good read, pretty informative.
http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/1154.cfm
Here's the first half.
The latest hiccup in American plans to control and exploit Iraq is the emergence of strong Islamist (Shiite) forces within the country. These religio-political forces are vehemently opposed to both the secular [Ahmad] Chalabi-led administration that Washington is trying to foist on them and a continued U.S. presence in Iraq. Their chants are No to America! and Yes to an Islamic state!
It is not so much the extremism of these views that alarms America as the fact that they are being echoed by the Iraqi people. A desire to be rid of America pervades Iraqi society; close behind it is the desire to bring the clerics into government. The reasons for this are obvious: a deeply conservative society, pent-up religious passions, a political vacuum (both the result of suppression under Saddam Hussein), and the humiliation of occupation. For now, Islam is the only avenue through which Iraqis can express their feelings and sentiments. The end result is equally obvious: If elections are held tomorrow, they will bring Islamists into power.
The Bush administration is well aware of the Islamist threat. If it comes to fruition, all Americas strategic planning for the region will come to naught. Instead of reaping the harvest of Iraqi oil and spreading Western values among Iraqs neighbors, Washington will have to deal with a hostile regime in Baghdad that could lead others up the Islamist path. The Iranian Islamic revolution of 1979 was non-Arab and too extreme to inspire the Arab world. An Iraqi Islamic revolution in the post-9/11 world would be an infinitely more attractive role model.
How to deal with this threat? Why, with threats of ones own! First came the warnings to Iran not to interfere in Iraqs internal affairs. These warnings are a futile attempt to curb Islamist sentimentfutile because post-Saddam Iraqs Islamist fervor is not imported from Iran. It has totally indigenous roots. (They also reveal American frustration in Iraq: Unable to lash out at the clerics or the Iraqi public, Washington is venting that frustration on Iran.) Then comes U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfelds direct warning to the Iraqi people, saying, If youre suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isnt going to happen.
The significance of Rumsfelds warning is immense. What it does, in effect, is to deny the Iraqi people the very freedom and democracy that George Bush had promised them before the war. The message to the Iraqis is simple: You can choose who rules over you, but only if your choice is pro-American and secular. You cannot choose a government that is anti-American and Islamist. This is democracy with very long strings attached.
On a deeper, more philosophical level, Rumsfeld is denying the possibility that democracy and Islam can co-exist. Or rather, he is denying the value of democracy that brings in Islam. Rumsfeld is not the first Western leader to make this kind of democratic value judgment. In the Cold War era, the enemy was communism. Undemocratic leaders were tolerated, even welcomed, so long as they kept the communists at bay. In the post-Cold War years, particularly after 9/11, the enemy is Islam: All manner of despotic leaders and governments can beindeed should besupported if they keep the Islamists out of power.
There is no shortage of examples to illustrate this phenomenon. Start with Algeria. After years of military rule, the first democratic elections in the countrys history were held in 1991. The initial two rounds pointed to a majority for the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in the National Assembly. The military junta promptly canceled the final round of voting, banned the FIS, and launched a campaign of brutal suppression. Its unquestionably undemocratic conduct was applauded by George Bush Sr. and, among others, the French.
Move east to Egypt. Hosni Mubarak succeeded Anwar Sadat in power more than two decades ago. He has won every election since then. This is a remarkable record for a democratic country but not so remarkable for a country that crushes the political oppositionpredominantly Islamistwith ruthless use of state instruments of suppression. Yet Mubaraks government is the second-largest recipient of U.S. aid in the world (the largest being Israel, a country that unabashedly takes state suppression to new heights).
read on...
http://www.worldpress.org/Asia/1154.cfm
Here's the first half.
The latest hiccup in American plans to control and exploit Iraq is the emergence of strong Islamist (Shiite) forces within the country. These religio-political forces are vehemently opposed to both the secular [Ahmad] Chalabi-led administration that Washington is trying to foist on them and a continued U.S. presence in Iraq. Their chants are No to America! and Yes to an Islamic state!
It is not so much the extremism of these views that alarms America as the fact that they are being echoed by the Iraqi people. A desire to be rid of America pervades Iraqi society; close behind it is the desire to bring the clerics into government. The reasons for this are obvious: a deeply conservative society, pent-up religious passions, a political vacuum (both the result of suppression under Saddam Hussein), and the humiliation of occupation. For now, Islam is the only avenue through which Iraqis can express their feelings and sentiments. The end result is equally obvious: If elections are held tomorrow, they will bring Islamists into power.
The Bush administration is well aware of the Islamist threat. If it comes to fruition, all Americas strategic planning for the region will come to naught. Instead of reaping the harvest of Iraqi oil and spreading Western values among Iraqs neighbors, Washington will have to deal with a hostile regime in Baghdad that could lead others up the Islamist path. The Iranian Islamic revolution of 1979 was non-Arab and too extreme to inspire the Arab world. An Iraqi Islamic revolution in the post-9/11 world would be an infinitely more attractive role model.
How to deal with this threat? Why, with threats of ones own! First came the warnings to Iran not to interfere in Iraqs internal affairs. These warnings are a futile attempt to curb Islamist sentimentfutile because post-Saddam Iraqs Islamist fervor is not imported from Iran. It has totally indigenous roots. (They also reveal American frustration in Iraq: Unable to lash out at the clerics or the Iraqi public, Washington is venting that frustration on Iran.) Then comes U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfelds direct warning to the Iraqi people, saying, If youre suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isnt going to happen.
The significance of Rumsfelds warning is immense. What it does, in effect, is to deny the Iraqi people the very freedom and democracy that George Bush had promised them before the war. The message to the Iraqis is simple: You can choose who rules over you, but only if your choice is pro-American and secular. You cannot choose a government that is anti-American and Islamist. This is democracy with very long strings attached.
On a deeper, more philosophical level, Rumsfeld is denying the possibility that democracy and Islam can co-exist. Or rather, he is denying the value of democracy that brings in Islam. Rumsfeld is not the first Western leader to make this kind of democratic value judgment. In the Cold War era, the enemy was communism. Undemocratic leaders were tolerated, even welcomed, so long as they kept the communists at bay. In the post-Cold War years, particularly after 9/11, the enemy is Islam: All manner of despotic leaders and governments can beindeed should besupported if they keep the Islamists out of power.
There is no shortage of examples to illustrate this phenomenon. Start with Algeria. After years of military rule, the first democratic elections in the countrys history were held in 1991. The initial two rounds pointed to a majority for the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) in the National Assembly. The military junta promptly canceled the final round of voting, banned the FIS, and launched a campaign of brutal suppression. Its unquestionably undemocratic conduct was applauded by George Bush Sr. and, among others, the French.
Move east to Egypt. Hosni Mubarak succeeded Anwar Sadat in power more than two decades ago. He has won every election since then. This is a remarkable record for a democratic country but not so remarkable for a country that crushes the political oppositionpredominantly Islamistwith ruthless use of state instruments of suppression. Yet Mubaraks government is the second-largest recipient of U.S. aid in the world (the largest being Israel, a country that unabashedly takes state suppression to new heights).
read on...
