Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: RMich
Originally posted by: magomago
I disagree.
Iraq has very large intermixing between Sunni and Shi'te groups, so your slave comparison isn't valid.
I have two reactions to this. Chiefly, I never claimed it was a perfect analogy; my point was to explain why AQ in Iraq had a motive to kill
some Sunnis.
My second reaction is that there was a considerable intermixing between whites and African Americans in the slaveholding South. Aside from the snarky sense in which this is obviously true, not every slaveholder was Simon Legree and not every slave Nat Turner. That did not mean that even the kindest slaveholders were willing to cede political control, any more than your observation that some Shi'ites, including your parents, were well treated in Iraq does not particularly undermine my point that the Sunnis don't want to see the Shi'ites in control. One must remember that war radicalizes and deepens ethnic divides. In Bosnia the Serbs and Muslims had lived together in great harmony until ethnic cleansing began. We know how that turned out. My sense is that something similar is underway in Iraq today.
Al Sadr wants AQ in Iraq defeated and the Americans gone. Many Iraqis not allied with Al Sadr no doubt feel the same way. When the dust clears, will Al Sadr or a more tolerant and pro-western government be in charge? That, it seems to me, is the key question. What is your opinion on Al Sadr's future? My concern is that in endorsing the notion that with AQ in Iraq gone, "we can broker a peace with the remaining, more secular and rational groups" you utterly ignore Al Sadr, who is certainly not secular and if "rational" implies anything remotely "tolerant and/or pro-western," he isn't rational either.
I fully understand what you mean: but I think the key , which is what you say, is that we look at the "general population's" view of it. To them mixing is not an issue because they all see themselves as "Muslims". Beyond personal and second hand experience, there are a few articles floating around, and blog sites such as riverbendblog, where this same sentiment is expressed. A lot of what we see in the papers of the "sunni vs Shi'ite" divide in Iraq is something that doesn't come from the mouth of the people. If the people are examined a different tune comes.
Like you stated, war radicalizes things and has even lead to "Sunni" and "Shi ite" neighborhoods, where before none existed, to the the dismay of most Iraqis. Part of this is because of the mass killings that are happening randomly in the country. When a group of armed men come in at night, and kill a Sunni Arab or a Shi'ite Arab, it scares the masses into segregation not because that is what they prefer...but because they are provoked. For some reason it is the only way to stop the actions by these unidentified men. And so as long as these men are unidentified, or it isn't sure who they are, very little can be done by the people because society is afraid of an unkown threat.
It has become big enough that you have two political parties based on this religous-political split. For this I would attribute it more to specific characters wanting political power: so they want to garner support. How do they do that? They try to identify with people in any way possible. Split them in Arabs, Kurds and Turks. Then you can hammer the "shi ite" foundation of your past to try to edge out that "Sunni Politician". So the Sunni does the same thing to try to get back any "Sunni supporters of a Shi'ite candidtate".
My opinion of Sadr is that he is a corrupt person looking for political power. Nothing more. He is not someone to be trusted as he is naive, and his lust for power is something that should be clear to anyone. His father was a great guy (Hence Sadr City. It isn't because of the son) and he is trying to ride his father's name. He himself will probably not take power unless by force and threats; part of this is evident with his "mahdi milita". As Iraq gets stronger, it SHOULD be dismantled as it has no place in the government. If the guys who worked there wanted to enter the Iraqi Army they should be able to providing their loyalties are with the GOVERNMENT. Iraqis are not interested in turning back the clock 500 years when there is no Quranic basis for it (Ie: preventing women from traveling alone, etc. There are saftey factors to it, especially in a place like the USA where a women alone at night may be at risk but this is "common sense" ..it isn't legislated through the government) just because he feels it is "Islamic" (Most "Great Scholars" accepted by both Sunni and Shiite have never ruled anything such as that).
I think also that secularity shouldn't be the goal: the middle east has always been a very religious place. It is hard to turn back 2000 years of culture, and it would create too much of a backlash. For MOST people religion is a part of their lives, especially insofar that ISlam is not simply supposed to be a "religion" as it is a "way of life".
I think another part that you implied, but didn't fully flesh out is that you don't have to be secular, but you can still be RATIONAL. Rationality is something that exists with or without religion. The New Iraqi government SHOULD guarantee freedom of religion: this stems from both "secular thought" as well as Quranic injuctions. Many other things should be guaranteed. But certain things: such as religion in school, is extremely difficult to avoid (this was solved during my parent's time by simply having different religious classes for the different religions. Muslims went to the Muslim class whereas the Christians went to their own. Jews were largely out of the country by then, and other groups would simply go to the library for that time period and either chill or do research on their own) especially when you consider that the school day will require a Muslim to pray twice during that time period.
Our goal should not be a force a "secular" "pro western" style...because it makes no sense. We should try to maintain freedom of religion, and even the previous Iraqi government allowed this to an extent (prostelyzing was banned IIRC). But we should not FORCE "pro western" on them, rather it should be something that they benefit from. WHY should they be pro western (Btw I am implying pro west as Pro US+Germany/France/UK)? What if it is better for them to make closer ties to other powers? What if they choose to ally with Chinese interests more, since China wants oil as well and may offer a better "Sweet heart" deal...and they want to sell oil in Euros? They themselves should have an interest in allying with us...and invading them and giving them a piss poor security condition only helps aggravate the distance between the Iraqi population and the "west".
As a general rule...if you try to force something on someone, they will never want it. The easiest example is looking at a kid: how many kids became what their parents tried to keep telling them to do? I know many kids who ended up not playing a sport, or studying something, or going somewhere because their parents were so insistent.
In that same way, trying to "force" a "secular pro western" government on a population is a futile task...unless you want to kill half of them and forcibly teach their kids a watered down version of history....
They've "declared war" on Shi'ites...and now all the Sunnis. To be complete he should declare war on the Christians in Iraq to get the remaining few percent 
Facebook
Twitter