 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
2006.09.08 – The world's greatest "experts" are slow on the take, years behind the curve, in just now beginning to get a glimmer of the bivalent nature of the Islamo-Jihadist global threat – Sunni al-Qaida and Shiite Khiz'b-Allah (in fact, an international Shiite version of al-Qaida). These impressively credentialed pundits still haven't even framed the question as to how best to deal with the bivalency of this global threat. Indeed, the bivalent aspect hasn't even been introduced into public debate.
While Republicans are divided regarding Pres. Bush's policies in the Iraq War, Democrats are united in opposition. As this debate rages, and appears to hold the key to control of the House and perhaps even the Senate, the most urgent element of the Iraq War vis-à-vis the War On Terror isn't even recognized: Why position American soldiers in the crossfire between Sunnis and Shiites when America could, instead, pit Sunnis against Shiites and then take on the leftovers?
From the start, I advised that Saddam should be overthrown, captured or killed, and then get out; NOT stay and nation-build. From the start, nation-building has been doomed to failure. Even if it "works" as designed in protecting Iraqi Sunnis from annihilation by Iraqi Shiites, it would still fail by enabling the other claw of the pincer, Iranian Shiites, to achieve nuclear status and threaten the entire "infidel" world.
To forestall desperate Muslim ad hominem charges, it's essential to acknowledge – ad nauseum – that not all Muslims are terrorists and that moderate and radical Muslims populate both Sunnis and Shiites. Arguments concerning the proportion of moderate Muslims to radical Muslims will continue to rage. However, these proportions are an internal Islamic issue that is irrelevant to the bivalency of the global Islamo-Jihadist threat from the radicals, who dominate both denominations. Of wider interest is the argument that, among both Sunnis and Shiites, most "silent moderates" are secret, often active, supporters of Islamo-terrorism.
This morning, former Israeli PM
It is the bivalency of this threat that offers a potential option in the Iraq War and the free world's resistance to Islamo-terrorist domination. Minimally, this aspect deserves significant consideration in the public debate. Questions specific to this bivalency need to be asked: If the U.S. pulled out of Iraq on a time-table would a civil war in Iraq be catastrophic? If so, to whom? Aside from forcing the Iraqi government to take up the slack and do their job, what would happen? Would al-Qaida Sunnis in the Middle East, like the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, allow Iraqi Shiites to massacre Sunnis? Would Iranian and Khizb-Allah Shiites allow Sunnis around the Middle East to massacre Iraqi Shiites? What would be the affect on U.S., other western nations and Israel if these Middle Eastern states were distracted from their present intrigues by being forced to confront each other in an Iraqi – burgeoning into a Middle Eastern Islamic – civil war?
Instead of American soldiers being in the middle, in the crossfire being shot at and blown up by both sides, America could retire to the sideline, focus on stopping the Iranian nuclear program, and then take on whichever claw of the Islamo-terrorist pincer remained. I'm not seeing the catastrophe in this. Granted, the losing claw would likely attack Israel for the same reasons that Saddam did. But Israel is better off being attacked by a self-conflicted pincer than a nuclear-armed coordinated pincer.
How would the introduction of these questions affect the pre-election debates on the War in Iraq?
 |
|
 |