Laura Rozen, in her blog "War and Piece", has a
new post directing her readers to an
Op-Ed she authored in the LATimes. It's a stunning editorial describing an option currently being kicked around the White House....mainly that the US might be "wise" to choose sides between the Sunni and Shia, rather than continue babysitting a civil war between them, in Iraq.
Rozen states:
As sectarian violence rises in Iraq and the White House comes under increasing pressure to revamp its strategy there, a debate is emerging inside the Bush administration: Should the U.S. abandon its efforts to act as a neutral referee in the ongoing civil war and, instead, throw its lot in with the Shiites?
Rozen indicates that this "option" is one of several currently being discussed. Advocates of the option are of the opinion that this would be the path of least resistance, and...
....it could help accelerate one side actually winning Iraq's sectarian conflict, thereby shortening the conflict, while reducing some of the critical security concerns driving Shiites to mobilize their own militias in the first place. ...
So much for Democracy in Iraq.
First it was Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Then Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs.
Then Weapons of Mass Destruction Program related Activities.
Then it was Democracy.
I wonder what is next.
Bush has brought us to a place where we have no good options; our only choices are between bad and worse. Another month passes, another ever-changing war rationale is scratched off the blackboard. More soldiers die, more civilians die. What's next???
My mind spins just thinking about the consequences of such an action. Imagine the US joining forces with al-Sadr.
I'm speechless.