The focus of news on Iraq lately seems to be on the Iranian government and any ties they may have to attacking U.S. troops or funding Shiite operations within Iraq in the clashes between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. While Iraq's people struggle to escape the violence plaguing their country, sectarian tensions in the form of rival and armed religious groups complicate already complex conditions. When the U.S. entered Iraq, our government was hopeful that the Shiites, having long been oppressed under Hussein's rule, would be sympathetic to U.S. forces.

How has this assumed view changed now, and what has President Bush done to stop the violence? According to Seymour Hersh's recent revealing article in The New Yorker, Bush has taken to secretly funding clandestine Sunni operations to weaken various Shiite groups, essentially weakening Iran's influence.

Under this strategy, Bush hopes to thwart the Shiites and Iran from having more influence in Iraq and other countries such as Lebanon and maybe take a little bit of the pressure off of him in the news. What is the downside to this strategy, you ask? Many of these Sunni groups have ties to Al-Qaida.

In effect, Bush is indirectly funding Al-Qaida in order to stop yet another group of Muslims he has deemed the enemy. These Sunni groups aren't exactly known for their sympathy towards U.S. forces either, and are committing their share of violence in Iraq. Just recently in the news, an Al-Qaida-affiliated Sunni group killed 14 Iraqi police officers. The group claimed to be taking revenge for a Sunni woman who was raped by members of the police force, which happens to be composed overwhelmingly of Shiite Iraqis.

Bush and other neoconservatives sit up on their pedestals and chastise Democrats — saying their actions help the terrorists — in an attempt to scare voters away from the party. Meanwhile, Bush is secretly funding Al-Qaida behind our backs in an attempt to take away some of Iran's influence. Bush can't have it both ways; once Sunni groups with ties to Al-Qaida take care of the Shiites, they will be left with funds and weapons provided to them through our efforts, and you can bet Al-Qaida won't change its mind and forget about its hatred of the United States.

At the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, Walid Jumblatt, a member of the Lebanese parliament, received a lot of applause. Jumblatt was there to speak of the regime change necessary in Syria in hopes of protecting his own country from what he calls the "indirect Syrian occupation" of Lebanon. Hezbollah controls a great deal of southern Lebanon, and Jumblatt was also referring to the 2005 assassination of the Lebanese prime minister. Hezbollah is yet another Shiite group with financial backing from Iran.

Jumblatt is not a friend to the United States asking for aid, and in fact our country revoked his diplomatic visa for stating that he wished Paul Wolfowitz had been killed in a Baghdad rocket attack. Not to mention Jumblatt also made this statement:

"We are all happy when U.S. soldiers are killed [in Iraq] week in and week out. The killing of U.S. soldiers in Iraq is legitimate and obligatory."

Jumblatt has also mentioned that "the oil axis is present in most of the U.S. administration, beginning with its president, vice president and top advisers, including [Condoleezza] Rice, who is oil-colored, while the axis of Jews is present with Paul Wolfowitz, the leading hawk who is inciting [America] to occupy and destroy Iraq."

Bush and other neoconservatives apparently think that a man like this should be applauded. Bush also seems to believe that more funds should go to groups affiliated with or sympathetic to Al-Qaida in order to stop the influence Iran has. The situation in the Middle East is complex, and as usual Bush doesn't have a clue what to do.

Let me try and piece out some aspects of his brilliant plan for the Middle East. Let's indirectly fund Al-Qaida in one country and help the interests of a racist, anti-Semitic, United States-loathing politician in another. Somehow, this will make our troops safer and our country safe as well. Thank you, President Bush, for forcing me to consider the most backward logic I will ever see in my career.

Our country cannot fund terrorists to stop terrorism. Once the initial goal is achieved, these groups will be left with money and weapons and a long-held hatred of the United States. The civil war in Iraq and the dispute between Islamic factions is a lot more complicated than funding one side over the other.

Bush may continue to help groups battling other groups backed by Iran, but where does that leave us afterwards? Perhaps Bush is forgetting the fact that Osama Bin Laden used to be our ally, and our government helped him load up on weapons at one point to fight another of our enemies. I mean, it's not like that decision blew up in our face, right?

Reach columnist Hunter Kincaid at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.