Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald on Sunni-Shia efforts against Israel in Manama, Bahrain:
"The move is part of joint efforts by the Sunni and Shiite communities to resist steps to normalise relations with Israel."'''''''
"We are also collecting signatures from 15 Sunni and 15 Shiite leading scholars on a petition that calls for resisting moves to have relations with Israel."
-- from the article hereSunnis may be at the throats of Shi'a in Pakistan, where bombs routinely go off near Shi'a mosques, or in Hasa where the o'erweening Wahhabis push around the local Shi'a, or of course in Iraq, where the Sunni-Shi'a split predates the American invasion not only those 80 years since Gertrude Bell was writing about it, but by 1300 or so years -- since those who went with the son-in-law of Muhammad were ill-treated by those who went with the his father-in-law (where was the Family Therapist in those days?).
And then there is little Bahrain itself, where these "scholars" above are from. You know Bahrain. It's always the same coverage: the Little Island That Could. Freewheeling Bahrain, with that bridge to the mainland, easy-going Bahrain, where Saudis come to let down their hair, their daggers-and-dishdashas limited existence. For so hideous is life in Saudi Arabia that even life in Bahrain seems better, and of course the Shopping (the center of life for rich Arabs, rivaled only by the desire to do damage to Infidels and spread Islam) Is Non-Stop and Shop-Till-You-Drop, because after all, what else can rich Arabs do? That is, aside from their visits to brothels, their maintenance of Western call girls or domestic sex slaves from Asia, their cheering on their favorite camel (and who is that tiny figure, in the rider's seat, with that emaciated and tormented look on his face -- oh, who cares?), and buying up whatever they can buy (let's see the latest Ramadan Catalogue of Toys from Lockheed, Boeing, United Technologies, Raytheon, Dassault, all the way down to what the Brazilian aerospace companies are offering)-- yes, we'll have a few hundred of each please, and don't bother to wrap them, just send them right along.Bahrain has its own problem of Sunni and Shi'a. And what better way than this anti-Israel Sunni-Shi’a accord to paper over the hostility that radiates so obviously now from Iraq and affects the views of both Sunni and the Shi'a? If only the Administration had half a mind, or a quarter of a mind, and would let its own people go, and allow the horribly unpleasant Sunnis, and the slightly slighter, but in the end just as unpleasant Shi'a, to go at it and let those divisions widen, widen, widen until an abyss opens, and not Infidels, as the Administration seems to fear, but Muslims fall right in.
Yes, o'erpapering that fissure with fatawa -- and what better fatwa, made of sturdier paper, practically pergament, can be imagined than a fatwa taking a Brave Stand against the mighty empire of Israel? Now is the time for Sunni and Shi'a in Bahrain to stand together, and to show that whatever is happening in Iraq, the Sunni and the Shi'a are together on this matter.
Is it impossible for anyone in the current Administration to begin to understand why there is no such place as "Iraq"? Apparently, there are many people who, having had a good Cold War, think that they are therefore given a pass on Islam. Their willful ignorance of Islam and their irritation when the nature of Islam, the psychology of Muslims, and the immutable texts of Islam are brought to their attention illustrate this abundantly. Mark Steyn has been revealing his own change-of-mind about Islam. He who used to make jokes about the islamization of Europe and to support the Administration's effort in Iraq, its scheme for creating Iraq-the-Model, now changes on the page, without quite owning up to that change. John Derbyshire now writes in support of an independent Kurdistan, though he has not yet raised the larger reason justifying such support, which as discussed here several dozen times over the past two years, is as follows: the existence of a non-Arab Muslim state could inspire other non-Arab Muslims, such as disaffected Iranians or Berbers or blacks in Darfur. Islam, despite its universalist claims, has always been a vehicle, by its very nature, of Arab supremacism and especially for linguistic and cultural arabization. Islamization always implies all this, and has only here and there been successfully resisted.
As Steyn and Derbyshire come to their senses on Iraq, Victor Davis Hanson perhaps will do so (the articles of his colleague and friend Bruce Thornton may help). And more and more commentators will realize that they need not be inhibited by having the same policy prescription -- Out of Iraq -- as the most unpleasant and foolish elements in American life, since they will hold it for completely different, far more sensible reasons. It is MoveOn.org that will be fooled when we are out of Iraq, not in order to appease Islam, but to better divide, demoralize, and constrain it, with Iraq as a catalyst. At this point, there is nothing Saudi Arabia fears more than an American withdrawal from Iraq, and what would then happen to Sunni domination there, and to Shi'a communities suddenly inspired elsewhere.
Since the late summer of 2003, it has been noted at JW that Iraq is the perfect place to exploit the two main fissures within Islam: those that arise from the Arab bullying and persecution of non-Arab Muslims, and those that arise from the bullying and persecution of Shi'a by Sunnis wherever they have been able to do so.
As the Sunni and Shi'a in Manama, Bahrain in solemn conclave assembled do their damnedest to focus attention not on what divides them, but on the shared hatred for non-Muslim Israel, this should move those who make policy in Washington to understand that when Muslim Arabs ostentatiously unite in such a way, emphasizing that they are both Sunnis and Shi'a, that is one more sign that events in Iraq are taking a useful -- for Infidels -- turn, if only the Americans would get out of the way.
Such a fatwa is one more sign that the Sunni-Shi'a split that divides the Muslim world, and can be seen, most starkly, in Iraq, is not something to avoid but to warmly encourage -- simply by removing ourselves from the middle of the fray, and standing back, and watching.
The Iraqis, if left alone by Infidels to settle their scores in their own predictable way, will not disappoint. If we are lucky, the fight will go on forever, and use up the men, materiel, and attention of both Sunnis and Shi'a. And the two communities united in hate in Manama, will have the brook that divides them become a wide, very wide, possibly unbridgeable canal. You've already guessed its name: the Manama Canal.
If the Jews didn't exist, these arab arsewipes would have to invent them, just to keep from killing each other.
Listen, when it came to gays having some sort of gathering in Jerusalem not so long back, the leading Muslim cleric, a leading Orthodox Rabbi (or possibly more) and a senior Roman Catholic cleric well known for his hatred of Israel all managed to put their differences aside long enough to formally protest the procedings, which ultimately were cancelled. Getting 30 Muslim clerics to sign off on anything anti-Israel is no great feat or sign of healed rifts.
I wonder what would happen if the entire Western world.
1. Kicked out ALL muslims
2. Banned Islam
3. Cut off ALL trade.
4. Denied ALL muslims access to technology
I wonder how loud the muslims would scream..
but when islam and muslims demand the Wholesale Genocide of ALL Infidels, Jews and Christians
Well that seems to be ok...
Not in OUR Book
We FIGHT!!!!
"The Iraqis, if left alone by Infidels to settle their scores in their own predictable way, will not disappoint. If we are lucky, the fight will go on forever, and use up the men, materiel, and attention of both Sunnis and Shi'a."
Dream on Hugh. Though ethnic and sectarian animosities may linger into eternity, history indelibly proves that no hot war is forever, that either victory or stalemate and eventual truce - even if temporary - is in the offing.
But please keep on with your fantasy that abandoning Iraq to extremists of both persuasions - Sunni and Shia - will somehow enhance the security of the West and the Kurds.
"Extremists of both persuasions"? From the Muslim point of view, it may be a matter of "extremists." From the Infidel point of view, almost all Muslims are "extremists" -- given their views of Infidels and a good deal else that Islam inculcates.
"history indelibly proves that no hot war is forever" -- this obvious observation needs to be considered in light of the following:
1) I was not talking only about a "hot war" but about a deep animosity, that further deepens, and affects all sorts of relations and may be a "cold war" punctuated by intermittent hot periods
2) the Iran-Iraq war lasted for 8 years, until both parties were exhausted. A lot can happen in 8 years, to wake up and educate Infidels. And 8 years might be extended, if on both sides reinforcements arrive from co-religionists -- from Iran on one side, from Saudi Arabia on the other, who cares from where, or why, or when, as long as the war itself keeps going.
As for the phrase "your fantasy about abandoning Iraq to extremists of both persuasions -- Sunni and Shia -- will somehow enhance the security of the West and the Kurds" -- well, for god's sake, of course it will.
Only an... oh, why do I bother.
I have to admit, you crack me up almost every time we lock horns. Gotta credit you for that.
And I also have to admit there is merit in both points 1 and 2.
But the overall premise continues to challenge realities on the ground:
1) Your supposition that the Turks will acquiesce (notice how I left out "gladly" this time) to a formal separation of Kurdistan from Iraq is faulty.
2) Your belief that America can withdraw from Iraq, let the country descend into chaos, and then re-involve itself if or when the Kurds are threatened...is a bit of a stretch given the political atmosphere inside the USA.
3) I'm convinced that after the post-occupation in-fighting, whether stalemate or Shiite victory, Iraq will become a base of operations against the infidel world. This is based on my belief that the sectarian violence will empower the most extreme elements on both sides. Those doing the killing during the Civil War will most likely be running things after.
Should Zarqawi's group survive inside a Sunni enclave, they are certain to become the nexus for militancy in the Sunni Muslim world. And whether or not the Shia counquer the country in its entirety, they can still provide the Iranians with the plausible deniability to wage war on America and Israel via proxy.
How tragic would it be to have to re-invade Iraq after a new 9-11 directed from elements inside. At least now, the terrorists are pre-occupied fighting the occupation. We've paid so much in blood and treasure to get as far as we have in Iraq. Why abort the patient when viability has not yet been determined? The insurgency aside, a Democratic polity IS under construction and much progress has been made.
I just don't understand why you are so eager to pronounce the post-mortem on Iraq's Democratic experiment.
All interesting posts above. Cornelius too has good points and should be factored in.
In my support for a sunni-shiite divide being exploited i go to Pakistan as a good example. The divide there is really serious and could be made more effective. Everytime there is an `attack` it rattles the Govt. there, the culling left aside.
One way to exploit this would be to accentuate the differences between the two with wide publicity, each of which claims to be the true one. Let their mullahs abuse each other openly.
It is not wrong for them to sort out each other first so the non-muslims know which is the true one to follow. It is also prophecied by Mo (there would be 73 sects of which only 1 would survive).
Then Kurdistan. Why should there be a fear of Turkey on this matter. Are they a mighty military power? No. They only give that impression through their membership of NATO. When the earthquake struck them the Turks were ill-equipped to handle that even. Their economy is all messed up. In the event of war the brave turkish soldier would be more of cannon fodder.
All these years despite the Turkish clamp, the Kurds have proved to be a resourceful lot. I doubt the ordinary recruit from say Ankara will be able to distinguish himself in the kurdish mountains. A Kurdistan also will give hope, no matter how small, to the other minorities. A kurdistan would mean upheavals in Iran and other kurd majority areas.
Finally, the US experiment in democracy in Iraq can never be as the US wants it. Just as Pakistan was supposed to be one. It will be an islamic `democracy` i.e. sharia ad infinitum.
I see great possibilities in Hugh`s suggestions. It is the working it out, and the will to do it that the western countries/US have to face.
There is simply no way of kmowing how things will play out if Coalition forces withdraw precipitously from Iraq.
For example, I could be completely wrong about Turkey. In the event of a Shiite victory, the Turks could very well become the GUARANTUERS of Kurdish autonomy in a strategic bid to prevent Iran from attaining too much regional power. Theoretically, the Iranians could use Iraqi Kurdistan as a base to foment rebellion and radicalization among Turkey's own Kurdish minority. The Turks would be determined to avoid this fate and could find themselves coming to the rescue of Iraqi Kurds for reasons of self-interest. Improbable? Yes. Implausible? No.
On the other hand, Hugh could also be completely wrong about events in Iraq in the aftermath of a precipitous Coalition withdrawal. Muqtada Al Sadr could emerge as the one man acceptable to both sides and instead of becoming a sectarian killing-field, Iraq could become a model of Sunni-Shia cooperation...radical and anti-American to its core. Improbable? Yes. Implausible? No.
To jeopardize America's strategic position and worldwide prestige on a Machiavellian hypothetical is just not responsible statecraft. A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq is almost certain to be met with US expulsion from bases in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain as the entire region undergoes realignment to accommodate the new realities on the ground: the advent of Iranian hegemony. What cooperation that exists from these 3 states, Oman, the UAE and others in anti-terror efforts will likely disappear.
Most importantly, Iraq has every chance of becoming a terrorist state, unified or fractured, with its territory and oil wealth used to foment world-wide jihad.
No folks. Hugh Fitzgerald is a fascinating and brilliant thinker, but on this issue, his vision is failing him. There is a point of departure where the withdrawal of Coalition troops would be in our national interest....such as if the Shia begin their own large-scale, violent resistance. We certainly didn't invade Iraq to square off against Saddam's victims. But aside from Al Sadr's episodic tantrums, this hasn't happened yet.
I say that as long as the prospects for Iraqi Democracy remain viable, we show the fortitude to stick it out. We owe it to the Iraqis; we owe it to our fallen; we owe it to ourselves. How sad if we just chuck all the hard work and sacrifices we've made only to find ourselves re-invading after a new 9-11, this time planned and sponsored out of Iraq.
Way i see it America has fulfilled its mission in that Saddam is gone. Iraq is not Germany, nor is it Japan. Having done their work in removing Saddam, the US should now leave.
What a mossie says:
He is aware that the world changed while he was behind bars but he shocked an Arab audience in Dubai recently by attacking Saddam and criticising anti-Americanism in the Middle East.
“I told them we must transcend the rhetoric of the crusades,” he said. “It is a ploy by authoritarian leaders and dictators to deflect attention from central issues like corruption by posing as champions of the Muslims so that their crimes against humanity are forgiven.
“I am opposed to the war in Iraq and I’ve told my American friends so. The best thing now would be a quick withdrawal and the arrival of a multinational force. That way you can still defuse this idea that America is against the Arabs, against the Muslims.”
http://www.malaysia-today.net/Blog-e/2005/10/voice-of-moderate-islam-wins-support.htm