Originally Posted by spence
The Anbar Awakening has little to do with Sunni's coming to peace with their Shiite and Kurdish brothers as envisioned by some neocon dream.
An "Anbar Awakening" as such, was not envisioned. It was hoped that Iraq would function as a democracy where, as Biden says, the people resolve differences politically, not by force. The Sunni certainly had no reason to do that under Sadaam.
The Sunni's simply came to the realization that if they banded together to provide their own security against insurgents or al Qaeda (helping rather than fight US troops) they would have a better chance at survival.
Exactly. And they were "simply" forced to do that because Bush removed Sadaam. Now, they must abide as part of a democratic process, not as the dictator's favorites.
They have now, in effect formed their own militia that the Iraqi government plans to disband as it's seen as a potential threat against Iraqi stability.
Yes.
Ultimately, the same sectarian strife that existed long before Saddam is still present. Unfortunately, our mishandling of the early years of the war have done much to radicalize elements in Iraq making the long-term success of a stable US partner much more difficult.
It is not the "same" sectarian strife. It is at the beginning stage of strife within the body politic, as diverse democracies have. It needs time, a generation or two, to become acculturated. Elements have not so much been "radicalized" as they have been released. They now have a chance to be part of the process, not just slaves to it. Without this new-found freedom to voice opposition and acquiesence there is constantly the possibility of social earthquakes. Democracies tend to be more stable than tyrannies.
And as you said, the plan was to fundamentally change the Middle East. How has it changed? Freedom has diminished in most of the Nations we had hoped to positively influence and many of our enemies are stronger as a result.
I guess we see things (as limited as we are in our ability to observe only by "reports") differently. It seems to me there is a bit more freedom in the Middle East, not less. And it is, I believe, and I think Bush thought, a hopeful model for younger Mid Easterners. We keep discounting the idea that they can change. Even Saudi Arabia is inviting Western teachers, especially Americans, to teach their girls and young women English and rudimentary essentials of self sufficiency.
I believe that their strength was growing when we left the Islamic radicals alone. Flushing them out gave them a brief propaganda surge, but, as they lose battle after battle, their actual military weakness is exposed. As those we fight alongside with see, as they did in Iraq, that the extremists are their enemy, not us, they will be more fully disposed to peace and cooperation rather than war and terror. Bush said it would be a long war. But if we persist, we will win, and we and the Islamic world will be the far better off for it. I applaud Obama for aggresive strikes against the Taliban. I hope he does not relent. I hope he expands the military effort. If he does, I don't think the other Nato, UN, European, whoever can keep holding back and that they will fully join us in eradicating what is a threat to them as well.
I also hope, that if Obama does stay the course, the Republicans don't oppose him for political gain the way the Democrats did to Bush. We need a solid home front to best prosecute the war.
I wonder if this was ever ENVISIONED as a risk by the "enlightened" ones.
-spence
|