General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So, just so I got this straight... [View all]politicman
(710 posts)You need to understand the dynamics of the religion and region.
Sunni and Shia have been at each others throats for a very long time now and no side has one iota of trust in the other.
By taking out the regime of Saddam who was Sunni and letting the majority in Iraq gain power, the U.S created one massive Shia crescent spanning from Iran, to Iraq, to Syria and Lebanon.
The Sunni in that region were never going to accept that Shia crescent, thus when the rebellion started in Syria, that was the best time to help restore the balance of power in that area.
Obviously it would have been best if Bush never invaded Iraq and changed the dynamic, but once the cat was let out of the bag, the next best move would have been to help the Sunni majority in Syria gain power as a balance to Iraq.
You can argue all day long that there are no moderate Sunni's in Syria or elsewhere, but the truth is that the Sunni's were always going to fight to break up the Shia crescent I described above.
There are plenty of moderate Sunni's in that region, but if the choice is to fall under the rule of Shia governments or extremist groups, the Sunni will choose the extremists any day of the week because of the history between the 2 sects.
ISIS and Nusra would never have had the success they did if the moderate Sunni communities didn't support them, and the reason they support them is because they see them as they only alternative to the Shia crescent.
By toppling Assad and restoring the balance of power in that region, as well as giving the Sunni's the same benefit of majority rule as the U.S gave the Shia in Iraq, these extremist groups would never have had the atmosphere for them to flourish.