We Break the World. . . Help Repair It

[ancianita]

7. The way I see it, "we" assume blame here for privately paid small groups who foment violence

that exponentially grows to the point that governmental forces can't contain it, get beaten, then ask us to somehow come in and contain it. We shouldn't use military force as mop ups for global money's paid skirmishes. The mess here is sectarian competition for dominance in this oil region.

As a recent Frontline articles states, we can say, so far, "Today, you are either a Shia, a Sunni, a Christian, a Kurd. You are not an Iraqi first. For now, it seems Iraq is no more..." Until Iraqis can form a government that represents all people here, ISIS will very likely continue its march..." and that we didn't 'break' Iraq as much as fail to get it back up and running.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/iraq-war-on-terror/losing-iraq/for-now-it-seems-iraq-is-no-more/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FrontlineEditorsNotes+(FRONTLINE+-+Latest+Stories)

Iraq's 'breakage' right now is from a different source. In the absence of clear media coverage here, "we" are too quick to assume responsibility. 'We' might not have left Iraq better than we found it -- because, it was, after all, our resource war -- but we helped re-organize a government that we hoped would run the region but were seen as ripe for sectarian attack, since Sunni Persian Gulf money has flowed in to Sunni extremist groups that cross Iraq borders, bent on sweeping away the old Shia dominance.

I'm not buying the "we" have to fix it stance at this point. Most of the 'we' in America are against involvement in this sectarian conflict. If "humanitarian" is the rubric used by this president for slipping in arms, then he'll just contribute to the mess against our wishes.