Shiites: Iraq Elections Were Fair

That's the spirit, and the lesson to be learned is for all parties to get out and vote by the droves and elect your leaders.Take it to the POLLS.

Once Saddam Hussein was deposed, his regime shattered, there was no preventing the Shi'a, who make up 60% of the population, and who were held down only by force (the adjective "brute" is unnecessary here) either from taking power, or if that were to be denied them by Sunni opposition, of taking the oil wealth of the south, and the land, and the sole port of Umm Qasr (freshly-dredged and greatly improved, the better to receive those armaments better shipped by sea from Iran), and setting up their own Shi'a-ruled state.

And there was no preventing the Sunnis from wishing to prevent that Shi'a ascendancy, because it was not right, it was not just, the Sunni Arabs were the rightful masters of the country, superior to Kurds who were non-Arabs (need any more be said?) or to Shi'a, who since 661 A.D. have been behaving absurdly, with their own version of Islam, and deserve all that they have received for their attitudes and beliefs since then from the
Sunnis. Not to mentin that many of the Sunnis believe the Shi'a to be Rafididate dogs, and are treated roughly wherever they are under Sunni rule. And then there is the Sunni conviction-- which the Americans are incapable of undoing --that they constitute 42% of the populaton of Iraq, and so even under head-counting principles, deserve to run the government.

All predictable. None of it predicted.

And the American "victory," or "total victory"? Possible still, but only if the American forces leave. Stop dreaming. Stop building that $595 million embassy (that project has been cancelled, hasn't it? Or is no one in Congress or the Administration paying attention?). Stop building bases that will simply be taken over, like Wheelus in Libya, like the base in Morocco, like the bases in Saudi Arabia, by local Muslims? If the smaller sheikdoms (Qatar, Kuwait) temporarily allow American bases, it is only because, for right now, they fear the traditional neighborhood bullies -- Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia -- more. It has nothing to do with any real or permanent affection for the Americans or other Infidels. Qatar's rulers support the maleovlent and dangerous Al Jazeera, and reject all American entreaties to shut it down (and no, Bush was not wrong, if indeed he did, to threaten to bomb Al Jazeera -- getting rid of enemy propaganda centers, even if disguised as "news stations," makes sense).

Let them go at it. See what it does to increase Saudi worries and woes about a Shi'a superstate, and what funds and volunteers come from Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states. And then, in turn, see what the Islamic Republic of Iran will do. And the Shi'a in Hasa province will worry the Saudis. And in distant Yemen, nearly evenly divided between Sunni and Shi'a --- any echoes? In Syria, what will the Alawite regime, so worried about its own survival, and facing the difficult situation of having its main supporter be Shi'a Iran, and yet its main domestic fear the "real" -- i.e. Sunni - Muslims who make up more than 3/4 of the Syrian population (the Alawites make up 12%, the Christians possibly an equal number, though the Christian population keeps declining and figures uncertain) may insist on being allowed unhindered transit to fight now, not the Americans, but the Rafidite dogs (i.e. Shi'a) besieging the rightly-ruling Sunnis.

And in Lebanon, where even the Sunnis now feel, entirely for reasons of local self-interest, that they have more in common with the Druse and the Christians than with the los-de-abajo Hezbollah members, what will happen to Hezbollah, which as long as the enemy in question consists of Infidels (Jews, Americans, French) has no problem, but if it has now to come to the aid, or feel it does, of fellow Shi'a perhaps being clobbered by smaller, but much more experienced Sunni fighters, outfitted with the best that Saudi Arabia can provide, what will those Hezbollah members do?

Ideally, many of them will go off to meet their destiny in Iraq, not by killing the long-gone Americans, but by killing,and even better being killed by, Sunnis.

And while Iran is otherwise engaged, time to take care of the science project.

And while the two kinds of Arabs are fighting, the Kurds can make their move. With American help, and American pressure on Turkey, informed that the Americans will guarantee that no Kurdish demand for Turkish territory will be made, and that whatever enlargement of Kurdistan takes place, will be at the potential expense only of Iran and Syria. And meanwhile, the Kurds will have to promise to do what they have not done (and they are being watched in this regard) -- to provide a real sanctuary for any Christians in Iraq who wish to establish a kind of Christian preserve in the north, which after all is where the Assyrians had their redoubt during Ottoman rule. That assurance -- or no support for the Kurds.

Of course, this kind of intrigue and arrangment -- with both Kurds and Turks -- would be completely comprehensible to British Middle-Eastern experts. It seems fantastic, beyond the realm of imagining, and certainly beyond all possibility of accomplishment, to the unimaginative and lazy leaders we now have -- or at least to some of them. Think of people at the Scowcroft or Scheuer or James Akines level of understanding and knowledge, and realize, with horror, that these are the kind of people who for a long time were relied on. --this is what we have had to endure. And it has been even worse in European chanceries.

Meanwhile, as people in Iraq act as they will, from outside the Infidels can watch, in fascination, as the "true" and "peaceful" face of Islam is shown, put on display,and the Sunnis and the Shii'a employ methods that those "beastly occupiers" the Americans would never have dreamed of employing. And that, too, will be telling.

Am I missing something? Again, tell me why we must do everything we can to "avoid civil war" and must do everything we can to "encourage stability"?

Tell me.

""there is no reason to think that any secular democracy established in an Islamic country will escape pressure from Muslims who want to restore Shariah. None has so far."

So remind me--what was the point of this damn war?

"Am I missing something? Again, tell me why we must do everything we can to "avoid civil war" and must do everything we can to "encourage stability"?

"And while Iran is otherwise engaged, time to take care of the science project."

--posted by hugh

Before I offer my opinion on these quotes, let me just say that I have read Spencers "politically incorrect guide to Islam", as well as three or four other books on Islamic history, and it is quite clear that Jihad is a religious obligation and that Muslims have been attaking infidels since their beginning and that the "war of civilizations" hypotheses is probably inevitable and more likely than most want to believe. Thus the principle of divide and conquer is probably the Wests best bet. But if there is a chance, however slightly, that a total (and I emphasize total) war against Muslims can be prevented by introducing other systems of government and a semblence of modernty, than there may be other options.

In regards to your quotes above, I think the West, or more accurately, the U.S., Israel, and Britain, may have a better time dealing with Iran if Iraq becomes reasonably stable. As you are aware, there is a good chance Iran will be refered to the security council, and if they dont comply, which they probably wont, Israel may act preemptively, as they did in Iraq. But this time it would be different, because of Bush's and the republicans policy of regime change in Iran. And there are signs that Iran may be compatible with a rudimentary form of democracy: California has a about 1 million Iranian Muslims that are working hard to undermine Irans current regime, and according to them they have substantial support in Iran. Also, Western culture is popular in Iran and the last election that voted in Ahmedinegad, turnout was probably 50 percent, if I remember correctly. There are signs of widespread discontent in Iran, which will make regime change easier

The point is this: Iran poses an ireedemable threat to Israel and, by extention, the West. That regime must be eliminated eventually, and if Iraq becomes reasonably stable, and Iran consistently refuses to abide by security council resolutions (as did Iraq), then the policy of regime change will become more credible. Ofcourse a democratic Iran and Iraq could lead to a shiite super state, or maybe not. But what are the Wests options? Destroy the Iranian regime and then leave them in the rubble?

Your supposition that it is in the Wests interest to withdraw from Iraq and allow a civil war depends on the premise that Zarqouwi type Jihadists will not take power after the bloodshed is over. And suppose they do take power. Then what? They will be emboldened to take out "apostate" regimes in the region. If that were to happen, would the withdrawel have been worth it?

It appears we dont have good or bad choices with the problem of Iran, only a number of bad choices, and we must choose the one that is the least bad among them. And, if Israel acts preemptively against Iran (which I hope), and there is a war between them, or if the U.S. takes out the Iranian regime (which I hope), the West must at least try to build a new government with a semblence of a constitutional democracy, and this would be easier if Iraq becomes reasonably stable. If that fails, then we may have to embark on total war with Muslims in the region to defend ourselves from their Jihad. However, there are many Muslims in Iran that want a semblence of modernty, and we should at least try to encourage them if and when Iran is toppled.

"informed that the Americans will guarantee that no Kurdish demand for Turkish territory will be made"
--posted by Hugh

Turkey has already indicated that if the Kurds secceede from Iraq, they will use force to prevent their own Kurdish population from joining them. Your supposition that the Kurds will not demand self determination on Turkish territory because of American pressure is highly uncertain. It is also very unlikely that Turkey will allow a contiguous Kurdish state. Then what? There will be another war, this time with Turkey--which has advanced weaponry from NATO. This may be another reason to try to maintain a semblence of stability in Iraq.

The point is this: other options--including a stable Iraq--must be exhausted before the West makes choices that will lead to further bloodshed. And, if that bloodshed is ultimately inexorable, well at least the West tried to introduce modernty and constitutional demcracy's in the region

1) The Kurds cannot make a move without American approval -- they can count not on local Arabs, and certainly not on any of their non-Arab neighbors. Only the Americans can be their guarantor, and only the Americans can extract -- if they have the will and imagination -- promises from both the Kurds and Turkey, to come to some agreement that will promote some, but not all, Kurdish aspirations -- those that make no demands on Turkish territory, whatever else is taken.

2) "further bloodshed." -- why should Infidels care if there is "further bloodshed" if it involves the Ansar al-Mahdi, the Badr Brigades, and Shi'a units from the "Iraqi" army, on one side, and Sunnis, including former Ba'athist soldiers from Saddam Hussein's army, Zarqawi's followers, and anyone else who comes in from outside to lend a hand? Who cares if Hezbollah sends forces from southern Lebanon to help Shi'a brothers, or if Iran and Saudi Arabia are both dragged in, somehow, to a local version of the Iran-iraq War?

3) Infidels don't have a dog in this fight. It is the fight itself that is our dog. And we can always watch and, as we do other things (including that Iran business), intervene through ways that do not require any American presence on the ground.

4) Feed that dog.

Hugh

Isn't it rather late at this point to feed the dog? This dog would have needed to have been fed since 1991. Saddam had not yet ended his war w/ Iran, so what was the problem w/ him overrunning Kuwait & Saudi Arabia? At the time, he had the world's 4th largest army, but the US could simply have recognized him as the ruler of greater Iraq, and continued to do business w/ him, on condition that:

- He continued the war w/ Iran
- He spread his persecution of Kuwaitis to Saudi Arabia, ended the Saud family, and took over
- He open up a new front against Hafez Assad's Syria, but avoid Jordan or Israel

Promise him that empire on condition that he repress Islamic movements, including the Wahabi's. Given Saddam's gleeful co-operation w/ Milosevic later, was there any reason to assume that he would pick the Jihadis over an US acquiescence to his conquering the Arabian peninsula, given certain conditions?

Saddam ended his war w/ Iran after the US made clear their opposition to the occupation of Kuwait. Making him an enemy was needless; instead, his armies would have been spread thin trying to overpower Iran, Saudi Arabia & Syria. In the meantime, nothing would have happened to the world's oil supplies (since we'd be buying oil from Saddam, be it Iraqi, Saudi or Quwaiti oil), and the proceeds from it, instead of going to Saudi funded madrassas or Saddam palaces, would have been constructively spent in funding this war. That way, even the Iran's oil proceeds would have been forced into this war, and would have ended up leaving the entire region w/ no disposable income.

Also, different infidel powers could have continued arming the combatants to keep the fighting going, like the Russians & French in Iraw

Having lost that opportunity, there was no way Saddam could have been used to wage war on his neighbors, which would have been a good thing. As a result, it was necessary to remove him from power, since the only ones he regarded as his enemies were US & Israel.

Today, once US troops are out, you may see a proxy war between Iran & Saudi Arabia fought out in Iraq. But that won't be anything like a Saddam looming over them all. Also, both these countries would be free to fund their lackeys in Iraq, w/o getting themselves more deeply involved. Ergo, their money would still be available to fund Islamic Studies (in case of KSA) and Hizbullah (in case of Iran)

Also, there is the possibility that Iraq's Shia, being Arab, wouldn't care much for Iranian intervention. Should that happen, that would really blow up in our face.

The primary focus of guerrilla operations no longer seems to be U.S. The focus appears to be on Iraqis who collaborate with the United States, i.e. the Shiite community. The Shia did not rise against the U.S. occupation and have worked with the United States to facilitate a transfer of power that will make them the dominant force in Iraq.
Now that this is nearly there you will see the attacks focused on the Shia. The sunni blame the Shia in not helping them to defeat you guys.Had the Shia acted in concert with the Sunnis, the U.S. position in Iraq would have become untenable. The guerrilla war in the Sunni Triangle -- coupled with an intifada in the Shiite regions -- would have made continued American occupation of Iraq impossible.
This has now started to redefine the war. The problem is not (just) the Americans, ....the Shia did not play their role (surely Islam was more important than power) , and thereby saved the Americans. Therefore, the Shia are the real enemy. Oh oh, the traditional fault line between Sunni and Shia have started to open up.
If Islam is going to be torn by Sunni-Shiite strife, remember that, while the Shia are a small minority in the Islamic world taken as a whole, they are however a powerful force -- and represent the majority population -- in the Persian Gulf. As Iranian domination of Iraq increases through a Shiite government there, Saudi vulnerability increases dramatically. The Sunni- Shiite confrontation could dramatically redraw the map of the region with the United States being the catalyst for all of this.
So, things might become mighty interesting for the US..... right now is not a good time to leave.
The most important question in the next few weeks will be whether the jihadist attacks on the Shia in Iraq -- and elsewhere, such as in Pakistan and Lebanon -- will resonate among the Sunni masses, the situation is volatile, the Sunnis in Iraq might not respond, but if Sunnis in other countries do respond and begin attacking Shia, the conflict could spread dramatically and quickly.
Saudi maybe entering their worst nightmare: a domestic insurrection, rising Shiite power and a hostile United States, things can't get much worse. They may have little choice but to turn back to the United States and use American power to crush the jihadists at home and serve as a shield against Iran and this is where the US needs to extract every bit of info, money and concessions from the hated sunni of Saudi.
By exetring the right pressure, get the Saudis to shut down all financial support for al Qaeda, get direct access to Saudi intelligence files -- and access to Saudi nationals who are working with al Qaeda.
Don't go anywhere now...the party is just beginning ....and it's good news for the Ahmadis too.