76 percent gave "to control Iraqi oil" as their first choice. www.jihadwatch.org (Sept 26, 2006) About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country...The poll, done for University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes, found: Almost four in five Iraqis say the U.S. military force in Iraq provokes more violence than it prevents. It would be nice to know whether this info is being carefully considered as we prepare for the big announcement on Iraq Policy 2007. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-12-19 13:31 |
| #9 I'm willing to put the idea to the test. Which pollsters do Rantburgers consider reliable? |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-12-19 13:01 |
| #8 "In 1991, which is also the year when the present crisis in Iraq actually began, it was Saudi influence that helped convince President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker to leave Saddam Hussein in power and to permit him to crush the Shiite intifada that broke out as his regime reeled from defeat in Kuwait. If, when reading an article about the debate over Iraq, you come across the expression "the realist school" and mentally substitute the phrase "the American friends of the Saudi royal family," your understanding of the situation will invariably be enhanced." Read and reread this paragraph. Now you can start to understand the reason we went into this mess knowing full well what might transpire. This area has been a powder keg for half a century (or a thousand years). The Sauds called the shots for Bush I. The Bush family, the longtime collaborators of the Suads, know a lot of backround trickeries that most of us will never be privy to. Bush I even had Bandar go to Texas to inform and coach Bush II as to all that was involved and try to persuade him to consider this in any future actions he may undertake. This was in the fall of 2000. I think the Bushes were just stunned that the Sauds would promote this attack on American soil. They knew who was actually behind it. That's why GW looked liked someone hit him with 220 volts that day in the classroom in Florida. What to do ? Attack Sauds directly ? (They should have, but they have too many interwoven transactions there that would be affected) The world economy would stop. All their banking friends would have killed them. Next option, go into Iraq, get that oil to market, and start to destabilize the Sauds. Once alternate oil is flowing, economy can continue to roll, and ,who knows maybe the Persians can be brought in to overthrow the Sauds. These Sauds must go. Everyone in the West knows it, but everyone is on the take to some degree or another. Only when we establish another form of energy, like nuclear, can we really go after them. They are probably currently funding Sunnis in Iraq to continually destroy the oil infrastructure to prevent this competition coming online. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2006-12-19 12:46 |
| #7 I'd also question those polls about wanting to see occupiers killed. I've seen polls that conflate anti-Iraq war positions together with those that think Bush didn't go far enough. I wouldn't doubt that some polls in Iraq link up those that want to kill Syrians/Iranians in Iraq with those that want the US out as the conflation of numbers sells the plot-line the reporter is trying to sell. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-12-19 12:42 |
| #6 The MSM is plenty blameworthy, but what do you do with the high percentage of Iraqis wanting to see US occupiers killed? How does that fit? Are there other reports that a majority of Iraqis think killing the occupying forces is wrong? I'm not talking about Kurds-I'm talking about the rest of Iraq. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-12-19 10:56 |
| #5 I actually agree with doc on this one. Remember, you must keep it in perspective. The Kurds are probably close to 90%+ pro-American. I'd be willing to bet the "average" Sunni and Shi'a Iraqi too is "pro-American," or at least "anti-Saddam" (for the Shi'a). Finally, you add in that MOST of the bad guys are foreigners (not Iraqi at all) drawn to the flypaper by the U.S. Yes, there's a small group of Sunni & Shi'a acting up, but you've gotta keep it in perspective. It's pretty much contained in Baghdad and the Anbar Province, with a few minor skirmishes in outlying areas. The MSM is to blame for all the "war-wearyness" we're feeling as a nation. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-12-19 10:01 |
| #4 How many of those 77% believe killing "occupiers" (that would be us) is justified? Last figure I saw was 60%. So, they're thankful to be rid of Saddam but want to kill the people that got rid of him? Not that contradictory thought doesn't happen in the Muslim world, but I remain very skeptical about their gratitude. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-12-19 09:31 |
| #3 Actually, 77% of Iraqis are thankful to be free of Saddam. And the Iraqi economy is booming. The biggest enemy of freedom in Iraq is not the cadre of black-hooded skulking murderers but rather the American press. |
| Posted by: doc 2006-12-19 06:56 |
| #2 Quixotic though the third solution may seem, it is the only alternative to the most gruesome mayhem—more gruesome than anything we have seen so far. It is to the credit of the United States that it has at least continued to hold up this outcome as a possibility—a possibility that would not be thinkable if the field were left to the rival influences of Tehran and Riyadh. Of course, none of this prevents the Iraqi people from be the most ungrafeful bunch of moron bastards ever born. Perish the thought. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-12-19 03:43 |
| #1 This is surely not what such vaunted elder statesmen as James Baker and Henry Kissinger can possibly have intended? If they see a personal profit in it then it could well be what they intended. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-12-19 00:55 |