Bush was apparently bewildered at the Arab/Muslim response to his use of the word “crusade” to describe the American attitude to the war on terror.
This article claims that the US will partition post-Saddam Iraq into northern, central, and southern administrative zones. Each zone will be administered by an American. The northern and southern zones will be administered by former generals while the central/Baghdad zone will be administered by Barbara Bodine, former US Ambassador to Yemen.
I’d like to make a couple of points on this plan since it seems to me to be so outrageous that it can harm the US and its allies in an overwhelming way.
Several months ago, the Mufti al-Azhar, the chief cleric at al-Azhar University in Egypt, my homeland, was on Arab TV. He discussed Bush’s use of the term crusade. He said that his first instinct, shared by most Arabs/Muslims was that Bush meant what he said–there would be an American-led crusade against the Muslim world. However, the Mufti noted, it became clear that Bush did not mean crusade in that sense.
However, the Mufti stated that if the US invades Iraq (or any Muslim nation) and then administers it, then Muslims should consider American actions as a crusade. American Muslims, he said, would then be left a painful choice–side with Islam or side with America. According to the Mufti, if American Muslims did not return to their homelands and fight against America, they would be consider apostates of Islam. In the Koran, apostates are given the harshest punishments on earth and in heaven.
(a note: Al-Azhar University is considered the center of Islamic learning today.)
The leader of the Iraqi Shiites was also on TV a few weeks ago. When he was asked whether he would support a US invasion of Iraq he said that it depends on America’s goal. If it is to bring down Saddam only, then he would support it. However, if the Americans seemed interested in occupying Iraq, which would be the case if an American (I believe he mentioned Tommy Franks specifically) administered a post-Saddam , then he would consider the Americans as crusaders.
As much as we love women’s empowerment here in this country, I don’t think a country such as Iraq would be willing to obey a female leader–especially one appointed by invading forces. In fact, Barbara Bodine’s administration will be humiliating to the Iraqi people and to the Muslim community.
Is Bush trying to cause the most amount of discord as possible?
And the objections of the Saudi Arabian daily Asharq al-Awsat seem to hinge on the divisions themselves, not on the fact that one division has a woman at its head.
No mention of the potential “humiliation” brought about by the Central administrator having ovaries instead of testicles, so I’d guess that either they’re okay with it, or else that they know enough about Western politics not to kick about something that won’t be changed.