• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Out with the devil you know and in with.-Iraqi Shite Power- Article

SpinDoc

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Wouldn't it be ironic (or funny even if you're so inclined) if Iraq became just like Iran?  

U.S. Planners Surprised by Strength of Iraqi Shiites

As Iraqi Shiite demands for a dominant role in Iraq's future mount, Bush administration officials say they underestimated the Shiites' organizational strength and are unprepared to prevent the rise of an anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist government in the country.

The burst of Shiite power -- as demonstrated by the hundreds of thousands who made a long-banned pilgrimage to the holy city of Karbala yesterday -- has U.S. officials looking for allies in the struggle to fill the power vacuum left by the downfall of Saddam Hussein.

As the administration plotted to overthrow Hussein's government, U.S. officials said this week, it failed to fully appreciate the force of Shiite aspirations and is now concerned that those sentiments could coalesce into a fundamentalist government. Some administration officials were dazzled by Ahmed Chalabi, the prominent Iraqi exile who is a Shiite and an advocate of a secular democracy. Others were more focused on the overriding goal of defeating Hussein and paid little attention to the dynamics of religion and politics in the region.

"It is a complex equation, and the U.S. government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out," a State Department official said. "I don't think anyone took a step backward and asked, 'What are we looking for?' The focus was on the overthrow of Saddam Hussein."

Complicating matters is that the United States has virtually no diplomatic relationship with Iran, leaving U.S. officials in the dark about the goals and intentions of the government in Tehran. The Iranian government is the patron of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the leading Iraqi Shiite group.

Since the Iranian revolution in 1979, a major strategic goal of the United States has been to contain radical Shiite fundamentalism. In the 1980s, the United States backed Hussein as a bulwark against Iran. But by this year, the drive to topple Hussein -- who had suppressed Iraq's Shiite majority for decades -- loomed as a much more important objective for the administration.

U.S. intelligence reports reaching top officials throughout the government this week said the Shiites appear to be much more organized than was thought. On Monday, one meeting of generals and admirals at the Pentagon evolved into a spontaneous teach-in on Iraq's Shiites and the U.S. strategy for containing Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq.

The administration hopes the U.S.-led war in Iraq will lead to a crescent of democracies in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, the Israeli-occupied territories and Saudi Arabia. But it could just as easily spark a renewed fervor for Islamic rule in the crescent, officials said.

"This is a 25-year project," one three-star general officer said. "Everyone agreed it was a huge risk, and the outcome was not at all clear."

The CIA has cultivated some Shiite clerics, but not many, and not for very long. The CIA is helping to move clerics safely into towns where they can build a political base. In Najaf, for instance, agency case officers worked with a couple of clerics.

"We don't want to allow Persian fundamentalism to gain any foothold," a senior administration official said. "We want to find more moderate clerics and move them into positions of influence."

One major problem is that Hussein executed hundreds of Shiite clerics and exiled thousands more, leaving behind few Shiite civic or religious leaders of national standing.

Shortly after Baghdad fell, Abdul Majid Khoei, a London-based Shiite cleric who was working with U.S. Special Forces, was stabbed to death at a shrine in Najaf, apparently by followers of a young anti-American Shiite leader. They also surrounded the Najaf home of Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the nation's top Shiite cleric, and ordered him to leave the city before tribal elders persuaded them to disperse.

U.S. officials are hoping to combat fundamentalism by helping the Iraqis build a secular education system. Before 1991, Iraq had what was regarded as one of the finest education systems in the region, but years of economic sanctions have devastated it.

"The most radical aspects of Islam are in places with no education at all but the Koran," an official said. "There is no math, no culture. You counter that [fundamentalism] by doing something with the education system."

The Shiites of Iraq make up about 60 percent of the population, compared with less than 20 percent for the Sunnis that have long dominated Iraqi political life. Shiite Muslims, who make up less than 15 percent of the world's 1 billion Muslims, formed their own sect shortly after the death of Muhammad, founder of Islam, in 632.

While Shiites are the majority in Iran and Iraq, the Shiites in Iraq are Arab, not Persian, giving U.S. officials hope that a strong sense of Iraqi nationalism and a tradition of resisting the concept of a single supreme Shiite ruler will keep Persian fundamentalism in check. "There is a big difference, a tremendous difference, between Persian and Arab Shiites," a U.S. official said.

Indeed, some experts believe ending the suppression of Iraqi Shiites will begin to turn the center of the religion away from Iran. The shrines of two of its most revered imams -- the Shiite successors to Mohammed -- are in Najaf and Karbala.

Some U.S. intelligence analysts and Iraq experts said they warned the Bush administration before the war about vanquishing Hussein's government without having anything to replace it. But officials said the concerns were either not heard or fell too low on the priority list of postwar planning.

Chalabi's influence, particularly with senior policymakers at the Pentagon, helped play down the prospects for trouble, some officials said. "They really did believe he is a Shiite leader," although he had been out of the country for 45 years, a U.S. official said. "They thought, 'We're set, we've got a Shiite -- check the box here.' "

"We're flying blind on this. It's a classic case of politics and intelligence," said Walter P. "Pat" Lang, a former Defense Intelligence Agency specialist in Middle Eastern affairs. "In this case, the policy community have absolutely whipped the intel community, or denigrated it so much."

U.S. officials have tried to make inroads with Iraq's most important Shiite group, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), starting with contacts in Kuwait about five years ago. A senior representative of SCIRI met with Vice President Cheney in August when U.S. officials gathered leaders of the Iraqi opposition groups in Washington.

But SCIRI, which is based in Tehran and is closely linked with the Iranian government, boycotted the first U.S.-sponsored meeting of Iraqi political and religious leaders in the town of Ur to discuss the country's political future. Over the years, "there was not as much contact as there should have been," the State Department official said.

"They expected a much warmer reception, and as a result it would be unnecessary for them to deal with some of these issues," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a Brookings Institution scholar, who was one of President Bill Clinton's top Iraq specialists. "That flawed assumption is at the heart of some of the reasons
 
Well they are declaring that they want a Islamic State.DOH!
So I guess Dubya has opened a whole new can of worm‘s or Pandora‘a Box,take your pick,and this is only the begining.
 
Yeah, woulda been much better if Canada had taken an active role in having kept Saddam in power and then installed Qusay or Uday after dear old Dad went to the big torture chamber in the sky. Then those pesky citizens would have been kept under the heel of a brutal oppressive dictator, right where we want ‘em.

Give you head a fu@king shake, sir.
Maybe they‘ll migrate towards an Islamic state, maybe not. Hopefully they‘ll remember who helped to free them from underneath the boot that was at their jugular for so long. Or in the case of Canada, France, and Germany, hopefully they WON‘T remember who tried to KEEP them there.
 
For some people, the world‘s only superpower can‘t get anything right.

They go through the UN with sanctions and are accused of murdering innocent Iraqis

so....

They go around the UN and a military campaign to oust the regime and are accused of murdering innocent Iraqis

Alot of criticism and no solutions are fired around this board.
Give something a little more if you want to offer an effective foreign policy critique....
 
Although rare, I think there actually *are* worse things than brutal military dictators...brutal _______ dictators on a mission from Gosh! I think it really depends on whether or not one is on the $hitlist of the regime (fundamentalist or secular)...

I think it‘s a toss-up on whether or not Iraqis will be thankful to the Americans and Brits and choose a government that is pro-American... World would be a dangerous place if Iraq turns into an Iran... At least with Saddam he was more or less a local nuisance who is "only" power-hungry, not zealous.

Devils to the left, devils to the right... *shakes head* :rolleyes:
 
Okay, here‘s a "solution" from the "Hearts and Minds" camp.

Firstly, have to resolve the Palestinian issue once and for all -- more than likely to create a homeland for them and IMPOSE it on both sides. It won‘t make anyone happy but it would take the wind out of the sails a bit, and create a more positive image of the U.S. in the area.

Secondly, encourage a secular education system in the various countries -- via attaching a lot of strings to the massive foreign aid all those Middle Eastern countries get. That will offset the effects and/or deprive a population base for religious fundamentalism.

Thirdly, ensure that a basic standard of living is maintained in Iraq, Palestine, etc. -- medicines, clean water, food. By fulfilling basic fundamental needs, it deprives malcontents the obvious reasons to bellyache about something.

Plan to have to deal with it in the long term -- i.e. 10 years+. Don‘t assume that democracy and freedom is more important to those people than security and national pride.

The problem is applying band-aid solutions instead of treating the fundamental problems (which Saddam may or may not be -- but more so the fact that most Arabs do not like the prolonged/continuing American influence in their region)
 
What the heck is wrong with it being an Islamic state?

Just because it is Islamic doesn‘t mean that it is militant or extremist. For example, Egypt and Qatar are Muslim states -- and is there anything we should fear from them? Or, did you forget that Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are basically the same faiths?

The US, Canada, and the UK are Christian states (our laws are based in Christian morality, although we support pluralism) and are we branded Christian militants? I don‘t think so.

I dare you to find a competely secular state out there other than communist countries -- most of which have faded away into the dacadence of post-modernism!

An Islamic state does not = extremism!
 
Humint, your right we should welcome a muslin state but we have to be careful. Eqypt, is at the edge of slipping into an Islamic state which is much different. Islamic States removes many freedoms and laws that were under an Muslin states, i.e. no for women rights, the Islamic law codes, it gives too power to the religous leader and generally take the country away from any secular path. An Islamic state makes the faith the only way to live and their only one way that faith can ve lived. I take an Islamic state to be like Iran. Qutar, Kuwait and Suadia Arbia are monarchies and so are not Islamic states in my mind, but could very well go to that route after the Kings fall from power. I do believe that an Islamic state is an extremist state, but a Muslin state is more open and allows free choice, and is what the US should aim for.

The US, can do a lot of good in Iraq if they actaully take the time and do it right. They have to set Iraq, with schools and jobs and make sure that laws for women stay the same. They have to divide the new gov‘t into three, for the Kurds and two main muslin groups. Allowing one to get the upper hand would be a bad thing. The Kurds will not allow themselves to be same position again. They have to stay for at least 2 years and make sure they re-build the economy. Its not easy and I don‘t trust US to stay til the end, but they could surprise me. Take Egypt, it does hold elections but they are not free elections, and so does Turkey; because if they allowed free elections there would be a good change each nation would fall to the fundamentalist parties. Who don‘t want elections and would right the country. Or look at Israel, a Jewish state that is secular but moving in more fundamentalist path. In some areas of Isrsal now women can‘t ride teh bus with men, and they want all shops to be closed on saturdays even the streets.... because they believe their View is only right view. As long as Iraq is streered away from fundamentalist it will be a job well done.
 
Well, *YOU* know and *I* know that the three religions all have the same roots... but I get looked at as if I‘m the devil‘s incarnate whenever I mention this little tidbit...

Why on earth do you think they‘re at each other throats?

I refer again to Tom the Dancing Bug‘s God-Man comic strip... I think it‘s a good way of looking at it (abeit a bit simplistic)
 
Alright, lets straighten out our lingo. There is nothing wrong with an Islamic state, however we wish to avoid a theocracy as it usually takes the form of a rabid fundamentalist state (Iran) that paints us (the West) as the bad guy.

Spindoc, I like that solution. It is what I was hoping would come of this too. I can‘t see the Americans pulling out of this one too quick. Maintaining a strategic presence in the area is a good way to keep all of the nasty neighbours in line, and creating a flourishing democracy in Iraq will allow change to occur in other states of this region.
 
By the way, your right. If Iraq and Iran were to be two of the same, I think we would be in some deep caca. But don‘t you think SOMEONE within the US government has also figured this out?

Reminds me of this Tom Clancy book I read one time....
 
Ah yes, I was going to mention Tom Clancy in my initial post... :D

I think we are specifically against an Islamic theocracy which would be anti-American (and wouldn‘t care less if the US loved or hated Canada for whatever reason of the day)...

As for someone in the US administration *figuring* it out, OF COURSE! :D That almost goes without saying, since they probably have a crapload of scenarios up to and including the Easter bunny taking over... I think the point is the senior admin *cough Rumsfeld cough* decided somewhere along the line to not put emphasis on dealing/PREVENTING with that scenario. Let‘s admit, Saddam was good at suppressing the same fundamentalist that would‘ve been a threat to his power and to the West, and now with the "lid" gone... I don‘t think these fundamentalists use the thinking that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which perhaps the U.S. was hoping for.

What do you guys think: is there a goodly number of Iraqis that hate the US more because it defeated Iraq twice than loving the US because it freed them from Saddam?
 
Hopefully they‘ll remember who helped to free them from underneath the boot that was at their jugular for so long. Or in the case of Canada, France, and Germany, hopefully they WON‘T remember who tried to KEEP them there.
we didnt try tp keep them there. We decided that we needed the U.N.‘s approval before we went charging blindly into the breech. Get you stuuf right..
 
I think we are all on the same page, it was a problem of semantics -- that‘s all.

Keep an eye on Iran over the next few years. As much as it is fundamentalist and a theocracy, I think you will see a more moderate movement develop and a shift of power (especially cultural power) away from the Ayatollahs. This shift has its base in the younger, university educated crowd.

Personally, I really don‘t think the Middle East is on the brink of becoming a series of fundamentalist Islamic states.

However, this will depend on how the US plays their part in rebuilding Iraq, their position on Syria, the overall economic well-being of the area, and the development of peace in Israel and the creation of an independent Palestinian state.

Man, so many ifs it‘s crazy! But, there is more involved in the creation of a theocracy than the simple pursuit of religious identity.
 
we didnt try to keep them there. We decided that we needed the U.N.‘s approval before we went charging blindly into the breech
Those two statements are the exact same.
Do you think going through the UN would have eventually removed Saddam?
Look at the politics surrounding the issue.
 
As my bro Infanteer pointed out, doggedly clinging to inaction as a course of policy is not noticeably different from aiding and abetting Saddam. Think of it as the cops standing by and allowing a gang of thugs to beat up a little old lady right in front of them. Would it be any different for the cops to stand there and do nothing as opposed to just walking over and putting in a few stomps of their own for good measure?

All that evil requires to thrive is for good men to do nothing. Not that I consider our current Fearless Leader as being particularly "good", or even a real "man" for that matter.

All you Saddam lovers out there can stand by and wring your hands over WMDs, oil wells, and geopolitical instability, but in the end, I see what our American, Brit, and Aussie ***brothers*** did as noble and worthy. Say what you will, but a sizable portion of the Iraqi populace doesn‘t have to go to sleep every night wondering anymore if Hussein‘s thugs are going to bust in the door and take the men of the house to be beaten, tortured, and executed for speaking out against the son of a bitch. But maybe I‘m one of those old fashioned types who can‘t think in abstract shades of bull**** grey.
 
So by your reckoning, since grey is "bull", the US and the West should‘ve stomped out the Soviets‘ guts way back when... and since people can‘t sleep at night worrying about a knock on the door, the US and whoever its buddies of the hour are should go rumbling to the People‘s Republic of China and topple the Chinese Communist Party. Gee, we might as well unite the world into one big happy democratic entity and celebrate the joys of freedom, hold hands and skip, since US democracy is "okay", but they see fit to punish French and German democracy. Just different brands of idealism.

There is military pragmatism and then there‘s diplomatic pragmatism. THAT‘s where "we" bleeding hearts get our shades of grey. It‘s all great and good when you are on one side‘s "right" and against the other side‘s version of "right" and call it "wrong" because you have a bigger stick for now... The French and Germans can suck eggs for all I care since I didn‘t care much for their proposal, but there were other proposals that could have improved upon the US‘ course of action -- and calling those other proposals outright wrong is just pig-headedness. It‘s like a NCO/officer not willing to accept advice/suggestion and lashing out because he outranks the advice giver.
 
"All that evil requires to thrive is for good men to do nothing."

I‘ve also heard ‘The greatest evil is the corrupt man whom hides behind the shield of rightiousness‘
 
Hate to be nitpicky, but "old fashioned black and white" is just one form of fundamentalism. I hate to accuse anyone of being a fundamentalist, but let‘s do a compare and contrast here:

You are with us or against us
vs.
Submit to Allah, the infidels (mostly aimed at Christians and Jews... but Buddhist, Hindu, etc. too I would imagine) are wrong and must be dealt with.

I‘m willing to bet that Islamic fundamentalists (or any other type of fundamentalist for that matter) feel as strongly about their being "right" as Marauder does. Can the same be applied to "my" grey worldview? I have black and white in my spectrum too... but I could be swayed to shift the shade of grey, so I would *like* to think I‘m not a fundamentalist, but I‘m sure someone could make an argument that I‘m a "grey fundamentalist".
 
Back
Top