Might one infer that the countdown to civil war in Iraq has begun?
Now, more than ever, Mr Bush and his bunch of sincere do-gooders needs to keep out of the way as the shia dominated Iraqi army teaches "nercy" to Zarqawi and his ilk.

Posted by: voletti at September 14, 2005 9:42 PM

Of course he does. Shi'ites are for many
Sunnis, most obviously those in Saudi Arabia, equivalent to Infidels. And you know what that means. And the Shi'a, in turn, who have more recent persecutions to add to ancient martyrdoms, would deal with Zarqawi, and the Sunnis, in their own way -- not in the way that the Americans, so inhibited by all those concerns that Western man cares about, but in their own fitting and far more effective way. Do Sunnis kill Shi'a civilians randomly? Well, then, it will be necessary to teach them a lesson, as Bomber Harris taught Hitler a lesson about the bombing of civilians in cities.

And Iran is nearby, and the Basiji ready to help their co-religionists. And through Syria, and even through Jordan, Sunnis from elsewhere can join in.

But there is just one problem. The Americans insist on remaining to fight the Sunnis for the Shi'a, and to take American casualties instead of allowing the Shi'a to take the casualties in what is, after all, their fight.

This policy promises to be the worst part of the whole venture. Next to the nonsensical insistence on focusing on a certain Bin Laden, and a supposedly limited "war on terror," the worst thing the American government has done is put its faith in "democracy" without realizing that the Shi'a support it only because they constitute 60% of the population, not because they are sudden students of Hume and MIll and Walter Bagehot and Michael Oakeshott.

And still worse, if the Americans remain to keep Iraq together, they will pass up the golden -- the diamond, the platinum -- opportunity that Iraq presents, for exploiting the two natural fissures, the sectarian (Sunni-Shi'a) and the ethnic (Arab and non-Arab Muslim), would represent the greatest failure of American policy since World War II. Civil war is not, from the Infidel point of view, to be avoided. It is to be permitted, even to be fondly wished for. Why is the oldest rule of warfare -- "divide et impera" (divide and conquer) so very hard for all those tender-hearted tough guys who make policy to understand? They appear to have forgotten not only what geopolitics is all about, what war-making is usually like, even what the Cold War was like, and what kinds of things were done, over 40 years of steady resistance to Soviet Communism, instead of the sentimental gush about people "who all yearn for freedom" and suchlike sentiments -- pious, treacly, and untrue.

Posted by: Hugh at September 14, 2005 9:46 PM

So true Hugh. I saw Condi on O'Reilly tonight, he asked her about Irag. She assured O'Reilly it will be a, (I hope I got this right) a...are you ready for it?/...a non-theocratic Islamic state.

I kid you not. She is just bumping along, being articulate but talking foolishness with 'stupid' words that no one questions. O'Reilly didn't catch it at all and really thought she did well. When asked if Iran was the #1 or #2 problem after Iraq, she kinda hedged. Why? Just not sure? Then Bill egged on her and she admitted it is. Iran is acting like a war machine state Condi. Wake up. Anyway, more babble from Condi. And then it was over.

Bush and Condi, WAY over their heads. I knew what she was all about, dhimmitude, when she did that nutty talk about the holey Qur'an. I haven't seen a single action or statement since that did not confirm her dhimmi and clueless viewpoints of Iran, Iraq, the Pals, malevolent NOT benevolent muslim immigration and organizations, muslim infiltration of university middle east studies, influence on media and government institutes and most of all, Islam, its goals, its laws and its history. Yep, a total neglect of duty and doesn't even know it.

Posted by: pedestrian infidel at September 14, 2005 10:18 PM

Maybe, just maybe, a stray "smart bomb" will accidentally find its way into Mr. Zarqawi's lair someday soon and dispatch him to face his maker.

Now, that's a pleasant thought.

I might even smoke a cigar over that happy event.

And I'm sure I'm not going to become a dhimmi, if you take my meaning.

Posted by: JohnnyDub at September 15, 2005 12:02 AM

It is frustrating to watch our leaders and the State Department bumble along, ignorant, clueless. Too bad they don't call on Hugh or RS to light the way.

Posted by: epg at September 15, 2005 5:49 AM

Silly AlQaida! Don't they know that Shi'ite means peace?

Posted by: Andrew Marcus at September 15, 2005 7:35 AM

but, but, but, didn't KingTolerance tell us just the other day on DW that to the Iraqi people it's the Coalition forces (who mainly bombed military targets) who are the terrorists?

Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 15, 2005 7:56 AM

In response to the attacks & the declaration of war on Shiite from Zarqawi, Grand Ayatolla Sistani is forbidding any retaliation. He is steadfast in refusing to be suckered into a civil war. I remain optomistic so long as the Shiite keep a level head, in contrast to our mainstream media.

Posted by: Kenneth at September 15, 2005 9:55 AM

Hugh is on the money with his assessment of the desire of both muslim factions to take the gloves off. Sensitive Western ideology forbids torture and retribution when conducting a war. My hope is that the withdrawal of coalition forces takes place after Western countries declare themselves no-go areas for muslim assylum seekers and immigrants from wherever in the world.
Then they can really get down and play dirty./ All in the best possible interests of their shared "peaceful" religion of course!

Posted by: Sir Cumfrence at September 15, 2005 11:04 AM