Centerblue.org

Twenty Shiite pilgrims were killed in Baghdad by Sunni militants on a day the US military described as one of “relatively little violence.” The latest killings come despite the imposition of curfews, more soldiers, and tighter security.

This shows either just how disconnected the military and government are from reality, or how numb they have become to the mounting casualties in the Iraqi civil war, or both. It also continues to delineate just how much these various groups in Iraq hate each other. Even the Parliament was not immune, as members of the Sunni minority in that body accused the majority Shiites of denouncing only the deaths of Shiite pilgrims and not Sunni deaths.

Will this cycle of violence ever end?

Harold Meyerson makes some good points in his recent column questioning what the US role is in a country devolving toward civil war. His points demonstrate the empty rhetoric inherent in the “stay the course” mantra.

First, our presence there is not stopping a civil war. It’s happening anyway. Bush’s claim that there is no civil war because people recently voted for a government is sheer nonsense. Look at the numbers of people dying, not at the spin.
Second, our presence in Iraq IS stopping us from doing anything else anywhere else. From Iran to North Korea to Lebanon and beyond, we are utterly helpless to do anything except beg and plead for the rest of the world to listen to our position, something it is in no mood to hear from us.

Third, it is not possible to articulate what role US soldiers would play in an intra-Islamic war. This is a war for reasons we understand little, and have no power to change. The only possible role for us would be to acknowledge the cruel reality that Iraq cannot be governed in a united democratic fashion, and to facilitate its split into its Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni parts with as little bloodshed as possible.

Having created this catastrophe it is incumbent on us to face reality now, and do what it takes to settle the crisis quickly and bring our soldiers home. This “stay the course” crap does nothing but delay resolution until after Bush leaves office, allowing him to blame his successor for whatever mess remains when the smoke clears.

A Lieberman loss to challenger Ned Lamont in this week’s Connecticut primary could be a watershed moment for Democrats that might embolden the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party. It’s about time.

Even presumed 2008 frontrunner Hillary Clinton is getting the message, as her continued “triangulation” to come up with the best message translated into a testy exchange with Donald Rumsfeld as he testified before Congress this week, along with her subsequent demand for his resignation.

It’s time for Democrats to insist about the truth for Iraq. The truth is that Iraq may devolve into civil war, and according to some measures may already be there. The truth is that we didn’t do our homework about Iraqi history and culture before invading and we are now paying the price. The truth is that it is time to bring the troops home, not because we want to cut and run but because we need to cut our losses short.

We went into Iraq with arrogant notions of imposing Jeffersonian democracy. The people of Iraq are not like the American pilgrims and colonists of two centuries ago, who may have had their differences but were united in their desire for freedom from British oppression and agreed on principles of non-sectarian democracy. The Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis of Iraq seem more interested in killing each other and preserving ethnic enclaves than they are in working together to implement foreign ideas about democracy. Islam itself is arguably incompatible with democracy as we understand it, for there is no separation of “church and state.” Islam is considered a way of life that cannot help but guide and inform government officials and decisionmaking. Our fundamental lack of understanding of another culture has led to the downfall of our enterprise in Iraq.

Republicans seem unwilling to tell the bitter truth about Iraq. If it takes a Lieberman loss to unite the Democrats, then so be it. It’s one thing to be bipartisan, it is quite another to facilitate the descent of our nation into a dunderheaded police state that invades first and asks questions later.

In a sad but unsurprising demonstration of just how little the US government administration prepared for a post-war Iraq, evidence is emerging that President Bush didn’t even know there were two sects in Islam until shortly before the invasion.

The allegation is made by Peter Galbraith, former ambassador to Croatia, in his new book, “The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End.”

Shortly before the invasion, Bush reportedly met with three Iraqi-Americans who tried to explain to him what Iraq might look like after Saddam Hussein was removed from power. During the conversation it became clear that Bush was apparently not grasping that there were two sects of Islam, Shiite and Sunni, with some drastic differences between them.

When they tried to explain the difference to him, Bush responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

It’s good to know we have an intellectual giant as the leader of the free world.