“Milly”? That’s it? Sheeeit, I get called worse than that by people who like me! Both of 'em!
Hush, lucy…
<…snicker…>
My dear, dear fellow, may I simply request you open a fucking pit thread to whinge on about this rather than piss on about this? We can there express our mutual love and admiration, I can more fully explain myself to your no doubt endless satisfaction and you will look less peevish.
By the way, no it is not okay to call people kikes in the first place, nor belittle etc, for which I apologized, with the simple reiteration of “milly” to indicate the usage refered to for pity sake. It is not as if the mere usage of diminutive is insulting – my sneering was of course and for that I fulsomly apologize - I certainly don’t get bent out of shape with the Colly and all that. Relax.
Tarnation! Can’t e-mail Col.
Col, please, for the love of Mike, ask an administrator to remove the obscene adjectives from your post of 8:41am?
Be cool, man. So… how’s it going? We’re popping up with these crazy exile governors that nobody likes, apparently.
Ack, well if the the two use of strong words was over the line, I am sorry, Milroy is very free to beat me over the head for my sins in the Pit was my point, rather than distracting from this. Although bloody hell simply correcting myself is proving more distracting.
Trust me, I completely agree. But, well, Col, (Yes, I am aware it’s a title, but it sounds better to me. Mebbe Collypookins?) when you’re on Double Secret Probation, it’s better to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing.
So. Back to the topic. It’s been about a week since the end of Baghdad, how’s the markets and people reacting? Something tells me not to put that much stock in the imams saying that the people want a religious state, but the governers don’t seem great prises either. I’m a big believer in waiting and seeing, but I’m not getting any useful raw data out of the news, the arab newsies are going “We want America out now!” which ain’t happening, and the local newsies are going “Oh, they all hate us, they all hate us.” Me, I pin that on end-of-war instant feedback instant news frenzy ending and the newsies gobbling for any story they can sell.
Yes, yes, I know.
Markets, cautiously optimistic insofar as things almost have to get better by definition.
People, well relief the war is over, but anger is still there. I shall try to develop some commentary on this when I am in the mood and have some time.
No, you are wrong, put good money on it.
Look, 50-60 years of howdy doody secularism has been a failure, secularism is a widely discredited idea in the Arab world for the fact that (a) it is often seen as imposed by the west and used as a stick to beat Muslims with (b) Secularist movements dating back to the 19th century have failed to deliver.
Under stress, people tend to become ‘conservative’ and get back to ‘saftey.’ In Iraq, where there was quasi Stalinist repression of religion, there is naturally going to be a popular rebound.
In addition, the Imams, by the very fact that they do not appear particularly beholden to foreign ‘infidel’ powers look good. They provide social structure in a time of dissolution, a compass and counter weight to feared chaos.
I doubt very much any of you can fully understand how frightening the ‘faouda’ or chaos in Baghdad is. Many of these people may not be able to recover, they may be looking at lifetime impoverishment. There is little to no insurance to cover loss, traditionally insurance is not well regarded and risk hedging occurs through family networks, but in social disolution people lose that.
Where are they going to turn? Chalabi, the Con Artist who ripped off Petra Bank and somehow has conned his way into the neo-Cons gullible little hearts?
No, the Imams.
Well, in re this, I believe I covered in the prior whatever number of pages (bizarrely they change on my browser) the complex and largely negative reaction to the US presence, above all in the present context.
That may be unwound, but it is going to be a non-trivial task. But that is the very point I made from the start, yes? I have some thoughts on the aftermath, I have a professional interest in it, so perhaps I shall try some thinking out loud tomorrow or after. Might be worth a follow on thread as I believe this has grown unwieldly.
Worth a shot. “Winning the War, Losing the Peace.”
What I’m saying about the Imams is not that they don’t want it, I’m saying I don’t put much stock in the Imams saying it. Specially that one berk who got quoted five million times. The people saying it, well, we’ll see in three-five months.
I also strongly believe that there is no way in hell that Fundamentalist Paganhater Bush will allow it… so we’re going to have issues in that department later, but it’s not a likely consideration for a government right now.
Which, oddly enough Coll my good man, is why I’ve been so interested in this thread. Yes, the thread’s getting a bit long an unwiedly now, but it’s no less meritorious in my opinion.
Still, I ask the question… (based on your insightful quote above)… given that human nature is the same the world over, why is it that the Imams of Iraq, or the Middle East in general, hold so much sway compared to the civil institutions of the rest of the world?
I ask this question in the following context - I’m not only cynical regarding the religion of Islam, rather, I’m thoroughly cynical regarding all institutionalised religions the world over - with the possible exception of those lovely laid back Tibetan dudes…
My point is this - the Imams of Iraq are starting to flex their political muscle it would appear. OK, fair enough… I don’t have a problem with that… I don’t even have a problem with a theocracy based on the Iranian model… so long as they make a solemn pledge to desist with meddling in any political struggles elsewhere in the region… and yet, I ask my question out of anthropological curiosity - how on earth is it that the people of Iraq are all of a sudden calling for an Islamic state? Just what sort of power struggles are taking place here?
I mean to say… 700 AD and earlier… there was NO SUCH THING as an Islamic state… so the people of Mesopotamia would have had to invent some OTHER form of civil order at the time. Why is that now, in 2003, that the ONLY option from the Imam’s point of view is an Islamic theocracy? Am I out of line here in being totally cynical regarding this naked thrust for power?
You know… apparently, Germany in 1928 was a remarkably integrated and homogenous place - in terms of peaceful co-existence with her Jewish citizens - and yet, in just 10 short years she descended into the orgy of hate that was the Nazi era. This leads me to contend that any society, regardless of how refined or enlightened it might be, can (given the right recipes and stimulii) be manipulated into a state of devolution. I’m pretty safe in saying that IF Germany had held a public election in 1938 to see if Adolf should have got the boot, that he would have won that election in a landslide. Now… this is not to say that I would like to introduce the Nazi era as an adjunct to this thread - far from it - I merely offer it as an example of a highly industrialised Western nation which devolved quite remarkably in just 10 years - and I offer it as an example of what BAD manipuation can do in the public domain.
And this, you see, is my parallel - yes, it’s undeniable that a huge number of people in Iraq are lobbying for an Islamic state at the moment (probably a critical threshold if truth be known) - nonetheless, the cynic in me argues that said folks are being exploited and manipulated by their religious leaders - and that a naked grab for power is ultimately the true agenda of the Imams in question.
OK then… historically… what’s the success rate of pure Islamic theocracies been? Iran? My research shows that Iran was the first national revolution to be led by Islamic fundamentalists. The corrupt and despotic rule of Shah Reza Khan was intolerable - no doubt - just as Saddam’s has been found to be in 2003. And yet, still, to this day, oil exports represent 85% of Iran’s economy. After the Iran-Iraq war, Iran’s oil production was only half of it’s earlier levels; this, combined with a concordant drop in oil prices circa 1989, and a surge in imports INTO Iran at the same time has left Iran in severe economic difficulties, and I’m told there has been a marked decline in standards of living since that time. And most reasonable pundits agree on the following synopsis - Iran’s persistence on allowing ideological considerations to influence all major policy decisions results in a severe hampering of economic reform.
Consider another pure Islamic state… Afghanistan? She proved conclusively that the Taliban were ultimately quite bizarre in THEIR version of an Islamic state (what with destroying those 2000 year old statues and whatforth) and this says to me that there are not the inherent checks and balances within the concept of Sharia Law that most of us in the Western world would like to see. Certainly, no one could argue that any POSITIVE reforms took place under the Taliban regime whatsoever. And yes, I’m aware that the Taliban were more a Pakistan puppet regime than they were an Iranian model - nonetheless, the record of pure Islamic states isn’t exactly STELLAR, is it?
Indeed, in many respects, the push for pure Islamic states is (for mine) very reminiscent of the idealogical push for Communism during the first half of the 20th Century. “Sure we’ve had a few disappointments!” said it’s most vocal proponents at the time… “But if you just let us keep trying, eventually we’ll get it right!” And yet, they never TRULY got Communism right at all did they? A number of reasons - not the least of which was an intractable insistance on centralised planning and large-scale state owned enterprise, an insistance that ideology should influence all major decesions, and worst of all, a lack of checks and balances to prevent despots from obtaining supreme power.
So… there ya go Coll! Some juicy parallels for you to ponder and to discredit if you’re so inclined. 
Certainly, I accept the reality of your observations… no problems with your descriptions of the reality whatsoever - but Holy Shit I’m cynical about some of the power plays in motion at the moment… I really am.
It seems to me that the USA needs to get the electricity on throughout ALL of Iraq a.s.a.p. so that they can start selling their message via television pronto. They seem to be losing this manipulation of the masses battle big time at the moment.
Collypookins? I love it. May I have the honor of actually using this fine attribution? Do I have to beg permission of your father?My heart is all aflutter, just thinking about it.
Your friend,
Milly
Don’t make me NummyMuffinMilroyButter you.
Well very quickly, the Taleban are hardly seen anywhere as having been a legit try at a legit Islamic state.
Most Islamist movements I am familiar with in the MENA region are not hard core obscurantists – think of them as the urban Neo-Cons versus backwoods hick ‘conservative’ and you get a better picture.
Iran is a try at an Islamic state and a point of reference, but not the Taleban’s Afghanistan.
Were the Taliban “home grown” to Afghanistan, or were they outsiders who moved in and took over?
Home grown, more or less. The leadership ( some of them from the old royal clan of Afghanistan ) studied in Pakistan, but in border regions that are ethnically and culturally pretty much identical to adjoining regions of Afghanistan. And despite some foreign recruits and adventurers ( most of whom ended up in ObL’s own local fighting force, a Taliban ally ), the rank and file were also largely Afghan, many deserters from other rival militia’s that switched sides when the Taliban started gaining momentum - a mirror of what eventually happened to the Taliban themselves.
The Taliban were influenced by Saudi theology and backed with Saudi and Pakistani money, but ultimately they were an extreme expression of elements already present in tribal areas of Afghanistan.
- Tamerlane
Coll, my friend! You’re off the hook. You basically addressed the core issues in my last post, rather voluminously and eloquently - but sadly, not in this thread! You did so in the newer thread pertaining to why Iraq would like to try becoming an Islamic State - so with your blessing, I’ll continue our conversation over there if I may please?
Regards, Boo!
Yes, I am impoverishing my own thread, are I not:
Well, the link to that discussion:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3312911#post3312911
I thought I would include by link to the thread some thoughts I just banged out on the reconstruction period:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=3313028#post3313028
For those who may not see it, thinking about what can be done to create a legit economic order:
Interesting questions.
First, I don’t believe that we need to look to “socialist principals” to be concerned regarding wealth distribution and to think about addressing inequalities.
I believe Hawthorne can verify that there is a fine set of perfectly capitalist economic literature, and not even particalarly ‘left’ at that, that suggests excessive inequalities correlate with lower growth. Where the cause and effect is, I am not sure, although I have read informed speculation positing lower growth is probably often the resultant more than the cause.
Second, I believe this question is of serious concern in regards to establishing a framework of legitimacy for a new private sector driven economy.
One can not simply assume that such will, ipso facto, have legitimacy. Iraq has been run as a quasi-socialist state for some 50-60 years, depending on how we want to slice the cake. Regardless of regime legitimacy, as in the FSU and former East Bloc states, ideas of property and the like will have been influenced by this experience. People expect certain things from the State, to wean them away from the more economically inappropriate requires a framework that many buy into.
Further, given the problems in the region, lack of access to ** oppurtunity ** is one of the key driving forces for discontent in the region, as well as a stultifiying force. Rentier behaviour rather than entreprenurial behaviour is what most economic systems in the region encourage, for a wide variety of reasons.
If we want a successful more or less democratic state, we need to create the socio-economic conditions for it. That means helping create the conditions in which opportunity is actually available – socially and economically. These are not to be assumed, I can assure you given both a close reading of the literature, and my direct personal experience.
It seems to me that to help the Iraqis survive the onslaught of change, a program of grants and finance to help them adjust and compete is absolutely necessary to help stave off (a) nationalist resentment of the flow of foreigners, Arab or otherwise, snapping up distressed assets (I may be one of them (b) help a civil society emerge out of the ashes. Of course, this requires in part an appropriate legal framework. but beyond that, it requires assistance to people who have never had these kinds of opps presented and will be in large part paralyzed by the shock of change.
I am personally involved in some planning efforts to raise something like a venture capital fund for Iraq (this is is looking at something about 2-3 years down the road, optimistically) which would be one avenue, but there needs to be some distributive function to help out on this, some non-market driven assistance to get people up to the level where they can compete.
Otherwise, and I have said it many times, we will see Egypt on the Euphrates.
Wonderful, I replicate multiple spelling errors and bad coding.
Bother.
Collounsbury: Given what you stated above, what do you think about establishing an oil ‘trust fund’ for Iraqis, along the lines of the trust fund Alaska residents have? A certain percentage of all oil revenue goes directly to the Iraqi people in cash, and the rest goes into an account managed by something like the world bank, to pay for Iraq’s reconstruction, infrastructure, etc.
The goal being to get money flowing in the country and to help stabilize the middle class. It would also show them that no one is there to steal their oil, and it would make an immediate improvement in their standard of living.
I have some reservations about the idea, but it’s intriguing.