Okay, what’s the Dope on the alleged escalating level of violence in Iraq?
What went wrong here that it didn’t even stay at the old lower but unacceptable level of violence?
I’m noticing CNN Headlines like the following:
"Mosques, worshippers attacked
* Six Sunni men grabbed, burned to death leaving a mosque
* Gunmen attack three Sunni mosques in Baghdad
* U.S., Iraqi forces sweep into Shiite stronghold, Sadr City, al-Sadr's group says
* White House calls Sadr City attacks "senseless" "We invaded.
It is only going to get worse. We are about to enter a cycle of revenge and violence. I believe this could very well be the beginning of compelete disintegration.
It seems clear to me that Saddam must have been effective in some capacity at keeping this sort of nonsense in check. It would follow that leadership of Iraq should bear a strong resemblance to his regime if any amount of order is to be restored as Western Military authority doesn’t seem to impress anyone in the region. Which leads me to two questions:
I think the toothpaste is out of the tube and that now, it is impossible to restablish that kind of order. The Shi’a are not going to allow the creation of a new strongman, nor are the Kurds. Also, Iran is exerting an unprecedented level of influence that is not abating. There is little, if any constraints on Irans behavior right now, and I don’t see any likely constraints emerging in the near future.
I think the likely scenario is for the collapse of the Iraqi state and the spreading of this conflict into a regional war. I also think that in five year’s time, you will see Sunni-Shia sectarian violence in the suburbs of Europe.
The guy in the next cube over just came and asked if I was okay, thanks to that response. I was dying in my chair… at least I didn’t fall out of the chair like I did during the “wrestling make” in Borat.
Well, thank you, Mr. Sunshine!
I have no basis for disagreement but forlorn hope.
As to the rise of sectarianism in an otherwise secular Iraq, there are reasons. I’ve seen this pointed out a number of times, no claim to original thought being made.
When order breaks down, previously irrelevent distinctions emerge as crucial. A white man sent to prison my have no particular racial animosity towards black people, but soon will have. A Serb may have no particular dislike of Croats, but when people start choosing up sides, he is compelled to make distinctions he otherwise may not. And once you have been injured by the “other” (whomever that “other” may be) it is natural to identify that “other” as the enemy, and to cluster in groups to protect yourself from that other.
I think that was a crucial misunderstanding: we didn’t get that, even though it has been demonstrated time and again. We saw a secular Iraq, wherein Shia and Sunni weren’t exactly the best of chums (due largely to Saddam’s preferential treatment), but neither were they enemies: it was not at all uncommon for people to socialize and even marry across those lines, as they were not enforced by circumstances.
We saw an evil regime ruling basicly good and decent people, educated, literate, secular…perfect material for a bourgeois democracy with white picket fences and ubiquitous Starbucks. Remove the evil regime, we thought, and the basicly good people remain to be molded in our image.
We failed to understand that however ghastly Saddam’s regime, it was order, and the mutual acceptance of the Iraqi people was based on that order and structure. Once that order and structure is removed, “mere anarchy” is loosed upon the world, and the rough beast is born in Baghdad.
Let us at least hope that the lesson is learned, even if the price be far, far too high.
That is probably how Bush and his ill advised advisers saw Iraq. Had they consulted the right tellers of history tales, a Gertrude Bell, say, instead of a Bernard Lewis, they would never have contemplated staying in Iraq a moment longer than it took to depose Saddam Hussein, assuming they would have gone ahead with the invasion at all.
Bush and his closest advisers are dolts who, before the invasion, simply perceived Iraq as a secular Muslim country yearning for freedom and democracy. I greatly doubt that Bush, even now, has any understanding of the difference between a Sunni and a Shi’íte and as for the small and rapidly vanishing Iraqi Christian community, he would not even have been aware of their existence.
If any further proof were needed as to GWB’s doltishness, after the toppling of Saddam, Bush decided it would be a great idea to put reconstruction in the hands of a family crony instead of someone who was familiar with the local cultural milieu.
Targo
Hell, I still don’t get it, and I’ve read a bunch of stuff about it. Its almost as if the Invisible Hand just arbitrarily divided Islam into skins and shirts, or Swift’s satire about people who war over how to eat hard boiled eggs.
Simple explanation: Imagine if Jesus had a son, and there was a despute over whether that son (or some ther blood relative), rather than Peter, was the rightful head of Christianity. Shi’a sided with the son (or whatever blood relative was available).
That’s why you see all those Shiite clerics, like Sadr and Sistani, with black turbans-- that signifies a direct descent from Muhammed, which give you significant street cred among the Shi’a.
Nitpick: son-in-law
On the Sunday morning talk shows I expect guys in expensive suits to say, “Well George, this means we could finally be entering the civil war we all feared.”
George, “Duh.”
Nope. It would be “The next six months will be crucial…”
Ah, but that was just an example, and that’s why I said it might be some other blood relative. Ali was Muhammad’s cousin as well as son-in-law.
A Friedman unit of time once again, too bad for the administration thet even he is ready to throw the towel:
After a century or so, I think it probably stops being about the original reason for the split and starts being about revenge and maybe eventually some heinous cocktail of testosterone, habit, brain-washing, madness, grief, zealotry, pain and history.
Well, it is a conservative society, Zoe.
I keep waiting for the day when the talking heads will say, “the last six months were crucial, and boy howdy, did things in Iraq ever go the wrong way. We’re screwed, and it’s time for an unconditional exit plan.”
They are talking of 3 cilvil wars for the price of one. The safety of the oilsupply has not been assured. Today a talking head says we are on the verge of about 12 city states with local control and local armies. What a mess.