Ton...
You're suggesting that Iraq has a much stronger national identity than the other countries I mentioned
I'm suggesting that that is a large official part of why we are there, not necessarily that I agree. I'm just starting to understand Sunni vs. Shi'ia.
May I remind you that the South is a part of the United States today?
Let's look at the example of the disolution of the Soviet Union or, better perhaps, the Balkans.
The Balkans has been the battlefield, the DMZ if you will, between Europe and what we see as 'European' and Middle Eastern, or Arab/Muslim.
The self identity of the various groups, Serbs, Croats etc, is SO strong that a national identity in a rather tiny area is virtually impossible and that's proved for almost 1,000 years.
The possibility of a civil war is very real in Iraq and if you look at what the British did, it is hard to make the case for a common national identity. Kurds in the north as a buffer to Turkey. Shiia in the South as a buffer to Persia (Iran). Sunni in the west to buffer Saudi.
In the Balkans there is no reason to believe civil war will ever result in unity a la the US.
In Iraq, there supposedly is reason to so. The fact that things are WAY more peaceful over there than the media wants you to think supports that theory.
Chris Mathews, lead council for the DNC makes much of the fact that we are approaching 1,000 US military loses.
40,000 women have died in the US in half the time of breast cancer.
Isn't the possibility of a stable, liberal, western style ARAB democracy worth SOMETHING?
It could truly change the world for the better and help end the corruption of Islam.
Democrats are saying, in effect, the same thing about Arabs now that they said in 1860: THOSE people will never amount to anything!
They were wrong then.
