Perhaps you remember all those high hopes once expressed by Americans for bringing democracy to “ordinary moms and dads” in Iraq, as President George Bush called them. America would not only topple Saddam Hussein, and play its famous game of fifty-two pickup – that is, bring to justice the 52 top figures in his regime – but would bring democracy to a country that had never experienced it. Elections were held; Iraqis proudly held up their purple thumbs that meant they had voted. But the sectarian divide between Sunni and Shi’a Arabs remained, and so did the ethnic divide between Arabs and Kurds. The Sunnis had lost the power, political and economic, they had formerly possessed under Saddam Hussein, but have been unwilling to acquiesce in that loss. The Shi’a Arabs, to whom power devolved after Saddam’s overthrow, supported “democracy” because they constituted 60% of the Iraqi population, while Sunni Arabs were only 19%, and therefore elections suited the Shi’a just fine. Now that they dominate, they have not been about to relinquish any of their newfound power. And the Kurds add another dimension of conflict, for they had become accustomed, under the protection of the American air umbrella, to a large degree of autonomy which they wish to retain, while the Iraqi Arabs predictably wish to bring them firmly back into the national fold.
At the beginning of October protests began in Baghdad and regions directly to its south. The protesters were mostly the Shi’a poor, raging against their own largely Shi’a government. They were protesting against both the lack of basic services, such as intermittent electricity, the high unemployment, and the low wages for those who are employed. But most of all they were protesting against corruption at the highest level. Protesters carried signs — “Just give us a country” — clearly suggesting that the country, or much of its wealth, had been stolen by a cabal of politicians. The same protests against corruption have been going on in Lebanon, where demands have been made for the whole government to resign.
The protest itself was put down in very violent fashion, not only by the army, but also by units of the Iran-supported Hasht al-Shabi, who attacked and vandalized television stations covering the story, as they did not want the ferocious suppression of the protesters to be broadcast. Just as in Lebanon, where the Iran-backed head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, has called on the government not to resign as protesters demanded, so in Iraq the Iran-backed Hasht al-Shabi has taken the side of those who suppressed the protesters. The Iraqi government’s report largely glossed over the role that fighters for Hasht al-Shabi are believed to have played in vandalizing four television stations, some of which was caught by security cameras and circulated widely on social media. Rather than naming the group, the report said that members of “armed groups” had been responsible. It said that “some of those responsible have been arrested and released with sponsors” while they await trial. That suggests there will likely not be any prosecution of Hasht al-Shabi in the end – the Iraqi government not wanting to antagonize Iran over such a matter.
One hundred forty-nine unarmed protesters were killed, and thousands wounded. The government immediately distanced itself from the killings, and publicly fired all of the military commanders involved, claiming they had not been given orders from above to open fire. What will happen now is unclear. Some protesters may have been impressed that the government immediately punished, by dismissing, six of the commanders it blamed for the violence. But that can only bring a temporary reprieve, for the problem of corruption, endemic at every level of the Iraqi government, remains. The amounts that have gone missing are staggering. One report estimates that since 2003, some $450 billion of government money has evanesced.
If the Iraqi government can ride out this wave of protests, will it be able to do so with the next wave, or the next? For nothing was made public by the national government about dealing with corruption. How could it have done so, given that the most massive corruption is to be found among those same government officials at the very top?
Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has told the U.S. that the troops entering the country from Syria cannot remain in Iraq. It was a show of independence, but were the Iraqis to give the matter more thought – and they still may — they might have wanted the American troops from Syria to remain in northern Iraq to combat, as Defense Secretary Esper said they would, a possibly resurgent ISIS. Or were the Iraqis trying to please Iran, which wants the Americans out of the Middle East entirely?
At the same time, one of the most important Shi’a festivals, Arbaeen, was being held in the Shi’a holy city of Karbala. Fifteen million Shi’a attended, with one quarter of them from Iran. The Islamic Republic contributed tents, bathrooms, and hospitals along the pilgrimage route, supplementing those erected by Iraq, to aid the estimated 15 million pilgrims, nearly one in four of them from Iran. But when Iran said it would also send tens of thousands of police officers into Iraq to provide security for the event, the Baghdad government refused. That would have been too humiliating, an admission that the Iraqis couldn’t handle their own security. And the presence of those Iranian police might have worrisomely increased the Islamic Republic’s prestige, and influence, in Iraq.
That is where things stand now in Iraq: the corruption is still rampant, while the poor are still suffering, with no alleviation in sight, and they may again be stirred to protest at any moment. As for powerful foreigners, the Iraqi government is still trying to carefully calibrate its distance both from the Americans and from the Iranians. The Americans, having spent three trillion dollars to help the Iraqis, must be chagrined at this outcome. The Iranians, who have helped to train and finance Shi’a militias in Iraq, must also be disturbed that their fellow Shi’a in Iraq’s government are not offering them a full-throated welcome.
In 1926 Winston Churchill, lamenting that the British had ever gotten involved with Iraq (Mesopotamia), described the country as an “ungrateful volcano.” Volcanoes erupt periodically, and this month these popular protests, and the rebuffs both to America (by not allowing its troops redeploying from Syria to remain) and to Iran (by not allowing tens of thousands of its police officers to be stationed in Iraq along the pilgrim’s route to Karbala) may be the first signs of that volcano once again coming alive.
mortimer says
Democracy is considered ‘haram’ if not a form of ‘wrong worship’ (Arabic: SHIRK). Democracy is considered IDOL WORSHIP, i.e. placing man’s laws over and above Allah’s laws. Consequently, a Muslim who votes may be considered a MUSHRIK (a very bad insult in the Koran … Jews and Christians are called ‘MUSHRIKOON’ in the Koran.)
So how can democracy take hold in a Muslim country, if the theological basics of Islam reject democracy a priori? It’s mpossible for Muslims to believe deeply in democracy, because Mohammed never held a vote … so why should modern Muslims? Mohammed is the perfect man for Muslims to be copied in every detail. Mohammed was a complete dictator. Only Allah could tell Mohammed what to do.
For further reading: https://dianebederman.com/shirkliberalism-is-a-dangerous-religion-distinct-from-islam/
“Shirk:Liberalism is a dangerous religion, ‘distinct from Islam’ ” – May 22, 2018 | Politics
Lotus says
Not much room for a democracy in a theocracy. If the rulers have a hotline to God, who needs the opinions of the masses?
rooare says
Islamists who’s god is the greatest deceiver per their ‘holy’ books which not only teach deceit, pillage, slavery, rape, murder all by divine sanction are now expected to live and let live in a free society, a fools errand indeed.
Martin says
At least 25 protesters were killed in Iraq when security forces used tear gas andan Iranian-backed militia opened fire at demonstration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDO7erceChk
Martin says
Iraqi protesters attempt to storm provincial government building in Karbala
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQaiwqULa5s
Infidel says
I agree w/ Iraq on one thing. If US forces were pulled out of Rojava to bring our troops home, as the president put it, then putting them in Iraq ain’t the solution. The solution is to bring our troops home, as promised. Moving them to western Iraq or southern Syria ain’t what was causing the president to make heartwrenching calls to new Gold Star families
Rarely says
The term “democracy” has a different meaning in the Middle East than it does in the West. It could be best described as the “tyranny of the majority”. Even in western democracies we see some examples of that. One need go no further for examples than the historical treatment of Afro-Americans and Native Americans. BTW Nazi Germany “democratically” elected Hitler in 1933. That didn’t go too well. Russia keeps “democratically” electing Putin.
Nevertheless, it neither takes a strong history background nor a deep understanding of islam to see Dubya’s folly in attacking Iraq. It showed tremendous naivity and ignorance. Expecting the Iraqis to be lining the streets waiving American flags and cheering the U.S. soldiers was complete lunacy. The answer to any and all problems in this World is not always “Send the Marines”.
Kepha says
And the best examples of “People’s Democratic Republics” today are China, North Korea, Vutenam, Laos, and Cuba!
Rarely says
BTW. I’ve been doing some serious head scratching to try and figure out exactly what the Iraqis should be grateful for.
Of greatest importance — I want to point out that I believe that the American people have had the absolute best of intentions in the Iraq issue. Dubya certainly did too but should have known better.
RichardL says
I agree with everything that Hugh says (I normally do, too), but why use Arab for Muslim? Especially when that makes the next sentence nonsensical because the majority of Kurds are also Muslims. Arabs refers to people who share genes with people from the Arabian peninsula. That includes the majority of Jews.
gravenimage says
Fitzgerald only uses Arab when also noting whether they are Sunni or Shia.
lebanned says
These Muslims (that we can and will betray at any time of our choosing on account of their being Muslims and therefore evil) are ungrateful for our illegal invasion under false pretence which destroyed their country.
gravenimage says
Yeah–any chance at freedom “destroys” Islamic countries…
Angemon says
As anyone not called Condolezza Rice could have deduced…
gravenimage says
Sadly, there are many in government as clueless or worse than Rice.
somehistory says
The card game, “52 card pickup,’ is one that the first time player automatically loses. After the person plays it once, the next time the game is played, he/she is on the “winning side,”…if they have any sense or memory of how they first learned the game.
But, it seems when governments are dealing with moslims…of whatever ‘stripe,’ tribe or sect…they never learn the game well enough to win. moslims don’t want to play fair and square…at games or life itself.
The cheating, back-stabbing, front-stabbing, lying, pretending, scheming, are all a part of what moslims do the most. They never appreciate any good done to them or for them. They think only of their own personal feelings as they serve their evil, selfish, deceitful, lying, murderous ‘god,’ satan the devil.
Shall we play a game of 52 card pickup? I’ll deal.
jewdog says
Thanks, Hugh, and great Churchill quote. I tackle the question of ingratitude in my latest letter to in the Jerusalem Post:
The article “PA accuses the US, Israel of trafficking Palestinian organs” (October 17) reports that the official PA daily alleges that a hospital built in Gaza, funded partially by a US charity, is really a CIA espionage center and may be partnering in organ harvesting. No better example could be found of why so many Americans support President Donald Trump in his decision to minimize our military commitment to the Mideast.
Here we have an American charity that is trying in good faith in help the people in Gaza, but then this generosity is paid back with the vilest, most hateful slander imaginable. This response is all too typical, and recalls the gratitude that American philanthropists got when they fixed up and donated the greenhouses left behind by Jewish Gaza evacuees that were then used to launch rockets at Israeli civilians. Another sorry case was when the sweeping concessions made by Israel in the Oslo Accords were rewarded by a relentless campaign of terrorism.
Americans must be scratching their heads trying to figure out exactly what we have gotten in return for the thousands of our soldiers’ lives lost and billions spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq is all but an undesignated province of Iran, and hardly a week passes without news of an American soldier in Afghanistan who has been killed by one of our Muslim “allies.” In addition, a mostly Christian army of Americans are being asked to fight for a country that enforces severe penalties under Sharia law if a Muslim converts to Christianity.
The evidence so far is that the Muslim Mideast is a sort of grotesque dystopia populated by uncivilized, ungrateful, ignorant and violent savages, and Iraq and Afghanistan look like worthless regions not worth a single American soldier.
Now we are told that the Kurds are different, and that we need to sacrifice to help them as they sacrificed for us. The trouble is that they must bear the stigma from the sins of their neighbors. That may be a shame and unfair, but hardly surprising.
Demsci says
Very interesting comment. I think ISIS/ IS “sucked in” American soldiers. In 2011 Obama withdrew from Iraq and the US had as yet no soldiers in Syria. As for Afghanistan; the “generals” told the politicians that “if we do not fight the Islamists there, they will fight us here”. Obama said back then; “we took our eyes from the ball”). Meaning that Afghanistan was the more important battlefield.
That fighting on our own turf indeed seemed to happen with IS in 2015/ 2016; IS beheaded Westerners and organised terrorist attacks in the West. IS was stupid in a way; they brought about their own destruction by challenging the West so much. Had they largely left the West alone, they could have held out much longer.
And perhaps the West would then not have intervened, and there would have been (from 2015 until now) Muslim internecine war in Syria and Iraq, which could have “bleeded” the Russians. (And the Iranians, and. Assad, but they are included in the Muslims).