Who is Our Enemy in Iraq?

[LSK]

Who is the enemy? Who, exactly, are we fighting in Iraq? Why are we there? And what's our objective?

Nearly five years into the war, the answers to basic questions like these ought to be obvious. In the Alice in Wonderland-like wilderness of mirrors that is Iraq, though, they're anything but.

We aren't fighting the Sunnis. Not any more, anyway. Virtually the entire Sunni establishment, from the moderate Muslim Brotherhood-linked Iraqi Islamic Party (which has been part of every Iraqi government since 2003) to the Anbar tribal alliance (which has been begging for U.S. support since 2004 and only recently got it) is either actively cooperating with the American military or sullenly tolerating what it hopes will be a receding occupation. Across Sunni-dominated parts of Iraq, the United States is helping to build army and police units as well as neighborhood patrols—the Pentagon calls them "concerned citizens"—out of former resistance fighters, with the blessing of tribal leaders in Anbar, Diyala, and Salahuddin provinces, parts of Baghdad, and areas to the south of the capital. We have met the enemy, and—surprise!—they are friends or, if not that, at least not active enemies. Attacks on U.S. forces in Sunni-dominated areas, including the once-violent hot-bed city of Ramadi, Anbar's capital, have fallen dramatically.

snip

We aren't fighting the Shia. The Shia merchant class and elite, organized into the mostly pro-Iranian Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and the Islamic Dawa party, are part of the Iraqi government that the United States created and supports—and whose army and police are armed and trained by the United States. The far more popular forces of Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army aren't the enemy either. In late August, Sadr declared a ceasefire, ordering his militia to stand down; and, since then, attacks on U.S. forces in Shia-dominated areas of Iraq have fallen off very sharply, too. Though recent, provocative attacks by U.S. troops, in conjunction with Iraqi forces, on Sadr strongholds in Baghdad, Diwaniya, and Karbala have caused Sadr to threaten to cancel the ceasefire order, and though intra-Shia fighting is still occurring in many parts of southern Iraq, there is no Shia enemy that justifies a continued American presence in Iraq, either.

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/tomdispatch/2007/11/who-is-our-enemy-in-iraq.html

If we no longer have an enemy, can we leave now?

[shain from kane]

1. We are fighting anyone between us and the oil. Remember, why did God put our oil beneath your sand?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. I have my own doubts about how "good" things are over there

But if things really ARE going as well over there as all of the cock-eyed optimists seem to believe, why is there SO much controversy over withdrawing all (or most) of our troops there or even just setting a reasonable "timetable" for withdrawal? Unless................? :shrug: The one thing that has always infuriated/frustrated me the most about this "debate" is that Bush et. al keep sending "mixed messages" about how good/bad things are going in Iraq and essentially claiming that Iraq is either too bad to leave or too good to leave, usually alternatingly. Either way, Bush, even though he can now (or could have done anytime after the 2005 elections in Iraq) easily spin a withdrawal as a "victory" in Iraq and ceremoniously remove the bulk of our forces from Iraq, refuses to do so. One must reluctantly conclude (or at least I certainly have) that Bush is merely stringing all of us along in Iraq for some benefit (i.e. oil) for himself and/or his cronies and has no real desire to end our massive troop presence in Iraq anytime in the near future and has all but admitted it in his "enduring relationship" speech which has amazingly gone unchallenged by nearly everybody.