2006 January 16 Monday
US Leans Toward Supporting Sunnis Against Shias In Iraq

Writing for the Christian Science Monitor Charles Levinson reports that the United States is trying to support the Sunni Arabs to an extent that is creating strong Shia resentment.

Increasingly, the US is throwing its weight in Iraq behind Sunni Arabs, about 20 percent of the country, to ensure they are part of a new coalition government.

Analysts say the US is convinced reconciliation with Sunni Arabs will help stop the insurgency. There is also an American unease with the growing influence of Iran on Iraq's dominant Shiite bloc.

But Shiite leaders have responded defiantly, threatening unflinching stands that could push the country closer to full-scale civil war.

Read the full article. It has lots of fascinating quotes from Iraqi political players about their reaction to the shift of the US toward supporting the Sunnis in their power struggle with the Shias.

Recall what I said yesterday about the idea of the US shifting support toward the Sunnis.

I do not see that a continued US military presence will help reduce the problems flowing from inter-group rivalries. The US occupation forces would have to morph into a protective force for the Sunnis against the Shias in order to change Sunni attitudes toward the US military. But even if that happened the Sunnis would resent their protectors and the Shias would see the US forces as enemies.

If the US goes too far with this it could find itself once more fighting the Mahdi Army. Tribal societies are very hard to manage unless one is willing to ruthlessly kill random members of extended tribal families when any member steps out of line. But the US isn't going to rule as Saddam did. So US attempts to balance the power aren't going to work too well.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 January 16 10:07 PM  Mideast Iraq Ethnic Conflict


Comments
Jorge D.C. said at January 17, 2006 2:28 AM:

Nation-building of a consanguineous society is the kind of task that only "the best and the brightest" would seriously contemplate.

Jim said at January 17, 2006 9:22 AM:

good thing gwb ran for president under the platform of 'no nation building'

Jim said at January 17, 2006 9:27 AM:

from the 2000 presidential debate with gore on October 11, 2000

BUSH: I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious.

i wonder if he remembers all that crap he said to get people to vote for him?

Pico said at January 17, 2006 10:08 AM:

It would be funny if the US brings Saddam Hussein back to power after the effort to bring democracy to Iraq fails.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright