Submitted by Joesph R. Binnotz, Feb 20, 2007 20:14

The February 16th column by Nibras Kazimi ("Fiery, Dangerous Words") is RIFE with errors. Let's take it from the top: Kazimi indicates that the Sunni and Shia are issuing threats "on a scale not heard before"??? It's a ridiculous assertion that overlooks the millions of Muslims already killed in Shia-vs-Sunni violence since the death of Imam Ali in the year 661. Without question, rhetoric between the two sects has been this heated before.

Kazimi indicates that after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the Saudi regime understood that there was a shift in the balance of power in the region. Is he implying that this was a "new" understanding on behalf of the Saudis and that they were the "only" regime to come to this new understanding? One of the many dirty little secrets in the Middle East is the fact that -- despite the many atrocities he committed -- the Sunni regimes WANTED Saddam Hussein to remain in power because his regime was seen as a powerful stopgap to Iranian/Persian/Shia hegemony. In fact, those very regimes CONTINUE to impede progress in Iraq because they continue to delude themselves into thinking the Sunnis can one day return to power. And in the meantime, they can help kill as many American occupiers as they can in an effort to "teach the U.S. a lesson."

Kazimi then goes on to posit the theory that the reason behind the recent Saudi rhetoric is to "forestall any Shiite notions of hegemony by agitating anti-Shiism across the region." No, Mr. Kazimi: the custodians of the two most holy sites of Islam are issuing fatwas to give the Sunni world the requisite religious validation needed to wage a much wider "jihad" against Shia Islam. In short, the Wahabbis are trying to persuade as many Sunnis as possible to make the leap into "holy war."

The bottom line is this: the regime of Saddam Hussein is gone, the balance of power in Iraq has tipped in favor of the Shia, and contrary to their professed naivety the Arab world knew this shift was going to occur. Furthermore, Abu Musab al Zarqawi -- who ALSO knew it was going to happen -- can be credited for re-igniting the age-old war between the two dominant sects of the "Religion of Peace" as a means to prevent the spread of Shia Islam. Today, the battlefield in this latest resumption of Muslim-on-Muslim violence is Iraq. Tomorrow, the war could spread to other Arab nations. But no forces outside Islam are going to stop this war.

But perhaps the most ridiculous assertion Mr. Kazimi seems to be making is that members of the United States government are jumping on the anti-Shia bandwagon in the hopes of staving off Iranian/Persian/Shia hegemony. This assertion is flat wrong. What's happening is this: increasing numbers of Americans are waking up to the fact that Shia and Sunni Muslims -- with the extremes of BOTH sects having vowed to destroy America -- are turning on one another. And Americans are starting to ask themselves this simple question: Why should the United States spend its blood and national treasure trying to prevent this? Should we do it because the cultures in the region have proven to be enlightened, peace-loving and grateful to Americans? Should we do it because the governments in the Middle East are representative in nature and champions of women's rights and human rights? Should we do it because of the peace and nobility of Islam?

There should be only ONE reason for the United States to be involved in that region, and it should only be a temporary reason: oil. Americans (Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives) are now totally uniting on the issue that we need to rid ourselves of dependence on this region for something as important to us as our energy needs. The sooner we wean ourselves of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil, the sooner we can rid ourselves of the convoluted logic typified in columns like this.

Joseph R. Binnotz

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.