<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Polarization 


If the Democrats in Congress cause the United States to retreat from Iraq, or retreat within Iraq, will that leave a "safe haven" for Islamist jihadis to operate against foreign targets? This story suggests otherwise:

In a mysterious video posted on the Internet today, an unknown masked man identified as "one of the jihad leaders in Iraq" threatens to fight al Qaeda and groups affiliated with it in Iraq.

The tape suggests either a deep split in Iraqi insurgent groups or a skillful propaganda coup by U.S. intelligence services, according to Fawaz Gerges, an ABC News consultant and professor of International Affairs and Middle Eastern Studies at Sarah Lawrence College.

He says there have been major skirmishes between al Qaeda in Iraq and some tribes in the past few weeks resulting in a number of casualties. "Civil war is raging within the broader jihadist movement," notes Gerges.

Whatever the result in Iraq -- and I will have much more to say on that topic in the near future -- we will be much better off if Iraqis are fighting jihadis than cooperating with them.

9 Comments:

By Blogger Georgfelis, at Wed Nov 15, 01:42:00 PM:

I’m not that enthused about *multiple* armed terrorist groups slugging it out inside a budding democracy, having just one or two is bad enough. Now if the new group is trying to work with the elected government instead of on its own, that may actually be a good thing.  

By Blogger DEC, at Wed Nov 15, 01:48:00 PM:

Tigerhawk said: "...we will be much better off if Iraqis are fighting jihadis than cooperating with them."

That's why I would like to see fewer Western verbal attacks on Islam right now. Attacking Islam unifies Muslims.

In many ways, the major Muslims countries are as different from each other as the European countries were before the creation of the EU. Deal with Muslim societies separately. Divide and conquer.  

By Anonymous BIRD OF PARIDISE, at Wed Nov 15, 03:03:00 PM:

Its a good thing we did,nt have these cut and run demacrats back in WW II we would all be german subjects under a dictator  

By Blogger GreenmanTim, at Wed Nov 15, 04:10:00 PM:

BP, I'm surprised at you, under-estimating the power of Japanese militerism during WWII. In your scenario, California, at least, should have been under the Rising Sun. Italy could have Venice Beach.  

By Blogger Lanky_Bastard, at Wed Nov 15, 05:37:00 PM:

The difference between a World War and a unilatteral war is that the bulk of the world sees one as worth fighting and the other as not. We're in a pretty much unilatteral war.

But if you're into cheap demagoguing, let's all be glad that Bush wasn't running WWII. We'd have sent half the troops and had tax cuts instead of rationing.  

By Blogger Purple Avenger, at Wed Nov 15, 07:07:00 PM:

The difference between a World War and a unilatteral war is that the bulk of the world sees one as worth fighting and the other as not.

Most of the countries in the world sat on the sidelines in WWII as well.  

By Blogger SR, at Wed Nov 15, 07:13:00 PM:

That's right Lanky, Americans are hankering for rationing: gas and electricity (Kyoto), healthcare (Hillary Care).  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Wed Nov 15, 07:23:00 PM:

There can be Shi'a jihadists too (and until modern times were better suited for it than the Sunni)... and Al Qaeda has spent a significant amount of resources killing Shi'i in Iraq. This really shouldn't be too much of a surprise.  

By Blogger Assistant Village Idiot, at Wed Nov 15, 08:01:00 PM:

Al-Maliki is suggesting a "redeployment" that keeps US forces in Iraq, but confined to bases. Sort of a 911 while the Iraqis slug it out.

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20061112-111509-9181r.htm

I might actually be able to get behind that, not least because it is the Iraqi government suggesting it.  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?