From the above article, a reference to Iraq (as usual, bold is my emphasis):
The war has spawned more terrorism, including an increased risk to Australia. It has produced a fundamentalist Islamic government in Iraq and helped ensure another one in Iran. And full-scale civil war in Iraq seems likely, according to a report by the independent International Crisis Group.
Getting a bit ahead of ourselves, Mike.
Of course, things are not looking great in Iraq, but then again one thing I have not noticed addressed is the simple question of whether there are enough arms available on the Sunni side for them to form an army as such. If they don't have them now, how are they going to get them? Are there enough Sunni's in the re-established Iraqi security forces to split off and take weaponry with them? Isn't the presence of the US and other forces going to help prevent that?
In all the talk (especially on the Left) of how bad it is that Iraq may now face a civil war, didn't the anti-war crowd think that the West should just allow Saddam's regime to collapse one way or another, quite possibly with what would amount to an all out civil war at that time? In that scenario, it would have been the case that the Sunnis would have been fully armed; Shites may needed to be supplied from outside.
Is there no one out there saying that, even if it is now a sort of civil war, the US presence may work to moderate its development? Isn't a slow burning type of conflict easier to put out than a full blown one?
I don't necessarily agree with Vodkapundit's take on a possible civil war, but it is interesting. (In short, an all out war may have its benefits in the long run anyway.)
Also from vodkapundits site, he has some photos from a pro-Danish protest in America. This one is particularly good:
Update: It would appear from this Slate summary that the New Republic argues along the lines I suggested (that US forces are now likely to moderate any civil war, and need to stay.)
No comments:
Post a Comment