U.S. Warns Iraq on 'Sectarian Control'- What did they expect to happen?

[bigtree]

What did they expect to happen when they took out a government that gave security and support to Sunnis and helped replace it with one that is dominated with Shiites?

They want us to believe that the forces they are training (the ones that the politicians want to 'take control' of Iraq if we ever withdraw), will be some sort of beacon of democracy, but the reality is that there will always be a sect in Iraq who will be locked out of power and they will always be at the mercy of the ruling party's forces.

'Sectarian control' has been the Bush cabal's aim from the beginning. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz wanted the Batthists out and disbanded them, barring them in the beginning from serving with the new security forces. Iraq has a 60% Shiite majority population.

After the 'elections' in Iraq that our military oversaw we had Bush and his lackeys tell us how special and good they were while they pumped us up for war against Shiite-dominated Iran. We are being set up to view Iran as some sort of evil axis while at the same time they touted a vote that allowed Shiites supported by Iran (who we are told are waging terrorist assaults on our troops and the Iraqi citizens), to form a quasi-theocratic government in Iraq protected by our soldiers. Al Sadr, the 'radical' muslim cleric that we tried to bomb and capture is Shiite.

Bush I spent the '80's, as President Clinton said months ago, actively supporting the Iraqi government under Saddam as they provided a buffer against the Shiites in Iran. Now Bush II has sacrificed over 2500 American lives with over 11,000 wounded to allow the Shiites to overtake the Iraqi government. Zargawi uses Iran-Iraq borders to go in and out of Iraq. Whose side are these neocons really on?

Here's a report about the inevitable infusion of factionalism and deadly rivalry that has infected some of the Iraqi forces:

Some see U.S.-backed Iraqi guards as death squads

Newsday-
November 16, 2005

BAGHDAD -- Among the varied armed security men on Baghdad's streets these days, you can't miss the police commandos. In combat uniforms, bulletproof vests and wrap-around sunglasses or ski masks, they muscle through Baghdad's traffic jams in police cars or camouflage-painted pickup trucks, clearing nervous drivers from their path with shouted commands and the occasional gunshot in the air.

The commandos are part of the Iraqi security forces that the Bush administration says will gradually replace American troops in this war. But the commandos are being blamed for a wave of kidnappings and executions around Baghdad since the spring. Full report

These forces will undoubtably evolve into nothing more than a dangerous junta when/if we leave. They are already openly engaged in terrorizing government opponents under the guise of anti-insurgency. My guess is we'll be seeking to put the forces we leave behind down one day in the future as we did Saddam.

There will be no point where the U.S. military will be able to bring any reasonable political balance there and they shouldn't be expected to. They are designed to fight wars and defend our homeland against invasion or disaster, not sort out the intricacies of Iraqi politics and sectarian rivalry. That is for Iraqi's alone to sort out. The sectarian divisions can only be deepened and exaggerated by the heavy hand of our military occupation. Anything strategy or rationale for continued occupation is as John Murtha says, a policy wrapped in an illusion.

[bigtree]

1. .