| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The "epic battle" between Sunnis and Shiites has been going on for fourteen hundred years. It will take a great deal more than a "surge" of American troops to prevent it indefinitely from breaking out again. From New Europe:
Trying to persuade a sceptical Congress to support sending more troops to Iraq, US President George W Bush warned January 22 that if the United States fails, sectarian violence could spill over into an “epic battle” between Sunnis and Shiites in a wider regional conflict.The warning came in Bush’s annual “State of the Union” address, which was closely watched by European Union leaders, most of who have opposed the war in Iraq and have distanced themselves from the US leader.
Bush has begun deploying the first of 21,500 more troops to Iraq as part of his revised strategy announced earlier this month, but the Democratic-controlled Congress and some members of Bush’s Republican Party steadfastly oppose the plan.
“If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides,” Bush said. “We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al-Qaeda and supporters of the old regime.”
“A contagion of violence could spill out across the country and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict,” he added in the State of the Union address. “For America, this is a nightmare scenario.”
Unfortunately, there are nightmare scenarios all around.
Posted by Robert at January 28, 2007 7:09 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
No, Bush is right, failure would be catastrophic, but by misconceiving of what our goals need to be, by setting impossible goals, I'm afraid Bush is inviting the very failure he dreads. The result could be the advancement of the appeasement agenda and even greater failure down the road.
Posted by: jewdog![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 28, 2007 8:51 AM
"Trying to persuade a sceptical Congress to support sending more troops to Iraq, US President George W Bush warned January 22 that if the United States fails, sectarian violence could spill over into an “epic battle” between Sunnis and Shiites in a wider regional conflict."
-- from the article above
He "warns"? Why doesn't he merely "state"? Why should he "warn" about what can only weaken the Camp of Islam and thereby strengthen the Camp of Infidels? Or is this simply beyond him? And cannot he imagine all kinds of scenes, where the Saudis come begging the Americans to protect them, and we demand, in order to make them our "protected peoples," a little "protection money" of our own, a reverse Jizyah, in order to recoup a few hundred billion of the $700 billion squandered in Iraq.
Oh, and the oil, the oil? What about the oil?
Apparently, were there a real threat to the major oilfields somewhere, there are several things to note. The first is that the major oilfields on the western, Arab littoral, can be seized with not much trouble, and more importantly, the oil is close to the tankers onto which it could be loaded; defending long pipelines is unnecessary. And a world of oil-consumers would hardly object to such a seizure. In fact, one might well ask: why should the Americans do it all, or almost all of it, when oil is used by many besides Americans. Why should they not demand, and get, the full cooperation of the Europeans and even, one might add, of China? Doesn't China need oil from the Middle East, even more than the United States? Our fears about oil are absurd; our policy based on that fear, which prevents us from wanting the internecine warfare we should not "warn" about but rather welcome -- is idiocy compounded.
Bush does not know where to put his feet or hands. Nor do his loyalists. Nor to many of his critics, who are unable to mount the most unanswerable and deadly of criticisms: the one offered, over three years, here.
Posted by: Hugh at January 28, 2007 8:58 AM
No duh ? Stop and think, if the war does widen and esculate, wouldn't it be easier to see your enemy and bust their asses !? How can you expect to use our soldiers as a police force for Iraq ? This is not what our military is designed to do ?
Posted by: Jeff at January 28, 2007 9:33 AM
And cannot he imagine all kinds of scenes, where the Saudis come begging the Americans to protect them, and we demand, in order to make them our "protected peoples," a little "protection money" of our own, a reverse Jizyah, in order to recoup a few hundred billion of the $700 billion squandered in Iraq.
To expect this, shouldn't the US cease/ban sale of weaponry and spare parts to them first? Perhaps, as an incentive, offering a percentage of the reverse jizya to the arms mfg's?
Posted by: justamomof4 at January 28, 2007 9:52 AM
The Oil won't be flowing from anywhere if Iran is still functionng as a threat. I have little doubt that Iran is capable of covering most if not all the Persian Gulf through the Gulf of Oman with long range sea skimming weapons. Other rockets capable of hitting every major instilation along the western shores The only question is how accurate they are and what the war head is.
How many of those little High speed Boats filled with i-2 thousand pounds of explosives does it take to overwhelm the point defences of any given Tanker?
The Saudis know they cannot match up against the Iranians. We are better off to leverage that to get them to keep the Oil Flowing and reduce the Summi discord directed against us.
Level the playing field and let them do the grading and landscaping. That is the always the time consuming Job.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 28, 2007 10:12 AM
WIDEN THE CONFLICT??????????/
MU-ZZARDS ARE KILLING NON-BELIEVERS ACROSS THE WORLD......
HOW MUCH WIDER CAN IT BECOME?????????????
Posted by: Texican at January 28, 2007 10:56 AM
In fairness, Bush is right on this one. Like it or not, we are stuck with this mess. We have no choice but to win this one. But in order to do that we have to start really fighting this as a WAR, not a POLICE ACTION as we have been doing. Part of that means we have to understand that this is really a war against Islam itself. In order to do that we have to defeat the idea of Islam. We have to start somehow attempting to wean the Iraqi people away from Islam. Slowly, quietly, gradually begin exposing them more and more to the truth about Islam through tv shows, news articles, pamphlets, and any other means available. Encourage dissent and ridicule of it among the Iraqis themselves. Maybe, like a time bomb, we can gradually diffuse it. At the same time, we have to hit the enemy with overwhelming force, devasate the Sunni triangle, assasintate enemy leaders like Al-Sadr and begin using the things muslims fear the most as weapons such as pig's blood on dead terrorist bodies and so forth. Since we did not impose a MacArthur style regency at the beginning (as we should have), and our leaders don't seem to have the stomach for total war with the Islamic states (at least not yet), this may be our best approach to winning.
Posted by: A.I. Steamroller at January 28, 2007 10:57 AM
Comments at WaPo on anti-Bush Iraq Rally at Mall
quote He also said there are so many Iraq children, mothers, young babies killed---why---they did nothing to us. This madman in the white house has got to be held responsible for all this!!! By jrgeyer | Jan 28, 2007 10:58:23 AM end quote.
Its al Qaeda, Sunni and Shiite insurgents, and Islam that are responsible. Bush's mistakes are the religion of peace speech, and not taking the war to three main enemy homelands, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in 2002.
We should have mobilized after 9-11 and conquered all main enemy homelands within 18 months. That is what Bush should do now. Add 2 million to military and finish the job in 18 months.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 28, 2007 11:16 AM
Rawstory Comments on anti-Bush Iraq Surge rally at Mall
at January 28, 2007 11:18 AM
Comments Page 1 at WaPo Thousands Protest Bush Policy
Christian Cleansing Chart at Timesonline
Christian Cleansing Chart data: Percentage of Christians: Turkey 1923 15 percent, Now 1 percent Syria 1920 33 percent, Now 10 percent Iraq 1970 5.8 percent, Now 2.65 percent Jerusalem 1922 53 percent, Now 2 percent Bethlehem 1948 85 percent, Now 12 percent.
Data posted at comment line produced following response:
"How do we get the percentage of Christians in the US down to zero, or less?
By thrh | Jan 27, 2007 12:46:47 PM"
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 28, 2007 11:22 AM
I just don’t understand! I mean sure there may be some unwanted complications ensuing – like temporary oil supply disruptions – but why is abandoning Iraq to Shiite-Sunni mutually destructive warfare bad for America? I say that whenever death-to-infidels-chanting Muslim airheads go at each other in earnest you break out the champagne. When it looks likes the mutual devastation is spreading, you buy some more champagne. Am I missing something?
Posted by: FM at January 28, 2007 12:04 PM
If Iran strikes Israel and or a small nuke is detonated in Lower Manhattan or the Loop in Chicago or some other large city, even if we were to get free oil from the Arabs, the economic impact would be severe. Why are we fretting about oil when we can secure the supply anyway. The leftist were chanting about the current invasion of Iraq as being about oil, oil, ad nauseum. If we let the Sunnis and Shiites have at it, the libs will be begging us to protect the oil supply. When movie stars and Senators pay eight dollars per gallon for their Lear Jets, we will have their permission to grab the oil.
Posted by: Pelayo at January 28, 2007 12:08 PM
From Hugh's post: "Oh, and the oil, the oil? What about the oil?"
There is a move afoot in Canada to accellerate the supply of oil to the US with 50% of its imported oil needs. Currently the supply is about 25%. Even further accelleration could be undertaken to get the US off Middle Eastern oil. Lots going on behind the scenes that not all know about.
at January 28, 2007 12:32 PM
” Bush said. “We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al-Qaeda and supporters of the old regime.”
“A contagion of violence could spill out across the country and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict,” he added in the State of the Union address. “For America, this is a nightmare scenario.”
I dont agtee with “For America, this is a nightmare scenario.” far from it. Otherwise a vey sensible option, considering that we do not have the confidence in our own cause to wage a war as it should be waged.
Posted by: DP111 at January 28, 2007 2:06 PM
The problem is this, pictures of dead babies no matter who's, are powerful tools. Video of weeping mothers will ensure that we will be involved in this forever.
Dead peopel in Rwanda did not excite the lily white limousine liberals. Dead people in Iraq tend to look like grandpa. My example for proof is Kosovo. We intervened simply because they looked a whole lot like white folks. We stayed away from Rwanda for the same reason white liberals are ignoring Darfur.
That's my opinion.
Posted by: Pelayo at January 28, 2007 3:35 PM
Jane Fonda Video v. Jill Carroll Video
Fonda video from North Vietnam compared to video released by terrorist group. Look at both. Leftists, Still think this is Vietnam?
We are in a war with radical Islam aka Islam. This is winner take all for planet earth. Jane Fonda knows that, that's why she stayed in DC on the Mall with Americans, not with the Islamists who took Jill Carroll captive.
She has to say Americans will lose.
Jane Fonda video in Berkeley on Vietnam
Jane Fonda photo on NVA AA gun
Another Jane Fonda photo on NVA AA gun
Notice the difference between the Jill Carroll video and Jane Fonda in Hanoi. In Hanoi, Fonda speaks her own thoughts. Jill Carroll does not.
Jane Fonda DC Rally video selections
DC Peace Rally video Youtube Jane Fonda
Wonder why Jill Carroll wasn't there? What would Jill Carroll say different than in the Video?
JC had to say America would lose in Iraq. JF chose to say it. Listen to JF at DC peace rally and Jill Carroll when she was "released" to Iraqis to make her video "of her own free will", with Islamic headcovering.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 28, 2007 4:19 PM
Jane Fonda doesn't have to wear headscarf
at DC Peace Rally. Why is that? Is it because we haven't had enough Muslim immigration? Why didn't Jane Fonda speak up for more of that? Why wasn't Jane Fonda wearing prescribed clothing under Sharia for women?
at January 28, 2007 4:31 PM
Repeat a bit from above:
"How do we get the percentage of Christians in the US down to zero, or less?
By thrh | Jan 27, 2007 12:46:47 PM" from WaPo
Comments Page 1 at WaPo Thousands Protest Bush Policy
Christian Cleansing Chart at Timesonline
Christian Cleansing Chart data: Percentage of Christians: Turkey 1923 15 percent, Now 1 percent Syria 1920 33 percent, Now 10 percent Iraq 1970 5.8 percent, Now 2.65 percent Jerusalem 1922 53 percent, Now 2 percent Bethlehem 1948 85 percent, Now 12 percent.
at January 28, 2007 4:37 PM
"Jill Carroll" Iraqi interpreter killed
Funny, Jane Fonda's interpreter didn't seem to have that problem in Hanoi.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 28, 2007 4:44 PM
Saturday, Jan. 7
• Jill Carroll kidnapped in Baghdad. Interpreter Allan Enwiya is killed.
• The Christian Science Monitor requests a media blackout while recovery gets under way.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 28, 2007 4:50 PM
Discover the Networks page on Jane Fonda Vietnam
First Air Cavalry page on Jane Fonda
Written excerpts of Fonda on Radio Hanoi and
Congressional Hearings
at January 28, 2007 4:59 PM
Text of a Jane Fonda Radio Hanoi broadcast
quote
One thing that I have learned beyond a shadow of a doubt since I've been in this country is that Nixon will never be able to break the spirit of these people; he'll never be able to turn Vietnam, north and south, into a neo-colony of the United States by bombing, by invading, by attacking in any way. One has only to go into the countryside and listen to the peasants describe the lives they led before the revolution to understand why every bomb that is dropped only strengthens their determination to resist.
end quote.
Jill Carroll had to say almost the same things on her video.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 28, 2007 5:03 PM
Jane Fonda apology in 1988 analysis at Front Page
Note when Jane Fonda was on AA gun she was wearing a helmet and smiling while goofing around. Jill Carroll was wearing an Islamic headscarf, never smiled, and was not goofing around.
16 years after her AA gun pose, Fonda apologized, but only for that pose, not for which side she chose. Can we let a billion Muslims have 16 years before she apologizes for what they do?
From 1972 to 1988, North Vietnam did not invade or infiltrate the United States, England, France, etc. There were no bombings in London, Madrid and New York. North Vietnam wasn't even building a nuclear weapon, or submarines or missiles.
In 16 years, there may not be a West for Jane Fonda to apologize in, and she may be wearing an Islamic headscarf in accordance with Sharia law.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 28, 2007 5:14 PM
Jill Carroll Photo as captive from AP Jan 30 at Newsday
This photo is quite different from the Jane Fonda photo. It shows her fearful and on the verge of tears. Why didn't people carry copies of this photo at the DC Rally?
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 28, 2007 5:21 PM
Why didn't rally protesters have a placard with Jill Carroll captive photo on one side and Jane Fonda AA gun on the other side? Why?
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 28, 2007 5:27 PM
Why can't we give a billion Muslims 16 years, because we already have. Pakistan has nukes, subs and missiles and is combining them. Iran is on the way.
Posted by: Old Atlantic at January 28, 2007 5:30 PM
It looks as if this isn't covered anywhere. UK mullahs with their feet in their mouths.
http://www.sharebig.com/share.php?id=s7hrwssqswKCQYgT
a 40 min movie in either avi or mp4 format in which an undercover reporter shows them in their REAL form
Posted by: Rowane at January 28, 2007 6:18 PM
Hugh is SPOT-ON. Why indeed are WE protecting oil for China et al? One can only hope for a President Giuliani who - at least it appears - cannot be bought.
“If American forces step back before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides,” Bush said. “We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists aided by al-Qaeda and supporters of the old regime.”
Wouldn't THAT be great??!!! Can we embed our lamestream media reporters with the sunnis and the shiits? Would our "journalists" be willing to go embed with them?
They might be forced to report some REAL atrocities and not the imagined ones at Abu Ghraib.
waht better way to distrtact our media hound ffrom Camp Gitmo than a full-on battle in Iraq - while we sit on the sidelines grinning like cheshire cats. And - bonus! - the Repubs can blame the Dhimmicrats and the Euros and all the "human rights" and "anti-war" groups for the "senseless carnage".
Noone will be able to say we didn't try.
But WE HAVE DONE ENOUGH!!!
No more wasting American lives and resources on this crap!!
Posted by: MeanieMo at January 28, 2007 6:40 PM
Time is against waiting, it is against any attempt to watch sects of islam battle for the grains of sand of the M.E.
The advance of Iran's nuclear "power" , and other islamic countrys harness of the atom is underway.
Other WMD, and further advancements will make a battle against islam harder with each passing day. It is not a question of if we will have to fight to survive, but how soon.
We are there now, and this attempt is going forward. Once it has run the laps, what to do next is in need of focus.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at January 29, 2007 1:10 AM
A showdown must be comming pretty soon. Didn't Mz. Clinton just demand the President to finish up this Terrorists business befor she Gets the Office???
Her statement about knowing things sounds a little like this.
If I knew what I knew when I knew it I would have know what I knew wasn't what I knew and I would have known what I knew wasn't known.
I know bad men but I stay with them because I can make the tough decisions every woman needs to make in life.
I knew what I knew when I knew it just some years? befor Congress knew, but I knew Congress knew What I knew probably befor I knew but we all ended up knowing what we knew at about the same time. So we all knew what we knew when we knew it. just roughly the same time.
I hope this clears up what she knew.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 29, 2007 4:17 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)