I was doing some meditations, pondering some stuff. Ironically enough, sitting on a very large and ornate silk rug given to me by some Kurds.
Photo, as I'm rather proud of that rug.
The US has treated the Kurds not very well until recently. Except for shortly after the first Iraqi War, we never really lied to them. Just led them along, and then never delivered on our promises/suggestions. Regardless, as the lack of news on Kurdish territory in Iraq speaks volumes. There is a lot of disagreement between different groups of Kurds, which is why they haven't carved out an actual Kurdistan. It's possible another Saladin will pop up to unite the tribes. It would behoove us to be on good terms with such a person if he pops up.
Again, from conversations with some Kurdish militants, they indeed want to keep a low profile and build up their strength. They know it's pointless to fight the Americans at this point, as the US Army is not currently at war with them. "Why cause a war if you don't need one" is pretty much the Kurdish thinking. As long as we don't do something really stupid, the Kurds will leave us alone.
Sayyid al-Sadr is another 'interesting' character in Iraq. He's sort of a Shiite cleric. The US and the UK wanted al-Khoei (since murdered) to be the prominent leader in the Shi'a community. The two didn't get along. al Sadr's main argument against al Khoei is over a Ba'athist in charge of Imam Ali Mosque, which is considered a very sacred Shi'a site. There is some dispute over who murdered al Khoei, CPA says al Sadr did it, al Khoei's followers think former Ba'athists are responsible. The CPA shut down al Sadr's newspaper (Al Hawza) for publishing "anti-American propaganda".
al Sadr has officially disbanded his militia and joined the political process in a truce last June. Couple months later, US forces attempted to arrest him (during a truce, mind you). His supporters holed up in Najaf until a cease fire was renegotated by the most powerful cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Prime Minister Iyad Allawi broke off negotations in order to try to militarily defeat al Sadr, who has been gaining popularity. Remember the giant push into Sahr City last October 2004? Essentially, it was Prime Minister Allawi pulling a power game, using US forces as his muscle.
al Sahr is probably the biggest 'legitimate' (ie, non-insurgent) threat to US control of Iraq. He wants Iraq to be a theocracy. He's not as widely respected or supported as Ayatollah al Sistani, but he's the most widely respected power not directly friendly to the US. Wiping him out would basically destroy the US's credibility that the US intends to turn Iraq into a democracy. To be fair, he has mostly disbanded his militia and publically asked his supporters to work within the system instead of attacking US forces.
The so-called "insurgents" are religious madmen. They have no real political platform and have no coherent objection to the current government other than the fact that it's supported by "infidels." Killing everyone who isn't Muslim is not a legitimate or even coherent political agenda. It's simply insanity, like the Khmer Rouge plan to return to the "year zero." They aren't mad because we ousted their leaders. They're mad because we belong to the wrong faith. Most Iraqis just want to get on with their lives. But there is a cadre of animals who want only more and more blood. These people cannot be reasoned with or talked down. They must simply be slaughtered like pigs.
Erm, I respectfully disagree. Kinda. There is no one group that makes up all the insurgents. Shiite militants like al Sadr make up one kind. Sunni former Ba'athists make up another. Relatively unorganized Iraqi's pissed at American forces for various reasons make up another. Foreign wahabbis make up another.
I assume you're describing the Wahabbis, which are the religious wackos. "Al Qaeda" (that is, bin Laden's branch of Wahabbism) is not likely operating in Iraq in large numbers. The Wahabbis are, however. They're killing a lot more Muslims than Americans, by the way. For every one American they've ever killed, they've killed at least ten Muslims.
If I may be blunt, Cosmoline, I think you're oversimplifying things. Yea, the Wahabbis 'foot soldiers' aren't likely to surrender and need to be killed roughly in the manner you described. However, blowing away their foot soldiers will only slow down their movement, not stop it. Common foot soldiers can be and are easily replaced. To make an analogy, it's like cutting limbs off a tree. Sure, it hurts the tree but doesn't kill it.
In order to strike the roots, one would have to destroy the popularity and any legitimacy of Wahabbism. To basically make people not want to subscribe to Wahabbism. How to accomplish this? Dealing with Saudi Arabia, which is the largest supporter of Wahabbism. Fostering resistance movements in Iran. (NOT invading. Invading Iran would be a bad move.) Countering Wahabbi religious indoctrination schools with more moderate schools. Going after their funding. Psychological warfare and propaganda. Basically, dozens of strategies to weaken their core and make them destroy themselves.
Just my opinion.
