Even though we’ve largely destroyed AQI, they were still able to acheive one of their main goals of creating a self-sustaining sectarian conflict. We’re losing in the sense that we were unable to prevent that and have largely had little influence in curbing sectarian fighting. Not too surprising really, foreign troops are historically very poor at policing internal civil-war like conflicts.

NPP on December 5, 2006 at 1:06 PM

Pablo,

Sectarian tensions predate AQI and our invasion, but not the kind of death squad attacks and bombings that are happening now. Before the Samarra mosque bombing, most Sunni’s except AQI and its supporters were attacking the coalition and not Shias. After the bombing, the Shias finally came to the conclusion that US forces were unable or unwilling to protect them and so the cycle of sectarian attacks was born. One of AQI stated strategic objectives was to create a sectarian war – they succeeded in that goal.

NPP on December 5, 2006 at 1:41 PM

CP,

Iran has an uneasy relationship with both Pakistan and Russia. I won’t get into the historical details here (you can research that yourself if you wish), but relations are not as friendly as they might appear from contemporary MSM reporting, particularly in regard to Russia.

Pablo,

If, as you assert, the violence we see today was as inevitable as the sun rising, then that means there is nothing we could have done or can do to stop it. So then why are we in Iraq if this conflict was so inevitable? If the level of sectarian violence we see today was so inevitable, then why did it not start immediately after the fall of Saddam? Why was the Samara mosque bombing such a clear turning point? Why did the Shia finally say f@ck it after three years and start taking matters into their own hands with reprisal attacks? Maybe it’s because we couldn’t stop the Sunni and AQI attacks on the Shia.

Zarqawi’s goal was to create reprisal attacks against Sunnis and he succeeded. To say that the level of violence we are seeing now was as inevitable as the sun rising ignores so much. The Shia were behind democracy because as the majority sect, they would hold most of the power. They gave democracy the benefit of the doubt for the most part. After years of attacks by AQI and Sunni radicals and the our inability to deal with or prevent them, they had enough and took matters into their own hands. This sectarian war was not inevitable – if we had been able to eliminate AQI earlier and prevent their attacks then there would be the Shia attacks and escalating violence we see today.

NPP on December 5, 2006 at 2:33 PM

Oh yes, there is. It lies both east and west of Iraq. We didn’t go there to solve Islam’s internal strife. But there is an upside to us training and supporting a democratic government, and we have an interest in seeing that succeed.

I agree that there’s little point in us trying to get in the middle of the sectarian crap. But there’s a whole lot more than that in play.

You seem to be saying that it’s somehow possible to have and support democratic government while at the same time staying out of “the middle of the sectarian crap.” Forgive me for failing to see your logic here.

NPP on December 5, 2006 at 3:16 PM

We did try to kill Sadr a few years ago and we badly beat up his Mahdi army, but then he decided to “play ball” and support the government.

And we decided to let him. If we’d really wanted to kill him, he’d be dead.

Maybe you need a review on democracy, or maybe your goal is a “democracy” like Egypt, Syria or Sudan. Democracy is a political process that the various factions have to buy into for it to succeed. Do you really think we can kill leaders of groups that enter that process and still expect it to succeed? Our stated goal was a democratic government – the USA can’t pick and choose which leaders get to participate by killing them off after they agree to join.

And what drives the Sunnis into such attacks? 1300 years of Shia/Sunni conflict. This has been going on since the Islamic schism.

First of all, it was only part of the Sunni community that began the sectarian attacks – that portion that enjoyed considerable power and prestige under Saddam. That they are Sunni is incidental since tribal affiliation meant more to Saddamists than religious affiliation (Tariq Aziz was a Christian after all) Those elements, early in the insurgency, allied themselves to AQ foreign fighters because they had a common goal. Their combined goal was to prevent a democracy in Iraq and kick the coalition out or bleed it dry. The easiest and most expeditious method to achieve that goal, given their limited military capabilities, was to sow sectarian violence. The Saddamists in the insurgency don’t give a crap about Sunni or Shia or the schism because they were and are primarily secularists and as such their primary loyalty lies with their party and tribe. Once it became clear they would not regain power, their attitude became one which could be summed up by saying, “well, if we can’t control Iraq, no one will” and they consequently sought to destroy any chance of a democratic government forming. AQI similarly saw sectarian conflict as a means to an end, not an end itself.

Overall both nations are friendly with eachother, so where is this simplistic war you speak of?

How about Lebanon?

I was referring to Iran and Pakistan, which, as I said, are largely friendly. But since you bring it up, if you think Lebanon can be deconstructed into the simplistic terms of the Sunni-Shia schism then you know little of Lebanon’s history.

Sectarian violence was inevitable. This level was not.

Now you’re changing your tune. Of course some sectarian violence is inevitable. The problem, which I keep stating, is that we were not able to control AQI/Baathist violence on Shias and eventually the Shias figured this out and took their security into their own hands through the militias. It’s why al Sadr became ascendant over Sistani and why Sistani has such little influence now. The average Shia does not believe the coalition or Iraqi government can protect them from attacks. It just so happens the average Sunni believes the same thing. How is democracy supposed to happen when the democratically elected government can’t fulfill the most fundamental government role – protecting its constituency from attack?

Not necessarily. That it hits a level like this doesn’t mean it’s going to stay there. One might presume that the Iraqi people, being human beings beneath all the religious, tribalistic fervor, will tire of watching the blood of their innocents run in the streets at the hands of the madmen among them and do something to stop it of their own accord.

This too shall pass.

You’re right about one thing – the level of violence will not stay where it is – it will likely get worse. Waiting for the Iraqi’s to stop killing each other seems to be the height of wishful thinking, particularly given the blood-feud culture. We let Afghanistan sort itself out after the Soviets left and they still like to kill each other.

NPP on December 5, 2006 at 5:08 PM

Let’s see, he appeared to agree with the Democrats that we could not win, and he didn’t want to confront Syria or Iran, then he gets unanimously approved…… hmmmmmmm. I think President Bush directed him to do exactly that in order to get approved quickly so he could start getting to work and start killing more bad guys!

Apparrently you watched a different hearing than I did. He said that we’re not winning, not that we couldn’t win.

NPP on December 5, 2006 at 6:28 PM