Iraq - Establishment of a Church state or a non-Sectarian State

Admittedly, I'm confused about Iraq and our "mission" there. Today's Washington Times has so many articles worth reading, it'll make your head spin, but one in particular seemed to crystallize the war in Iraq and to make me step back and say, "Which side should we (the USA and allies) really be on?" Terrence Jeffrey with his editorial, Iraq strategy miscues gave me pause. For the first time, I found a writer who spelled it out. I could be wrong on the details but fighting the war in Iraq mirrors historical battles, tactics, and "clashes of civilization" through the ages: the Battle of the Bulge; the American Civil War where Southern supply lines were easily cut by Union forces thereby crippling the South. Then we have our American Revolution - "taxation without representation", and in Europe, the Protestant Reformation with Martin Luther - all leading to a sectarian divide or separation from the Roman Catholic Church. As I interpret Mr. Jeffrey's editorial, to say that a sectarian war is what Iraq is about would be a simplistic understatement BUT setting the al Qaeda and terrorist-insurgents menace aside what is going on may boil down to this. The Sunnis don't want to live under the state-sanctioned law or rule of Sharia/Islamic Law as demanded by the Shi'ites. I know it is all more complex but that reminds me of our separation of church and state. Now, if our government were to ever be taken over by the Islamists, i.e., Maliki and company, wouldn't we be fighting? Actually, that is what some of us are fighting now as we work to expose CAIR and other Islamist groups working within the United States who have designs on turning us into an Islamic state bit by bit, and to expose the brutality of Islamic Law - Nazanin's case is a recent reminder. [Might I add she is not off the hook yet. The court just said the killing of the rapist thug was not intentional.] What this fighting (aside from the fight for power and control) tells me is that all Muslim sects are not equal. A no-brainer. It also tells me that our troops need to be in Iraq to secure Baghdad but they don't need to be fighting to "establish a religion controlled nation-state." So, I have to ask myself if I would be fighting on the side of the Sunnis? Unless I missed something in my Civics/Government classes, a democratic republic does not take God out of the public square - as we all have the right to freedom of religion and the freedom of speech - but it does take a "state controlled by religious laws" [where these religious laws control every aspect of a person's life whether that person belongs to that given religion or not] out of the government. I've said it once; I'll say it again - unless reformed dramatically - Islam is not compatible with a democratic republicanism form of government. The Ayatollah is in charge in Iran not Mad Jad. Read Jeffrey's commentary and see which side we should be on. Here is a question I have always puzzled over: if we are "fighting" Islamofacism, then why did we strengthen the Islamist in Bosnia and Serbia and why are we fighting to strengthen an Islamist state in Iraq? Why are we "helping" the global jihad or are we? Hoping Jeffrey will not mind, allow me to quote the last three short paragraphs from his commentary:

Before he was fired, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld offered an alternative to Mr. McCain's "surge." He suggested moving our troops out of the danger zones in cities and on patrols, but keeping them in Iraq to narrowly target al Qaeda cells, stop all-out civil war, and deter intervention by Iran and Syria. This would have sent a stark message to the Shi'ite government: Make peace with your Sunni neighbors - because the U.S. military will not subdue them for you. That would have been tough love for Mr. al-Maliki and his Islamist friends. But tough love is sometimes the only thing tough characters understand.

How this ends is yet to be seen but the U.S. cannot afford, nor can the American people afford, for us to leave Iraq before a stable government in which people are treated equally is established there. Brigette Gabriel has stated that the nations in the Middle East are "tribes with flags." Let's hope the people in Iraq can set aside their sectarian differences to forge a nation with liberty and freedom for its citizens. This goal cannot be attained "for" them; it must be attained "by" them. Let's see if Maliki can measure up and treat the loss of American life honorably for the sake of his nation. America must be clear about her goals and the Iraqi government needs to step up to the plate and step into the 21st Century. Maybe it is time for some "tough" love in Iraq.