Friday, January 30, 2004
The Shiite Surge
The Shiite Surge
"Moderate voices, including some Iraqi exiles who lobbied hard for the American invasion, will tell you that it was the American decision not simply to liberate Iraq but to declare Iraq an occupied country that has turned the Shiites against the United States. Some radical clerics agree. Moqtadah al-Sadr's deputy in Najaf told me: ''The Americans say they're sorry about 1991, and that now they're liberators. At the beginning, in early April, that was very good. But when they declared an occupation, everything changed in our minds."
''Why should we believe the Americans have changed since 1991, when they showed no concern over our fate, when, after tantalizing us, they stood by as we were tortured?'' he continued. ''It is the same people, Cheney, Bush's son, the Zionist Wolfowitz,'' he said, referring to Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary. ''It is not our liberation they want; it is to strengthen Israel and to fight Islam everywhere in the world. We think you are crusaders, not liberators. If you were liberators, you would give us free elections, not the fake ones to put Ahmad Chalabi in power that the Americans want. That is what Moqtadah al-Sadr told Sergio Vieira de Mello'' -- the U.N. special representative killed when a truck bomb blew up the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad last August -- ''when he came to Najaf. And that is what we believe.''
One has to wonder to what extent such naive or politically motivated rhetoric is believed by other Shias. Typically the most outspoken are the ones that have an agenda, so those Iraqi's that are trying to build better lives for themselves instead of getting quoted by the press are difficult to understand. This garbage about zionism and a second crusade, and how the decision to declare occupation instead of liberation (liberation to what, the anarchy and death that would have resulted in the inevitable power vacuum that would have occurred if American forces had left after the Baathist regime fell) is not worthy of print without attempting to get to the bottom of what most Shias really think about the state of their country. Of course, however, the NYT's has an agenda of making the war look bad, which seems to get in the way of real reporting. Quoting a few individuals does not mean that solid facts about the whole group have been gathered.
...
"When Sistani calls for a direct election, as opposed to the American plan for an indirect voting system based on regional caucuses, what resonates with ordinary Iraqis is their deep skepticism about American motives and their deep resentment of the American occupation. If ''one man, one vote'' is good enough for the Americans, why isn't it good enough for Iraqis?"
Well, why don't you try to answer that question, which has been answered many times: there is no system of voter registration to permit such a vote without risking massive voter fraud and corrupted elections.
...
"This ability to wait is often said to accompany the Shiites' almost cultic fascination with martyrdom and suffering. This stereotype, like all stereotypes, is at best a half-truth. But in the fall of 2003, the dominant view in Shiite Iraq was that there was nothing to be gained and much to be lost by confronting the Americans directly. Whatever firebrands like Moqtadah al-Sadr might say, it was better to wait the Americans out.
There are all sorts of explanations for this. One, put to me by Joseph Wilson IV, former U.S. charge d'affaires in Baghdad, was that as long as Americans were killing Sunnis, the Shiites had no reason not to sit on the sidelines. It was the Sunnis, after all, who had long stood in the way of Shiite rights and Shiite power in Iraq, and by a certain logic, anything that weakened the Sunnis strengthened the Shiites. The Shiites also realize that the Americans are eager to leave as soon as possible -- and to leave behind a ''democracy'' of one kind or another, which cannot help increasing the power of the majority. Having been excluded from power for so long, the Shiite leadership does not want, at the 11th hour, to ruin its chances of finally acquiring its rightful role in Iraq. ''We must wait,'' one cleric in Najaf told me. And, almost ruefully, he added, ''We in the Shiite majority of this country have been waiting to play our rightful role in Iraq since the death of Imam Hussein'' -- some 1,300 years ago. ''Having done that, we can certainly wait another six months.'' "
This is a worrysome view; Shias waiting for democracy to be established, and then turning it into a tyranny of the majority once America leaves. These seems to indicate that America is right in wanting to use a caucus system; allowing the majority to decide matters in a country that is not used exercising the moderation necessary in a democracy to prevent tyrannical excess by the majority will lead to inequality and attrocity. Democracy must be taught, and this will take time and a slow handing over of power to Iraqis.
...
"On that subject, Nazmi, like many scholarly Iraqis I met, was at pains to insist that the differences between the two sects of Islam should not be exaggerated. ''Yes, there are Sunnis and Shiites here,'' he said wearily, ''but they worship the same god, revere the same prophet, read the same holy book.'' Having said that, he readily conceded that ''nowadays in Iraq, the Shiites have become more aware of themselves as a group. Saddam Hussein's opposition to them, his perception during the Iran-Iraq war that they were some sort of fifth column, has made them less accommodating with the Sunnis than they were before.''"
An identity created by Saddam is one that will certainly be laced with his barbarity, even if it was in response to barbarity. If power is given to the Shias too quickly, I smell trouble for the Sunni's and Kurds, whether it be religiously motivated or purely one group identity beating up on another because it can.
"Moderate voices, including some Iraqi exiles who lobbied hard for the American invasion, will tell you that it was the American decision not simply to liberate Iraq but to declare Iraq an occupied country that has turned the Shiites against the United States. Some radical clerics agree. Moqtadah al-Sadr's deputy in Najaf told me: ''The Americans say they're sorry about 1991, and that now they're liberators. At the beginning, in early April, that was very good. But when they declared an occupation, everything changed in our minds."
''Why should we believe the Americans have changed since 1991, when they showed no concern over our fate, when, after tantalizing us, they stood by as we were tortured?'' he continued. ''It is the same people, Cheney, Bush's son, the Zionist Wolfowitz,'' he said, referring to Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary. ''It is not our liberation they want; it is to strengthen Israel and to fight Islam everywhere in the world. We think you are crusaders, not liberators. If you were liberators, you would give us free elections, not the fake ones to put Ahmad Chalabi in power that the Americans want. That is what Moqtadah al-Sadr told Sergio Vieira de Mello'' -- the U.N. special representative killed when a truck bomb blew up the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad last August -- ''when he came to Najaf. And that is what we believe.''
One has to wonder to what extent such naive or politically motivated rhetoric is believed by other Shias. Typically the most outspoken are the ones that have an agenda, so those Iraqi's that are trying to build better lives for themselves instead of getting quoted by the press are difficult to understand. This garbage about zionism and a second crusade, and how the decision to declare occupation instead of liberation (liberation to what, the anarchy and death that would have resulted in the inevitable power vacuum that would have occurred if American forces had left after the Baathist regime fell) is not worthy of print without attempting to get to the bottom of what most Shias really think about the state of their country. Of course, however, the NYT's has an agenda of making the war look bad, which seems to get in the way of real reporting. Quoting a few individuals does not mean that solid facts about the whole group have been gathered.
...
"When Sistani calls for a direct election, as opposed to the American plan for an indirect voting system based on regional caucuses, what resonates with ordinary Iraqis is their deep skepticism about American motives and their deep resentment of the American occupation. If ''one man, one vote'' is good enough for the Americans, why isn't it good enough for Iraqis?"
Well, why don't you try to answer that question, which has been answered many times: there is no system of voter registration to permit such a vote without risking massive voter fraud and corrupted elections.
...
"This ability to wait is often said to accompany the Shiites' almost cultic fascination with martyrdom and suffering. This stereotype, like all stereotypes, is at best a half-truth. But in the fall of 2003, the dominant view in Shiite Iraq was that there was nothing to be gained and much to be lost by confronting the Americans directly. Whatever firebrands like Moqtadah al-Sadr might say, it was better to wait the Americans out.
There are all sorts of explanations for this. One, put to me by Joseph Wilson IV, former U.S. charge d'affaires in Baghdad, was that as long as Americans were killing Sunnis, the Shiites had no reason not to sit on the sidelines. It was the Sunnis, after all, who had long stood in the way of Shiite rights and Shiite power in Iraq, and by a certain logic, anything that weakened the Sunnis strengthened the Shiites. The Shiites also realize that the Americans are eager to leave as soon as possible -- and to leave behind a ''democracy'' of one kind or another, which cannot help increasing the power of the majority. Having been excluded from power for so long, the Shiite leadership does not want, at the 11th hour, to ruin its chances of finally acquiring its rightful role in Iraq. ''We must wait,'' one cleric in Najaf told me. And, almost ruefully, he added, ''We in the Shiite majority of this country have been waiting to play our rightful role in Iraq since the death of Imam Hussein'' -- some 1,300 years ago. ''Having done that, we can certainly wait another six months.'' "
This is a worrysome view; Shias waiting for democracy to be established, and then turning it into a tyranny of the majority once America leaves. These seems to indicate that America is right in wanting to use a caucus system; allowing the majority to decide matters in a country that is not used exercising the moderation necessary in a democracy to prevent tyrannical excess by the majority will lead to inequality and attrocity. Democracy must be taught, and this will take time and a slow handing over of power to Iraqis.
...
"On that subject, Nazmi, like many scholarly Iraqis I met, was at pains to insist that the differences between the two sects of Islam should not be exaggerated. ''Yes, there are Sunnis and Shiites here,'' he said wearily, ''but they worship the same god, revere the same prophet, read the same holy book.'' Having said that, he readily conceded that ''nowadays in Iraq, the Shiites have become more aware of themselves as a group. Saddam Hussein's opposition to them, his perception during the Iran-Iraq war that they were some sort of fifth column, has made them less accommodating with the Sunnis than they were before.''"
An identity created by Saddam is one that will certainly be laced with his barbarity, even if it was in response to barbarity. If power is given to the Shias too quickly, I smell trouble for the Sunni's and Kurds, whether it be religiously motivated or purely one group identity beating up on another because it can.
Comments:
Post a Comment
