Sectarian religious infighting between Sunnis and Shiites, Iran, Iraq
Who Stands to Lose in Iraq?:
by J.B. Williams
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Despite all the well known American successes in Iraq, sectarian religious infighting between Sunnis and Shiites now threatens the ultimate success and future peaceful self-governance of a nation on the edge of civil war. If the march towards peace and self determination as a free country fails, it will not be America's loss, but rather that of the Iraqi people.
Iran's leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has suggested that Washington and Israel were the ones who benefited from the terrorist attack that targeted Samarra's Golden Dome. "They invade the shrine and bomb it because they oppose God and justice," Ahmadinejad said, referring to the U.S. forces in Iraq. "These passive activities are the acts of a group of defeated Zionists and occupiers who intended to hit our emotions." Addressing the United States, he added: "You have to know that such an act will not save you from the anger of Muslim nations." In other words, the Iranian President hopes to get the most bang for his buck
It's no surprise that such an act would incite a sectarian backlash in Iraq, if not the entire Middle East, or that such a violent backlash would actually threaten the US led progress towards a united democratic Iraq. So making the case that the US and Israel could somehow benefit from such a self defeating act is tougher than convincing most Americans that today's Democrats like anything at all about America.
The simple fact is, as pressure mounts in the Iranian nuclear standoff and the IAEA deadline nears, nobody stood to gain more from the bombing of that Mosque than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in desperate need of an international diversion and those Iranians intent upon developing nuclear weapons under the guise of defending itself from an otherwise non-existent western aggression.
In case you have forgotten, Iran has never been a friend to Iraq or anyone else in the region. Other than hating Israel, Iran's government had nothing in common with Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule, and it has even less in common with the prospect of a peaceful free democratic Iraq. The notion that Iran's government supports the will of the Iraqi people is just plain silly.
The Osama Bin Laden News Network, otherwise known as Al Jazerra, works relentlessly to stir up dissent against the west through its daily anti-western propaganda, like its recent "Did the Iran-West nuclear standoff come to an end?" which accuses the Arab world of "appeasing" the west and challenges Iran to remain defiant, asking its Arab readers "In this climate of inflamed passions, can Iran let down its people by ceasing its enrichment program?"
America had nothing to gain by inciting the sectarian riots in Iraq. But Iran sure did. More important however is the question of who stands to lose anything in Iraq?
This notion that America is losing in Iraq is just plain hogwash propaganda as America's primary objective for Iraq was accomplished the day Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime was removed from power. The balance of our effort is on behalf of the innocent Iraqi people and their agenda for a peaceful free democratic self-determination. Clearly, in our interests, but even more in the interest of the Iraqi people.
This being the case, only the Iraqi people have anything to lose in Iraq today and most of them know it, including the many religious leaders who have recently helped to calm the rioting by calling for peaceful protests rather than continued violence and self destruction.
America has a long history of defending its own freedom and liberty by securing the same for others around the globe. It's a simple concept really. History has proven repeatedly that nations able to peacefully feed themselves, who have a say in their own circumstance and future, seldom have any motive to invite pain, suffering and death upon themselves by striking at their neighbors.
Generally speaking, people resort to violent means only when they have no other voice, no other alternative for family survival. When they live in tyranny or very real and often very violent oppression, they are reduced to violent means in order to survive. This has been life in much of the Middle East since the beginning of recorded time.
Then there are those who are unable to coexist in peace with others under any circumstances. The terror organizations we war with today, those who took down the World Trade Towers, are such a people. They believe that all non-believers, all infidels, those who do not subscribe to the fundamental violent teachings of Mohammed or the complete destruction of Israel, even if they claim the Muslim faith, must be eradicated from the earth.
They believe that anyone who supports the notion of a peaceful existence for Israel is a "Zionist" and an infidel and they believe that they must be killed. That includes all Jews, and pretty much every westerner in the EU or the US. "They" includes Iraq's nutty neighbor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who seeks nuclear weapons and has repeatedly openly called for the total destruction of Israel.
The war in Iraq is a war between innocent Iraqi citizens who very much desire a peaceful and prosperous existence in the free world and terrorists like Zarqawi, who are determined to keep that from happening. American soldiers fought and died to free innocent Iraqis from the brutal tyranny of Saddam Hussein and now they fight and die to keep Iraq from falling into the hands of madmen like Zarqawi, Bin Laden or quite frankly, Ahmadinejad.
If America were to leave Iraq without finishing the job, it would be at the expense of innocent Iraqi citizens, not Americans. America can save the lives of our soldiers by withdrawing from Iraq and many Americans have selfishly called for the administration to do exactly that.
America could survive such a move, at least for the present time. But more than likely, Iraq could not. The current American administration knows this and remains committed to completing the mission in Iraq, at the expense of its own popularity at home and in many parts of the world.
America does not own Iraq or its oil rights. The Iraqi people do. America can not guarantee the future of Iraq to its citizens - it can only guarantee its citizens the chance to determine their own future. The Iraqi people must grasp that chance and take up the fight to make it a reality. Not even the world's remaining super-power can do it for them. They must do it for themselves.
America has provided that opportunity. But it will not be America's failure if the Iraqi people fail to take hold of that opportunity. No
That failure will belong to the Iraqi people and all peoples of the Middle East who desire a peaceful free coexistence in the world.
America can not lose in Iraq. Only Iraq can lose if they fail to rise to the challenge presented by terror regimes scattered throughout Iraq, Iran, Syria and much of the Middle East. So let's stop pretending that this war is about America, it isn't. It's about the future of Iraq now and how their future might become a catalyst for peace throughout the Middle East in the years ahead.
The debate over regime change in Iraq is long over - the regime has already been changed. What is at stake now is not America's future, but Iraq's. A free democratic Middle East was never going to be easy. But it is a worthwhile ambition, one well on its way, and one now possible.
Those who stand opposed here or abroad, are not opposing America, they are opposing the future freedom and peace of the Iraqi people. Let's be clear about that!
JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB. Williams can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Recent articles by JB Williams