Islam in post Saddam Iraq
Islam is not the enemy that its been made out to be. With an open mind I have researched Islam I get the distinct impression that Islam is peaceful, and that a few leaders have made it violent.
Islam was the light of civilization from its rise to power in the 800’s through to the 1200’s. William H. McNeill, “…a series of Arabic doctors, astronomers, mathematicians, and philosophers added to the learning of their predecessors…” The quote refers to a time of about 1000 CE to 1200 CE, which was well into the dark ages of Europe. As a side note western civilizations numeral system is of Arab origin, derived from India.
Islam was one religion to preserve verses destroying what they conquered. McNeill again: First, “The Arabs did not destroy nor significantly damage the society and culture which they found in these regions [conquered regions], but they did transform both.” Secondly, “Their liberal policy toward the conquered population actually made the Arabs welcome to the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Near East.” This was the same tactic that allowed the Romans to expand as fast as they did.
The violence of Islam we see today is but a manifestation of a political power struggle that has hijacked a powerful religion. This discussion is focused on Islam in post Saddam Iraq,
From “Islamist Politics in Iraq after Saddam Hussein” by Graham E. Fuller a former Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, CIA: “Iraqi Sunnis lost heavily with the fall of Saddam Hussein.” Also, “Sunnis have everything to lose in a Sunni-Shia religious competition…” Furthermore, and to make things worse; “Shia undoubtedly perceive that they have the demographic power to act unilaterally.” This is because the Shiites are the majority in Iraq at about 60% while the Sunnis compose the remainder.
It can be seen that there is an internal political struggle in Iraq, there are also external factors, “Neighboring states are, predictably, already moving quickly where possible to establish centers of influence within Iraq…” Also more from Fuller: “Wahhabi influence from abroad will also be present. … The growth of Wahhabi power in Iraq will most likely stem from any growing hostility to the U.S. occupation and they will probably take the lead in armed opposition to the U.S. presence.”
I think Fuller states it quite clearly here, “The Islamists—Shia and Sunni—are not automatically hostile to the U.S. presence, especially since both gained from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But they are determined to retain the "Muslim character" of Iraq, especially in the face of non-Muslim occupation, and cannot long support the U.S. presence.” He continues with, “The Baath regime has created immense resentments within Iraqi society that will seek expression.” Added together you have a power struggle between internal groups, influenced by external groups, aggravated by years of oppression, which becomes quite the explosive mix.
However the solution is not a simple one, first as the occupying force in Iraq we must respect the Iraqi authority which has developed, and do what they ask. This will allow the "Muslim character" to flourish reducing the likelihood of dissent among the population. We must also make sure that there is a solid infrastructure in place to meet the needs of all the Iraqi people. That in turn will generate a strong economy which is essential to a stable government. The conditions for peace would then at least exist, and peace a possibility.
If we were to leave Iraq too soon peace would not be achieved. If the infrastructure is left incomplete then poverty will reign and dissent will follow, poverty is a recruiting arena for terrorists.
The infrastructure also consists of a strong police force, one which can adequately deal with terrorist threats but more importantly make the population feel safe. Because terrorists use intimidation and terror a vulnerable population can easily surrender to terrorists demands. If we leave Iraq underdeveloped the chances of Iraq reverting into an Islamic Fundamentalist state would be much higher.
As was quoted before the Shia and Sunni are not against the U.S. occupation and they owe the U.S. for their newfound freedom; it is however the Islamic Fundamentalists that are fighting the U.S. they were fighting before the war and occupation and will continue to as long as they can mount an effective resistance.
The Islamic Fundamentalists fight for a Muslim culture but with encroaching western culture they feel that they are loosing their identity, the rapid changes have also generated backlashes towards western culture because of the assimilation of Muslim culture into western culture. The value systems of historical Arabs and those of western culture are significantly different and some of the western values seem decadent, and demeaning. With all of this combined it leads to resistance and when the world isn’t listening that resistance turns to the only medium that the world does pay attention to, Violence.
Islam was the light of civilization from its rise to power in the 800’s through to the 1200’s. William H. McNeill, “…a series of Arabic doctors, astronomers, mathematicians, and philosophers added to the learning of their predecessors…” The quote refers to a time of about 1000 CE to 1200 CE, which was well into the dark ages of Europe. As a side note western civilizations numeral system is of Arab origin, derived from India.
Islam was one religion to preserve verses destroying what they conquered. McNeill again: First, “The Arabs did not destroy nor significantly damage the society and culture which they found in these regions [conquered regions], but they did transform both.” Secondly, “Their liberal policy toward the conquered population actually made the Arabs welcome to the vast majority of the inhabitants of the Near East.” This was the same tactic that allowed the Romans to expand as fast as they did.
The violence of Islam we see today is but a manifestation of a political power struggle that has hijacked a powerful religion. This discussion is focused on Islam in post Saddam Iraq,
From “Islamist Politics in Iraq after Saddam Hussein” by Graham E. Fuller a former Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, CIA: “Iraqi Sunnis lost heavily with the fall of Saddam Hussein.” Also, “Sunnis have everything to lose in a Sunni-Shia religious competition…” Furthermore, and to make things worse; “Shia undoubtedly perceive that they have the demographic power to act unilaterally.” This is because the Shiites are the majority in Iraq at about 60% while the Sunnis compose the remainder.
It can be seen that there is an internal political struggle in Iraq, there are also external factors, “Neighboring states are, predictably, already moving quickly where possible to establish centers of influence within Iraq…” Also more from Fuller: “Wahhabi influence from abroad will also be present. … The growth of Wahhabi power in Iraq will most likely stem from any growing hostility to the U.S. occupation and they will probably take the lead in armed opposition to the U.S. presence.”
I think Fuller states it quite clearly here, “The Islamists—Shia and Sunni—are not automatically hostile to the U.S. presence, especially since both gained from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. But they are determined to retain the "Muslim character" of Iraq, especially in the face of non-Muslim occupation, and cannot long support the U.S. presence.” He continues with, “The Baath regime has created immense resentments within Iraqi society that will seek expression.” Added together you have a power struggle between internal groups, influenced by external groups, aggravated by years of oppression, which becomes quite the explosive mix.
However the solution is not a simple one, first as the occupying force in Iraq we must respect the Iraqi authority which has developed, and do what they ask. This will allow the "Muslim character" to flourish reducing the likelihood of dissent among the population. We must also make sure that there is a solid infrastructure in place to meet the needs of all the Iraqi people. That in turn will generate a strong economy which is essential to a stable government. The conditions for peace would then at least exist, and peace a possibility.
If we were to leave Iraq too soon peace would not be achieved. If the infrastructure is left incomplete then poverty will reign and dissent will follow, poverty is a recruiting arena for terrorists.
The infrastructure also consists of a strong police force, one which can adequately deal with terrorist threats but more importantly make the population feel safe. Because terrorists use intimidation and terror a vulnerable population can easily surrender to terrorists demands. If we leave Iraq underdeveloped the chances of Iraq reverting into an Islamic Fundamentalist state would be much higher.
As was quoted before the Shia and Sunni are not against the U.S. occupation and they owe the U.S. for their newfound freedom; it is however the Islamic Fundamentalists that are fighting the U.S. they were fighting before the war and occupation and will continue to as long as they can mount an effective resistance.
The Islamic Fundamentalists fight for a Muslim culture but with encroaching western culture they feel that they are loosing their identity, the rapid changes have also generated backlashes towards western culture because of the assimilation of Muslim culture into western culture. The value systems of historical Arabs and those of western culture are significantly different and some of the western values seem decadent, and demeaning. With all of this combined it leads to resistance and when the world isn’t listening that resistance turns to the only medium that the world does pay attention to, Violence.
posted by MMM at 4:49 PM
2 Comments:
Well said. I disagree with the "staying to finish the job" part because unfortunately the country has hydro carbons, black gold, oil. It is a petro-state and so is entwined in a paradigm that goes beyond religious strife.58,000 young Americans died in VietNam before we realized the counter-productive nature of our presence.
The presence of Oil in Iraq could be beneficial, that is if properly used. Take for example post WWII Japan; the economy and infrastructure were completely destroyed. Now fast forward 60 some years and we see Japan at the forefront of technology and one of the strongest economies in the world. Japan has little natural resources, they borrowed the money needed to rebuild.
Iraq with their Oil wont need to borrow money to complete rebuilding their infrastructure and economy; thus Iraq should recover faster.
As far as Vietnam goes military history shows that the war was poorly run, thus the outcome of the war deemed a failure. The primary failure was that the office of the president micromanaged operations in Vietnam hampering the war effort; thus many things were done counterproductively. The other major factor was the lack of an exit strategy.
Thankfully the government and military learned from that mistake and for the most part has not repeated them. Bush sorely underestimated the number of troops needed for the occupation. The war against the Saddam’s forces was conducted quite well, but the transition was poorly carried out.
Post a Comment
<< Home