digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Bombshell: Bush Initially Resisted Sunni Overtures

vanityfair.com — The Sunni Awakening was a huge part of the Surge's success. But Bush first rebuffed the Sunnis. If the compromises accepted later by the Bush administration had been accepted when a rapprochement was first broached by the Sunnis, in 2004, some 2,000 Americans and thousands more Iraqis might not have died.

Who dugg this? Made popular May 15, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

31 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • mgraham80, on 05/14/2009, -1/+26This is what happens when we don't talk to our enemies.
  • Echota, on 05/14/2009, -1/+23Because Bush wanted war. So did Cheney.
    They wanted to look like heros,saviors,to the American people and it didn't matter how many had to die or how many lies they had to tell or what they had to do to cover up their corruption.
    This is the Bush/Cheney legacy.
  • BBE1965, on 05/14/2009, -1/+19This is what happens when we go to war for no reason other than keeping oil corporations happy...
  • novenator, on 05/14/2009, -1/+17Under the overly simplistic world view of the bush administration, the Sunni's were the bad guys, oppressing the Kurds and majority Shia. Although there was undoubtedly repression going on to a certain degree, to discard the entire sunni sect due to this view was naive and resulted in the catastrophe that occurred, particularly early actions like disbanding the military and police, and forbidding any Baath from having any type of administrative role. The later rebuffment of Sunni overtures just shows how insane the Republicans were.
  • hyderalamgir, on 05/14/2009, -2/+13This is what happens when you elect a president in bed with saudi oil tycoons.
  • dalittle, on 05/15/2009, -0/+7I would hardly call the "Surge" a success.
  • inactive, on 05/15/2009, -0/+6the bush administration worst presidency in my life time.
  • Lederhosed, on 05/15/2009, -1/+7Important piece. Thanks for sharing.
  • lordmike, on 05/15/2009, -1/+6It must be Pelosi's fault! Isn't that the new line from the right? Everything is her fault?
  • inajeep, on 05/15/2009, -1/+6I don't think the heros part drove their desire as much as the oil and lucrative contracts.
  • heystoopid, on 05/14/2009, -2/+6To many improbable what if's and given the religious rifts and open but heavily suppressed septic sores within the Iraq the invasion opened up because it was done on the cheap and for the pure profit of "Kill , Burn and Loot" , such actions would not have stopped the ongoing bloodbath either way and quite possibly made it even far worse .

    For sadly where ever the Americans go they always choose the wrong side for all the wrong reasons ever since 1952 based on greed of money first and foremost , for they can never look before they leap into the abyss of no return .
  • Speedy7, on 05/15/2009, -0/+4This story just vanished from the Frontpage!!!
  • Alderon, on 05/15/2009, -0/+3The piece is a bit long for my taste - TL;DR(all of it)

    But what I did read only confirms the fact that Cheney/Bush/Rumsfield were a horrible team of leaders in the History of the US. But hey we got Obama to carry-on the C/B/R plan and cover up as much as can be covered to keep the guilty out of jail or from hanging from the gallows.
  • buckrogers1965, on 05/15/2009, -0/+2So we were trying to go it completely alone there? We couldn't have the Shia as our allies, that is the majority religion of Iran.

    No wonder we were getting our asses kicked so badly for so many years.
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/15/2009, -0/+2You must be dumb. There was this guy called W...
  • dalittle, on 05/15/2009, -0/+1I fail to see how an occupying force is a success by any measure. It just isn't.
  • fleischner, on 05/15/2009, -3/+4Right, because the Iraqi Sunnis have such a long history of being a peaceful, munificent, and non-violent peoples.
  • HBZ55, on 05/15/2009, -0/+1@novenator:
    The sunni tribesman weren't terrorists, Al Qaeda was. They didn't target civilians but they targeted coalition forces which doesn't look to me like terrorism.
    I know you just want to brand them with those names because it makes it easier for you to accept their deaths, but they were in fact resisting an illegal occupation, and they had every right to do so.
  • toddc612, on 05/15/2009, -0/+1It was "successful" because we threw a *****-ton of troops at the problem. Now, do the troops just stay forever? Hardly a winning strategy.

    The surge was nothing more than a political maneuver to attempt to validate the war and suggest we were winning..
  • novenator, on 05/15/2009, -1/+2I disagree. Paying off (ie. bribing) former terrorists to fight other terrorists (Sunni tribesman to fight Al Qaeda) was one important factor. The second was the ethnic cleansing that finished about the time that the surge happened. There are simply no mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad anymore, zero. Walls and checkpoints divide the communities. It is a temporary lull in violence, not a long term, peaceful solution.
  • toekneebullard, on 05/15/2009, -2/+2You must have learned grammar under his "No Child Left Behind" program.
  • buckrogers1965, on 05/15/2009, -1/+1They tried and failed several times to get the oil out.
  • fufi74, on 05/15/2009, -1/+1My jaw dropped when i read the headline. Reminds of of the Sarah Palin debate where she distinctively mentioned the "Shia Terrorist" problem in Iraq as if they were the ones behind all the bloodshed.
  • xman8, on 05/15/2009, -1/+1I love how all of these experts come out years later with their "armchair quarterback" statements.

    This seems to be a trend for Liberals!
  • eRenee, on 05/15/2009, -1/+1Well, the Kurds love us. and they are about to get rich cuz now allowed to export their oil. Can't believe there was a holdup. These people have not been trained in critical thinking, only submission.
    http://digg.com/business_finance/Iraqi_Kurds_can_n ...
  • IKORKYI, on 05/15/2009, -2/+1i'm all for hating on the bush admin for the many things they screwed up/got wrong...but if anything this makes ol W look good.

    the blame for those deaths falls sqaurely on the Sunni's that caused them. If you want to blame it on the war existing in the first place, that's one thing. But the decision not to comprimise (at first) with a group that later went to kill 2,000 more GI's and civilians doesn't seem like a bad decision...even in retrospec.
  • IKORKYI, on 05/15/2009, -2/+1oil had nothing to do with it considering we're still not leveraging it so many years later. as to the lucrative contracts part, that's why i think there needs to be a seperation of bush and cheneys' motivation for the war. GW probably thought he was doing Gods' work, Cheney is the traditional "capitalist pig," and example of how capitalism is not infallible and can be abused/twisted just like any other social/belief system in the world.
  • daimposter, on 05/15/2009, -3/+1that's what she said
  • dhoneywell, on 05/15/2009, -4/+1Vanity Fair?
  • toekneebullard, on 05/15/2009, -4/+1Then you must not understand what the goals and tactics of the Surge were then. Even people against the war acknowledge that the Surge bettered conditions in Iraq. Yes it's still a war few people want to fight, but pretending that there's no way progress is being made in any way shape or form is just willful ignorance.
  • fleischner, on 05/15/2009, -4/+1You must be young. There was this guy called Carter...

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...