Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald surveys the current prospects for democracy in Iraq:
The Sunnis are not fighting "democracy." They are fighting the loss of their own rule. They have convinced themselves, by the way, that they represent a majority of the population. How have they done so? They think that Sunni Arabs are being undercounted, and that roughly 45% of the population is Sunni Arab. (The lowest figure I have heard being offered by the Sunnis is 42%, reported by Fouad Ajami). And to this figure -- let us say 42% -- they then blandly add as "Sunnis" the Kurds (who, though mostly Sunni, are non-Arab, and have been the chief victims of Sunni Arabs). Thus, presto-magico, it seems that the Sunnis have some kind of divine right to rule.In some Sunni countries, the division of the world is between Muslim, Shi'a, and Infidel, with the Shi'a not accorded the full status of Muslim, but not -- save in the wilder desert shores of Saudi Arabia and those who follow it -- outright called Infidels. But the Jordanian-born Palestinian Zarqawi certainly calls all Shi'a Infidels -- and we know what that implies for how they are to be treated, and indeed are being treated.
Nor do the Shi'a want, in the abstract, something called "democracy." They want power. They constitute 60% of the population. Hence "democracy" for them, as so far interpreted, means power for the Shi'a. That's it. The Shi'a did not march off to express their faith in democracy, that universal yearning for freedom that Bush keeps telling us is a feature common to all men. He has it wrong. He assumes that culture (in the anthropological sense) does not matter. But many men, and women, especially those raised in Islam, by Islam, for Islam (which alas shall not perish from the earth), yearn not for individualism but for Belonging to the Ummah, for the Belonging that depends on others Not Belonging, and that those others are the Infidels, and Americans are among them.
No, Bush posits the kind of world one hears about in the most banal of commencement speech addresses, or those essays on What Democracy Means to Me that used to be assigned in eighth-grade civics classes, and which, while often touching (especially if written by a real refugee from a hellhole), are not the stuff that should be filling the mind of someone whose duty it is to craft coherent policies based on reality, not on the pieties of some Citizenship Day at Ellis Island, circa 1930.The Shi'a do not want democracy any more than the Sunnis. Rephrased, this becomes: If the Shi'a want democracy more than the Sunnis in Iraq, it is only because there are more of them. The big-shots in Washington who are now disposing of the fates of all those American soldiers should get the drift, learn to deal with Islam, and stop believing in this cockamamie Light-Unto-the-Muslim Nations business.
Stick to this:
1) Get out of Iraq, using the December elections as the terminus ad quem -- the point when the American Timothy gives the Iraqi Dumbo the magic feather, and tells him "Good Luck" and "I'm sure you can fly" and then leaves.
2) Offer hint-hint nudge-nudge support to the Kurds who, in Kurdistan, are not exactly pleased with the compromises the Kurds in Baghdad have made. Begin reading Turkey the riot act. At the same time suggest that a free Kurdistan's boundaries would never include parts of Anatolia -- "we garontee" in a Cajun accent -- as long as Turkey, which now has nowhere else to turn (certainly not to wary and hostile Europe), leaves Kurdistan alone. Explain to the Turks that in the end they may find that the pressure a free Kurdistan puts on Syria and Iran can work to Turkey's advantage. Explain that the Americans have been deeply disappointed in Turkey, which relies for military equipment, training and resupply (of spare parts, for example) entirely on the Americans, and that things will go hard for them if they do not collaborate --that the failure to allow that fourth division in from the north was the last, no the antepenultimate straw. The penultimate straw has been the last two years of vilification of the United States in the Turkish press, and the final straw has been the attempt to punish Orhan Pamuk on the little unforgotten matter of the Armenian massacres -- which Turkey sooner or later must own up to. Turkey should, if it is clever and wishes to encourage secularism, correctly attribute the genocide not to "Turks" but rather to a campaign engaged in by "Turks and Kurds and Arabs" -- for until they reached the safe havens of Christian parts of Aleppo and Beirut, those Armenian refugees in the Syrian Desert were subject to rape and looting by local Arabs, something that those Armenians who found haven in Lebanon and Syria have preferred not to look at too closely. And those Turks, Kurds, and Arabs, they can say, were all "misusing" (uh-huh) Islam to attack "Christian" Armenians -- not because they were Armenians, but because they were Christians, and sufficiently numerous, so the Muslim Turks thought, to constitute a threat to Muslims and the right order of things.The Americans are not making Iraq safe for democracy. They are helping the Sh'a suppress the Sunnis. They are training what they like to call, insist upon calling, an "Iraqi" army but it is nothing of the kind, and cannot be. This army, and these police, are almost entirely Shi'a and Kurd. And so the Americans are now engaged in raising up a Shi'a army to better defend itself against the Sunnis. At the same time, Iranian agents in Iraq are also training Shi'a. So here we have the Americans doing the work of the Iranians, though Iran and Saudi Arabia, are the most powerful and dangerous supporters of Jihad in the world. And Iran has that science project that must be damaged, if not completely destroyed.
The American government can prate about "democracy" all it wants. It certainly keeps it from analyzing the nature of the problem, a problem that does not come from "a handful of extremists." Attention to Iraq, and repetition of this phrase "war on terror," obscures reality. If all we are worried about is a "war on terror," then, provided only those caught in terrorist acts or overt support for such acts are deported, we should not care one whit about the islamization of Europe.Well, do you care or don't you care about the islamization of Europe? If you regard it with horror, as a civilizational threat akin only to that of a permanent Nazi victory over Europe, then you should be furious at the continued refusal even to hint, synecdochically, at the belief-system that has been strengthened, rather than weakened, in Iraq itself.
There was only one reason to go to Iraq that made sense: to destroy all major weaponry and weapons programs, because it was unclear exactly what Saddam Hussein possessed, or was in the process of producing. That's it.
The squandering of resources -- men, materiel, money, morale of soldiers and civilians, at the very moment when they need to be carefully husbanded for a new policy of containment (this time, of Islam) that will need to be conducted over many decades, and perhaps without any end in sight -- is maddening.
It maddens me.
Does it madden you?
thecid:
Spencer is interested in your offer. I am posting this on multiple threads in the hope that you'll see it. Contact him at director@jihadwatch.org.
Thank you, Hugh, for your excellent insights into that situation, which maddens me too. I think that the Iraqi of all Muslim stripes, can and should be left to find their own way and country (countries?) I have one big worry though. What of the Christians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, and the smaller sects, the Mandaeans, the Yzedis, etc. Could they all be brought out before we leave the Muslims to do whatever they will do to each other? Or, once the slaughter began, would one group, probably the Sunnis, be the protected group that are brought to the US by the thousands and leaving the non-Muslims to fend for themselves. I can almost guarantee that for all the Muslims groups, it would be "open season" on the non-Muslims. The Muslims seem to be the darlings of our State Dept. I am certain than in the event of a civil war, Sunnis would be arriving by the plane loads, with the blood of non-Muslims left to dry in the hot Iraqi sun.
Do you have ideas on this issue, Hugh? I would appreciate your thoughts.
Yes, it maddens me, too.
I agree that it’s way past time to get out of there. However they govern themselves or whatever they do for themselves, they’ll inevitably do –and no matter what guidance we try to show them, they’ll most certainly do whatever they’re going to do anyway, so why stand around for some angered Muslim’s target practice?
The US has only been around for a little over 200 years, so let these civilizations that have been around for eons do their thing. Why would they even listen to us in the first place? That’s like someone well into their adulthood taking orders from a drooling 2-year-old kid in their eyes, so let’s pack up and go home! We’re not wanted there and we don’t want to be there either, so let’s get out and let them duke it out by themselves. After all, what’s the worst that could happen? Civil war? Lots of fighting and death? Look at the place now …it’s not much different than that as it stands. Maybe it becomes an Islamic state …so what? That’s just a bigger target for when we decide to flatten it all and turn it into a parking lot for Euro-Disney.
Seriously …we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. We may have had good intent (removing any weapons Saddam had) but that’s turned into a mess and there’s no way that our ideology, governing system, moral code and values can possibly appeal to the backwards thinking black hole of the Islamic mind.
Get out. Go home. Make an announcement of who the true enemy is, secure the boarders, close mosques, deport illegals and do our best to support those democracies over there. No more money being given to the Palestinians and no more playing around with those who won’t abide by international standards and go about tinkering with their own WMDs.
Isn’t it time, already? Does a nuke have to go off in a civilized western society before someone takes action?
A poster above wonders what will happen to the Christians in Iraq, and worries that Sunnis will arrive in the United States en masse. I do not think the latter is possible. Even this Adminstration, and even those who hate this Administration (in so many ways, they have both failed completely in this matter, the matter of Jihad and of Islam), would realize how deeply unpopular, and dangerous, any further arrival of Muslims, and especially Arab Muslims, would be. We do not want, cannot be expected to monitor the movements, the on-campus activities, the political and social and foreign policy demands, of an even larger more aggressive population of people who owe their loyalty, as they must, as they are instructed to, every day in every way, to the umma al-islamiyya and not to the Infidel nation-state. Besides, there is not going to be any refugee problem. The Sunni areas will remain Sunni; the Shi'a areas remain Shi'a. There may be a kind of exchange, where Shi'a leave mainly Sunni areas and vice-versa, but that's it. And even if some had to flee, they would flee to villages a mile or 10 miles or 100 miles down the road, or could even, in the case of the Sunnis, go to Jordan or through Jordan (and Syria); in the case of the Shi'a, there is Big Brother Iran to flee too, should the very unlikely need arise.
What of the Christians? Well, already 40,000 of them have left Iraq. What of the rest? How likely is it that they are going to be safe, permanently safe, whether or not the Americans stay another 2-3 years, or leave within the year? If anything, the longer the Americans stay, the longer the anger that the Shi'a have for the Sunnis, and the hatred and contempt that so many (not all) Sunnis have for the Shi'a, can be deflected onto the Americfans, the "Christian" and "Infidel" Americans. Were there still a Jewish population, no doubt much of the fury would also be turned on them. But as local Infidels all that are left are the Christians.
Would they necessarily be endangered? If Sunni and Sh'a are going at it, would either side wish to act so as to infuriate the Western world and especially those damned Americans who have a particular interest in the local Christians, and if made angry can wreak revenge, and certainly help to destroy weaponry, not on the ground but from the air. Would Sunnis killing Shi'a, and vice-versa, in a jockeying for power, wish to bring in the Americans against them?
And what about an independent Kurdistan? One need not present the Kurdish Muslims as angels. They are not. Both massacres of Armenians (1894-96 and 1915-1920) of Armenians were participated in by Kurds. Assyrian websites have reported on the killing of Christian girls by their Kurdish masters. No need to paint a pretty picture there. But the Kurds need the Americans badly, and they should be willing to establish, if and when necessary, a refuge for Christians elsewhere in Iraq, possibly protected by American and other Infidel forces -- what a fitting job that would be for NATO troops, protecting Christians from Arab Muslims, with a little help from non-Arab (i.e., Kurdish) Muslims.
Whatever happens, will happen. Continuing to stay in Iraq for another year or two will simply cause the American public to become so disenchanted, that they will elect someone who will be disinclined to do anything at all about the Jihad. There is always a limited amount of political capital to be spent. It has been spent most recklessly and foolishly -- not on the initial invasion, not on the year or so it took afterwards to look around for weapons, to interrupt projects, to seize intelligence files, to blow up the weapons and ammunition dumps, to seize Saddam Hussein and arrest or kill the other members of his regime. No, not a mistake. Not irrational. Not silly.
But now?
All Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, Cheney and all the rest, all that the senators and congressmen have to do is to ask themselves one question:
From the viewpoint of Infidels was the Iran-Iraq War a good thing, or a bad thing?
Answer: It was a very good thing. It should have gone on forever.
Question: Why then are we risking American lives, using up rapidly desert-degraded equipment, spending hundreds of billions that if spent on sources of non-oil energy and conservation would do far more to undercut the world-wide Jihad than the most glorious outcome in Iraq ever could, in order to prevent what, within Iraq, might be a smaller variant, or perhaps one that might grow to the same size if enough outside forces, Sunni and Shi'a, enter the fray, as that Iran-Iraq War?
Why can't people see this? Why do they become sentimentalists, uttering such phrases as "we can't do that" or "that would be wrong" or "how can you think such a thing."
Good God. How can you NOT think such a thing?
Good God, Hugh hit another bullseye: "Why then are we risking American lives ..[and].. spending hundreds of billions that if spent on sources of non-oil energy and conservation would do far more to undercut the world-wide Jihad than the most glorious outcome in Iraq ever could"
When will people realize this? No oil, no jihad. Period. It's expensive running a war. Let them try to finance it by selling sand.
But, to answer the rhetorical question, "why" are we doing it, it's because of a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Those in power believe that we are all God's children, that we all want to do good to others, turn the other cheek, etc. They think the Muslims want to live in peace and harmony and prosperity in this world, but a few bad fanatical leaders are forcing them to commit jihad against their will.
Based on "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam"'s performance on the NYT bestseller list, I think the public is catching on to reality much faster than the Adminstration.
Thanks, Hugh, for your answer to my question. Yes, the Kurds would have the most to gain from helping non-Muslims. I know that a territory, state (in the USA sense of the word) has been suggested for Christians. That would perhaps be the best for those that chose to remain. I will use the word "madden" again. It maddens me that the US has spent so much in human resources and money for that part of the world. It also maddens me that the Jews, Christians, Mandaeans, Zorastians, Yzedis and others, all of whom predate the arrival of Islam, are being swept from the "Islamic world." It seems like the Muslims always win, in the places where they are the majority and in most places where they are the minority, and always the professional/eternal victims. I am not only maddened...I am also sickened by the whole state of affairs.
Hugh,
I am mad too. I want to write my congressman and woman. Maybe they will think I am cuckoo or that it is too weird and I never get any response. That is what happened to my last two letters, but they weren't to my pollies, but to media spotlights and none emailed or called or anything. I wonder if I could get some eartime in their offices at the State capitol where they have offices? Need to check on that.
You're a buff about articles and books from decades past, did you know about this article by Martha Gellhorn in the Atlantic Monthly, Oct. 1961.
Part of it was posted on the neo-neocon site. I especially liked her conclusion The Arabs of Palestine.
neo-neocon post - The Palestinians: the more things change, the more they.....
Gellhorn's conclusion - keep in mind,it's 1961!
I had appreciated and admired individual refugees but realized I had felt no blanket empathy for the Palestinian refugees, and finally I knew why...It is hard to sorrow for those who only sorrow over themselves. It is difficult to pity the pitiless. To wring the heart past all doubt, those who cry aloud for justice must be innocent. They cannot have wished for a victorious rewarding war, blame everyone else for their defeat, and remain guiltless....
Arabs gorge on hate, they roll in it, they breathe it. Jews top the hate list, but any foreigners are hateful enough. Arabs also hate each other, separately and, en masse. Their politicians change the direction of their hate as they would change their shirts. Their press is vulgarly base with hate-filled cartoons; their reporting describes whatever hate is now uppermost and convenient. Their radio is a long scream of hate, a call to hate. They teach their children hate in school. They must love the taste of hate; it is their daily bread. And what good has it done them?
There is no future in spending UN money to breed hate. There is no future in nagging or bullying Israel to commit suicide by the admission of a fatal locust swarm of enemies. There is no future in Nasser's solution, the Holy War against Israel; and we had better make this very clear, very quickly.
--
Here's my conclusion how the Pals think: my labor to allah is to suffer here as a parasite until Allah's land is returned. Muslims come and go, Islam is forever.
Martha Gellhorn was always instructive. Hemingway never should have let her go. Or perhaps she never really took his bait.