![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I’m probably naive. I’m probably gullible. I’m one of those weak, lily-livered liberals, an early reincarnation of Jimmy Carter.
But the more I look at the mess in Iraq, the more I’m convinced that it can't be solved with weaponry.
I heard a mention on NPR that one of our generals over there, a few days before the new bombings, said that there were two things that he felt might tear Iraq entirely apart. One was a meltdown of its army and security forces; the other was a new attack on the Al-Askariya Mosque in Samarra. Well, we have at least one of those scenarios now in play.
I look at the Al-Askariya mosque, and I wonder what might have happened had we -- after its massive golden dome was destroyed in 2006 by the explosion that sparked the worst wave of sectarian violence the country had experienced up until now -- gone in there with a thousand engineers and volunteer workers, taken one of the billions we’re pouring into this war, and helped the Shia congregation rebuild their temple. I wonder if we couldn’t make the same offer right now, in the wake of the minarets being destroyed, and if it might not have some small effect on new outbreak of violence...
(Interesting that gee, with Iraqi police and security as well as our own troops guarding this most holy of Shia sites, terrorists still managed to bring in enough explosives to take down two minarets on opposite sides of the structure. Call me naive and gullible, but someone guarding the place had to let them inside...)
Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, as we might expect, is blaming us for the destruction (he called it a "cursed American-Israeli scenario that aims to spread the turmoil and plant the hatred among the Muslim brethren"), and though he’s calling for peaceful protests, I think we can all read the sub-text there and figure out what’s really going to happen. I wonder here, too -- are we engaging in talks and negotiations with this man, who has ties to Iran, who has immense influence among the minority Shia population, and who might be able to help us curb the violence in this country if we can convince him that we’re not Sunni-sympathetic lackeys ourselves. But I doubt we’re doing that -- we’re too busy calling him the “radical anti-American Muslim cleric.” He may be all of those things... but aren’t we allowing him to remain so? Aren’t we making him a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Or am I just being naive and gullible again?
But the more I look at the mess in Iraq, the more I’m convinced that it can't be solved with weaponry.
I heard a mention on NPR that one of our generals over there, a few days before the new bombings, said that there were two things that he felt might tear Iraq entirely apart. One was a meltdown of its army and security forces; the other was a new attack on the Al-Askariya Mosque in Samarra. Well, we have at least one of those scenarios now in play.
I look at the Al-Askariya mosque, and I wonder what might have happened had we -- after its massive golden dome was destroyed in 2006 by the explosion that sparked the worst wave of sectarian violence the country had experienced up until now -- gone in there with a thousand engineers and volunteer workers, taken one of the billions we’re pouring into this war, and helped the Shia congregation rebuild their temple. I wonder if we couldn’t make the same offer right now, in the wake of the minarets being destroyed, and if it might not have some small effect on new outbreak of violence...
(Interesting that gee, with Iraqi police and security as well as our own troops guarding this most holy of Shia sites, terrorists still managed to bring in enough explosives to take down two minarets on opposite sides of the structure. Call me naive and gullible, but someone guarding the place had to let them inside...)
Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, as we might expect, is blaming us for the destruction (he called it a "cursed American-Israeli scenario that aims to spread the turmoil and plant the hatred among the Muslim brethren"), and though he’s calling for peaceful protests, I think we can all read the sub-text there and figure out what’s really going to happen. I wonder here, too -- are we engaging in talks and negotiations with this man, who has ties to Iran, who has immense influence among the minority Shia population, and who might be able to help us curb the violence in this country if we can convince him that we’re not Sunni-sympathetic lackeys ourselves. But I doubt we’re doing that -- we’re too busy calling him the “radical anti-American Muslim cleric.” He may be all of those things... but aren’t we allowing him to remain so? Aren’t we making him a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Or am I just being naive and gullible again?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
But I agree. This war can only be lost with weaponry.
From:
no subject
But killing more of the other side just escalates the violence.
From:
no subject
I don't know much about Vietnam, although my father served tours there, but I know more than your average person of my age. And since this whole war started, I've thought it beared too much of an eery similarity. And every time someone calls Iraq a quagmire, they are of course, knowingly or unknowingly, referencing Vietnam. The whole wretched thing makes me feel rather helpless. Add to that, I found out today that a boy i went to high school with died in Aghanistan last month. I'm in a mood today!
Sorry for the rather long comment!
From:
no subject
Yes, 'quagmire' was the operative word during the Vietnam era, which I remember all too well -- I'm probably around your father's age.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Jeez, guy, why is this framing necessary? Yes, I know you're being ironic, but we do this so often, it gets to be a tic. And a vulnerability.
Liberals fought and won World War II. Liberals kick ass. Liberals don't need to apologize to anyone over national-security credibility. Liberals should stop with the pre-emptive cringing already.
From:
no subject
And aside from the flippancy, point taken.
From:
no subject
Neocons need no good reason to go to war.
From:
Rebuilding a mosque?
From:
Re: Rebuilding a mosque?
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
From:
no subject
Talks now would be better than no talks at all, but the point is that we should have been talking to him two or three years ago, before positions hardened into concrete, before the destruction of the mosque, before the sectarian violence got entirely out of hand.
*****
A note: this journal (as it should have informed you) screens anonymous comments. Please sign your name and give me contact info if you don't have an LJ account, or there's a good chance I'll just delete the comment...