Thursday, October 05, 2006

As it turns out...

All Iraqis are not bad, and most of them just want peace:

As tribal leaders from Iraq's troubled Al Anbar province met last week with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, pledging their support to clean out Al Qaeda insurgents, it soon became clear that they were as good as their word.

That day, at a mosque in the town of Ramadi, armed tribesmen seized four men — two Iraqis and two non-Iraqi Arabs — whom the tribesmen believed to be Al Qaeda fighters. The men pleaded for their lives, "for the sake of Islam, and for the sake of the prophet," according to a man who witnessed the incident during group prayers.

Their bodies were found a few hours later in a dumpster.
Read it.

The only way that peace will be brought to Iraq will be through the Iraqi people, which is something that the Bush administration has been saying for a long time. The only way strife will end in that country is if the citizens demand it -- and start to be a proactive force in the solution.

From reading this, it seems like many Iraqis are ready to take that step.
"We are not just targeting Al Qaeda, but terrorists in general, because people miss real stability and freedom," Hakkam said.
Additionally, I think that students of history should perk their ears up and listen to whats being said by the rival factions in Iraq. They just might find some striking similarities:
The list of 15 demands that the tribal leaders put forward included canceling all plans to divide the country into federated regions, proclaiming Iraq as an Arab nation, an equitable distribution of oil income, the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, and the release of all Iraqi "political" prisoners.

The first item on that list conflicts with a top priority of several of Maliki's fellow Shiite leaders. The Kurds also favor dividing Iraq into federated regions, and they have objected to demands to label Iraq an Arab country. The division of oil revenue is also a point of contention for all of Iraq's warring groups.
These issues are not so different than those put forward in the constitutional convention held in Philadelphia. The articles of confederation loosely held together 13 states, all of which had militias (armies) and 11 of which had navies. During this time, Pennsylvania declared war on Connecticut, many states began printing their own money, and most states had a state religion (Quakers in Pennsylvania, Church of England in Virginia, Catholicism in Maryland, etc.).

The largest topics of debate were, predictably, religion, representation, trade, and tax. Is there really any difference between our history and the history being written in Iraq now?