24 Comments

1. Catherine:

ambisinistral if you’re around—

This is interesting.

The Shiekh of the tribe to whom the 3 wounded citizens belong demanded more efforts from the government to stop who he described as “Salafis”

Salafi might be the right term to replace ‘insurgents.’

http://iraqilibe.blogspot.com/2005/02/iraqi-citizens-kill-5-terrorists.html

Feb 4, 2005 - 12:25 pm 2. Lola:

But then the MSM would have to take time out to explain what does “Salafi” mean without being hit with the “politically incorrect” label. Somehow, I don’t think the editors are going to take time out for this. One can always hope, though . . . I sure am getting tired of the word “insurgents”. If it works for these villagers, then by jove it should work for us as well.

Feb 4, 2005 - 12:36 pm 3. Catherine:

The Germans are nothing if not realists.

My sense is that this is true of many in Europe. (I could be wrong!) We saw the same thing in Paris just after the November election.

The newstands were filled with magazines plastered with highly flattering pictures of George and Laura Bush, accompanied by the headline, “Master of the World.” (It might have been “Master of the Universe.”) One magazine had a long article on the “Bushistes” in the French Parliament, Bushistes meaning pro-Bush. (These were Sarkozy allies.)

I also read a number of op-eds in British sources saying that Europeans had not realized George Bush enjoyed the support he does. They had interpreted the FL results to mean that he really was an ‘accidental’ president, that Al Gore was the rightful leader, and that this aberration would be corrected in 2004 when we would all return to normal.

(To be perfectly truthful, British publications frequently warned that nothing was going to return to normal no matter who was elected. But the Brits, too, apart from Micklethwait & Wooldridge, failed to perceive America’s support for George Bush.)

I see a number of parallels between the November elections and Sunday’s elections in terms of world opinion.

In both cases political and cultural elites had a view of reality that was utterly at odds with actual reality as it was being lived and created by real people in the real world.

Bush was an illegitimate president who did not enjoy the support of his fellow Americans; the Iraqi elections were illegitimate and would not come off.

(I love the elite’s unshakeable faith in the notion that it is they who confer legitimacy on national leaders and elections!)

In both cases large masses of ordinary human beings went to the polls and corrected the misimpression.

And in both cases it appears that the message has been received.

In light of a successful Iraqi election Germany has come to the conclusion that the effort to bring democracy to Iraq will work and they are scrambling to be on the right side of history. Nothing succeeds like success.

Damn straight.

Feb 4, 2005 - 12:40 pm 4. Catherine:

Lola

If it works for these villagers, then by jove it should work for us as well

That’s what I say.

Feb 4, 2005 - 12:42 pm 5. Rick Ballard:

Hmm. Lola and Catherine in the affirmative (fair possibility that Terrye and Katherine will throw in later).

Salafist it is.

I can’t pronounce Qutbist anyway and “yes, dear” is the safest pairing of words in the English language.

Feb 4, 2005 - 12:57 pm 6. Terrye:

Catherine:

Well to hear a lot of Democrats tell it the elections are a bad thing because the Shias will run Iraq. One of them is on Fox right now saying this is a very bad thing. [Bechtel I think]

So now we not only have to have elections, we have to have elections in which the right people win.

Excuse me while I go mute this idiot.

Feb 4, 2005 - 1:05 pm 7. Catherine:

Excuse me while I go mute this idiot

TERRYE—–you are almost Zen.

Who is Bechtel?

Am I completely out of it?

Don’t answer that!

I’m with Roger on this: I think Things Have Changed.

“Not Enough Sunnis” is never gonna get traction!

Feb 4, 2005 - 1:17 pm 8. Catherine:

It’s worth reading this Tina Brown column to get a sense of how the Iraq election is affecting Our Cultural And Political Elites:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59274-2005Feb3?language=printer

Here’s a great passage:

. . . John Kerry’s surly enumeration on “Meet the Press” of future Iraq hurdles to real democracy just when Iraqis themselves were savoring a hard-won moment of jubilation. New Yorkers had to wake up on Monday to an especially acute gust of partisan halitosis from John Podhoretz in the New York Post that was all the more galling because it was true. “Yesterday was a day for Democrats and opponents of George W. Bush to swallow their bile and retract their claws and join just for a moment in celebration . . . but you just couldn’t do it, could you?” heckled Podhoretz. “Losers!” Sure enough, my first e-mail of the day was a copy of a mass mailing from a gloomy progressive brainiac that included a 1967 New York Times article headlined “U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror.”

Feb 4, 2005 - 1:21 pm 9. ricpic:

The Hun is either at your throat or at your feet.

(Unworthy I know, but I couldn’t resist). ;^)

Feb 4, 2005 - 1:31 pm 10. vegetius:

If you are interested there is an alternative voice to German MSM go to…..

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/

Feb 4, 2005 - 1:40 pm 11. Terrye:

Catherine:

He is some hot shot Democratic strategist. Yep, it is not just that the Sunnis did not participate, it is that the wrong kind of Shia [the boo hiss kind] won.

You see, Democrats only acknowledge elections when the “correct” person or side or whatever wins. That whole will of the people thing is so messy.

This is worse than Saddam, doncha know.

Feb 4, 2005 - 1:48 pm 12. Rick Ballard:

Bob Beckel

He’s had a 100% record in calling elections for some time. Wrong, to be sure, but amazingly consistent.

Feb 4, 2005 - 1:54 pm 13. Terrye:

Rick:

Thanks, I knew I was close.

What do you think? Did we hand one to the mullahs?

Feb 4, 2005 - 2:00 pm 14. Bostonian:

One of the arguments against the war has always been that the result would be a government controlled mainly by Shi’as. (And the next step, everyone “knows” is 1979 Iran again.)

In other words, the only safe thing is a brutal dictator who can prevent that majority from having a say.

***

On other blogs, I have tried to point out that our goal in Iraq is not just, but rather a representative, stable government. This would have checks and balances to prevent it from becoming a mullahcracy, to prevent the Sunnis or Kurds from being stamped out (if they are indeed in that danger).

We’re at the point where we must be careful with our language. Too much of the world thinks our freedoms & prosperity stem from “democracy,” which in turn means just voting.

I hope & somewhat trust that the Powers That Be, over there in Iraq, are talking a lot about political theory and the lessons of the last several centuries. I do believe that this US administration realizes how very critical the constitution will be. We cannot afford to fail now.

Feb 4, 2005 - 2:02 pm 15. PeterArgus:

Terrye:

So now we not only have to have elections, we have to have elections in

which the right people win.

Well of course that is the Dem response – haven’t they been saying this since

2000?

You know in a few years I can see the Dems having self-marginalized themselves

as much as some of the Sunnis in Iraq that they will be demanding an affirmative

action program for Dem voters.

Feb 4, 2005 - 2:19 pm 16. mwalls:

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m not going to forgive & forget with the French & Germans.

Feb 4, 2005 - 2:21 pm 17. Rick Ballard:

Did we hand one to the mullahs?

Nope. Watch for talk to start about next years elections. Those are the ones that will really count the most. Essentially, the Iraqis have voted for delegates to a constitutional convention. I expect the new constitution to offer protections for basic human rights and to provide checks and balances – not in the same sense that our constitution does but in a sense that reflects current reality in the ME.

As that constitution emerges and minority groups are assured of their rights and a degree of autonomy for their regions I anticipate a great increase in a desire to participate in the next election. The greater the degree of autonomy granted to each governate the higher I would expect participation to be.

Additionally, although it is overshadowed at the moment by all the talk of religion, Iraq does have a national identity and a propensity toward secular rule (whether monarchical or representative) that is lacking in other of its neighbors. Combine that with at least a modest amount of intermarriage between Shia, Sunni and Kurd and I would say that Iraq has a very good chance of becoming the “Model” that the Fardhil brothers hope for.

I sincerely doubt that, with a truly secret ballot, theocracy as practiced in Iran or Saudi Arabia could currently garner a majority anywhere. Salafic theocracy can be imposed and maintained only through terror – it is unnatural and as much a tool for oppression and suppression as Marxism ever desired to be. A mode of governance for tyrants and bandits but never one that will be selected by vote – not with the examples of Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and the KSA before the worlds eyes.

I have great hopes for Iraq and I believe that the Irai people will fulfill and perhaps exceed them. To the great dismay of their neighbors and to Kennedy, Kerry, Beckel & Cie.

Feb 4, 2005 - 2:34 pm 18. Bostonian:

Rick Ballard: “Salafic theocracy can be imposed and maintained only through terror”

This is PRECISELY the point that the war-hating Left refuses to understand. “All is relative, you see. Who are we to judge another society?”

Such arguments are nonsense when you’re talking about core human nature, which the Left claims is a blank slate without instinct.

Feb 4, 2005 - 3:10 pm 19. Yehudit:

On the Spirit of America C-SPAN broadcast, Hitchen mentioned that all of the Iraqis he’d ever met – and he has been promoting their cause for years – had relatives from all the ethnic groups. He said the Shia/Sunni/Kurd divisions were exaggerated by our media.

I have also heard Iraqis say this in interviews.

Feb 4, 2005 - 3:23 pm 20. chuck:

Umm,

Aren’t we repeating the mistake that the Iraqis admonished Burns about, talking as if religious affiliation was the most important thing to an Iraqi?

Nor are the Iranian shia Salafist. Nor is theocracy part of the traditional practice of Shiism. Nor are the Shia a single unified block, there are at least three theological centers: Lebanon (Hizbollah), Iran (Qom), and Iraq (Najaf). Iran tried to make Qom the final authority, but the power is moving back to Najaf where Sistani heads up a more conservative branch, i.e., not revolutionary.

I don’t know how things will go, who does, but the whole position of the Democrats is based on the most egregious ignorance and is purely motivated by politics.

Feb 4, 2005 - 3:31 pm 21. Syl:

Over-generalization is to blame for any fears of Iraq’s future or possible civil war. The New York Times, because of political correctness and the fear of inciting hatred of Arabs in the stupid public, never has addressed the issue of what it means to be Sunni or Shia to the average Iraqi. If it means much at all. They’d rather ignore the whole issue and concentrate on dissing Bush’s policies instead.

It’s the extremists in either case that color the reporting, not the silent majority of Iraqi’s who voted last Sunday. In fact the Iraqi’s laugh at us for our emphasis on religious divisions in the country. I think it was Zeyad over a year ago who wondered why Americans were so obsessed over it.

And what, pray tell, will the Democrats’ reaction be when they discover that Sistani himself could not vote because he is in actuality Iranian? Now that should be a show-stopper! LOL Mullahcracy in Iraq for sure now! LOL

I can hear them now. My God! What has Bush just accomplished! Disaster!

But dig a little deeper and you find that Sistani has eyes and ears and knows damned well what a mullahcracy means. What happened in Iran he does not want for Iraq.

I think what we do have to watch carefully, and the Iraqi people must too, is any erosion of an independent judiciary as time goes by. That’s a democratic institution that must be preserved.

But for now and the immediate future, and probably well beyond, I am very optimistic about Iraq.

Feb 4, 2005 - 3:33 pm 22. Rick Ballard:

Chuck,

Thank you for clarifying. Salafic theocracy should be reserved for the Saudis and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Qom school is responsible for the mullahcracy in Iran and Sistani is the head of the Najaf school which actually (as far as I can tell) disavows actual religious participation in politics – although he seems to have endorsed the winners in the current election prior to it occuring.

The Iranian mullahs present a factual counterpoint to your assertion that the Qom school does not embrace theocracy but I imagine that they are quite clever in explaining that what they are doing make look, taste, feel and smell like a theocracy but is actually something quite different.

As time passes we may well find that all the religious brouhaha means far less than imagined.

Feb 4, 2005 - 3:47 pm 23. Terrye:

I also think it is wishful thinking on the part of some critics of Bush and the Iraqi people that leads them to hope for the worse and see little else.

It has occured to me that some people of the region might want to show the world that not all Arabs or Muslims are like the folks we see on Al-Jazeera.

Maybe they want to prove something to the world.

Only time will tell.

Feb 4, 2005 - 5:33 pm 24. ambisinistral:

Catherine,

Hehehe… I picked the term up from reading Arab blogs and articles. It seems to be one they like to use to describe the Al Quida types.

Feb 5, 2005 - 1:17 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: