Wait, no, it's...The US, the US never learns...
Really, they don't. A choice quote is the headline:
U.S. arming Sunnis in Iraq to battle old Qaeda allies
Man, that sounds familiar somehow. Let me try some alternatives..."U.S. arming Iraq to fight Iran." "U.S. arming Taliban to fight the S.U."
Wow, am I having a deja vu or is the US extremely bad at learning from their mistakes. The last three paragraphs of the Tribune's coverage are poignant:
"They say, 'We hate you because you are occupiers' " he said, " 'but we hate Al Qaeda worse, and we hate the Persians even more.' " Sunni militants refer to Iraq's Shiites as Persians, a reference to the strong links between Iraqi Shiites and the Shiites who predominate in Iran.
An Iraqi government official who was reached by telephone on Sunday said the government was uncomfortable with the American negotiations with the Sunni groups because they offered no guarantee that the militias would be loyal to anyone other than the American commander in their immediate area. "The government's aim is to disarm and demobilize the militias in Iraq," said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a political adviser to Maliki. "And we have enough militias in Iraq that we are struggling now to solve the problem. Why are we creating new ones?"
Despite such views, Lynch said, the Americans believed that Sunni groups offering to fight Al Qaeda and halt attacks on American and Iraqi forces met a basic condition for reestablishing stability in insurgent-hit areas: they had roots in the areas where they operated, and thus held out the prospect of building security from the ground up. He cited areas in Babil Province where there were "no security forces, zero, zilch," and added: "When you've got people who say, 'I want to protect my neighbors,' we ought to jump like a duck on a junebug."
Ok, guys, the bookies are open, how many people will bet that these guys will turns on the US with US weapons first chance they get? The stakes are 1 to 1? Why, because the odds of that happening are 100%. Place your bets!
Really, they don't. A choice quote is the headline:
U.S. arming Sunnis in Iraq to battle old Qaeda allies
Man, that sounds familiar somehow. Let me try some alternatives..."U.S. arming Iraq to fight Iran." "U.S. arming Taliban to fight the S.U."
Wow, am I having a deja vu or is the US extremely bad at learning from their mistakes. The last three paragraphs of the Tribune's coverage are poignant:
"They say, 'We hate you because you are occupiers' " he said, " 'but we hate Al Qaeda worse, and we hate the Persians even more.' " Sunni militants refer to Iraq's Shiites as Persians, a reference to the strong links between Iraqi Shiites and the Shiites who predominate in Iran.
An Iraqi government official who was reached by telephone on Sunday said the government was uncomfortable with the American negotiations with the Sunni groups because they offered no guarantee that the militias would be loyal to anyone other than the American commander in their immediate area. "The government's aim is to disarm and demobilize the militias in Iraq," said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a political adviser to Maliki. "And we have enough militias in Iraq that we are struggling now to solve the problem. Why are we creating new ones?"
Despite such views, Lynch said, the Americans believed that Sunni groups offering to fight Al Qaeda and halt attacks on American and Iraqi forces met a basic condition for reestablishing stability in insurgent-hit areas: they had roots in the areas where they operated, and thus held out the prospect of building security from the ground up. He cited areas in Babil Province where there were "no security forces, zero, zilch," and added: "When you've got people who say, 'I want to protect my neighbors,' we ought to jump like a duck on a junebug."
Ok, guys, the bookies are open, how many people will bet that these guys will turns on the US with US weapons first chance they get? The stakes are 1 to 1? Why, because the odds of that happening are 100%. Place your bets!
