Brokering peace between the true believers

Ralph Peters:

AMERICAN diplomats and politically correct gener als want to be honest bro kers in the Middle East, to achieve peace through forbearance and negotiated compromises. It may be the most-hopeless dream in the history of foreign affairs.

The deadly hatred goes too deep between Shia and Sunni (killing Jews is just for practice). You can't broker peace between fanatics.

East of Athens, you have to pick a side and stick to it, no matter how it behaves toward its enemies. Restraint is viewed as weakness; olive branches signal cowardice, and aid is seen as a bribe.

Although Israel's existence is increasingly threatened, the unavoidable struggle is between Sunni and Shia. Transcending their internal fault lines - for now - these two competing forms of Islam are already at war in Iraq. It's only a matter of time until the fighting spreads.

The question isn't "How can we stop it?" We can't. Even delaying the confrontation may come at too high a price. The right question is "How do we make sure we're on the winning side?"

The dynamism is with the Shia. Oppressed for centuries, Arab Shia have found their strategic footing. Tehran's backing helps, but the rise of Shia power is not synonymous with Iranian power - unless our old-school diplomacy makes it so.

East of Suez and west of Kabul, Sunni Arab dominance is waning. To future historians, al Qaeda may appear little more than the death-rattle of a collapsing order. Jordan may have a future - if that future is guaranteed by the West - but Syria's grandiose ambitions are unsustainable, and it's difficult to imagine the long-term survival of the decayed Saudi royal family.

...

The Saudis could have undercut the insurgency in Iraq in 2003. Instead, they backed it - because they refused to give up the old order in which the Sunni Arabs - less than 20 percent of Iraq's population - ruled in Baghdad. But Riyadh's policy of channeling funds through private donors didn't fool anybody who didn't want to be fooled.

The Saudi (and Syrian) tactics backfired: Enraging Iraq's Shia only made the weakness of the Sunni position obvious. Now only the presence of our troops - whom the Sunnis continue to attack - protects Iraq's Sunnis from a massacre. Isn't it time to stop defending those who murder our troops?

Our wrongheaded attempt to placate Iraq's Sunni Arabs failed utterly. Some military officers suffering from client-itis argue that their Sunnis really are on our side. But we need to face the facts: For all of Muqtada al-Sadr's Shia shenanigans, it's the Sunni Arabs who have destroyed Iraq.

...

Peters wants to back the Shia in Iraq and steer them away from the Iranians. A few weeks ago he was wondering why we have not killed Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr. The fact is that we have we have empowered the Shia since we held elections and have tried to get the Sunnis to work with the Shia. Perhaps what Peters is really saying is that it is time to tell the Sunnis that they about to lose the opportunity of participating in this government is they don't knock off the war.