I’m inclined to disagree with the concept of ‘centuries long resentments and blood feuds’ at least to the extent that most Americans understand the culture of the Middle East.

That said, there ARE ‘differences’ between the Arabs and the Persians, as well as between the Sunni and the Shia. Unfortunately, most Americans don’t understand the differences or the similarities. (such as how the extremist minority of the Sunnis (the Wahbbists) are viewed by nearly ALL Muslims…Shia and Sunni alike, Arab and Persian alike. In short..they reject these extremists.

Anyway, here’s an interesting bit of reality from Tom Engelhardt. Just one of 6 answers to 12 questions nobody bothers to ask about Iraq. The other 11 can be found at the link below.

11. No, al-Qaeda will not control Iraq if we leave (and neither will Iran): The latest figures tell the story. Of 658 suicide bombings globally in 2007 (more than double those of any year in the last quarter century), 542, according to the Washington Post’s Robin Wright, took place in occupied Iraq or Afghanistan, mainly Iraq. In other words, the American occupation of that land has been a motor for acts of terrorism (as occupations will be). There was no al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia before the invasion and Iraq was no Afghanistan. The occupation under whatever name will continue to create “terrorists,” no matter how many times the administration claims that “al-Qaeda” is on the run. With the departure of U.S. troops, it’s clear that homegrown Sunni extremists (and the small number of foreign jihadis who work with them), already a minority of a minority, will more than meet their match in facing the Sunni mainstream. The Sunni Awakening Movement came into existence, in part, to deal with such self-destructive extremism (and its fantasies of a Taliban-style society) before the Americans even noticed that it was happening. When the Americans leave, “al-Qaeda” (and whatever other groups the Bush administration subsumes under that catch-all title) will undoubtedly lose much of their raison d’être or simply be crushed.

As for Iran, the moment the Bush administration finally agreed to a popular democratic vote in occupied Iraq, it ensured one thing - that the Shiite majority would take control, which in practice meant religio-political parties that, throughout the Saddam Hussein years, had generally been close to, or in exile in, Iran. Everything the Bush administration has done since has only ensured the growth of Iranian influence among Shiite groups. This is surely meant by the Iranians as, in part, a threat/trump card, should the Bush administration launch an attack on that country. After all, crucial U.S. resupply lines from Kuwait run through areas near Iran and would assumedly be relatively easy to disrupt.

Without the U.S. military in Iraq, there can be no question that the Iranians would have real influence over the Shiite (and probably Kurdish) parts of the country. But that influence would have its distinct limits. If Iran overplayed its hand even in a rump Shiite Iraq, it would soon enough find itself facing some version of the situation that now confronts the Americans. As Robert Dreyfuss wrote in the Nation recently, “[D]espite Iran’s enormous influence in Iraq, most Iraqis - even most Iraqi Shiites - are not pro-Iran. On the contrary, underneath the ruling alliance in Baghdad, there is a fierce undercurrent of Arab nationalism in Iraq that opposes both the U.S. occupation and Iran’s support for religious parties in Iraq.” The al-Qaedan and Iranian “threats” are, at one and the same time, bogeymen used by the Bush administration to scare Americans who might favor withdrawal and, paradoxically, realities that a continued military presence only encourages.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042108K.shtml

Honestly, why peaceful discussions cannot be had with two factions who apparently really care about the future of Iraq is beyond me. It’s difficult, just like with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, to see who the real aggressors are, but the aggression is there on both sides. If Iraq wasn’t in a civil war in the previous years, this particular situation looks like the powder keg to ignite one if it isn’t politically dealt with. These military assaults are counter-productive.

i have read for several years, that the way out for our troops will involve a massive air war. just today gates was whining that the air force is not sending aircraft fast enough. i wonder what will happen when we launch air strikes BIG TIME on sadr’s strong hold and kill the 2 million civilians living there. maybe that will be the time we lose our billion dollar “embassy” and our puppet government will be toppled.