THE CASE FOR TALKING TO IRAN: According to the mainstream media, Iraq is embroiled in a "civil war." Stop ten strangers in the street today and ask them, even they'll tell you, "civil war" is the best description for the escalating violence.

But is it? Is Iraq really in a civil war? Really?

Because I don't think so. To me, you have to be a country before you can divide against yourself. There has to be a unified whole, and I don't just mean a whole as defined by a contiguous line on a map. I mean "whole" as in the people—however diverse their personal beliefs or ethnic backgrounds might be—consider themselves ONE. Another way to put this is to say that there is a part of each of them that could be described as distinctively "Iraqi," and (and this is really the key) that part is vital enough to their self-image that they would fight and possibly die to defend it.

In short, I don't think Iraq is in a "civil war" because the people we refer to as "Iraqis" just don't see themselves as such. Instead they see themselves as members of the religious or ethnic group with which they identify. This is largely because "Iraq" is not an organically formed nation. It is a manufactured "nation," created primarily by Western Europeans. Since its creation, it has been ruled by one dictator or undemocratic leader after another, and the people have never had a chance to work through their differences on their own. We on the outside had a false perception that they had a sense of national identity because things seemed stable, sects were not at war with each other, or if they ever tried to fight each other, the fighting was quickly put down—so quickly, many of us were too busy watching TV or shopping to notice.

But with Saddam gone, and no clear (read: dictatorial, since it's all they're used to) central authority in power telling them what to do (or else), they are looking around to anyone else to fill the void. Each sect has groups of people trying to represent them, and then you have the criminal elements who just love chaos, but that isn't a "civil war." Neither side really wants to take central control, and where are the Kurds? Are they not part of this? They seem to have declined their invitation to the alleged "civil war," so what's their position?

To make my point a little more clear, imagine this scenario if you will... Some outside power arrives in North America and draws a line around the New England states AND the parts of Canada including the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland, and renames the entire mess "The Nation of Northeast."

Now if the Supreme Leader of "Northeast" were somehow deposed, let's say at the behest of a group of exhiles originally from Boston, and the Quebecoise started bombing buildings and markets in Boston, or the original Bostonians started kidnapping French Canadians, would that be a "civil war," or would it be people just acting out rivalries that were always present, but became more hate-filled after these people were forced to live together as one?

In my view, that would not be a civil war, and neither is this. That would be a war for RE-separation, and perhaps, in essense, so is this. Does that mean we as the intervening power should suggest or "force" separation now? No, not necessarily. What it does mean is that our removal of Saddam—while a precipitating factor for the power vacuum—was not "responsible" for the violence.

Sure, our presence is a lighting-rod for those looking for a scapegoat. And in the case of Iraq, that's pretty much all of the different groups currently slaughtering each other (or backing the slaughter from afar). But it's not the "reason" for the violence, and therefore we're not the ones who can stop it.

Iran on the other hand? Now there's a country that is responsible for much of the violence in Iraq, certainly in a much more literal sense than we are. So why not talk to them? Sure, they're evil. They don't deserve to sit down at the table with us, but who says we have to be "nice" when we talk to them? Why does "talking" have to include holding hands and french kissing (pun intended)? Answer? It doesn't. Not only that, "talking" doesn't mean "begging" "conceding defeat" or anything like that at all.

What it could mean though is a way out for our troops that not only allows us to save face, but allows the world to finally see Iran for what it really is, for what it's really after (i.e., total world domination), and sadly, the sooner the world wakes up to that reality, the better.

What the hell am I suggesting? Well, here it is in a nutshell:

* Iran—for all its saber rattling—can't really hold a candle to our military. They are no more capable of subduing the Sunni terrorists than we are.

* The Shia may be the majority, but they aren't Persian like the Iranians, so ethnically they may prove more difficult to "control" than the Iranians think.

* Unlike us, the Iranians aren't familiar with the concept of "winning hearts and minds" with a soft touch! If the Sunni Iraqis don't submit to their style of "security enforcement," chances are, brutality will be used and since the world will be watching, we can make sure of that.

* The Iranians can ill-afford (economically that is) to tackle financial support for global terrorism, pursuit of nuclear weapons AND domination of a nation in freefall like Iraq. Why not let them try? If Amadinejahd is analogous to Hitler, let Iraq be his Russian front!

My point is, the Iranians want us to avoid them, to "stay the course" as it were. They know if we do, we'll continue to be a target for the ruthless Sunni and their mob-like "protectors," Al Qaeda, and the Shia will continue to turn to them out of desperation, if not loyalty. If we sit down with them and ask them to "help," and they refuse, then it will be obvious to ALL that they are just making trouble. If they agree, then they are in for a world of hurt.

The conventional wisdom is that we can't let Iran have more of a foothold in Iraq, but I've started to wonder why? If the Iraqis (whoever they are anyway) won't stand up and fight for the integrity of their nation and their allegedly long-sought freedom when we're the ones they can blame when it all falls apart, maybe they'll step up when it's someone less willing to be a scapegoat. OR, maybe they'll turn on Iran for us, and save us the trouble. OR, maybe the Shia will embrace Iran, but since the Sunni will never go for that, they and their sponsor nations (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, etc...) will have to step up their opposition, which will further weaken their ability to focus on attacking the US!

Bottom line? The only way it could work out badly for us is if Iran waltzes in to Iraq, manages to win over or subdue (read: KILL) all opposition to a takeover or coup by them or the Shia they've been funding. And does anyone really think that can happen?

Let the Iranians make the same mistake WE made. Let them think they'll be greeted with flowers in the street, even if only by the Shia, they'll still be wrong. Let them be the scapegoat, Lord knows they deserve it, have for a long time. And if not, if the world still wants to blame us for everything that isn't minute-rice perfect all the time, at least our soldiers will be home, alive, and ready to defend people who—despite our differences and present state of political polarization—would stand up and fight for our nation's freedom.

Posted by Deb on

Comments

[Peg]

Good write! I just don't know if it is the whole or real story! From the beginning they would not arm the Iraqi's! Soon as training was over they were disarmed! So while riding on a bus home these brave soles, were dragged off the bus beheaded! Then again and again! Till they dragged them out in the middle of the night and bound them and killed their whole families! There are less and less of them. Where is the media to interveiw an Iraqi soldier?! Plus there are 1 1/2 million fled to Lebonan. Yes, Iran controlling this! They are controlling Lebanon to the Palestinians. It is more dangerous now then before because we did not take Fallujah and kill Sadr! He murdered the Shiek! Now Sadr can execute his plan, army bigger than the Iraqi's and seem more organized! It is the damn dhimmi's in this country that have interruptents for our army to stay tunnel visioned on the target. Instead, "poo por-johnny's. This will only embolded them, they already hate us." Then we have to back down. When our army should not listen to the outside and just kill the radicals! Iran is going to keep us in circles to show our democracy a mess! It is a mess because of people like Pelosi! We are suppose to get conclusions from the war when they don't tell us Nothing! It is like ok I'll talk to Iran! You know where that will go. Ahmadijine loves it! He has plainly said: Israel off the map kill them all and the United States! If that is not declaration of war I don't know what is? It probably would be safer to march into Iran and kill them and see who surrenders! I don't believe alot of people in Iran believe in Ahmadijine. Iran probably getting ready to do a bio-chem on people in Iraqi! If we went to Iran we may end this problem once and for all! Then we have Russia to deal with! Putin SUCKS!!!!!! I would not even doubt people like Kerry and Sheehan and others behind scene telling Ahmadijine and Hugo how to get to us Americans! "Here is what you have to do . . . " any of their letters or citizism sound American! Plus if we did march right into Iran, Iraq would stabalize! For all the insurgents would follow! Then we have army behind them and kill them too! The only thing I would have to say to Ahmadijine is "You are going to Die!" Even if it is Iran who brings down N.Y or Israel it will not be Ahmadijine, he got the wheels moving but I think someone will kill him! Probably the Russians! haa!