| Actually it'd be too easy to say that it's a mere minority. Saddam loyalists may not be the only people behind recent attacks on U.S. soldiers in that area. Political observers believe that the local Sunni population is dissatisfied with U.S. reconstruction efforts and is mounting its own hit-and-run attacks against American forces. And the problem is that this dissactisfaction is spreading more and more thanks to the religion. Most of the religious leaders have already been preaching against their common enemy : the US.
The increased anti-Americanism was summarized by a local, Jasam Hamed: "We don't have any issues with the Americans. The Americans say they came here to get rid of Saddam but they haven't done anything for us. All they do is come with their guns and point them at us."
The images of the mutilation of the bodies were performed by a huge crowd, not a handful of men, and the cheers spread to big cities like Tikrit. This was the population, not the militia, that performed the atrocities, and it's all the more horrifying. And what a population : the Sunni triangle regroups a huge part of the Iraqi population (not only Sunnis but also Shi'ites) that shouldn't be dismissed because of their number but also because of their strategical position and their high position in Iraq's politics and eocnomy. The most scary thing is that the old rivalry between the different ethnics (Sunni and Shia population) is gone as long as everyone is reunited against the US occupation. Let's not forget that back in April 2003, 10,000 of Iraqis in Badghdad were already protesting against the US occupation, holding up a banner that read “No Shi'ites, No Sunnis, Yes Yes for United Islam."
And last thing about the "the anger of a minority who, thanks to the US, are no longer able to dominate over the majority" comment, which, as I understood (but maybe I'm wrong? that is to be clarified), was refering to the Sunni-Shi'i relations in Iraq for the past decades. Sure, I'm glad that the Shi'ites of Iraq aren't persecuted by Saddam anymore. But I didn't know that Americans went to Iraq to save the Shi'ites from the Sunnis. That's very chivalrous, especially when one considers that the US has made a point, for the past 30 years, of demonizing Shia Muslims, particularly due to the intransigence of Iran when it comes to US requirements for the Middle East. So, the Sunnis, who were once the US friends especially in Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, are now the new evil-doers, while the Shia (who hadn't forgotten the hostility of the US attacks on the Lebanese Hizbullah, its past support to Saddam Hussein or its close relations with Saudi Arabia, also seen as approval for extremist Sunni movements like the Afghan mojahedin) are the one to be saved? __________________ The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an eggs-and-ham breakfast : the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was 'committed' |