Sunni Resistance Consolidating?

[Michael Tee]

from the Guardian, July 19

Gotta see the whole article, but here are two paragraphs

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2129675,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

<<Leaders of the three groups, who did not use their real names in the interview, said the new front, which brings together the main Sunni-based armed organisations except al-Qaida and the Ba'athists, had agreed the main planks of a joint political programme, including a commitment to free Iraq from foreign troops, rejection of cooperation with parties involved in political institutions set up under the occupation and a declaration that decisions and agreements made by the US occupation and Iraqi government are null and void.>>

Guess that's the end of any sweetheart oil deals the Bush-Cheney morons thought they'd get out of this in the end.  Beautiful.

<<All three Sunni-based resistance leaders say they are acutely aware of the threat posed by sectarian division to the future of Iraq and emphasised the importance of working with Shia groups - but rejected any link with the Shia militia and parties because of their participation in the political institutions set up by the Americans and their role in sectarian killings.>>

Also a heathy sign, but how are you going to work with the Shi'ites without involving their present political parties?  These are popular-based Shi'ite organizations with instantly-recognizable leaders and a lot of street cred.  New parties could form, but a lot of the party organizations are centred around people, not principles.  Those people around whom the parties are organized won't just fade into thin air and whatever "new" parties form around them will be indistinguishable from their old parties.

This could be a big problem.  I'll go further - - this will  be a big problem and there's no way around it.  Either the consolidated Sunni resistance (minus al Qaeda, who are just a bunch of nuts anyway) and with or without the Ba'athists, who could still come in, will have to hold their noses and deal with existing Shi'ite organizations, or it's a kind of civil war which IMHO the Sunni, even though a minority numerically, will come out on top.  I'm assuming they can keep the Kurds neutral in a two-way fight.

L

[BT]

So you are advocating that the sunni's regain power at the point of a gun, even theough the shiites are the majority?

Something you need to realize, Mikey. This war is not about Bush.

[Michael Tee]

As I explained in the "Seven Oaths" thread, BT, I use "Bush" as a convenient shorthand sometimes for what others call the Secret Government, the Power Elite, Amerika, or the Military-Industrial Complex.  None of the terms are exact, but it should be obvious by now that America is only a rough, massively imperfect and evolving form of democracy, in which the people's interests are often overridden by powerful monied interests, and it's often convenient shorthand to use "Bush & Cheney" or similar words to stand-in for the real motivating forces behind such phenomena as the war on Iraq.

In this case, if it's not about Bush the man, it is definitely about Amerika the imperialist power.  The Sunni secularist powers previously represented by the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party are the best qualified force, IMHO, to drive Amerika out of Iraq and that they are all coming together, is a positive and encouraging sign.  They have never intended in the past to give away their country's vast oil wealth to Amerika and that won't change.  Thus the primary objective for which Bush & Cheney launched this criminal attack will be defeated.  I regard this as a healthy development, not so much for the Iraqis, who don't count for much in the advancement of the human race, but for America itself, as it discredits the racist, fascist and militarist forces which drive the Republican Party today and necessarily advances the cause of leftists and progressives for a better America.

It would be beautiful if the Sunni Resistance could drive out Amerika, replace the present puppet government with something like the Swiss Confederation and turn Iraq into a little model Switzerland in the heart of the Middle East.  You know and I know that ain't gonna happen.  Unfortunately, the Shi'a majority consists of many ignorant, faction-ridden, primitive and largely underdeveloped people (with many exceptions, of course, and through no fault of their own, but there it is.)  They are prey to religious leaders, some of them aligned closely with the head-cases who are now running Iran.  While I support Iran against Amerika as the lesser of two evils, I don't think that the Iranian model is the way to go for the Middle East generally, and if a better model can be found, it should be supported.  I supported in principle the Ba'ath Arab Socialist Party (but not the torture-states of Iraq and Syria that the Party had degenerated into) and I think the Sunni Resistance (minus al Qaeda and with or without Ba'ath) is probably best qualified to rule an independent Iraq.  Democracy would be better, but democracy there at this time is just a pipe-dream.  As I have said so many times, you gotta live in the real world.

[The_Professor]

"While I support Iran against Amerika as the lesser of two evils"

Interesitng, coming form a citizen of Canada, one of our most trusted allies. I doubt the Canadian government shares your position and I believe, upon more thought, you really do not either. Living under a government governed by Iranian principles would be much more devastating than an American one. To think otherwise, is foolishness. Just ask the two Americans recently imprisoned by Iran for speaking out for democracy in Iran.