[OldManMac]

It's really amazing to me, that so many Americans got suckered into believing the unfathomable fairy tale that Iraq was going to be a democracy, and they allowed thousands of our young men to be killed and injured, for nothing. It seems as if some want to believe so badly, they don't have the ability to understand that there are many regions of the world which have different beliefs than we do, and that simplistically trying to shove democracy down the throats of those who don't want it (and don't understand it) just isn't going to work. We went into a region we don't understand, and replaced a despot with a coming civil war. How sad.

--------------------------------------
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0206-02.htm

Iraq Shiite Leaders Demand Islam be the Source of Law


Iraq's Shiite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and another top cleric staked out a radical demand that Islam be the sole source of legislation in the country's new constitution.

One cleric issued a statement setting out the position and the spiritual leader of Iraqi Shiites made it known straight away that he backed demands for the Koran to be the reference point for legislation.

The national assembly formed after last month's historic elections is to oversee the drawing up of the new constitution and Sistani is the figurehead of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance expected to become the largest single bloc.

The role of Islam has been at the heart of months of debate between rival parties and factions as well as the US-led occupation authority which administered Iraq until last June.

Sistani leads the five most important clerics, known as marja al-taqlid, or objects of emulation, who had portrayed a more moderate stance going into the election.

The surprise statement was released by Sheikh Ibrahim Ibrahimi, a representative of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Ishaq al-Fayad, another of the marja.

"All of the ulema (clergy) and marja, and the majority of the Iraqi people, want the national assembly to make Islam the source of legislation in the permanent constitution and to reject any law that is contrary to Islam," said the statement.

A source close to Sistani announced soon after the release of the statement that the spiritual leader backed the demand.

"The marja has priorities concerning the formation of the government and the constitution. It wants the source of legislation to be Islam," said the source.

"We advise the government not to take decisions which would shock Muslims, such as the conscription of Muslims and the publication of their photos with foreign instructors," Ibrahimi went on his statement.

"We warn officials against a separation of the state and religion, because this is completely rejected by the ulema and marja and we will accept no compromise on this question.

"If they (the government) want the stability and security of the country, they must not touch the country's Islamic values and traditions," the sheikh said.

The role of Islam was a particular sticking point when an interim constitution was drawn up under the US-led occupation.

After often acrimonious debate and the threat of a veto by US administrator Paul Bremer, the final version completed in March last year said that Islam should be "a source" of legislation.

No law that "contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam" would be accepted, said the final draft of the so-called "fundamental law".

Sistani and the other top clerics mainly live in the central holy city of Najaf.

On top of Sistani and Fayad, there are the ayatollahs Bashir al-Najafi and Mohammad Said Hakim. A fifth, Ayatollah Kazem al-Hairi, lives in Iran.

[SimeyTheLimey]

The next step for Iraq following the elections held last week is to draft for themselves a constitution. Among the questions they will undoubtedly have to work out is what form of legal system to adopt.

A number of Muslim states have adopted Sharia as their law. That is not automatically incompatible with democracy.

Western liberals (and for that matter conservatives) might prefer Iraq to be a secular state. Whether it is or not isn't for us to say. If you really believe in democracy, you will let them make these decisions for themselves, and withhold premature judgment.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by KarlG:
[...] and they allowed thousands of our young men to be killed and injured, for nothing.

Probably, the problem is: why do so many young men (and some women) accept to "do" (!) this?

Brainwashing, psychologcal projection, compensation, money, etc., etc.?

Absolutely incredible, if one thinks about it...

[sugar_coated]

With time even mountains can be eroded by the wind.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The next step for Iraq following the elections held last week is to draft for themselves a constitution. Among the questions they will undoubtedly have to work out is what form of legal system to adopt.

A number of Muslim states have adopted Sharia as their law. That is not automatically incompatible with democracy.

Western liberals (and for that matter conservatives) might prefer Iraq to be a secular state. Whether it is or not isn't for us to say. If you really believe in democracy, you will let them make these decisions for themselves, and withhold premature judgment.

Noble sentiments. Spoken like an honest idealist.

How long will those sentiments last when the Alliance pushes to nationalize all the bits of the country that Bush has tried to privatize? Or if they reject American concessions to the oil? Or if the Kurds move to secede?

Let's be honest. The only western criteria for the new Iraqi government will be the exact same criteria as the last Iraqi government--keeping the oil flowing and keep the peace by whatever means necessary. If human rights and "democracy" have to be sacrificed for the greater western good, then so be it.

That's the way it has always been in the middle east and that is the way it will always remain.

Now that I think about it, there will be at least one new criteria:

permanent US military bases (Dhahran airbase's new address will be in Iraq)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Noble sentiments. Spoken like an honest idealist.

How long will those sentiments last when the Alliance pushes to nationalize all the bits of the country that Bush has tried to privatize? Or if they reject American concessions to the oil? Or if the Kurds move to secede?

Let's be honest. The only western criteria for the new Iraqi government will be the exact same criteria as the last Iraqi government--keeping the oil flowing and keep the peace by whatever means necessary. If human rights and "democracy" have to be sacrificed for the greater western good, then so be it.

That's the way it has always been in the middle east and that is the way it will always remain.

Now that I think about it, there will be at least one new criteria:

permanent US military bases (Dhahran airbase's new address will be in Iraq)

Spoken like a true bitter cynic.

BTW, the original article was wrong. Odd that nobody mentioned that fact. This was in the BBC. I know that you or KarlG or someone had to have read it.

Sistani 'not seeking Islamic law'
A spokesman for Iraq's most influential Shia cleric has denied reports that the cleric is demanding that Islam be the country's sole source of law.
Hamed Khafaf said Ayatollah Ali Sistani believes Iraq's new constitution should respect what he described as the Islamic cultural identity of Iraqis.

Shia success in the election led to speculation that the ayatollah wanted a constitution based on Sharia law.

Mr Khafaf said the speculation was baseless.

He insisted that Ayatollah Sistani's position had not changed.

In Ayatollah Sistani's view, his spokesman went on to say, it was up to the elected representatives of the people in the new National Assembly to decide the details.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Spoken like a true bitter cynic.

BTW, the original article was wrong. Odd that nobody mentioned that fact. This was in the BBC. I know that you or KarlG or someone had to have read it.

I'm relieved to hear that Al-Sistani's position is more moderate. That is truly a relief.

But that doesn't change what I've said or the reality of the situation.

Whatever government emerges in Iraq (you can call it democracy, republic or fried chicken) will ultimately be determined not by any Idealistic notions of just how human politics should be conducted but by the simple criteria that have always dictated politics in the middle east--compliance with the economic status quo.

We can certainly hope that there will be some intersection of economic necessity and democracy and individual rights, but let's not fool ourselves. If such an intersection is not accomplished, I can assure that it won't be the economic system that will be scrapped.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm relieved to hear that Al-Sistani's position is more moderate. That is truly a relief.

But that doesn't change what I've said or the reality of the situation.

Whatever government emerges in Iraq (you can call it democracy, republic or fried chicken) will ultimately be determined not by any Idealistic notions of just how human politics should be conducted but by the simple criteria that have always dictated politics in the middle east--compliance with the economic status quo.

We can certainly hope that there will be some intersection of economic necessity and democracy and individual rights, but let's not fool ourselves. If such an intersection is not accomplished, I can assure that it won't be the economic system that will be scrapped.

What you are saying isn't "reality," its a dire and pessimistic prediction. Wait and see like the rest of us.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What you are saying isn't "reality," its a dire and pessimistic prediction. Wait and see like the rest of us.

Blah blah blah.

The only pessimistic view is that these 2 interests won't intersect or can't intersect. I'm not convinced of that yet but hope is fading.

Understanding that US national security interests (energy security, the economic status quo) will forever trump whatever grand noble vision we might have for Arab self-determination isn't pessimism, that's US Foreign Policy 101 whether or not you're honest enough to admit it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Understanding that US national security interests (energy security, the economic status quo) will forever trump whatever grand noble vision we might have for Arab self-determination isn't pessimism, that's US Foreign Policy 101 whether or not you're honest enough to admit it.

I would distinctly dispute that. One thing that both Realists and Wilsonian Internationalist scholars agree about US foreign policy is that it has always had both pragmatic and idealist tendencies. It has never had exclusively one tendency or the other, but has tended to go back and forth and intermix the two tendencies.

The past is at best an uncertain predictor of the future. Much more so when you misunderstand the past. You seem more like a Chicken Little than a Cassandra to me, but we will still all just have to wait and see what happens.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I would distinctly dispute that. One thing that both Realists and Wilsonian Internationalist scholars agree about US foreign policy is that it has always had both pragmatic and idealist tendencies. It has never had exclusively one tendency or the other, but has tended to go back and forth and intermix the two tendencies.

The past is at best an uncertain predictor of the future. Much more so when you misunderstand the past.

Now I'm accussed of misunderstanding the past?

Name one instance were arab self-determination has threatened US energy security and been allowed to continue unchallenged. Do you even remember Kissinger's and Schlessinger's public announcements of our "military contigency" plan in response to the 1973 embargo? Had push come to shove, our noble ideals would have been very quickly sacrificed in the name of economic expediency and doubt the US would have flinched at doing it.

As for a poor prediction model, do you honestly believe that the US would ever act against its own economic interests in the middle east in support of some idealistic notion of supporting arab self-determination?

There is only one place in the region where the US has an irrational committment (i.e. even at tremendous expense to our self-interest elsewhere) to idealism of self-determination for the people and they aren't arab.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Now I'm accussed of misunderstanding the past?

Name one instance were arab self-determination has threatened US energy security and been allowed to continue unchallenged.

That's easy. 1956 and the Suez Crisis.

This is all pretty pointless though. Even if you understood US foreign policy of the past correctly, that still doesn't mean you can extrapolate it indefinitely into the future. It's especially bizarre when the people who agree with you about Iraq are the ones urging a return to cold Realism.

[BRussell]

I don't really think the problem is that they won't have a democracy, which would be relatively unusual in that region anyway, but that the democracy voluntarily turns itself into a theocracy.

IMO, the most likely scenario is that Iraq will basically turn into another Iran. Would that be good or bad? Well Iran is a a charter member of the Axle of Elvis, after all. What if Sadr-ites start to take over, or anti-American Islamists? What if they decide they want the bomb too, like Pakistan and Iran? Do we invade again until they get it right?

It's quite possible, I think, that Iraq in 10 years will be worse off and more of a threat to the US than it has been under Saddam. That might be pessimistic, but simply voting isn't the answer. A change in culture is what has to happen, and that takes a longer time than we've seen now, and a lot of unpredictable things can happen in a long time.

I'm afraid that the model of "overthrow government and install pro-US strongman" might make more sense than "overthrow government and let them do whatever they want."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I don't really think the problem is that they won't have a democracy, which would be relatively unusual in that region anyway, but that the democracy voluntarily turns itself into a theocracy.

IMO, the most likely scenario is that Iraq will basically turn into another Iran. Would that be good or bad? Well Iran is a a charter member of the Axle of Elvis, after all. What if Sadr-ites start to take over, or anti-American Islamists? What if they decide they want the bomb too, like Pakistan and Iran? Do we invade again until they get it right?

It's quite possible, I think, that Iraq in 10 years will be worse off and more of a threat to the US than it has been under Saddam. That might be pessimistic, but simply voting isn't the answer. A change in culture is what has to happen, and that takes a longer time than we've seen now, and a lot of unpredictable things can happen in a long time.

I'm afraid that the model of "overthrow government and install pro-US strongman" might make more sense than "overthrow government and let them do whatever they want."

There is no disagreement that this is uncertain and that the safest course in the short run is to simply do the strongman thing. That would be the old Guatamala model. The disagreement is whether in the long run that is sustainable, or whether all that does is bottle things up so that you create a bigger potential for blowback in the future.

Personally, I think the clock ran out on the "impose a strongman" way of thinking a long time ago. The only way to reach a long term solution to the problems of the Middle East is the same long term solution that worked in other regions of the world: Locally accountable and locally designed democratic self government. That we are taking that risk when it would be easier to impose a strongman is to me persuasive evidence that what Thunderous believes is not the case.

But you are right. It could go badly. It's just not inevitable that it will go badly. We will have to wait and see what happens, because to a huge extent, this is, and should be, out of our hands.

[bubblewrap]

Turkey has a provision that prevents an Islamic Law government.

[olePigeon]

I told you it was Theocracy.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Personally, I think the clock ran out on the "impose a strongman" way of thinking a long time ago. The only way to reach a long term solution to the problems of the Middle East is the same long term solution that worked in other regions of the world: Locally accountable and locally designed democratic self government. That we are taking that risk when it would be easier to impose a strongman is to me persuasive evidence that what Thunderous believes is not the case.

Iraq has a tradition of "strongmen" in power.

You can bet whatever you have they'll revert to custom. I also ready to bet they will not mind some extremely severe punishments for crimes we would not punish as severily, simply because it is the local culture of Justice.

Iraq is a very long way from democracy, and there is no such thing as a quick recipe to achieve it. Nowhere in the world was democracy created overnight and maintained as is; it evolved (and still requires a lot of evolution imho even in the "best" States where it is occuring) through trial and error.

For some time, Saddam Hussein was the head of the most progressive country in the world by pushing hard on education for women, being amongst the first leaders to have women fly fighter jets, etc. But as we all know he was one of the worst dictator-monsters ever in power, yet probably not the worst in Iraq's history.

Democracy is a commodity from which the majority picks for its best parts, but never has control of its existence.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
.... That we are taking that risk when it would be easier to impose a strongman is to me persuasive evidence that what Thunderous believes is not the case.

But you are right. It could go badly. It's just not inevitable that it will go badly. We will have to wait and see what happens, because to a huge extent, this is, and should be, out of our hands.

The absense of a strongman isn't evidence for new found American idealism. The absense of a strongman is quite simply because we've already destroyed the apparatus that any such strongman would have used.

I have little doubt that given the opporuntity Allawi would start rouding up radicals and undesirables and crushing dissent just like the good old days. He hasn't, done so but that isn't because he is sensitive to the "untidiness" of democray but simply because he can't--he hasn't got the resources.

Anyone watching the news on the Iraqi front should be aware of a new talking point that the administration has put out. Whenever anyone questions success in Iraq, administration apologists are pointing out that up till now the insurgent and terrorist agenda of initiating a civil war has failed. This "fact" will be cited as evidence that the US plan is working and that the insurgents are failing.

Anyone with half a brain, however, will quickly note that the while it is true that the Shia have not retaliated in kind to Sunni terrorism the primary reason is not that the insurgents are failing but rather the simple fact that the Shia have the US military doing all the fighting for them.

If the US military was not doing all the killing and dying on behalf of the "new" Iraq, there would be a civil war.

When the Sadr Army (Shia insurgency) flared, the US took the brunt and did all the fighting so that the Iraq goverment and the Sunni establishment didn't have to.

Likewise, when the Sunni insurgents attempt to provoke the Shia with targeted killings or attacking Shia sanctuaries, the US goes all the killing and dying on behalf the Shia so they don't have to.

There is already a civil war in Iraq. The only thing keeping from exploding uncontrollably is that the US is doing all the dirty work and desperately hoping that symbolic gestures of "progress" in the heavily protected Green Zone will make everyone forget that an ugly war is going on.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
...the US goes all the killing and dying on behalf the Shia so they don't have to.

All? What about the Iraqi police and military?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
All? What about the Iraqi police and military?

Correction accepted.

But there is a de-facto civil war going on despite the talking point memo assertions to the contrary.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Correction accepted.

But there is a de-facto civil war going on despite the talking point memo assertions to the contrary.

I seem to remember a certain thread where I predicted this would happen. Sigh. I need to stick to computers, it's less depressing.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
I seem to remember a certain thread where I predicted this would happen. Sigh. I need to stick to computers, it's less depressing.

Why do you think I've been MIA for months?

I recommend 20oz of the best beer in the world. If the symptoms persist, have 3 more.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's easy. 1956 and the Suez Crisis.

Not valid. The Brits did our dirty work for us in that one.

[jbartone]

<i>Iraq Shiite Leaders Demand Islam be the Source of Law</i>

Shi'ites came close to, but did not get an outright majority in the Iraqi National Assembly. So I think this is irrelevent.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by malvolio:
Not valid. The Brits did our dirty work for us in that one.

Completely and utterly wrong. A total reversal of the facts. Here is what the not-very-sympathetic-to-America Guardian says about the Eisenhower Administration and the Suez Crisis of 1956:

Much more telling than Soviet condemnation was the disapproval of the Eisenhower administration in the USA. Washington was appalled by the Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of the canal zone and the Sinai. The action threatened to destabilise the strategically vital region, and strengthen Soviet links with liberation movements around the world. It raised global tensions in an age dominated by the nuclear arms race and recurring superpower crises. More viscerally, it was viewed with distaste as a nakedly imperial exercise in a post-imperial age.

Eden, a master of self-delusion, thought he had received a nod and wink of approval for the invasion from John Foster Dulles, the US secretary of state. He should have checked with Dwight D Eisenhower, who was enraged by the action. He forced through the UN resolution imposing a ceasefire, and made it clear that in this matter at any rate, Britain would have no 'special relationship' with the USA.

The Guardian

Actually, Ike did a lot more than the Guardian lets on. Ike threatened the British Pound, forcing the British to back down. That UN Resolution was also forced on the British by a procedural dodge that circumvented the British UN veto. The blow to the UK government was huge, and some in Britain have never forgiven the US for turning on them over Suez.

Don't they teach history in high school any more? I thought this was common knowledge.