Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Plans Of Insanity- Give Our Enemies Guns

This week’s post was going to be about Scooter Libby and weather he got more, less, or what he deserved. The implications of what the issue means outside of the man himself was on deck. The Idea of this blog is to discuss the deeper meaning of the Issues. If you want the news there are 20 different version on the television. Likewise there are thousands of opinion driven commentary blogs that will suit your needs. I usually like news to age for a week or so to really let a story to work out the detail. This Morning however, I couldn’t believe my ears. One of the top news stories on all of the stations was that the US officials were talking with Sunni insurgents to help them fight al-Qaeda.



What?!! The details of the plan include supplying them with weapons, ammo, and other supplies. They are to promise that they would not use the weapons against the US. Of course they are using their intelligence to determined which insurgents haven’t been killing Americans. We know how well the US intelligence record is. They couldn’t find a gun for all the smoke. The Iraqi government is opposed to this action.


All right, let’s see if I got this right. First, the Bush administration couldn’t wait for the UN inspectors to find evidence of WMD and had to invade Iraq. The goal was to remove the Sunni dominated government and stop the weapons program. When no weapons were found they bolstered that Saddam was "a bad man." He had used chemical weapons against Kurdish and Shiite tribes that had tried to kill him. Now when they say, "He", what they mean is his Sunni militia forces. The US blows into town destroying the entire infrastructure and security required in order to run a modern city. They basically set up an environment that holds down the Sunnis. The Shiite brimming with decades of repression and destitution found leaders that would rise up in the power void. The Shiite leaders offered the people the things that the US did not. Security, resources, direction, and a chance to get revenge were all theirs for the taking. Next the news reading public in the gained a realization that the US is now in a power struggle with the likes of people such as Moqtada al-Sadr, and other powerful Shiite clerics. Everyday the streets were filled with Sunni bodies, and then Shiite bodies in retaliation. Both of them hate "the occupiers". Understaffed and under educated about the ways of the region, the US was too busy trying to referee the onslaught of the civil war. This has left, to this point, the borders wide open with countries who would love to see the US fail. That allows adding to the mix the influx of al-Qaeda. I think that sums up the events so far.


Now the US wants to arm the Sunnis they removed from office. Their plan is to trust that they will not kill their sworn enemies, the US soldiers, or government officials. They are expecting that the Sunni insurgency will turn their aggression on al-Qaeda, which is mostly made up of a radical sect of Sunni Arabs from Saudi Arabia. I don’t get it! Wouldn’t it have just been easier to leave the Sunnis in charge of Iraq under the direction of the compliant Saddam Hussein? They were doing a great job of keeping al-Qaeda out before the US invaded according to the CIA. Why would we have "created a central front" only to hand it over to them?


In this country if you supply a service with a level of incompetence that leads to the death or injury of a customer, you can be held liable for criminal charges. This includes services that are render with bad or misleading intelligence. Ask the executives of ENRON. It is called negligence. The US government is paid to protect each and every one of its citizens. It is also paid to wisely invest our money. It is not allowed to use the resources for the individuals in charge for their own personal gain. How is there not enough evidence to prove much of this against the administration? Certainly we can offer immunity to many of the senators who dropped the ball on their job and "didn’t read the intelligence reports." Start with Mrs. "I want to run a country when I can’t even run a family" Clinton. In exchange they will testify against key perpetrators.



If somebody has any Idea how this is a good idea please post an explanation comment here.

1 comment:

James said...

When will foreign policy makers in the US learn that arming the enemy of my enemy never works and always comes back to bite us in the ass?

Remember we armed Saddam during the Iraq-Iran war. AS well as Osama during the Afghan-Soviet war and on and on.

Now we are arming the anti-al-Qaeda Sunni. Who do we think they would then attack should they finish off al-Qaeda in Iraq?? The US of course!!

You are so right on Saddam. We had him boxed in with the northern and southern no fly zones and knew pretty much when he farted. If we really wanted to know if he had WMD and truly wanted to solve the tension in a peaceful manner--then they would have left the inspectors there for as long as it was necessary to determine one way or another. Even if that meant years.

Then there is the argument that we had to get him of him because he was a "bad man" or dictator as you indicated. Which is an argument that falls apart quicker then a wet paper bag when one knows even just a bit of geo-political issues.

There are many, many dictators through out the world--most of Africa, parts of South America and Asia are run by dictators. So if that is really the reason they wanted to go into Iraq then we have a tall order if we went in just to knock of Saddam.

Because we now owe it to every other populace throughout the world to bump off their dictator too!!

Great post.

Counter text

New counter