Dec 13 2006

Civil War Will Break Out In The ME

Published by at 9:00 am under All General Discussions,Iraq

Saudi Arabia has made it clear that they will run to support the Iraqi Sunni’s if the USE tries to run from its responsibilities in Iraq, setting the stage for an Arab Persian war between Iran and the Shiites in Iraq and Sunni and their Arab allies.

Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, and pushed for Washington to encourage the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Bush administration officials said.

The Saudi warning reflects fears among America’s Sunni Arab allies about Iran’s rising influence in Iraq, coupled with Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. King Abdullah II of Jordan has also expressed concern about rising Shiite influence, and about the prospect that the Shiite-dominated government would use Iraqi troops against the Sunni population.

In essence, there is no Mullligans foreign policy and all those democrats and wishy-washy Republicans that voted back in 2002 to take out Saddam knew this was a vote for the long run. George Bush is not the problem because we have hit a rough spot that is testing our resolve and our will. This is the first test we have had during the entire Iraq effort.

But the John Kerry’s and his ilk who voted to support the President are the real problem, and the ones who have failed America. The situation in Iraq is a test of wills. Saudi Arabia and Jordan have said they know what they must do to counter Iran and its terrorist tentacles. And no one should be so naive not to appreciate Iran’s ties to Al Qaeda and similar groups. Not to mention their deep down jealousy that it was not they who were behind 9-11. I am sure they are working to see if they can help bring on the next 9-11 somewhere. Mad Ahmedinejad has been boasting of pending destruction for Israel and The West for some time.

And every US democratic leader who whined about how hard it was Iraq was boosting the will of Al Qaeda and its allies. We were intercepting communications between the Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq and top Al Qaeda circles near Bin Laden lamenting how bad the situation was for the insurgents. There was much hand wringing on the other side and talk of giving up on Iraq and trying to move to another battlefield.

But then the partisan opportunist rekindled the hope of our enemies as they campaigned on an unrealistic (and undefined) ‘new way’ in Iraq. Sadly Americans thought the Democrats actually had an idea hidden away in their. Even more disturbing is the Islamo Fascists believed they would run away. But we cannot run away. We must continue to push for success. If we leave the place will erupt and we will have to come back in with an even bigger problem, one spread across many naitons. So let’s stop fantasizing about what Iraq is all about. The Baker group was a paid PR attempt by Congress to avoid the problem by mandating we withdrawl before the 2008 election cycle begins. For that bit of cowardice the entire lot should be thrown out. Why they spent American tax dollars to try and sell a figleaf for them and a disaster for the world is just mind boggling. Whatever it was, it was not an easy answer. There are no easy answers. This will take what it takes. People who wish things would get over quicker so they can get back to their personal priorities are just learning a hard lesson of life. There are no short cuts, not free lunches, and lenty of really tough problems that can take generations to resolves. Not days or years – generations.

38 responses so far

38 Responses to “Civil War Will Break Out In The ME”

  1. kathie says:

    If there are more congressmen like Reyes (head of intelligence) who don’t know the difference between Sunni’s and Shea, Hezabulla, Hamas, Al Quada, and who supports each, then it is possible that they thinking that they can just pull out the troops and go home with out any consequences. They are trying to redirect policy and are completely ignorant. It is unbelievable. This was always going to be hard, costly, and take a lot of time. They voted for it, shame on them. You are not allowed to change your mind when you have committed the nation to such a project. I say stop whining and help, your whining is killing the best we have.

  2. MerlinOS2 says:

    It is a bit contrary that the Dems will use any and all tactics for an election win for power at all costs but want to withdraw from one of the key areas important of fight radical Islamic terrorism.

    Also the feckless UN seems to want to ban things like land mines but there is no similar effort to condemn suicide bomber tactics against civilian targets and IED’s

  3. HaroldHutchison says:

    Divide and conquer works.

  4. Retired Spook says:

    You are not allowed to change your mind when you have committed the nation to such a project.

    That’s the whole problem, Kathie; the Dems were permitted to do just exactly that at the end of the Vietnam War, and they still see every conflict through the prism of Vietnam. If the Dems succeed in bringing the troops home, even in a timely and orderly fashion, and then abandon the Iraqi government financially, the result will be quite different than Vietnam. Pulling financial support for the South Vietnamese government ONLY resulted in millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians and Loatians being slaughtered, perishing at sea in an attempt to escape or being thrust into “reeducation camps”. That scenario will seem like a stroll in the park compared to the whirlwind we will reap if we do the same thing in Iraq. Unfortunately, I’m not at all confident that saner minds will prevail. I suspect it will take another 9/11 or two or three before enough people wake up to the nature of the threat we face.

  5. For Enforcement says:

    I guess the terrorists are gonna be furious when the first major move after what they thought was our surrender in November will be to put in about 20,000 more troops. I think that will even surprise a lot of Democrats who also thought they were surrendering.
    Will the appeasers never learn?

  6. Dorf77 says:

    …Will the appeasers never learn?… Nope!!
    It’s something like the ‘Don’t Spank Your Child’ syndrome. Emotional Bovine Feces…..

  7. For Enforcement says:

    Excellent story on power line blog about the President standing alone. A should read by everyone that thinks Pres Bush is doing the right thing.

  8. The Macker says:

    And it’s not just Saudi Arabia that would react to chaos in Iraq. A chaotic iraq would give the Kurds a reason to disengage. Turkey would oppose this. The fear of a larger Kurdistan, including parts of present Turkey, is their worst fear.

    Bush correctly grasped that Iraq was the lynchpin in the ME. And all the second guessers are now stumbling over their own one dimensional theories.

  9. Retired Spook says:

    Excellent observation, Macker. I’ve been searching for a term to describe the naysayers, and “one dimensional” is perfect. It’s more than just a little ironic that, as the man who gets painted as “stupid” by his detractors, President Bush is one of the few at the highest levels of our government that really gets it.

    FE, great post at Powerline. Thanks for the link.

  10. Carol J says:

    What do you guys think of THIS:

    Senator Bill Nelson pulls a “Rockefeller” and goes to Assad in Syria and establishes contact in defiance of Bush and the State Department??? To be followed (according to him) by John Kerry, Chris Dodd, and Arlen Specter?

    Don’t we have LAWS against this? Has ANYBODY got the guts to enforce the FEW laws we have left?

    Un-freaking-believable!! Comments?


  11. The Macker says:

    The Logan Act prohibits “unauthorized” conduct of foreign policy. Another dormant law on the books.

    Typical of the Dems, they are sending out mixed messages and making Bush’s job more complicated. Unity is not one of their ideals.

  12. For Enforcement says:

    Carol yes it is against the law. Anyone negotiating with a foreign power without the approval of the Pres, is in violation of the law. They can be prosecuted. No one ever does. Yes it’s unbelievable, but true.
    The constitution gives the Pres the sole power to conduct foreign policy. It is not given to the Congress or Judicial.

  13. A Few Notes FromOur Soldiers to the American…

    The soldiers also have messages for the American Public, words I don’t see splashed all over the media outlets, because what they say is somehow passed right over and ignored by some. What follows are not my words, it is theirs……

  14. Bikerken says:

    Senator Bill Nelson pulls a “Rockefeller” and goes to Assad in Syria and establishes contact in defiance of Bush and the State Department???

    This is a great example of the absolute arrogance of the excrematic party. They only see themselves as ever having any power. The congress has nothing in their job description about negotiating with foreign leaders. That job belongs to the president and the state department. Yes it is illegal and almost never proscuted. Remember John Kerry did this during the Vietnam war. He went to Paris while still an officer in the Navy, to visit with North Korean leaders. I think there is possibly a direct link to this event and why his honorable discharge was the result of an amnesty order by Jemma Carter, but I digress.

    These morons have to be taught that when they strike out on their own, they make it look like the countrys government is falling apart. Who is going to seriously negotiate with that. In the eyes of Assad, they appear as traitors to their own government. While I’m sure that amuses him, he is only likely to use these “useful idiots” to stir up the pot.

  15. For Enforcement says:

    Before someone else points it out. Yes there is controversy over whether or not the Constitution provides for the President to be solely responsible for foreign policy and it has been argued many times, but so far that question has not been carried to the Supreme Court and until it is, it will remain the way that it is. And the way it is, is that the Pres has that power. And treaties do have to be approved by the Senate.

  16. Bikerken says:

    For Enforcement, you are correct that the Senate has to approve treaties. It is also correct that this issue has been argued before in the same way that the congress has always tried to take war powers away from the president. But it has never been the congresses job to represent the United States in negotiations unless the president specically appoints one or more of them to do so or approves a request of a senator to act as an envoy. What these senatores are doing is trying to go over the head of the current president and cut him out of the negotiating process. They are essentially acting as their own state department. It is only the president who uses his state department as a go between that can lawfully negotiate and settle terms of a treaty. The congress however has every right and obligation to advise the president on these matters, but their input is supposed to go to the president, not around him.

  17. Ken says:

    STRATA..”In essence, there is no Mullligans foreign policy and all those democrats and wishy-washy Republicans that voted back in 2002 to take out Saddam knew this was a** vote for the long run.*** George Bush is not the problem because we have hit a rough spot that is testing our resolve and our will. This is the first test we have had during the entire Iraq effort. ”

    Oh, yeah, AJ? Not really-not when Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz
    were telling them Iraq would be pacified with a stabel government
    by years end 2003. And “rough spot?” Yeah, like a three and a half year “rough spot.”
    Oh and Iran is behind al Qaeda but not Saudi Arabia? You got it kind of backwards, AJ but so does the entire spy class and foreign policy sphere of the “ruling class” which failed the basic test on Middle East
    culture and poltics jsut given in the past few days.
    America is an uneducated, unlettered and largely uncultured
    country which has NOTHING to offer the Middle East but continued
    corruption, decadence and Israeli domination. OUT NOW!

  18. Ken says:

    America—the nation of meddling dilletantes.

  19. For Enforcement says:

    America—the nation of meddling dilletantes.
    Ah yes, literally dozens of countries thank America for meddling in WWII.
    Many countries thank America for meddling in the Cold War
    Many countries thank America for meddling in the Balkans

    But most of all, when it’s all over, many many more countries will thank America for meddling in the ME.

    Quoting the French guy above”America is an uneducated, unlettered and largely uncultured country”

    Does anyone need any more proof that he is not an American?
    I’m making him as a Muslim living in France.

  20. Carol J says:

    For your further reading enjoyment:

    It would seem like Mr. Nelson has been “auditioning” for this job for awhile. Check this out:

    Re: US Senator Nelson & Syria

    To: ALL

    From: Andi Wolos & Bob Necci

    (POW-MIA InterNetwork)

    Date: April 05, 2002


    JACKSONVILLE — Sen. Bill Nelson asked Syrian President Bashar Assad on Thursday to discuss with Iraq the case of a missing American pilot during the senator’s trip to the Middle East.


    Nelson said the senators thanked Assad for his war against terrorism and al-Qaida, but that there was disagreement between the senators and Assad over Syria’s support of Hezbollah, which is involved in the Palestinians’ battles against Israel.

    “Hezbollah … is a terrorist organization,” Nelson said. “We told him the American people believe Syria has sided with extremist elements.”


    WOW…2002? I also found out that Nelson met with Assad in January of 2004. There’s a pattern here. No?