From Al-Jazeera, aka. the Sunni News Network:
Abdul Rahman al-Barak, one of the top clerics in Saudi Arabia and considered close to the Kingdom's royal family, also urged Sunnis worldwide to oppose reconciliation with Shiites.
"By and large, rejectionists (Shiites) are the most evil sect of the nation and they have all the ingredients of the infidels," Abdul Rahman wrote in a fatwa, or religious edict, that was posted on his web site Friday. "The general ruling is that they are infidels, apostates and hypocrites," he wrote....
Earlier this month, Nawaf Obeid, an adviser to the Saudi embassy in Washington, spoke of "massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shiite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis" if the United States withdraws from the country. Saudi citizens are also reportedly raising funds for Sunni insurgents in Iraq. Earlier this month, about 30 prominent Saudi clerics called on Sunni Muslims around the Middle East to support their brethren in Iraq against Shiites and praised the anti-American insurgency.
As I've pointed out before, Saudi involvement in Iraq is hardly new - and has implications for both Bush's proposed surge and Iraq strategy generally. This development should also be understood in light of the growing Saudi-Iranian proxy war that stretches from Beirut to Baghdad across the Middle East. Based on recent Saudi weapons purchases and anticipated near-term purchases, they don't see that feature of Mideast life going away any time soon.
I said this on the last thread - BOTH Iran and Saudi Arabia are supplying money, coordinating logistically, and problably supplying arms - to their respective "allies" in Iraq. If you count the Sunni insurgants who "ally" with Saudi Arabia, and the Shiites who "ally" with Iran as "enemies", well, you very quickly are up to 70% of the population are actively or passively "allied" with Iran or Saudi Arabia. (And Kurds as well, despite the debt to the U.S., want ACTUAL sovereignty, as can be seen with "the strong Kurdish condemnation of the snatch and grab of Iranian diplomats in Irbil
So I'll ask again - you seem to be saying "get tough" with the enemies. Who are the enemies, when the government we are supporting is playing a double game? And if we support democracy, a goverment like THIS is about the best that can be done?
Can you get specific about who the enemies are - with DEEP specificity?
1. All Sunni insurgents? This would be "picking sides", and would mean heavy investment from Saudi Arabia to help "sunni brothers". Also, strengthen the hands of Iran and Iraqi Iran sympathizers. Are you separating Al-Queda infiltrators FROM the homegrown sunni insurgents? Who in one sense, run a lot of towns, govern themselves, and clandestinely give help to those who attack government and U.S. forces directly. You basically are talking about flattening Sunni Iraq.
2. Shiite militias? While there are two main competing groups, both are friendly with Iran, with great praise for Kohmeini. If you attack these groups, there is no longer a working government. Whither democracy and freedom then?
3. Iran? I think you are saying attack Iran, but I invite you to make it clear.
4. Saudi Arabia itself? If you go over number 1 - sunni insurgents, then suddenly Saudi Arabia is ACTIVELY funding "the enemy", as defined.
5. Syria? They are there own interest, of course. But there certainly is some coordination.
6. And what about the big daddy - Pakistan and the ISI - which fund a lot of the Islamic extremism that I personally, want to see eradicated? War with them too?
Define the enemy, who "should" get treatment you espouse when you say (previous thread) "Iraq will be a graveyard for our Islamist enemies".
Well, Saddam wasn't an Islamist, and he got the graveyard. Same with Synria, in terms of being "islamist". Do you REALLY conflate all the players into the "catch-all" term, "Islamist enemies?".
If so, why?
Nuts. The spam filter doesn't like a comment with successive links. Let's try this again.
"Mine Sweeping" explosions off of the southwestern Iranian coast today.
Iranian consulate in Arbil (Kurdistan) searched and 5 Iranians taken into custody today.
My guess is that there are a lot of behind-the-scenes actions against Iran and its agents which Bush's speech gives rationale / warning / cover for. If so, it's about damned time.
I should add that I suspect one of the factors that convinced Bush to surge was the capture of high-level Iranian diplomats last month, engaged in an insurgency planning session inside Iraq.
My own answer to Hypcrosy (though I was not asked) is that you have done a fine job of identifying the enemy:
MUSLIMS.
Muslims are the enemy. In Saudi or Iran or Syria or Pakistan.
They are the enemy because they cannot survive in the modern world and so must destroy it before it destroys them.
So yes: we should attack Iran (seizing their "diplomats" well payback is ...).
Attack Iran by sinking their navy, blowing their air force out of the sky, hitting all their oil facilities, nuke facilities and going after their troop concentrations the way we did Saddam's in Gulf War 1.
WRT Pakistan? Strike at their nukes pre-emptively, and give them the Iran/Saddam treatment, at a later time.
WRT Saudi? Fund insurgencies against them (separatist movements in the Hijaz and East). Unfortunately they have the most cheap oil at the moment so their reckoning will have to come.
This is called taking on your enemies one at a time. But you are quite correct in diagnosing that they are all the enemy and need to be dealt with.
Saddam? Yes of course he was both an enemy (he was both a Muslim and an Arab) and an Islamist in his latter days, playing footsie with bin Laden and others.
The biggest mistake is to think that "stability" or status quo favors the US. Manifestly (9/11, 444 Day Embassy hostage crisis, Khobar Towers, 1993 WTC bombing, Beirut Bombings, Bojinka Plots, Anthrax attacks and others too numerous to mention).
ONLY by increasing chaos can America find safety. Status quo = 9/11s on an ever increasing scale.
No we don't need Duncan Black's recipe (and he didn't mean it, he really would rather WE get nuked). We don't need Colin Powell's Pottery Barn rules either.
More like constant and ever-present payback. Any Embassy take-over gets matched IMMEDIATELY by one we stage. Matched by INCREASING chaos and risk and instability for our enemies. Who faced with lots of risk will react by becoming conservative and less risk taking wrt ourselves.
At a minimum, a war between Saudi and Iran would be an excellent thing to encourage. The Iran-Iraq War bought us nearly 20 years of peace.
Take a page from Israel. Once they withdrew from Gaza, Hamas and Fatah couldn't restrain themselves from tearing each other apart. Over the money Europe shovels in.
hypocrisyrules,
Your first paragraph was something I flat-out said days ago, in this post, and neither was the first time.
As for the rest, you can simply read my response in the previous discussion thread you cite, which is the best place to take the points you have re-raised. They also respond to Jim Rockford's comment.
I will add that yes, I do believe Iran should be attacked. See Getting Serious About Iran: A Military Option for some useful thoughts along those lines. But there are caveats to such a plan in the requirement for follow-on options, and I have also said, again for a very long time, that I do not believe Iran will be attacked - with consequences that count to 10-100 million within 15-20 years.
I could be wrong about Iran not being attacked directly by the US. That would be nice. I could also be wrong and an integrated plan could remove the second half of my hypothesis. That would be nicer still. Not holding my breath.
The Saudis don't seem all that interested in attacking Iran directly - though proxy wars have a way of going hot - but they certainly seem to be gearing up for a long indirect war.
Do you really see Syria as "Islamists"? Again, too much conflation for all enemies.
Re: Sadr - Maliki IS Sadr. Again, why do you THINK Sadr's goons executed Saddam? (Also, there is a perfect example of your bad conflating - Sadr and the Baathists are at each others' throats, and yet you still conflate them both as "Islamists".) And he is the democratically elected guy. What sense does it make to take down the government we helped get elected??
Jim Rockford is more honest - he says "Muslims".
Of course, that's insane - what is that, 1 billion people? Indonesia, Pakistan, etc? You are looking at a war on a massive scale.
But at least Rockford comes right out and says he wants to be at war with 1 billion people. rockford, I guess you believe in a draft then, right?
hypocrisyrules - why don't you try to answer your own questions?
If we wanted to fight an effective war against terroirsm, who would we define as the 'enemy'? - Saudis, Iran's millioniare Mullahs, Pakistan and the ISI, James Baker, Jimmy Carter, Halliburton?
What are the enemy's strengths and what are the enemy's weaknesses? What are our strengths and weaknesses? What would be the most efficient way to eliminate groups like the ISI - military action, covert operations, diplomacy?