Iraq Elections
Zeyad, a writer from Iraq says he recently had a conversation with a taxi driver who used to live in Fallujah, but now lives in Baghdad. The taxi driver "dismissed the whole government as a band of thieves and traitors."
Zeyad said he did not bother to argue with him but did ask him what he believed would be a workable solution to the "mess" in Iraq. He apparently replied that "resistance" was the only sound and practical solution. The first thing to do was drive out the Americans, and then second was to fight the Shia "back into submission" (as was done in 1991 after the first Gulf War).
Zeyad then goes on to write, "Sunni Iraqis contend that elections are impossible to hold under occupation. Leaving aside the fact that this views conflicts with other historical examples in the region, Sunnis have never offered an alternative choice, which eventually leads one to guess that the opinion held by the Fallujan taxi driver above is precisely what they are planning to implement."
That is why most of the arguments for delaying their election, to be truthful, is centered around the notion that it will not produce "their" desired result; that desired result being the resumption of Sunni control and authority over the Shia and the Kurds. And since that option is not realistic or acceptable, to delay it would only play into their (the Sunnis) hands. Postponing it is only a smokescreen, a tactic that the Sunnis would gladly like to use. The hardline Sunnis know that no level of violence is acceptable to the "Western critics", and a few car bombs here and there will over-magnify the insurgents' "apparent" (although misperceived) strength and influence in an attempt to delegitimize the election. The "insurgents" know this; which is why they're more than happy to go along with this tactic.
In summary Zeyad reasons, "I believe national reconciliation to be the only path forward to a new Iraq. The Shia cannot live without the Sunnis, and vice versa. Both have shared this country for the last 14 centuries and there is no possible way that one can live without the other. Even partition is not a possibility, there are no clear borders between the two."
The reality to the Sunnis is that it is not 1991 anymore. The minority Sunnis do not have the militaty backing that they once enjoyed under Saddam which is what kept the Shia contained and under their thumb. Now it's up to the Shia's to show restraint and diplomacy since they are in the majority and must recognize a civil war is the last thing Iraqis need. The Sunnis also need to recognize this fact. Their much smaller population without Saddam's muscle does not put them in a very strong position to be in and dreaming of a civil war.
Hat tip to:
Chrenkoff
Zeyad said he did not bother to argue with him but did ask him what he believed would be a workable solution to the "mess" in Iraq. He apparently replied that "resistance" was the only sound and practical solution. The first thing to do was drive out the Americans, and then second was to fight the Shia "back into submission" (as was done in 1991 after the first Gulf War).
Zeyad then goes on to write, "Sunni Iraqis contend that elections are impossible to hold under occupation. Leaving aside the fact that this views conflicts with other historical examples in the region, Sunnis have never offered an alternative choice, which eventually leads one to guess that the opinion held by the Fallujan taxi driver above is precisely what they are planning to implement."
That is why most of the arguments for delaying their election, to be truthful, is centered around the notion that it will not produce "their" desired result; that desired result being the resumption of Sunni control and authority over the Shia and the Kurds. And since that option is not realistic or acceptable, to delay it would only play into their (the Sunnis) hands. Postponing it is only a smokescreen, a tactic that the Sunnis would gladly like to use. The hardline Sunnis know that no level of violence is acceptable to the "Western critics", and a few car bombs here and there will over-magnify the insurgents' "apparent" (although misperceived) strength and influence in an attempt to delegitimize the election. The "insurgents" know this; which is why they're more than happy to go along with this tactic.
In summary Zeyad reasons, "I believe national reconciliation to be the only path forward to a new Iraq. The Shia cannot live without the Sunnis, and vice versa. Both have shared this country for the last 14 centuries and there is no possible way that one can live without the other. Even partition is not a possibility, there are no clear borders between the two."
The reality to the Sunnis is that it is not 1991 anymore. The minority Sunnis do not have the militaty backing that they once enjoyed under Saddam which is what kept the Shia contained and under their thumb. Now it's up to the Shia's to show restraint and diplomacy since they are in the majority and must recognize a civil war is the last thing Iraqis need. The Sunnis also need to recognize this fact. Their much smaller population without Saddam's muscle does not put them in a very strong position to be in and dreaming of a civil war.
Hat tip to:
Chrenkoff
posted by HeavyHanded at
4:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home