Why would Shi'ites attack Allawi? Why would they pelt him with shoes (a "sign of contempt in Iraqi culture")? These are questions that you folks in the State Department should be eager and ready to answer. Extra credit if you can explain why there would be so much hostility among Iraqis to the very idea of democracy -- as I noted over two years ago. Points off if your analysis refers to an American failure to win hearts and minds. A Democracy On The March Alert from Iraq: "Allawi Claims Assassination Attempt," from AP, with thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist:
BAGHDAD, Iraq — An angry crowd confronted Iraq's former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi at a Shiite shrine south of Baghdad on Sunday, forcing him to flee in a hail of stones and shoes. Allawi called the attack an assassination attempt....The confrontation in Najaf began when about a dozen men, some armed with clubs, tried to block Allawi from entering the Imam Ali mosque, one of the holiest Shiite shrines in Iraq. Allawi's bodyguards fired shots in the air to disperse the crowd.
Hmmm. That may have led some in the crowd to believe they were at a wedding.
Once Allawi and his entourage were inside, the crowd grew to about 60 and as the group left, they were showered with stones and shoes — a sign of contempt in Iraqi culture. Allawi and his security force knocked over barricades as they scampered to their vehicles and sped away.
Many a decent helicopter and automobile have fallen victim to the dreaded "Shoe slap".....
Oh, that we were able to throw shoes at our inept
Politicians - half the population would be going around barefoot! A rotten tomato or egg will see you charged with assault : probably a suspended sentence also. Can't see an end to frequent bombings and violence in Iraq - indeed seems to be getting worse there...
One wonders if Bush can fit into his scheme of things -- now that he has just discovered that there are "Sunnis" and "Shi'a" in Iraq, and has actually begun to mention the "Sunnis" as a group that might be opposed not to "democracy" but to something else (the unnamed loss of Sunni power to the Shi'a) -- Allawi himself. Many decades ago a Ba'athist, then an exile from Saddam Hussein, who was the target of an assassination attempt, Allawi nonetheless, fearing the Shari'a-imposers of the Dawa and SCIRI parties, has been willing to join with "secular" (a word that requires the quotation marks to indicate a special use of the term, fit for Muslim societies) Sunnis. He and Chalabi (the latter possibly less principled, and more willing to take a Shi'a-first line, which may end up putting him in the more rather than a little less Islam, camp.
How confusing it must be to so many in the Administration, with their certainties, their beliefs that everyone, so horrified by Saddam Hussein, would be united in gratitude toward their American liberators. How unpleasant to come to realize, or to make enormous efforts not to realize, that the two great beneficiaries so far of the removal of Saddam Hussein have been Saudi Arabia and Iran, the two most malevolent Muslim states, and the two most responsible for the aggressive spread of Jihad, for the supply of both money and weaponry to recipients all over the globe, from those willing to spread Wahhabism in Bosnia and Uzbekistan to those willing to serve as agents for the Islamic Republic of Iran in southern Lebanon and Iraq and eastern Arabia.
Ask them to diagram the parties in Iraq. Ask them why it is that both Dawa and SCIRI, though in every way hostile to the United States, are both officially in no hurry to see the American troops leave, and indeed would wish them to stay for as long as possible, to kill (and be killed) by those Sunnis who are in revolt at the new order, and to train the Shi'a into a powerful fighting force and, of course, to transfer major weaponry.
And now the Sunnis who are willing to take part in the elections are not doing so because their hatred of the Americans has lessened -- though this may be presented as such to the public by Bush.
Getting stuck to the tarbaby of Iraq, and America as the great big lumbering Bre'r Bear when it can surely be more cunning, more quicksilvery, more clever than its primitive enemies -- that is what madens. Can't they see that sectarian and ethnic divisions in Iraq cry out for exploitation, and that such scare-words as "instablity" and "civil war" should not be scare words at all, but something to welcome. When did the Americans decide that the best way to fight a war is to get it over with without inflicting any real damage except on the "bad leader" and then, of course, to quickly sink into Marshall Plan mode -- a plan that ought to have been seen not as having relevance in only one time and place, which is to say Western Europe, after World War II, as it could be in said, with truth, that the Cold War required the Americans to encourage prosperity, and quickly, in Italy, in France, and elsewhere. It makes no sense, has no relevance, to the Muslim world where "poverty" is not the problem. Ideology is.
A bit off topic, but I wanted to post this anyway.
"Iran's patience running out over nuclear issue
TEHRAN (Reuters) -
Iran's patience regarding Western opposition to its nuclear program is wearing thin and Tehran will give the EU only a few months to settle the issue through talks, the country's chief nuclear negotiator said on Sunday.
Ali Larijani added Iran would only accept proposals to resolve the dispute which allowed it to produce nuclear fuel on its own soil."
Iran wants the EU to come to a conclusion soon, but only if it fits Iran's agenda. So in other words, Iran wants the EU to agree with them, and nothing else will be accepted from them. But what if the EU actually decides against Iran? I actually highly doubt this, as the EU has already given in to islamism, but I still be God performs miracles, and He'll have to pull a huge one out of His bag for the EU to vote against islam. But the point is, is that Iran thinks that freedom of choice=agreeing with islamism. Let's hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
have a look what the b.b.c. are allowing muslims to post on a message board in the u.k. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbreligion/F2213236?thread=1615905
Does anybody remember the joke from Billy Liar by Keith Waterhouse?
A (spoof)bluff selfmade Yorkshire businessman is talking.
When a firs' came to this town lad, a only had one clog.
Within a week a were riding aroond in't taxis.
A had to, a only had one clog.
Granny W - that was on at The Gate House in Highgate - where they did Wyrd Sisters. Good stuff.
A don't mind dark satanic mills but a draw t' line at dark satanic launderettes.
Hugh its difficult for any Amer./Western army to fight like they did in WW2, need to be too pc these days. with US in Iraq, its a stones throw from Iran, and one reason they are going ballistic ..irannian mullahs..
Hugh, on Iraq, I think the outside chance that democracy might have succeeded was worth a gamble. I said so at the time and I say so now. It was not a "mistake." It was an experiment.
After Iraq, we can truly say we tried it the easy way. Now for the hard way...
Robert asks "why", but "who" is also pertinent.
From IraqtheModel blogsite:
The angry mob was most likely made of supporters of Sadr or the SCIRI (the UIA in general) since they consider Allawi the first threat to them in the elections.
And anyway, they wouldn’t dare kill Allawi; I think they only wanted to stop him from campaigning in a city they consider their home.
The UIA has begun (again) to use pictures of Ayatollah Sistani in their campaign posters and signs. This is happening despite the fact that Sistani hasn’t clearly voiced his endorsement of the UIA but leaking statements from his office are hinting at this.*
[...]
It’s getting visible by the day that the Sadrists have infiltrated several lists and planted many of their men in different lists and got them good positions in these lists, i.e. these lists were fooled by the Sadrists who promised each one of them that the list would be endorsed by Sadr, a promise that apparently made the leaders of these lists drool at the votes that Sadr’s name can win for them because they saw how Sadrists won nearly 20 seats in the National Assembly in the January elections.
[...]
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
* I recall reading somewhere that Sistani is distinctly unhappy with Al-Jafferi & Co and that's why he's declining to endorse any political candidates.
Allawi being attacked caught on audio tape!!!
http://www.unitedamericancommittee.org/Shi'ites_attack_Allawi.mp3
http://www.unitedamericancommittee.org/Shi'ites_attack_Allawi.mp3
DNC Chairman Howard Dean sees eye-to-eye with Hugh on Iraq...
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=C36A87B9-63A0-4CDE-AA91-B41571AFD3AF
I'm not the egghead in chief in Bush's cabinet, but I have undertaken a crash study of Shi'a Islam, Sunni Islam, and most importantly the history of Iraq, Iran and the Kurds.
To answer the question, The Iraqi's don't consider Allawi a Muslim, nor an Iraqi, he has lived out of the country for too long, and has close ties, was sponsored by, and supported by the Americans, however he is a close ally (in reality) of the Iranians.. the Iraqi's have a long history of striking devils bargains, such as the alliance of the Kurds (Talibani) with the Iranians, and then with Saddam Himself.
You know the reason why democracy is antithema to Islamic ideology. Islam is a theocracy, and the word on the street is one man, one vote, one time.
That's the problem in Algeria, the Muslim Brotherhood (FIS) won the election, but if it took office that would have meant the Islamization of Algeria and the Army (which is Francophone) knew it and nulled the election, thus commencing Algeria's Bloody Years, the most horrific campaign of Muslim on Muslim terror in which whole villages were hacked to death.
The difference between Shi'a and Sunni Islam, is that Shi'a Islam is centralized, via the ruling Ayatollahs (SCIRI in Iraq) and the Revolutionary Council in Iran, with a supreme Ayatollah sitting at the top.
Sunni Islam is anarchial, decentralized, lacking a caliph, hence caliphate, each region, tribe is governed by local Sheikhs and Imams, in cases like Saudi Arabia, the rulers (always Sheikhs cum Emirs and Kings) will appoint a Grand Mufti, whose purpose is to endorse the ruler, so long as the ruler provides financial and social support.
Thus in Iraq SCIRI is headed by Ayat Allah al Sistani, and Ayat Allah Al Hakim, with Sistani (an Iranian) sitting at the top, the Sunni Corridor is represented by an anarchial and contentions Association of Muslim Scholars, who first squabble with each other, issue competing fatwa's, before coming to a consensus (if they ever can).
A Democracy would strip away power from the sectarian and give it the secular, and Muslims can't have that, in Islam the sectarian must govern and control all of life and society, for there is no secular.
Allawi is Shi'a but he is secular (has no religious credentials that is).
"DNC Chairman Howard Dean sees eye-to-eye with Hugh on Iraq..."
-- from a provocateur, posting above
]
You think so? He wants the troops to stay two more years. I want them out right now. I want chaos and confusion, I want instability and civil war, at any level. Does Howard Dean? I want the Americans to concentrate on destroying the Iranian nuclear project, and on educating a sufficient number of people here and around the world who will come to realize that islamization of Infidel lands is a permanent threat. Does Howard Dean? I want the removal of American forces from Iraq to be undertaken so that the fissures within Iraq can grow, and if we are lucky, cause Sunnis and Shi'a outside of Iraq to fight a proxy war, and within their own countries, for the Shi'a to grow restless. Does Howard Dean? I want to see the Americans make plans to seize the southern Sudan and Darfur, and hold them until a referendum on independence from the northern Arabs who have for twenty years been massacring people in the south, or starving them to death, and doing the same in Darfur for the past three years, can be held. Does Howard Dean?
Your remark is intended to provoke. You know perfectly well that claiming Howard Dean and I see eye to eye is like saying that Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin saw eye to eye in World War II, in the campaign against Hitler. Different motives entirely. Different strategies, different worldviews, different everything.
But tonight I am in a good mood.
"Billy Liar by Keith Waterhouse..."
- from a posting above
And "Jubb" was good too.
Fair enough, there are important differences...
But it does bring us back to the original problem in your thesis: The absolute lack of forthought regarding potential outcomes in an Iraqi civil war that are NOT advantageous to Western interests and security...i.e., a strengthening and empowerment of Iran, Al Qaeda or both.
PS - I agree completely that Iran's nuclear threshold is fast approaching and we seem to be unfocused and preoccupied (Iraq). There is sense of inevitability about the whole thing.
The nightmare of a nuclear-armed Iran transcends the immediacy of strategic threat to Israel and the world. It is certain to provoke a proliferation arms-race throughout the region. Expect the Saudis, Egypt and others to follow suit. Nuclear capabilities will be absolutely pedestrian in years to come.
God help planet earth.