Middle East
Posted: Sat Dec 16, 2006 10:48 pm
Please don't get on to the Bush-bashing train here, that is not my intent. The intent of this thread is not to comment on, merely state the facts of the current situation, but rather to speculate on what will happen after the new Iraqi government is established.
Before the United States intervened with the oppressive Iraqi regime headed by Hussein, Iraq formed a sort of buffer zone between the Shi'a and and Sunni Muslims. Iran is primarily Shi'a, as seen here. Also shown on that map is the distribution of Sunni Muslims, who are predominant in the majority of the world. Iraq was caught in the middle of Shi'a Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, two very potent and, quite possibly, nuclear powers. Saddam's regime, the Ba'ath party, supported neither the Sunni or the Shi'a, and they appeared to coexist under his regime.
This, however, changed when on 9 April 2003, US-led military forces forcibly removed Saddam from power. Extremists from both the Sunni and Shi'a sects immediately undertook action to fill the vacuum and attempt to gain power so that they could sway the new regime in their favor.
Until now, the violence has largely been contained within Iraq's borders, however, this could very well change. After reading General Tommy Frank's autobiography, I noted a few key points he mentions. One was that if the new Iraqi government is secular and supports neither the Sunni or the Shi'a, the violence could remain within Iraq, or most likely dissipate over the next decade. However, it is likely that should the new government support the Shi'a or Sunni sects, the disenfranchised sect's supporters; Iran in the case of the Shi'a, Saudi Arabia in the case of the Sunni, could feel threatened by having their historical enemy so close and start a war to secure the neighboring areas.
It is my belief that though Saddam was oppressive and did commit crimes against humanity, and as such deserved to be punished, it is not worth the potential cost of losing the stability in Asia Minor. I was speaking with my history teacher, who flew as a navigator in the F-15E during Desert Storm, and he made the comparison, "Iraq is like Humpty Dumpty, once it falls, no matter how hard you try you will never be able to put it back together again," and the went on to say that by removing Saddam, we may have removed the cornerstone from Humpty Dumpty's wall.
What do you think about the matter. Sorry the post is so long, but I didn't see any way to make it shorter and still give a decent explanation.
Before the United States intervened with the oppressive Iraqi regime headed by Hussein, Iraq formed a sort of buffer zone between the Shi'a and and Sunni Muslims. Iran is primarily Shi'a, as seen here. Also shown on that map is the distribution of Sunni Muslims, who are predominant in the majority of the world. Iraq was caught in the middle of Shi'a Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, two very potent and, quite possibly, nuclear powers. Saddam's regime, the Ba'ath party, supported neither the Sunni or the Shi'a, and they appeared to coexist under his regime.
This, however, changed when on 9 April 2003, US-led military forces forcibly removed Saddam from power. Extremists from both the Sunni and Shi'a sects immediately undertook action to fill the vacuum and attempt to gain power so that they could sway the new regime in their favor.
Until now, the violence has largely been contained within Iraq's borders, however, this could very well change. After reading General Tommy Frank's autobiography, I noted a few key points he mentions. One was that if the new Iraqi government is secular and supports neither the Sunni or the Shi'a, the violence could remain within Iraq, or most likely dissipate over the next decade. However, it is likely that should the new government support the Shi'a or Sunni sects, the disenfranchised sect's supporters; Iran in the case of the Shi'a, Saudi Arabia in the case of the Sunni, could feel threatened by having their historical enemy so close and start a war to secure the neighboring areas.
It is my belief that though Saddam was oppressive and did commit crimes against humanity, and as such deserved to be punished, it is not worth the potential cost of losing the stability in Asia Minor. I was speaking with my history teacher, who flew as a navigator in the F-15E during Desert Storm, and he made the comparison, "Iraq is like Humpty Dumpty, once it falls, no matter how hard you try you will never be able to put it back together again," and the went on to say that by removing Saddam, we may have removed the cornerstone from Humpty Dumpty's wall.
What do you think about the matter. Sorry the post is so long, but I didn't see any way to make it shorter and still give a decent explanation.