… for American interests, that is. Excuse me for a little as I explore the realm of the super-cynical. Our best chance for defeating Islamofascism is to not let it unite under one banner. It seems like America should be doing everything it can to foster animosity between Shiites and Sunnis in order to contain Iran. It’s the old adage of warfare: Divide and conquer. To do that, though, doesn’t quite lead to a unified Iraq. A unified, democratic Iraq would be the best thing to contain Iraq, but that outcome is extremely unlikely with the level of violence we’re seeing in Baghdad. No stability, no government. So I ask if we should really be pushing towards a unified Iraq. Should we be trying to help the Sunnis, instead, in order to contain the Iranian threat?

Of course, if we’re doing everything we can to divide the Middle East, it means the Islamofascists will naturally try to unify the Islamic world. It’s not too hard. Terrorists hide behind women and children and if anyone strikes back at the terrorists, there’s some instant propaganda fodder. Look at what those evil Americans and Jews are doing. It’s working, too. The Arab League denounced Hezbollah, but they’re backing off from those statements due to pressure from the people.

But yuk, I can’t honestly say that we should actively foster civil war. (I like to put titles that will grab attention.) Still, I will say that we should contain the Iranian Hitler, Ahmadinejad. My initial thoughts are to provide economic aid to Arab countries such as Egypt in exchange for their cooperation in the War on Terror. Or something to show how we’re not out to dominate the Middle East, but to contain Iran and their Islamofascist allies.

The battle might already be lost, though, depending on what the opinion of the mainstream really is in the Arab world.

The situation in Iraq further complicates things. If you compare it to a game of chess, we’re only in the beginning of the game, and Bush is putting all of our pieces in the wrong places.