We need to go back to the drawing board and do some real analysis to attempt to understand what is actually going on now in Iraq.
First, what is the number one source of deadly violence in Iraq? The Occupation and its proxies (paid mercenaries and largely secular, collaborationist Kurds and Shia, with some Sunni, with the collaborators largely comprising the 'security forces' and militias, such as the Badr Brigades and the Wolf Brigades).
Second, how did Iraq become such an armed camp, even after the USuk forces dismantled the Baathist regime? Because for over a decade the US and Iran sponsored many different militias to take on the Saddam regime in the 'covert' phase of the war against Baathist Iraq. The most prominent ones would have to be the pro-US factions of Kurds and the Badr Brigades, which basically are the violent arm of the secular and 'moderate' Shia.
Third, what is the most likely source of violence against the Shia majority in Iraq? Start with the idea that there is no one Shia majority in Iraq. The most likely source is Shia on Shia violence. It's religious vs. secular Shia, but it's also religious vs. religious Shia, and secular vs. secular Shia.
Fourth, we've talked around the topic for 2 years now, but just what is the 'nature' of the 'insurgency'. It is something that doesn't inspire the left in the west because they don't like to face that it's religionists doing the real opposing and fighting to the US's military occupation of Iraq. But let's face it this insurgency is a coming together of radical and conservative religious Sunni and Shia (with some religious Kurds mostly fighting the pro-US Kurds in power). Would these factions want to start a civil war amongst themselves? It seems unlikely. One reason is that they operate much more locally than black ops of the collaborationist government, so they can't move around so freely and are limited more to anti-government and anti-Occupation operations in their own areas. But let's suppose that Sunni in Fallujah did somehow find a way to operate in Shia Kerbala. Why would they attack the armed Shia who are also attacking the US military?
Conclusion: don't be mislead by CentCom and US propaganda. The insurgency is against the Occupation and it is violent. But that doesn't mean that the insurgency is the main source for most of the violence taking place in Iraq right now. For that, you have to look at the sponsors of the overthrow of Saddam and Baathist Iraq. If they can't rule the Iraq they want to rule, they will destroy it and pick over the pieces. And there are elements to the whole story that are, indeed, very hard to understand. For example, Iran is right now undergoing a multi-factional power struggle, some of it backed by the US and by the oil-exporting Arab countries--oh, and Israel. Just as there is no one Shia majority, there is no one Iranian position on Iraq. However, the key to a defeat of the occupiers and a re-unification of a civil Iraq rests with religious Sunni conservatives (with some moderate nationalists in the mix) forming an indestructible bond with religious Shia radicals and conservatives (with some moderate nationalists thrown in the mix).
The U.S. (and it's out-and--out ally in the ME, Israel) will do everything to defeat such an Arab, Iraqi religious and nationalist unity because it would mean the complete--and most likely violent--end to their plans to occupy Iraq permanently in order to make the projection of military power in the ME more affordable while at the same time using the restructured Iraq (more or less a confederacy, like a Middle Eastern version of Yugoslavia, with a Kurdistan to the north) as a base to export 'democracy' and 'American capitalism' to Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and the Islamic countries of the former S.U. (with Afghanistan being the S. Asian base at the other end). Which ought to tell you who really has a vision for a 'caliphate' in mind.
F
-- _______________________________________________ NEW! Lycos Dating Search. The only place to search multiple dating sites at once. http://datingsearch.lycos.com