But what is the root of their culture?"The fact is, there is very little that we can do to dampen the sectarian rage and pathologies tearing Iraq apart at the seams. ... But they cannot reprogram their coarsened and brittle cultures."
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
The Problem in Iraq
This New Republic writer has discovered what has gone wrong in Iraq. It's not a failed battle plan, it's not too few troops, it's not "going it alone," it's not that "Bush lied" ... it's Iraqis. Or more exactly, it's their culture!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It seems to me that people tend to assume that others have pretty much the same values they do. However, it is a mistake to assume that most Moslems have the same values that we do-- especially when it comes to things like respect for human life, respect for women, democracy...etc.
I think that it is, in fact "human nature" to want freedom, and to live in a democracy. Unless some cult brainwashes people...as is the case under Islam.
So, Bush assumed that the masses in Islamic countries really wanted to be free..if only they were given the opportunity. However, he is mistaken.
There are really only two possibilities for an Moslem country-- an Islamist gov't (rule of Sharia)...or a non-Islamist dictatorship.
Moslem dictatorships rule by force...and keep the militant Islamists down. However, when the dictatorship ends and democracy is instituted-- the people inevitably vote for an Islamist govt-- of their own free will!
Non-Islamist dictators: Arafat, Saddam, Mubarek (Mubarek's not quite as bad as the other the others, because of US pressure-- and dependency on tremendous amounts of US aid), for all the horrors of their rule, keep the Islamists down. (Musharraf is another example).
When Arafat died and the Palis had an election-- they chose the militant Islamist party (Hamas). After Saddam was forced out and Iraq had elections, they also wanted to vote for a religious run govt (it was only moderated by intense US pressure).
Even Karzai in Afghanistan is beginning to show his true colors..
When a Moslem country becomes a democracy-- the people inevitably vote in an Islamist gov't.
So-- its basically a dictatorship to keep things "stable"...or an Islamist (Sharia) govt. There really is no other possibility.
(Lebanon may seem like an exception: when its not being ruled by Syria, has somewhat of a real democracy...but its not a true "Moslem country"-- its almost 1/2 Christian. They want democracy-- but members of various Moslem factions tend to murder the Christian politicians...)
Excellent comments. I knew I could rely on friends to add some good thoughts.
"plotting to ferment hatred AMONG Muslims."
That's a dead end. That is literally a restatement of longstatnding British foreign policy of the 19th century everywhere. That can work for a generation or two. It's just handing it the problem down the line today
If we look at the 'children' of political entities ruled by fear, hate and secret police states engaged in terrorizing their own populaces, the only one which has seemed to escape sectarian war of some kind is South Africa. Yugoslavia is the case study for human dynamics. More if we look at religious warfare thrown in for good measure we have, maybe, a nascent Iraq.
One of the possible outcomes is three states. We should publicly discuss this, and our potential policies in the future regarding this, such as a Carthaginian solution for failed states which become terrorist havens, and our huge support for a Kurdistan (sorry Turkey, our interests are just as compelling as yours in denying the 4th ID)
If there is to be a religious war (not c a civil one), then let's pull the men into Kurdistan, back them and WAIT. Nothing about the DETAIL of Sunni-Shia repressed haterd changes the real dynamic outside Iraq of BOTH Salafi and Khomeinist war against the Dajjal, US. Nothing.
Iraq is one campaign, NOT a war.
1. After I posted that comment, I had also thought of Turkey. That seems to be the exception.
I'm not too familiar with all the history, but apparently what Ataturk did was pretty amazing.
I'm not sure why. The only thing I can come up withh is this-- it might possibly be due to the fact that there are really two negative forces at play in the mid-east-- Islam...and Arab culture. In some Islamic cultures that are not Arab, things tend to be slightly more moderate (ex: Malaysia...and while some of their militants are just as crazy as anywhere else, many Indian Muslims are fairly moderate)...although even these countries are still not that great.
Also, some of the formerly "moderate" Islamic countries have gotten much worse recently.
Or-- it may be just the way events unfolded in Turkish history?
2. For a long time I had thought that the obvious solution for Iraq is three separate countries. The Sunni, Shia and Kurds will never co-exist peacefully.
However, the Turkish opposition to an independent Kurdistan is tremendous-- if it started to happen, I believe Turkish forces would invade to prevent it! And..the US won't back an independent Kurdistan because, supposedly, the Turks are our allies.
(Btw, rumor has it that there are Israelis in the North secretly training the Kurds)
3. I agree-- it is a fallacy to speak of the "Iraqi war". Iraq is merely another front in WWIII
(Actually, the term "WWIV" is probably more accurate, if you count the war vs Communism as WWIII)
Post a Comment