ARTICLE: Iraq Sees Islamic Resurgence

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

The problem is that unlike Drake, I don't think the US has the gumption to do so.

I said I wasn't sure the US has the gumption to do this. I hope we do.

I also want the US to involve the UN in post-war Iraq, even if it means allowing the French to get their hands on the spoils that they don't deserve. America needs international support to provide political cover so the US can stay in Iraq as long as is necessary to do the job right. My worry has always been that we would not do the post-war right, which is why I was reluctantly pro-war.

My views don't exactly fit your perception of me, do they GePap?

Actually, yes they do. You have said this before, even before the war. If you rememeber, one of my biggest pre-war complaints was that this admin. was not preparing the American people properly for the task it seem to want to ask of them. Why was it that before the war this amdin.r efused to even speculate on costs and reponsibilieties, and every time a high number came out they attacked it as silly?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
Yep. And the Taliban brought long-sought stability to Afghanistan. But is that a kind of stability folks would wish to bring to the Iraqi people, Sandman?

Iran is more democratic and free than our allies in the ME like Saudia Arabia and Egypt, even if ruled by clerics, which is a sad commentary.

[Uncle Sparky]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


...
You see what's happening in some parts of Iraq — fundamentalist elements of the Shiite population are attempting to exert control, all in the guise of bringing stability back to the people. Stability is a good thing, mind you, but if they succeed in the long run ... well ... the Pied Piper's price is going to be painfully high.

...
And one of those hard decisions for Bush will be how he handles the fundamentalist Shiite population in Iraq. Does he allow them to seed their Islamic government from hospitals now and let it spread outward, as it did in Iran? Or does he do something to keep them in check during the interim period while Iraq recovers from Saddam Hussein and the war that ousted him from power? He has to do something, and that something will not necessarily be popular. But it very well could be the *right* thing to do.

Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper

So, I guess if civic & federal control were to somehow collapse in the US, you would oppose churches reopening hospitals and churches using there existing structures to help stabilize government/ society ? Of course you wouldn't ! So far, US evangelicals are doing everything they can to bring their kind of "aid" to Iraq.

If Cold War I had ended differently, would you have preferred peoples committees controlled directly from Moscow running you local affairs, or your local church council ? Will the US end up looking like the Godless Commies in '50s propaganda films ? Does it already in the minds of many of the world's Muslims ?

[Gatekeeper]

Uncle Sparky:

I bet the women in an Islamic fundamentalist-style "democracy" wouldn't have much of a say, along with the minority Sunnis and Kurds.

I sometimes wonder why we don't make the case for our style of government more aggressively:

1. We have a Senate.
2. We have a House.
3. We have a judiciary.
4. We have a presidency.

Check and balances keep all four relatively in balance. Together, the Senate and House do a remarkably good job of representing the diverse interests and peoples that compose the United States of America.

Something along these lines should be strongly suggested for Iraq. They have provinces, correct? Well, each province could have two senators, an "x" number of representatives (based on population) and, boom!, there you have it: representation in the nation's capital. Heck, even the Shiite fundies could get voted into office at this level and be represented (it happens to a degree in the good old USofA, too). Combine that with an independent judiciary branch and a presidency that is chosen by voters — regardless of their race, ethnicity and sex — and you can have a thoroughly modern government in Iraq. And this is only at the federal level ... it can be applied to the provincial and local levels as well.

IMO, the democracies of the Americas and Europe are beacons of light that should attract others. Perhaps it's also our duty to see that such governments are also fostered into a solid existence in parts of the world where they're rare now. We did it in post-World War II Europe and Japan. Why the heck can't we take on the task in Iraq? Sure, there will be short-term pain ... but it's worth paying that price in exchange for coming decades or even centuries of stable democracy.

Gatekeeper

[GePap]

Just look how strong the legislative branch of our government has been lately in being a check to the exectuive and then ask yourself why we might not be doing so hot.

[Uncle Sparky]

Gatekeeper :

Do you think the Kurds will want to live under a Shi'ite dominated government, democratic or otherwise?

They have already tasted freedom, first from the no-fly enclave in the north and now in their own US protectorate.

The rights of women is a major consern. Some Islamic democracies such as Packistan & Indonesia have handled it better then others. On the other hand, both of the above have brutally supressed those who went against perceived government interests.

Which brings me back to the Kurds...

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
So, I guess if civic & federal control were to somehow collapse in the US, you would oppose churches reopening hospitals and churches using there existing structures to help stabilize government society ? Of course you wouldn't !

No, I wouldn't. But what I'm focusing on — and this is covered rather extensively in the article — are those fundamentalist Shiites who are *not* intent on limiting their "help" to short-term goals of getting medicine, electricity and water back to pre-war levels. They're the ones who seek an Islamic Iraq, and they're the ones I'm thinking about when posting. Not the Shiite clerics who are really just in it to provide relief. Not the Shiites who are concerned about other Shiites. Just those who seem incapable of offering help w/o attaching strings to it. Namely, an Islamic Iraq.

So far, US evangelicals are doing everything they can to bring their kind if "aid" to Iraq.

Some are, yes. And they're being watched. Closely. Whether you believe it or not, though, there are some Christian aid groups who are helping with the physical needs of Iraqis w/o proselytizing. But I don't think Franklin Graham's group is one of them. But neither is Graham's group the only group providing aid.

If Cold War I had ended differently, would you have preferred peoples committees controlled directly from Moscow running you local affairs, or your local church council ?

Considering the fact that the Soviet Union's goals never included self-determination and democracy for its "allies," yes, I would have a problem with it because they'd *never* leave, and they'd *never* think twice about sticking their noses into every nook and cranny of their "ally's" affairs. And if you told them to stop, they'd likely send in tanks.

I don't think America, even with its warts, would fit very well into the model of the Soviet Union.

Will the US end up looking like the Godless Commies in '50s propaganda films ? Does it already in the minds of many of the worlds Muslims ?

Only time will tell.

Gatekeeper

[Sava]

Originally posted by UberKruX


thats why we unleash the aids on them. you know we developed it, right?

Now you're just being silly.

[Uncle Sparky]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


No, I wouldn't. But what I'm focusing on — and this is covered rather extensively in the article — are those fundamentalist Shiites who are *not* intent on limiting their "help" to short-term goals of getting medicine, electricity and water back to pre-war levels. They're the ones who seek an Islamic Iraq, and they're the ones I'm thinking about when posting. Not the Shiite clerics who are really just in it to provide relief. Not the Shiites who are concerned about other Shiites. Just those who seem incapable of offering help w/o attaching strings to it. Namely, an Islamic Iraq.

So, you really think if Jerry Fallwell and his ilk were to reopen hospitals etc. they wouldn't have any long term goals of further fundimentalizing the US ?

Some are, yes. And they're being watched. Closely. Whether you believe it or not, though, there are some Christian aid groups who are helping with the physical needs of Iraqis w/o proselytizing. But I don't think Franklin Graham's group is one of them. But neither is Graham's group the only group providing aid.

I can actually somewhat agree with you. I have volunteered in the past and currently donate to the MCC (Mennonite Central Committee) who provide aid no strings attached. My concern is whether the US government, with a fundamentalist at its head, is covertly backing them, like they didn't back Saddam in the '80s.

Of course, if they read all three Testaments, they would know converting Muslims is a bit of a lost cause.

[yago]

I missed the references to the Kurds in this thread. They are absolutely thrilled to see the Americans, and I'm sure would be glad to have a US presence in the north for the next hundred years.

Ah, no, I don't think so. They're starting to get a little bit frustrated, like all of the 3 groups are. Saw on TV how Americans had real problems, because they wanted to disarm them. The Kurds gave in in the end.

Anyway, the democracy in Iraq will be a democracy in Iraq style, not in US-style. If the Americans try to coerce their way of life on the Iraqis, they will propably answer with bombs.

Shia in Iraq does not mean the same as Shia in Iran. They're different and most of the Iraqi Shia sure don't want to copy Iran. I think a lot of them got good plans for a peaceful co-existence with the Sunni.

The worst American move would be to use the Sunni (mainly the ex-Saddam fellows) to crush the Shia. That would be a recipe for resistance movement.

[Sandman]

Yep. And the Taliban brought long-sought stability to Afghanistan. But is that a kind of stability folks would wish to bring to the Iraqi people, Sandman?

Ask the Iraqis and Afghans what they want.

[Chris 62]

You people crack me up.

Why not try listening to an Islamic writer who actually talked to people in Iraq, rather than second hand news from doomsayers?

WHAT IRAQIS THINK
By AMIR TAHERI
April 27, 2003 -- BAGHDAD

BEFORE the start of the campaign to liberate Iraq, pundits and exiles had cast the Shiite community as an almost unconditional ally of the United States. Iraqi Shiites were supposed to be as keen to rise against Saddam Hussein as the so-called "Arab street" was sizzling to explode in his support.

In the event, however, there was little or no uprising of the Shiites. Terrorized by Saddam's machinery of fear, the community did not wish to repeat its tragic experience of 1991 - when it rose and, abandoned by America, was crushed by the regime.

Less than two weeks after the liberation the tune has changed: The same pundits and exiles now claim that Shiites represent the biggest threat to U.S. plans in Iraq.

That claim is supported by TV footage of last week's pilgrimage by hundreds of thousands of Shiites to the shrine of Imam Hussein at Karbala, 80 miles south of Baghdad.

The gathering was impressive by any standard, as was the pilgrims' fervor. Coming on the occasion of Arba'in, the 40th day of the martyrdom of Imam Hussein over 1,300 years ago, the pilgrimage attracted the faithful from all over Iraq.

For the first time in 32 years, Iraqi Shiites were able to perform a pilgrimage that had been banned by the Ba'athist regime. It was also the first free mass gathering in Iraq in almost half a century not to be crushed by the regime's tanks and helicopters.

Was all that a show of anti-Americanism or, at least, a "warning" to Washington, as some pundits claim?

On the contrary: The gathering showed how isolated anti-American groups are among Iraqi Shiites.

Throughout Arba'in, small bands of militants, some freshly arrived from Iran, were posted at the entrance of streets leading to the two main shrines. They carried placards and posters calling for an "Islamic republic" and shouted anti-American slogans. But few pilgrims were prepared to join them.

All the pilgrims that this reporter could talk to expressed their "gratitude and appreciation" to the United States and its British allies for having freed them from the most brutal regime Iraq had seen since its creation in 1921.

Needless to say, most TV cameras were focused on the small number of militants who had something "hot," that is to say anti-American, to say.

After days of talking to Shiites in Karbala and Najaf, it is clear to this reporter that there is virtually no undercurrent of anti-Americanism in the heartland of Iraqi Shi'ism. Even some clerics who have just returned from exile in Iran were keen to advertise their goodwill toward the United States.

All that, however, could quickly change.

The advent of liberty has unleashed energies that could both create and destroy. Here you have millions of people, mostly aged below 25 and never allowed to make the smallest decision without the fear of political authority, who suddenly feel no one is in charge.

"We have been freed from a despotic father and feel like orphans: both happy and terrified," says Mahdi Khadhim, a Karbala schoolteacher, expressing a widely held sentiment.

Many find it puzzling that America is not telling them what to do or not to do. One question persistently asked is whether the Americans or "at least the British" have a plan for Iraq?

"Where do we go from here?" asks Hassan Naqib, a theology student just back from Iran. "Are we supposed to sort things out as we like?"

The United States and its allies impressed the Iraqis by the efficiency of their military machine. (Although little noticed by the media, few Iraqis outside Baghdad, and to a lesser extent Basra, directly experienced the war.) Yet some Iraqis wonder whether that efficient military machine might lack a political brain.

The political vacuum created by the collapse of the Ba'athist regime widens by the day, and there are no signs that the United States (or anybody else for that matter) might have a clue as to how to fill it.

Having no jobs or schools to go to, millions of young men gather at teahouses or at private homes to discuss politics, something they had never dared indulge in. The atmosphere is charged with expectation and uncertainty.

These young men want to be heroic and revolutionary, the makers of a history of which they had always been mere objects. For the time being, few are looking toward Iran either as model or as a source of inspiration. But that, too, could change.

During the past week or so, hundreds of Iranian "revolutionary agents" have slipped into Iraq with vast sums of money, small arms and propaganda material, including portraits of the late Iranian firebrand Ruhallah Khomeini.

An extraordinary number of crisp U.S. dollar bills is in circulation in the "holy" cities, most of it coming not from Uncle Sam, but from the mullahs in Tehran. In the absence of Iraqi radio and TV networks, and with the failure of the Americans to set up their own channels, many have to tune in to broadcasts from Iran.

And much current U.S. "political" activity among the Shiites consists of an extension of the fight within the Bush administration about who to promote as the interim leader for Iraq. This leads to comical scenes. A local mullah is first approached and offered money by an American "contact" in exchange for supporting Ahmad Chalabi, a former exile leader now back in Baghdad. Later, another American "contact" calls on the same mullah and offers him money not to support Chalabi.

Some U.S. "contacts" have forged a dialogue with the so-called Badr Brigade, a militant armed group backed by Iran. The group's leader, Abdelaziz Hakim, returned to Karbala with a bodyguard of 200 men last week and has had several meetings with American "contacts." He has promised to change the name of his group's political wing, The High Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), by replacing the word "revolution" with "democracy" to please the Americans.

At the same time, another group of American "contacts" are warning Iraqi interlocutors not to go near Hakim and his group.

Hakim's men, meanwhile, are trying to persuade shopkeepers in Karbala and Najaf to display portraits of Khomeini alongside those of Ayatollah Muhammad Baqer Hakim, who is still in exile in Tehran, so far with little success.

There is a widely held impression that rival factions in Washington are prepared to forge alliances even with the devil, which in this case could mean the mullahs of Tehran, to sabotage each other's plans.

President Bush needs to get a grip on this situation before it runs out of control. He must decide who is in charge of the political aspect of the Iraqi project. And, indeed, what that project consists of.

He seems to paint a different picture, but most of you aern't into anything trueful, so what does it matter?

BTW, what's the civillan count of the US carpet bombing now?

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by GePap
Just look how strong the legislative branch of our government has been lately in being a check to the exectuive and then ask yourself why we might not be doing so hot.

That's taking a simplistic and short-term view of things, GePap. I'm talking, more or less, about the institutions themselves and the long-term view. When viewed through that prism, you *cannot* deny that our institutions haven't performed well during their 220 years or so of existence.

Sure, there are times when the presidency is stronger. There are also times when the legislative branch, some would argue, has too much influence. And, above both the executive and legislative branchs, towers the judiciary, which keeps both in check when necessary.

I would have no problem offering my government model as an example of what Iraq could be.

Gatekeeper

[Uncle Sparky]

Interesting article Chris 62. Could you post the link?

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Uncle Sparky
Gatekeeper :

Do you think the Kurds will want to live under a Shi'ite dominated government, democratic or otherwise?

You know the answer to your own question, so why ask?

Anyway, a democratic Iraq would have majorities and minorities — ethnicity, race, politics, religion, influence and so on. Every democracy and/or republic has it. The United States is a fine example of this — we have lots of interest groups and minorities, along with majorities, and we have yet to fly apart at the seams. Two hundred twenty-seven years and counting. I'm *not* saying such cohesion comes easily — just look at the 1861-65 Civil War — but neither does it come apart permanently so easily, either.

Iraq will face such challenges, no doubt about it. But if distinctly different groups can co-exist and prosper under common national identies elsewhere in the world, I don't see why Iraq should be any different.

Gatekeeper