| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Let the Muslims fight it out |
| 2006-12-15 |
| Funny thing about the recent op-ed by Nawaf Obaid in The Washington Post outlining likely Saudi actions if the United States withdraws from Iraq: namely, that Saudis would both support Sunnis in Iraq (versus Shi'ites supported by Iran) and manipulate the oil market to "strangle" the Iranian economy. I think it sounds peachy, this let-them-devour-each-other strategy — which I'm guessing many Americans mutter to one another in frankness, if not also in confidence. After the column appeared, not only did the Saudi government disavow it, but Mr. Obaid was fired from his job advising the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal. Hmmm, thought Saudi-ologists. Before anyone could say, "shifting desert sands," Mr. Turki resigned his post in Washington, hightailing it back to the so-called kingdom for reasons unknown but possibly concerning machinations related to securing the post of foreign minister long held by Mr. Turki's ailing brother, Prince Saud al-Faisal. The post is also coveted by former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Hmmm again. But now it seems the Obaid column "reflected the view of the Saudi government," after all. At least, that's the way the New York Times tells it. Meanwhile, the Associated Press is reporting that "private" Saudi money is already supporting Sunni forces in Iraq. According to the New York Times, this private funding could easily become official Saudi policy. While Saudi leaders say they have so far withheld support from al Qaeda-led Sunni groups in Iraq, the newspaper explains, "if Iraq's sectarian violence worsened, the Saudis would line up with Sunni tribal leaders" — al Qaeda or no al Qaeda. Meanwhile, we already know Iran is backing, if not guiding, Iraqi Shi'ites. So what should we do? |
| Posted by:.com |
| #15 yeow Pappy! LOL |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-12-15 21:16 |
| #14 By Jove, Joe, I think you've got it! |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-12-15 20:22 |
| #13 See SHERMAN AND TOTAL WAR over at WINDSOFCHANGE.net. Sherman > "WAR IS CRUELTY/HELL" > CRUELTY WITH A PURPOSE, NOT WANTON, RECKLESS SLAUGHTER FOR SLAUGHTER'S SAKE -'Ole Sherm would agree that the primary purpose or premise of war is to CAUSE AN ENEMY TO CHANGE HIS MIND AND GIVE UP CONFLICT, NOT WIN A POLITICAL ELECTION. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-12-15 20:20 |
| #12 Check out this situation map of Baghdad. As you can see, most incidents - and this was prior to the 5 car bomb attack on Sadr City - are occurring in mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods between the 2 Sunni strips. The Mahdi Army appears to be prevailing. If they dominate, then they will go after US held Baghdad Airport. HREF='http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7155/257/1600/baghdad-updates-nov27.7.jpg' |
| Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-12-15 15:14 |
| #11 Rantburg does provide an extremely efficient education. Someday Fred's archives will be required reading for the better poli sci, comparative anthropology, philosophy of logic, psychology (trollery: expression of neurosis or psychosis?), and several other undergraduate degree programs... and I suspect more than a few dissertation topics as well. And then there are the science bits, military history, comparative religions... /my fave site, bar none! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-12-15 13:20 |
| #10 Let them fight. If it affects the oil supplies the price goes up and we look for alternatives. Eventually those alternatives become economically viable and they have less and less money to fight with. Eventually turning to scimitars and sand in their attempts to conquer the world. Short term painful, long term priceless. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-12-15 12:34 |
| #9 Scorpion, tarantula - meet bottle... |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2006-12-15 12:04 |
| #8 I would like to see the Muslims fight themselves to oblivion, however, that would effect oil supplies. Our best bet is to work with the Sunnis against Iran, etc. Iraq's Kurds are on their own. However, taking Baghdad for example, 80% of its neighborhoods are mixed Sunni-Shiite. Once sect has to dominate. |
| Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 2006-12-15 11:19 |
| #7 000001% of the bandwidth of the |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-12-15 09:52 |
| #6 Lol. That wasn't a snarky comment - you nailed it .000001% of the bandwidth of the usual post. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-12-15 08:27 |
| #5 I've learned a lot here at Rantburg U. Don't much like it, but if our choices are (1) kill or (2) be killed, well, duh. |
| Posted by: exJAG 2006-12-15 08:21 |
| #4 Exquisitely concise, exJAG. *applause* |
| Posted by: .com 2006-12-15 07:59 |
| #3 Exactly: it could be over in two weeks. Our unwillingness to kill 40,000 in one night of bombing, is, in large part, why the need to arises more often. All this "enlightened, humane" stuff overlooks the fact that mass casualties are the point. By eliminating it, we remove the enemy's disincentive to make war. So, it appears they'll have to nuke us out of the illusion that wars can be won without really hurting anyone. |
| Posted by: exJAG 2006-12-15 07:56 |
| #2 ... that's because neither group dares to reckon with the two greatest obstacles to our efforts in the region: namely, Islam (culturally unsuited to Westernity) and our own politically correct ROE, or rules of engagement (strategically unsuited to victory). Bing-effing-go! … In other words, it's a disgrace for military brass to talk about the 21st-century struggle with Islam as necessarily being a 50- to 100-year war. Ridiculous. It could be over in two weeks if we cared enough to blast our way off the list of endangered civilizations. Nice to see someone with the courage to put this in print. Without radical reform of Islam, the tipping point will be reached. Islam's abject refusal to reform itself makes the Muslim holocaust only a matter of time. If Iran, the jihad-supporting leader of the Shi'ite world, is being "strangled" by Saudi Arabia, the jihad-supporting leader of the Sunni world, isn't that good for the Sunni-and-Shiite-terrorized West? With the two main sects of Islam preoccupied with an internecine battle of epic proportions, the non-Muslim world gets some breathing room. And we sure could use it — to plan for the next round. Close but no cigar. Nuclear weapons have changed any such notion. We must adopt, at least, a policy of "breaking things". Iran's nuclear program tops the list. Aside from that, it may well be best to simply let our enemies fill the gutters with their own blood. Fuck knows there isn't a more richly deserving bunch of psychotically violent ingrate bastards on the face of this earth. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-12-15 06:45 |
| #1 Three cheers for Diana West. As I said on numerous occasions: Muslims will be killing somebody. Let it be each other. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-12-15 06:20 |