"IF THE U.S. leaves Iraq, the violent sectarianism between the Sunni and Shia will worsen"

[Orwellian_Ghost]

The myth of sectarianism

The policy is divide to rule

By DAHR JAMAIL

IF THE U.S. leaves Iraq, the violent sectarianism between the Sunni and Shia will worsen. This is what Republicans and Democrats alike will have us believe. This key piece of rhetoric is used to justify the continuance of the occupation of Iraq.

This propaganda, like others of its ilk, gains ground, substance, and reality due largely to the ignorance of those ingesting it. The snow job by the corporate media on the issue of sectarianism in Iraq has ensured that the public buys into the line that the Sunni and Shia will dice one another up into little pieces if the occupation ends.

It may be worthwhile to consider that prior to the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq there had never been open warfare between the two groups and certainly not a civil war. In terms of organization and convention, Iraqis are a tribal society and some of the largest tribes in the country comprise Sunni and Shia. Intermarriages between the two sects are not uncommon either.

Soon after arriving in Iraq in November 2003, I learned that it was considered rude and socially graceless to enquire after an individual’s sect. If in ignorance or under compulsion I did pose the question the most common answer I would receive was, “I am Muslim, and I am Iraqi.” On occasion there were more telling responses like the one I received from an older woman, “My mother is a Shia and my father a Sunni, so can you tell which half of me is which?” The accompanying smile said it all.

...

http://dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/newscommentary/000716.php

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. If the US leaves Vietnam... yes, we have seen this movie before

[TomClash]

2. Oil Reserves nt

[gateley]

3. BIDEN EXIT PLAN! Jesus - could we at least TRY it? nt

[BridgeTheGap]

4. "It may be worthwhile to consider that prior to the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq

there had never been open warfare between the two groups and certainly not a civil war."
It was the Shiite who rose up against Saddam after the first Gulf war (at G.H.W. Bush's prompting and promise of support). Technically not a sectarian action but decidedly Shiite on one side - Suni on the other.

This whole argument (they'll kill each other if we leave) plays right into the neo-cons plans of permanent bases. Given this argument, how do you know when it's time to leave? How long was Tito in power in Yugoslavia, only to see that nation devolve into sectarian violence once he left power?

THEY HAVE TO RESOLVE IT - maybe with U.N. help or some pan-arab force - but we have little or no credibility there, as, in their eyes, this is the neo-con plan playing itself out.

[Ytzak]

5. Granting, for a moment, that the premise is true...

It is not an argument to stay. The Iraqi's have the right to determine their own government. If they vote with ballots, that is great. If they vote with bullets, they won't be the first.

It is not within our national interest to continue sacrificing American lives. It is not possible to create Democracy by conquest. Even in the best outcome, a democracy defined by Iraqis is not going to look or act exactly like ours. Democracy as practiced in Japan and Germany are not like ours.

We should leave, but this nation should recognize that we have an obligation to pay reparations to the Iraqi people for destroying their country. Our leadership that instigated and approved a war of aggression should be tried in the international courts, both the Republicans and Democrats.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

6. Yes

massive reparations and a tribunal are in order.