It seems Iraq really is teetering on the cliff of oblivion. It appears as though yesterday they dodged another major bullet.
Minister of Interior Bayan Jabr announced that a plot had been foiled to place hundreds of Sunni Arab troops actually loyal to the insurgency in position at the Green Zone and then to have them rush embassy offices and take diplomatic hostages.
There have been rumors for weeks that the Sunni Arab guerrillas were preparing to “rise up” and take the capital. This was probably the plan to which the rumor mongers were referring.
Still believe Mr. Bush when he tells us that the Iraqi Army is “standing up” ready to protect Iraq? Well, it may be, just not in the fashion Mr. Bush may think.
And what have the American forces in Baghdad been doing to prevent this sort of “sectarian violence” (cause you know, it’s NOT a civil war…).
The column of cars was passing through the town of Hassuwa when the cracks of gunfire erupted: sniping between followers of one of Iraq’s most important Sunni clerics and the Shiite policemen who were escorting Bahjat’s funeral convoy.
Those first bullets drew more bullets, and soon the air was crackling.
Dogs yelped in fear. From the minarets of the town’s mosques, the town muezzins called for jihad. A convoy of U.S. military Humvees rolled by midway through the battle. The soldiers kept going, leaving the Iraqis to fight among themselves.
“Please call the interior minister and tell him that our convoy with Atwar Bahjat has been attacked,” Iraqi journalist Fatah Sheik barked into his cellphone, crouching close to the ground. “Can’t you hear the shooting? Please tell the minister.”
The violence was captured in excruciating detail by Al Arabiya cameramen.
What exactly is the purpose of the US Military in Iraq? Do they even know anymore? If they aren’t there to “make peace” then what? They’re obviously not “policing” anything, though they do seem to arrest a number of folks. What, or who are they protecting if they aren’t protecting the Iraqi people?
Apparently today we’re going to hear the United States reiterate it’s position that preemptive action is warranted when there is a “perceived” threat.
“If necessary, however, under long-standing principles of self-defence, we do not rule out use of force before attacks occur, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack,”
Why? Because Iraq is such a shining example of that being successful? Come on. Even the Bush administration must recognize their own folly. Or perhaps not.
Maybe the US *should* stay in Iraq indefinitely. At least that way their resources will be so tied up and their bank accounts so drained that they simply won’t be able to launch a pre-emptive attack on any other (likely neighbouring) country.