Working to implement Condoleeza Rice's exhortation, Sunnis and Shi'ites sit down to talk away 1,400 years of hostility.
By Gordon Lubold for The Christian Science Monitor (thanks to DFS):
A fledgling group of Sunni and Shiite religious leaders met for the first time in Baghdad last week to condemn sectarian violence in their country, a move US military officials framed as a first of its kind and a small step toward broader political reconciliation.The group of 55 delegates composed of Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish, and other religious representatives from around the country signed an accord June 12 during a two-day meeting that denounced Al Qaeda and vowed to protect holy sites. But it wasn't enough to stop the truck bombing of a Shiite mosque in downtown Baghdad that reportedly killed 87 and injured 200 more. The bombing is the most recent example of the kind of violence between Sunnis and Shiites, although no one had immediately claimed responsibility for it. That attack follows a wave of attacks against mosques recently, including five in Basra – three Sunni and two Shiite – and the second attack on the historic Shiite mosque in Samarra in which the two remaining minarets were virtually destroyed.
The group of religious delegates who met in Baghdad was attempting to stem just this kind of violence. Billed as the Iraqi Inter-Religious Congress, it was the largest number of religious leaders from the broadest geographic base in Iraq to meet in 37 years, American officials in Baghdad say. Many of the 55 delegates, which also included Christians as well as Yazidi, a primarily Kurdish sect in northern Iraq, were themselves some of the "bad actors" who have directed sectarian violence, officials say.
"The biggest miracle of the conference was that it was the first time since the war that these antagonists sat down in a room and had a reasonable dialogue instead of passing out ammunition," says Army Col. Micheal Hoyt, chief chaplain for US forces in Iraq.
Colonel Hoyt says he doesn't want to oversell the significance of the event. Nonetheless, he points to it as a positive sign of the kind of large-scale political reconciliation that could still occur in Iraq.
"If this step hadn't occurred, there wouldn't be any movement in that direction," he says. "This is the foundational step to allow broader reconciliation, at least among religious leaders, many of whom are perpetrators of violence, to begin to move forward."
One wonders how long he is prepared to wait for this "broader reconciliation" to materialize, and at what cost.
They all met and agreed.
The document of mutual understanding said:
'Kill the infidels, kill the Jooozzz...'
...and America paid for that.
Any doubt?
Assalamau Laikum all,
Does anyone know if the Assyrian religious leaders were invited too?
Being of such peacful nature...it is easy for them to sit at home twidding their thumbs!
Ah Naseem... as usual, only around to comment when the topic is a relatively easy one.
Here's a topic for you, Naseem. Of course you are aware of the entire muslim world seething and frothing at the mouths all because an autonomous country that has nothing to do with islam decided to award one of their citizens with an honor for his lifetime of literary work. Let's just imagine that allllll the energy wasted on protests calling for Death to Britain and the burning of effigies right and left were instead channeled by the muslim world, all 1.however billion of y'all, to INSTEAD seethe and froth and demonstrate against the radical elements of your faith (that have most obviously 'hijacked' all of you) for PURPOSELY targeting and blowing up mosques (and innocent human lives, too, but I understand life is not as precious to you folks as your mosques are).
I tell you what, there is not an infidel here who doesn't believe that were it AMERICAN forces that had *ACCIDENTLY* blown up even one of your precious mosques, the muslim world would be seething and frothing for weeks to come.
Why no seething and frothing when it's muslims blowing up mosques?
Don't worry, Naseem, I really don't expect an answer or explanation from you. And the actions of your muslim 'umma' speak way louder than all the death chants and threats.
It's not going to happen. Even if they are all sitting around nodding their heads YES, their hearts are saying NO, and so the fighting will continue as it has the 900 other times that the Arab world has sat around the table. Never have I seen a more obstinate people!
Cinder
Why are they even attempting this? Not only is it likely to be fail, but it is part of a policy that is likely to fail -- making Iraq into a unified state, with a civic-minded and informed and intelligent citizenry, full of the hardworking and the prosperous who, therefore, will offer Sunni Arab states a model of how to be, and everyone will be happy, as for the first time in 1350 years, Muslims take no interest in much of what Islam teaches, though as never before in history, despite their clear military inferiority to Infidels, Muslims are now capable of conducting the Jihad to spread Islam until it dominates, and Muslims rule, in large parts of the non-Islamic historic West, through other nono-military means, through utiliziation of the Money Weapon, well-financed and carefully-targetted Campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest.
Meanwhile, at great cost -- beginning with the $880 billion spent in Iraq that is more than the total cost of all the wars, save World War II, that the United States has ever fought, but also including loss of life, and of limb, that might be acceptable, even at far higher levels, in a war such as World War II, a war that made sense, but enrages because the war in Iraq, for the goals stated, not only does not enhance American security and that of its true allies, but worse, actually requires the American soldiers to work to attain goals that, were they to be achieved (they won't be), would hinder rather than promote, the exploitation of the very fissures within Iraq, sectarian and ethnic, which if not opposed by the Americans, would inevitably lead to further divisions and demoralization within the Camp of Islam, and that, in turn, can only help the Americans and other Infidels in their own war of self-defense -- not a "war against terror" -- against the Jihad that is a permanent feature, not a temporary one (there is no "after Jihad," pace Noah Feldman, and Gilles Kepel, both of them as misguided guides to Islam as can be imagined).
What is described in the article above shows the failure, by those in Iraq, to think beyond Iraq, to think of Iraq only as one theatre in the war of self-defense against the Jihad. The United States has no stake in bringing together Sunni and Shi'a. The Bush Administration, unable to recognize its mistakes about Islam and about Iraq, appears determined to continue to invest more and more, of money and materiel and men's lives -- to pursue a wrong course. In this respect it reminds one of the stubborn, crazed policy pursued during the hideous trench warfare of World War I, for no reasons that made sense, but because, once the thing started, no one could figure out how to stop it.
The generals who have, for the right reasons (not the zinni-ish line of appeasement, but because the war aims in Iraq make no real sense, the "mission" cannot be articulated by Bush because even to try to do so would show up how misguided the whole thing is) opposed the war should speak up. And those who are with tunnel vision thinking only of the "job we have to do" right here in Baghdad are not serving the country well.
As for those who say things like "on average, insurgencies last about ten years," to them one can only reply: what would you think of someone who self-assuredly proclaimed that "on average, American wars last an average of 2.1 years" or "on average, wars around the world sinc 1500 have lasted about 13.16 years" or "on average, civil wars last about 3.7 years."
You would see right away how vacuous and jejune are such remarks. But for some reason, those "counterinsurgency experts" who make such statmeents, and then as well think they are little-lawrence-of-arabias with their knowledge of the "Sunni tribes" and their ability to really get to know those sheikhs because they are aware of how to sit, and which hand to use, and what formulae to utter, and how to listen patiently as the local Arab, who knows exactly how to maniuplate the American army officer who is under the impression that it is he, the American, who is doing the manipulating, presents his wish-list for still more money, still more of those nice advanced American weapons and, oh yes, some more raids by American soldiers on that particualr sheikh's particular enemies, whether or not they belong to Al Qaeda, which is not, pace Patraeus and Buth, the only problem for there are a dozen different, mutually hostile, constantly shifting in their allegiances groups in Iraq, but all of them, in the end, consist of Muslims, and therefore none of them, in end, can conceivably be won over, not their hearts, and not their minds, to be real as opposed to temporary and feigned, friends of American Infidels.
The article above makes one furious, and sad. Furious at the stupidity. Sad for the troops, sad for the soldiers being asked to be there, fighting for something, trying to do something in Iraq, that makes no sense -- none.
I bet 54 of these guys are on going to meet Allah real soon.
The 55th guy is there taking names (54 to be exact) for the death wish lists.
Our leaders also believe in the enthusiasm of the other onlookers at a three-card monte game.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami
'Kill the infidels, kill the Jooozzz...'
...and America paid for that.
Any doubt?
No doubt
They will take the cash
Find out the Jews have gone
Then back to the 1400 war
ahhh..the stories they tell.
..religious conciliation is not a military strategy, killing the enemy is....
...if you can't be allowed to do your job, you should not be there...
Why no seething and frothing when it's muslims blowing up mosques?
Posted by: JenBee
No need to seethe and froth when one can just go blow up one of the other guy's mosques. There are plenty of them.
O/T
The PBS documentary Islam vs Islamists will be aired on Fox News Saturday 9pm eastern.
They might as well spend their time "reconciling" wolves and sheep.
"Religious conciliation". Yes, that should do it. No doubt about that. Conciliation.
Brilliant, absolutely f*ing brilliant. Whats next a gun and rpg buy back?
"This is the foundational step to allow broader reconciliation, at least among religious leaders, many of whom are perpetrators of violence, to begin to move forward." Colonel Hoyt
You notice the key phrase "least among religious leaders, many of whom are perpetrators of violence".
Really! Way to go Sherlock! And D'Souza said this was political fight and not a religious one...
Unless this gathering for "religious concilliation" was merely a ruse to zap all these maniacs in one shot I don't see the point. Better to let them kill off one another than to let them gang up on the infidels. Has the military ever heard of "divide and conquer"?
Another perfect oppertunity for the coalition to make a striking blow to the insurgency, and again we pass it up.
Any word on whether Mookie Al Sadr was there? How about Al Sistani? Just wonderin.
SNAP thanks for the time saver
They all met and agreed.
The document of mutual understanding said:
'Kill the infidels, kill the Jooozzz...'
...and America paid for that.
Any doubt?
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 21, 2007 7:26 AM
When this doesn't work they should start a mid-night basketball league.
"Many of the 55 delegates, which also included Christians as well as Yazidi, a primarily Kurdish sect in northern Iraq, were themselves some of the "bad actors" who have directed sectarian violence, officials say."
Note how they just HAVE to include non-Muslim sects in the talk about "bad actors". Exactly how many Christian groups have "claimed credit" for any of the bombings in Iraq?
Why have we never heard of the Yazidi, except in this one case where "bad actors" are meeting? Where are all the stories of violence perpetrated by Yazidi against other sects?
JW has all of three entries. One is a news story from last August that listed Yazidis in a group of Kurdish sects, with no reference to violence on their part. Another is JW commentary from 2005 about the closing of the Baltimore Tunnel and the third, written just two months ago, speaks of innocent Yazidis pulled off a bus and killed because one Yazidi woman was stoned to death by hew own relatives.
Three mentions, one story of violence committed against them. I'm sure that JW would have told us if there were more. What makes Yazidis "bad actors"?
Daniel Pipes has never written about them.
Is this "religious concilliation" going to work as well as the reconcilliation that we are currently witnessing between Hamas and Fatah?
"One wonders how long he is prepared to wait for this "broader reconciliation" to materialize.."
Till the end of time.
Societies that do dumb things don’t last. America’s great resource is the fifty million or so smart, independent, and hard-working Citizens. Our government has morphed into a system that allows these Citizens to cut a deal with the bureaucracy and live more or less free lives. The Founding Fathers established a system whereby these people elected the government. Now around 54% of the population receive a significant percentage of their income from the Federal Government. The power has shifted to those receiving government benefits.
The government uses their cut to do things to keep it in power. These things become increasingly at odds with the interests of the productive citizens. One of these things is to label foreigners as ‘bad’. So we do really dumb things like try to impose democracy on a violent tribal people.
But deep down, even those who are pandered to recognize dumb things. As we move closer to the collapse of our social safety net, the approval rating for the Congress is 14%. In reality, Congress represents the electorate. In contrast the approval rating of the military is 69%. The military represents what’s left of traditional American values.
As the electorate eventually bankrupts our system as it pushes the tax base off-shore (Bush owns land in Paraguay, Clinton in the Dominican Republic, Gates in Belize, and Bloomberg in the Bahamas-Citizenship is just a campaign contribution away), our Problem of Overproduction will be solved. That is the point when the power becomes consolidated in a strong executive, most likely military, and we stop doing dumb things. This interim period sucks. It’s painful to watch.
See the fall of the French Third Republic for a data point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic
"A fledgling group of religious leaders met for the first time in baghdad." sunni there will be a big brown paper bag of flaming shiite.
Apparently their version of 'religious conciliation' is for all the non-muzlims to be called the bad guys.
So what's new?
So basically, the US invaded Iraq to settle the 1400-year old row between Sunnis and Shiites. How cute! What's next invading Hollywood to liberate Paris Hilton?!!!!!!!
Send in the Anthropology Corps!
Perhaps the Corps de Ballet can help, too.
Kill Kill Kill
Talk Talk Talk
Kill Kill Kill
Well Jimmy crack corn
I dont care
The Shit,s and the Bummi,s have had 1400 years o solve their differences
But I do care about is how there is silence here and all over the blog-sphere about the good the US troops are doing
I do care about this
http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/06/who-is-great-satan.html
US military's new Iraq Slogan: A Jihad Of One!
This is an absurd plan on the part of Condeleeza Rice and the State Department. It seems absurd to even think that Condeleeza can do something that over 1400 years of history could not, reconcile Shi'ism with Sunnism. The White House is grasping at straws here, rather than doing what is right. The execution of this conflict has been too mamby-pamby and it has placed too many restrictions upon our fighting force in the field. Wars are won on the battlefront, and then negotiations occur to work out the terms of peace and reconstruction. The Bush administration has been backward and fubar in this respect.
Posted by: Triphammer
The execution of this conflict has been too mamby-pamby and it has placed too many restrictions upon our fighting force in the field.
And caused the death of many brave US soldiers
"What's next invading Hollywood to liberate Paris Hilton?!!!!!!!
Posted by: progressive "
...hardly....maybe banning Muslim Immigration...
Suppose Bush and Condoleeza Rice are successful, and the Shi'ites and Sunnis settle their differences, and join forces to achieve their common goals?
In what way will that be a good thing for the infidels? In what way will that benefit us?
Give them all complimentary Korans packed with C4 and let the good times roll.
heh, yes, well, of course Naseem disappears and is not around to respond to my post from this morning.
I am not surprised, as it it typical.
____________
O/T
The PBS documentary Islam vs Islamists will be aired on Fox News Saturday 9pm eastern.
Posted by: Had.Enough
_____________
THANK YOU Had.Enough!!
I had been searching PBS to see if it would ever be shown up here around Detroit... had my doubts.
I'm going to set my recorder now... thanks for passing along the info :)
I second JenBee. Thanks, had.enough, for giving us the heads up on Islam vs the Islamists.
The object in war is to defeat an enemy in order to secure the peace. By definition that is a limited and achievable goal, politics as the art of the possible.
Trying to patch up millenia of tribal conflict based on religious and ethnic hatred confuses anthropology with politics, Soldier of Fortune meets National Geographic. Very confusing.
Condoleeza Rice and Bush are fools. The west has been saved so many times by the in fighting of Islam that stopping it is in effect suicidal for Western Civilization. Only some academic specialized on the Soviet Union would think this a good idea!