Between Iraq and a Hard Place

A freind sent me a rant about the situation in Iran and Iraq. I had to respond ... so, for the heck of it, here's my response:

Regarding the situation in the Middle east ... I think you've been handed a slightly distorted view of the world.

"They" are the aggressor if history starts at 9/11. Even that's not true. Remember, Saddam didn't have WMDs and Saddam had nothing to do with al Qaeda ... and absolutely no connection with 9/11 when we invaded Iraq.

I refer you to bed Linen's video tape of late September 2001 in which he outlines his reason for the attack. It had nothing to do with him hating our freedoms (as we've been told by the simple minded) or anything of the like. He quite plainly says he hated us because we had a military presence in Saudi Arabia. That's gotten lost in the national conversation.

They weren't that kind of pissed when we were in Afghanistan! Iran praised us and provided support for our mission in Afghanistan! Pakistan had gotten tired of the Talibam that they'd supported since the Soviets had been kicked ot of Afghanistan .. and were glad to see someone doing something about them. Our response was to invade and establish a military presence in the second most holy country in the Muslim world. Duh! That'll cool things down. Right? Does the image of throwing gasoline on an open fire ring a bell? (how ironic that gasoline comes from OIL)

As for wanting to kill us ... probably. Given the carnage we've left behind us, I'm quite sure there's a lot of support in certain quarters for that sentiment.

However, al Qaeda doesn't have a Navy or an Air Force so I don't think we need to worry a lot about a full scale attack on our soil ... not like we feared (with reason) with regard to the Soviet Union

In the meantime, your description of the facts on the ground in Iran and Iraq and throughout the region sounds like a page from the Neocon interpretation that's put us right where we are today.

McCain already tipped his hand ... but let me say first that I sincerely appreciate his service in Vietnam. He has gone on record at least 4 times in the last couple weeks - even after being corrected by Lieberman - as believing that it has been reported in the media and that its common knowledge that al Qaeda in Iraq has been traveling to Iran for training. Al Qaeda is Sunni. Iraq is Shi'ite. Sunnis and Shiites would sooner stick electric drills in each others ears (a favorite pass time in the streets of Baghdad until fairly recently) than spit on each other ... much less provide aid and training to each other. Further, McCain has also gone on record as believing that the rivalry between the Shiites and the Sunni have never been particularly violent ... I suppose that has some element of truth in it ... if you're willing to ignore the last 1,400 years of history. It is indiscreet a best and irresponsible at worst to express opinions like that when one obviously doesn't know Shi'ite from Shinola!

Let's start with some numbers that I've been able to glean from various sources.

Al Qaeda in Iraq - the franchise of bed Linen's outfit over in Afghanistan/Pakistan represents about 2% of the fighters and they've managed to make themselves very unpopular, even among their Sunni brethren. Their numbers are shrinking as a result. They lost recruiting power for their indiscriminate killing of anything that walks, crawls or flys. They supplement their numbers with foreign fighters - Islamic extremists who buy into the American Satan story and take the jihad express from Saudi Arabia (our hand-holding, kiss the prince on the lips ally, home of most of the 9/11 hijackers, and primary source of most of bed Linen's income).

That leaves the other 98% of the fighters on the ground in Iraq. Some Sunni, some Shi'a, a few Kurd. They are responsible for the vast majority of the deaths, both American and Iraqi. They have no desire to follow us home. As a matter of fact, they're only reason for fighting against us is because we're there ... in their country. Sorta like the way you feel about Mexicans being here? Only imagine that the Mexicans came with tanks and assault rifles and flack jackets and F-16s and Cobras and set up bases surrounded by concertina wire and high voltage lighting. Imagine the Mexicans kicking your door down in the middle of the night and dragging you and your wife into the streets. Imagine the depth of your abiding love for Mexicans at that point. Then imagine hearing on the nightly news that the government they'd installed said it was OK for them to be here. I have no doubt that you'd be mass producing Improvised Explosive Devices in your basement. Anyway, they DON'T want to follow us home. They just want us to get the flock outa THEIR country. Thats the 98% of the fighters ... who are, for the most part, killing each other over a theological detail ... when they're not taking pot shots at us. Because, ya see, they believe they have the one true religion ... revealed to them through the inspiration of God ... sorta like everybody else's religion in that regard. Of course, somebody has to be wrong because all the different religions can't be the one true religion, can they? (Did you by any chance see Jesus Camp.)

Anyway, scenario - we leave. They have what's left of al Qaeda in Iraq for breakfast. End of story for those who want to kills US as a result of their religious insanity. With that minor task out of the way they will then set about resuming the Sunni / Shi'ite (read Hatfield and McCoy) feuding that has been going on for the last 1,400 years - with a little break for about 30 years while Saddam garroted ANYONE who stepped out of line ... particularly the Shi'a and the Kurds. The only thing our presence is doing there is extending interrupted feud.

So ... what would leaving accomplish that staying wouldn't? a.) no more reason for foreign fighters to enter Iraq in order to use our boys for target practice. They'd have to move over to Afghanistan where we have some semblance of world support, and b.) they could resume the 1.400 year old blood bath a little sooner because it's going to happen. We took the cork out of the bottle (Saddam) and we don't have the kind of horse power to put it back in - besides, he's dead.

Bush I and Clinton had a policy of containment that worked. Bush II introduced Cowboy Diplomacy to the world stage. It didn't work .. in spades! Now, with McCain's obvious total lack of understanding regarding even who the friggin' players are and complete obliviousness to the history of the region ... we move from Cowboy Diplomacy directly into Blazing Saddles Diplomacy. (and I quote: "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran ... for 100 years.") Five years in a 1960-70s VC prison camp dose NOT make a foreign policy genius. It is NOT foreign POLICY experience ... it's certainly foreign. It's certainly experience ... but it don't friggin' count in this arena.