Betsy's Page

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Christopher Hitchens writes powerfully of how close Iraq is to falling into a Hobbesian state and that the United States presence there is what is necessary to preventing such a fate. He lays out very clearly why the fears today of a "civil war" are exactly the fears that Zarqawi has been aiming for.
In February 2004, our Kurdish comrades in northern Iraq intercepted a courier who was bearing a long message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru Osama bin Laden. The letter contained a deranged analysis of the motives of the coalition intervention ("to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates" and "accelerate the emergence of the Messiah"), but also a lethally ingenious scheme to combat it. After a lengthy and hate-filled diatribe against what he considers the vile heresy of Shiism, Zarqawi wrote of Iraq's largest confessional group that: "These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . . . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger."

Some of us wrote about this at the time, to warn of the sheer evil that was about to be unleashed. Knowing that their own position was a tenuous one (a fact fully admitted by Zarqawi in his report) the cadres of "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" understood that their main chance was the deliberate stoking of a civil war. And, now that this threat has become more imminent and menacing, it is somehow blamed on the Bush administration. "Civil war" has replaced "the insurgency" as the proof that the war is "unwinnable." But in plain truth, the "civil war" is and always was the chief tactic of the "insurgency."
This is why the war in Iraq is not a distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. If Zarqawi wins in Iraq, do you think that he would stop there? If he could gain control of that country, with its oil reserves, do you think that he would confine his terrorism to Iraq? Think of that and remember that he was there before we invaded Iraq.

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:21 AM

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Site Feed Wikio Your Market Research Here		Tuesday, March 21, 2006 Christopher Hitchens writes powerfully of how close Iraq is to falling into a Hobbesian state and that the United States presence there is what is necessary to preventing such a fate. He lays out very clearly why the fears today of a "civil war" are exactly the fears that Zarqawi has been aiming for. In February 2004, our Kurdish comrades in northern Iraq intercepted a courier who was bearing a long message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru Osama bin Laden. The letter contained a deranged analysis of the motives of the coalition intervention ("to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates" and "accelerate the emergence of the Messiah"), but also a lethally ingenious scheme to combat it. After a lengthy and hate-filled diatribe against what he considers the vile heresy of Shiism, Zarqawi wrote of Iraq's largest confessional group that: "These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . . . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger." Some of us wrote about this at the time, to warn of the sheer evil that was about to be unleashed. Knowing that their own position was a tenuous one (a fact fully admitted by Zarqawi in his report) the cadres of "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" understood that their main chance was the deliberate stoking of a civil war. And, now that this threat has become more imminent and menacing, it is somehow blamed on the Bush administration. "Civil war" has replaced "the insurgency" as the proof that the war is "unwinnable." But in plain truth, the "civil war" is and always was the chief tactic of the "insurgency." This is why the war in Iraq is not a distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. If Zarqawi wins in Iraq, do you think that he would stop there? If he could gain control of that country, with its oil reserves, do you think that he would confine his terrorism to Iraq? Think of that and remember that he was there before we invaded Iraq. posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 6:21 AM \|

Wikio

Tuesday, March 21, 2006