Thursday, April 27, 2006

peace is at hand?

It seems to me most interesting that binLaden should
reappear in the narrow confines of our attention in
order to remind us that he is after us-- RIGHT AT
HOME-- and not after our soldiers in Iraq. Suddenly
after him, Zarqawi comes forward and tells us that we
are defeated and that he is pressing on to annihilate
the Shi'ia regime heading Iraq. Most noteworthy is
that never before did Zarqawi deem it important to
exhibit himself in carne instead of maintaining his
spirit status and to do so upon the heels of a
binLaden address to us. Let us recall that binLaden
made it abundantly clear that his goals never changed:
America; similarly, Zarqawi reiterated his target: the
Shi'ia regime heading as a unity government.

I feel great optimism in what looks like a fundamental
Jihad split over targets-- the essence of both
operations. This bespeaks the urgency of getting Iraq
to form a unity government that will not allow the
Kurds to break free (if they do that the Sunnis will
break out of the coalition; already Sadr's militia are
moving into Kirkuk on behalf of the Arab nation) so
that we can start pulling out our troops and allow an
integrated Sunni-Shi'ia-Kurd army to go after Zarqawi
while sealing the borders with American help.
Nevertheless, Rice and Rumsfeld were sent to do a
political photo-op for Bush in Baghdad, another
reckless maneuver by a totally political
administration. Does it not occur to them that the
more Baghdad seems to be ours, the weaker the union
amongst our friends and the stronger the rage of our
enemies? We must BEGIN to withdraw so ALL sides will
know we are serious. To quote my old hero, Kissinger:
peace is at hand!

Daniel E. Teodoru


Post a Comment

<< Home