From Hugh Fitzgerald: A fantastic war (Jihad Watch)
"In the future,” many have predicted, “the Iraqis will blame their civil war on the US."
Well, of course they will. They already do. They do in Man-on-the-street interviews, in which those men on the street explain how “everyone got along” until the bad old Americans came. In a poof, the persecution and mass-murder of the Kurds is forgotten by all the Arabs. In a poof, the persecution and mass-murder of the Shi'a by the Sunnis (the regime of Saddam Hussein being merely a disguised Sunni despotism) is forgotten -- certainly by almost all the Sunnis, but also by some Shi'a when they want to blame, as they do want to blame, the Infidels for everything. Everything was wonderful.
In Pakistan Sipaha-e-Sahaba never attacked the Shi'a. In Afghanistan the Taliban never tried to wipe out every last Shi'a Hazara. In Lebanon, the Shi'a have never suffered or ever wanted to get back at the Sunnis. In Bahrain, the Shi'a who constitute 75% of the population are ruled benignly by a Sunni Arab about whom they have nothing to complain. And as for the past 1300 years of Sunni-Shi'a relations, let's just say it has been roses, roses, roses all the way.
Of course the Americans are to blame, in Muslim eyes. Always will be.
But here's the amusing part. The Bush Administration cannot admit to itself that the Sunni-Shi'a divide pre-dated the invasion of Iraq by some 1300 years, and that the fissures between them would inevitably widen once the iron grip of Saddam Hussein had been removed. Because to admit that this was all inevitable, would be to raise the question: if it was all inevitable, why did we not see it? For it if was inevitable, and we hadn't -- and still refuse to have -- the slightest idea of its inevitability, then there must be something wrong with us. But we can't admit that. Nor can all the commentators, for and against the war, who failed to immediately identify this inevitable outcome, and who either remained Bush loyalists, or opposed the war for all the wrong, appeasing reasons. Or they advocated some halfway measure, such as that "put in a strongman" -- without, of course, asking themselves whether that "strongman" would be Sunni, in which case the Shi'a would never accept him, or Shi'a, in which case the Sunnis would never accept him.
No, those who were wrong, being unable to admit it, will persist in their obstinacy. And that obstinacy requires them to deny the depth and duration of the Sunni-Shi'a split, and thus to support the view that the "Americans caused it."
A fantastic war, this Iraq war. Undertaken for one stated reason, continued long after for quite another, crazily messianic and polypragmonic reason. Supported by those who simply mechanically rallied around the Bush-Republican-conservative wagons, without considering what was actually going on. And even today most are still unable to see the folly of the Bush and now Gates definition of "victory," which is the very opposite of what should be desired.
When Gates says failure to obtain "victory" -- by which he means ending the Sunni-Shi'a violence and forcing the Kurds to permanently acquiesce in remaining within Arab-ruled Iraq, he has it all backwards. He speaks of "catastrophe." But the real "catastrophe" would be if the Americans, after having squandered 3,000 lives and 22,000 wounded and a half-trillion dollars in sunk or committed future expenses, and after having done great damage to both the materiel and the morale of the armed services (not cheap to repair in one case and not easily recovered in the other), were to continue to squander men, money, and materiel in order to achieve the opposite of what would constitute a kind of victory, which would come through dividing and demoralizing and thereby weakening the Camp of Islam. Well, this would be the greatest self-inflicted defeat in American history. And it would have been entirely avoidable if Bush and Co. had had the right understanding of the instruments and full scope of the menace of Jihad.
But Jihad is not understood. Not by Bush. Not by Cheney. Not by Rice. Not by Gates. Not by the idiotic Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. Not by The New Duranty Times. Not by The Bandar Beacon. Not by the bright-eyed "insurgency experts" who keep making plans to win hearts and minds in Iraq, and who speak confidently and irrelevantly about how insurgencies "last on average ten years." They do not consider that this "insurgency" is Islam-based. As long as Islam is there, the Infidels will always be fought, and as long as Islam is there, the ethnic and sectarian divisions within Islam will never be overcome, because the spirit of compromise, especially peaceful compromise, is contradicted by the tenets and attitudes of the belief-system of Islam.
How long will it take this learning-curve to begin to take off, as it still strains and strains and strains for lift-off?
3 comments:
First, for "street cred," I have had an experience most Americans have not - due to my 21 1/2 years in the military, I have lived among Muslims, known Muslims, and even had a Muslim coworker.
"Of course the Americans are to blame, in Muslim eyes."
Had the writer said "Iraqi Muslims" I would have no problems with this statement. Unfortunately, he did not, and makes the mistake a lot of people do - seeing Islam as monolithic.
As the very real differences of which he speaks shows, not to mention the fact the US has Muslim allies - Islam is about as monolithic as American Protestantism.
He also appears to conflate Muslim with Arab, and most Muslims are not Arab, not to mention there are Arab Christians.
He also, in my opinion, does a great disservice to the 4000 Amerians who are Muslim by religion serving in the US military, and the American, also who happens to be Muslim, who was just elected to Congress.
He akes the same mistake, that of over-generalization, when he says, "They do not consider that this "insurgency" is Islam-based. As long as Islam is there, the Infidels will always be fought, and as long as Islam is there, the ethnic and sectarian divisions within Islam will never be overcome, because the spirit of compromise, especially peaceful compromise, is contradicted by the tenets and attitudes of the belief-system of Islam."
Anyone remotely aquainted with Islamic history knows the various sects have generally, over 1400 years, lived peacefully side by sie in the same manner as do most Protestants and Roman Catholics. And, again, he sees Islam as monolitic.
"The Bush Administration cannot admit to itself that the Sunni-Shi'a divide pre-dated the invasion of Iraq by some 1300 years ..."
He is absolutely right, but this is not limited to Islam, as can be seen in the Protestant/Roman Catholic strife in Ireland, for example.
"... Jihad is not understood ..."
I certainly agree, but I do not believe he understands it either.
In orthodox Islam [in other words, the Muslim extremists, similar to the Neo-Con extremists he decries], Jihad has two aspects.
The first and most important is the "inner Jihad," what we might call "Spiritual Warfare," the attempt to be "holy as {God] is holy" and resist "the world, the flesh, and the Devil."
There is also the "exterior Jihad," by far of lesser importance, the attempt by the faith to defend itself , but Christianity believes exactly the same, in "Christian Just War Theory." and both concepts have been misused in the past.
I do, however, agree we were naive when we entered this conflict, however "right" our motives may have been.
And this statement, "But the real "catastrophe" would be if the Americans, after having squandered 3,000 lives and 22,000 wounded and a half-trillion dollars in sunk or committed future expenses, and after having done great damage to both the materiel and the morale of the armed services (not cheap to repair in one case and not easily recovered in the other), were to continue to squander men, money, and materiel in order to achieve the opposite of what would constitute a kind of victory" should be applauded.
Major John Hanscom, USAF (ret)
Correction
At one point, I should have said, "NOT the Muslim extremists," as they do not represent orthodox Islam. Sorry.
John: I defer to your experience living with Muslims, which I have not. However, I have been reading quite a lot about them, while also trying to read parts of the Koran. I think you underestimate the violent strain which is part and parcel of Islam. After Muhammad, three of the next 4 leaders were killed. Muhammad was involved in at least 30 battles, and instigated violence everywhere he went.
Post a Comment