Maliki's trip bears some fruit
Okay, I know I've been going on too much about Maliki's foreign trip as an effort to tamp down the Sunni insurgency through Saudi Arabia, but just a little more because we may have some confirmation.
Again, we hear a whole lot about the Iranians supporting the Shia, because they're "the enemy" right now, but we hear nothing about our "allies" in the war on terror fomenting the insurgency in Iraq.
So, if the Saudis or the UAE were/are supporting the Sunni insurgency, what does it mean that the Bush admin has kept this out of the rhetoric and headlines? Our soldiers are dying while fighting insurgents funded by "our allies," and the Bush administration, for broader political reasons, isn't doing everything they can to stop the support?
This is the shooting gallery where this administration has placed our soldiers. And, apparently, the Saudis have gotten to play for free.
Al-Adalah runs on the front page a 100-word Buratha news agency report citing Akram al-Hakim, state minister for national dialogue affairs, confirming that a Gulf state has stopped its financial aid to some Iraqi insurgent groups, urging them to invest Al-Maliki's National Reconciliation Initiative and enter into dialogue with the government. The minister declined to identify the state but observers said that it is either Saudi or UAE. . .
Again, we hear a whole lot about the Iranians supporting the Shia, because they're "the enemy" right now, but we hear nothing about our "allies" in the war on terror fomenting the insurgency in Iraq.
So, if the Saudis or the UAE were/are supporting the Sunni insurgency, what does it mean that the Bush admin has kept this out of the rhetoric and headlines? Our soldiers are dying while fighting insurgents funded by "our allies," and the Bush administration, for broader political reasons, isn't doing everything they can to stop the support?
This is the shooting gallery where this administration has placed our soldiers. And, apparently, the Saudis have gotten to play for free.
posted by mikevotes at
8:37 AM
2 Comments:
I think it's a bit premature to think that a visit by Maliki has borne any fruit for Sunnis. Sure the face they may put on it is to "stop their support", but that doesn't mean the money stops flowing.
The surrounding Sunni nations are scared to death of a strong Shiite coalition between Iraq and Iran. While a minority in Iraq, Sunni's are a majority in the Arab world and they look at Iran as a bunch of nutbars that have to be contained. And Iraq is the perfect place for that containment. Losing Iraq to Shiite control means a whole bunch to the Sunni virtual monopoly on oil, and the Arab political landscape.
Like it or not, this has become a regional conflict and will continue to play out for years. In most aspects, the regional politics for the U.S. are simply a much larger mirror of the local conflicts in Baghdad.
I personally see no way out for the U.S. other than to get out and become energy independent.
By
Greyhair, at 11:58 AM
You hit my big point. I agree with everything you wrote. I did quote the section saying that an agreement has been reached, but my main point was evidence of foreign support for the Sunni insurgency and the implications regional conflict.
That's why I've been talking about this so much lately, because these talks show a far greater degree of foreign Sunni involvement than has been presented in the media, and I think that's key to looking at any long term path in Iraq.
I do think that it is wise Saudi policy to do everything they can to prevent an Iranian takeover of Iraq. That's waht I would do.
But I'm not on the Saudi side. I'm on the side of the guys who are in the middle.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 1:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home