Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/20/06 5:52 pm:
Yikes, I meant my second answer as a clarification to Labman. Sorry about that.

Labman,

You make a good point.

But have you ever heard the "Serenity Prayer"

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."

I believe that prayer to be the essence of what "trust in G-d" is all about... knowing the difference between what is in our power and what is in His power, and not trying to mix the two. Protecting yourself from an enemy is within your power. Changing that enemy into something else is not within our power. We need to accept that there will be people who differ from us, and accept that we cannot change their minds. But we DO have the power to A)accept them as they are and B)defend ourselves against them should they decide to attack us. What we do not have the power to do is change their minds for them.

Abu Deraa does not make that distiction... he's trying to "change the world", to make Shia the only Islamic sect in Iraq. That is NOT within his power, nor is it something he should be striving for. Yet he tries to do it anyway. His ego demands that he control Iraq's religious underpinings, and that control is not his place. It's G-d's. And as such, he is trying to "play G-d" rather than trusting G-d to do what is right. He has not yet figured out the difference between what he has the power to change and what he does not. He has not learned to accept the things he cannot change. Without that, he may still believe in G-d, but he certainly doesn't TRUST G-d to do what's right.

In the 12 Steps of Alchoholics Anonymous, they call someone who tries to control other people's minds and beliefs "working the other guy's program" or "playing G-d". The 12 Steps teach one to work their OWN program, and leave everyone else's program to them and to G-d. Abu Deraa is trying to "work Iraq's program" and in doing so, he is trying to play G-d. But he is not G-d. If he concentrated on working his own program... that is, working on being a good Muslim for himself as he sees fit, and leaving others to do the same for themselves, and leaving the rest up to G-d... then he might find TRUE tust in G-d.

Again, that doesn't mean not taking action... it means only taking action with regard to that which is within your power and TRUSTING G-D for the rest. And by setting that example, you have the ability to make deciples of the other nations.

That is what it means when one says that faith without works is meaningless and works without faith leads to ego. Faith without works is ignoring the things that are within your power. Works without faith is not accepting the fact that some things are out of your hands and in the hands of G-d alone, and denotes a lack of trust in G-d.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 12/20/06 8:14 pm:
I of course thought of that, too Elliot. I think maybe it has something to do with wanting to be found by those who will get their story out.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/21/06 12:54 pm:
Paraclete,

So your solution to this "tribal" problem is to get out? How will that prevent sectarian violence?

I say that the US hasn't projected enough of a presence in Iraq. That isn't to say that they don't have enough soldiers. I mean that they haven't used all the force that they are capable of using in Iraq. If they went in and cleared out the trouble-makers on BOTH SIDES then the situation would calm down. Yes, sometimes force really does bring peace. They don't have to love us, they just have to stop shooting at each other... or face the consequences. Peace CAN be imposed at the point of a gun, if you prove that you are willing to use that gun indescriminantly to enforce the peace. So far, we haven't done that. But exactly how do you expect a pullout to stop the sectarian violence?

And please don't tell me that the sectarian violence is the fault of the US invasion. There was pleanty of sectarian violence under Saddam... it was just all under Saddam's control. Sunnis were constantly killing, raping and torturing Shia and Kurds. It was just done under the auspecies of the Saddam government. Now the same sectarian violence is continuing... only the Kurds and Shia are fighting back with their own militias, and none of it is under government mandate. So what? It's the same violence, and it wasn't caused by us. And frankly, given the fact that the violence is in only 3 or 4 provinces of the 17 that exist in Iraq, I'd say that its a lot less widespread than it was under Saddam... bigger, but more contained.

But my point is that Saddam didn't bring "stability" to Iraq. All he brought was an air of "officiality" to the violence. So leaving them alone wasn't an option for stopping the violence then and it isn't now. Killing those who break the peace is the only way to stop the violence permanently. Peace MUST be imposed from the outside, because it isn't forthcoming from the inside. Nor is the US presence the reason for the violence, or else the US troops would be the target rather than Shia, Sunni and Kurds.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by paraclete on 12/21/06 9:10 pm:
Elliot

Fuzzy logic there mate, how does using a sledge hammer to crack a peanut solve the problem. You are advocating the very same method as the Iraqi use. They don't like someone so they kill them.. You don't need american soldiers for this blood bath, let the Iraqi do it, it's their country. You cannot impose peace on a country like Iraq all you have done is put a lid on the pot and when the lid is taken away.

The mistake was dismantling the Iraqi institutions and trying to set up new ones, your imposed peace and solutions didn't work and now you have this problem.

You will eventually see that the only solution is to leave and allow the Iraqi to sort it out for themselves. If that means another Islamic republic, sad, but if that's what they want

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 12/22/06 12:56 pm:
>>>Fuzzy logic there mate, how does using a sledge hammer to crack a peanut solve the problem.<<<

This is actually a philosophical argument that is discussed in military officer's training. The basic thought is that using your hands to crack the nut MAY work... or if the shell is too hard, it may not. But the sledge hammer will ALWAYS work. There is no such thing as TOO MUCH force in combat.

>>>You are advocating the very same method as the Iraqi use.<<<

The difference is that an outsider can apply a "no tolerance" policy equally to all parties, whereas Iraqi insiders only apply it to everyone else but not their own group. That equality is important.

>>>You don't need american soldiers for this blood bath, let the Iraqi do it, it's their country.<<<

If we allow the Iraqis to do it themselves it really will escalate into a bloodbath as they attempt to get revenge for the actions of the other groups' actions. But by maintaining equality of treatment of all parties, it lowers the chance of escalation of sectarian violence. Only an outsider who is willing to apply the same rules across the board can impose peace. But they have to be willing to see things get worse before they get better.

>>>The mistake was dismantling the Iraqi institutions and trying to set up new ones, your imposed peace and solutions didn't work and now you have this problem.<<<

What institutions? There was no government to speak of after the fall of Saddam and his cronies. WHat officials existed in any capacity were Sunni and not very well disposed to the Shia majority or the US. Allowing their military (poorly trained and under-equipped and led by decidedly anti-American and and Shia officers) would not have worked. Ditto for their cops. Getting rid of the crap and starting from scratch was the ONLY solution available.

The fact is that we haven't actually tried to impose anything yet... if we had, this wouldn't be happening. But we were too focussed on trying to be politically correct and friendly, and not focussed enough on really solving the issues. We were more concerned with winning friends and influencing people than with working solutions. THAT is where we failed. But the situation is not irretreavably lost. We can still act to IMPOSE a peace, if we are willing to spill some blood to do so. Some of it will be ours, but most of it will likely be the enemy's. The only question is whether we are willing to spill that blood or not.

>>>You will eventually see that the only solution is to leave and allow the Iraqi to sort it out for themselves. If that means another Islamic republic, sad, but if that's what they want<<<

Perhaps. But not until we actually try winning first. If we actually try that and it fails, then I will agree with you. But the fact is that we haven't tried it yet... and history proves that when you do what I have suggested, peace (defined as the lack of violent actions toward other groups) results. Just ask Ghenghis Khan how he managed to keep the peace. Or Alexander the Great, or the Huns, or the Byzantines, or Medievil Brits or the Ottomans. Peace can be imposed from the outside, if you are willing to take the actions to enforce that peace.