The enemy we fight in Iraq

It is time we figured out who we want to win in Iraq. Us for sure but I'm having trouble deciding who else? In this case it is hard to see who it is in Iraq that we will have won from.
When we won over Germany in WWII, we won over Germans, nearly all of them. The party in power were twerps, but the Germans elected them and wanted what Hitler was doing.
In Japan after WWLL, is was certain that we had won over the Japanese people, all of them. Also, the Royalty was defeated.
The Japanese people also wanted us to lose and were willing to all go down trying, until the Emperor said no. We let him survive for that.
I'm not going to speak of Afghanistan, because actually, we should still be there and there only, but that is another matter.
Now, Iraq. With three distinct peoples there: Sunni,(believe in the three leaders in charge after Mohammad's death) Shia,(believe in son-in-law of Mohammad) (both a faction of Islam) and the Kurds---mostly Turks.
The Shia are in the majority, and did control and be made up of most bureaucrats, professionals, and higher education.
They all did cooperate somewhat under the Sunni of Saddam (he was an easter and christmas muslim) in so far as some education, some professionals, but not many.
So, who should win? Who do we put in power? They all want oil, they all want religious power in a given area (means not much of a central government)and they certainly don't want Americans there trying to put a government together, not even in Baghdad alone.
The think they must war against each other until a winner is evident, then they will live with that until someone else changes it again. Maybe a hundred years from now!
We don't understand that, now do we?

dollaradayandfound's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by dollaradayandfound on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 6:18pm.

Other than what we did for the last five years in Iraq, and what could be done now, there was one other choice immediately after we took Baghdad, (or rather walked in) and that was to leave immediately since their army had disappeared and would not have been shooting at our backs.
The fact that we couldn't find Saddam right away might have meant he could have returned, however unlikely. A threat of further bombing and destruction may have prevented that.
It would be over with by now and either Iraq would have come up with sufficient defense to govern themselves, or Iran would have moved in with Syria and ran the place.
All those choices would have been good enough for me. Maybe, maybe we could have continued the no-fly zones and the U.N. inspections.
No one was given a chance to suggest any of that however.

Enigma's picture
Submitted by Enigma on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 6:22pm.

Only dollaraday can top dollaraday.

"Iran would have moved in with Syria and ran the place.
All those choices would have been good enough for me."


Mixer's picture
Submitted by Mixer on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 7:32pm.

Dollaradayandfound makes Neville Chamberlain look like Nostradamus.

**********************************************
Is there bias on the war coverage? Click Here
*********************************************


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.