Ah, finally someone asks the question that's been on my mind.
In today's NYT article, REPUBLICAN Senator John W. Warner said:
"...he was becoming increasingly skeptical that a troop increase was in the best interest of the United States. "I’m particularly concerned about the greater injection of our troops into the middle of sectarian violence. Whom do you shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia?" Mr. Warner said. "Our American G.I.’s should not be subjected to that type of risk."
A little more over the fold.
Troop "surge" or not, it's time to hold the Preznit's feet to the fire as to WHOM we are helping and WHOM we are shooting at! The debate about adding troops has (rightfully) overtaken the question of what they are supposed to do once they get there, but we need to start asking it everytime troop leves are even mentioned.
It's a civil war. Who are we siding with? The Saudi backed Sunni, or the Iranian backed Shia? If any progress is going to be made, then we need to force the Prreznit to publically CHOOSE. The Maliki government will never exist until the civil war ends.
Personally, I say we get the hell out of there, let the chips fall as they may, with an offer to send UN peacekeepers and reconstruction assistance when they decide to stop killing each other and the shooting stops.
But in the meantime, the question needs to be asked again and again;
Whom do you shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia?