Sunni, Shia and US Politics in the "New" ME

[CHIMO]

There is a widespread belief amongst political theorists that democracies do not go to war with one another. Indeed, this political paradigm acted as a prime justification for the Bush administration’s call to “democratise” the Middle East.

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, this theme of "democratisation" has become a major topic in American political discourse and in fact accompanies nearly all discussions of the Arab-Muslim world and America’s so-called role in it.

The Bush administration’s response to the current conflict in southern Lebanon, reveals the hypocrisy and true ideology of this administration in aiming at provoking sectarian tension in the region.

Western analysts continue to discuss an alleged "historic" hostility between Sunni and Shia in the region. Dexter Filkins, an Iraq based New York Times journalist claimed in a recent radio interview that the Sunni in Iraq have now “realised that the Shia are their true enemy, not the Americans.”

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/212B6227-F9D3-445B-ACC6-61B53B2EE70A.htm

[vickitulsa]

1. I found this article very interesting!

Keeping in mind the source, of course -- that being AlJezeera, still the writer of this piece sure did hit a lot of nails on the head, IMO.

For instance, how about this part?

The fact that the west is arming the un-elected regime in Saudi Arabia against the elected regime in Iran serves as an emphatic indicator of American wishes in the region.

It seems that the mounting tensions of Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, have placed too much stress on the American façade of freedom and democracy and have revealed the true nature of American policy behind it.

This guy points up time and again that what George Bush says and what he does are two different things. All that talk about "spreading democracy," when the Arab or Muslim nations we are more closely allied with -- Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia -- are all ruled by un-elected men!

Hey, seems natural to me, since GWB is an UN-ELECTED ruler himself!

Looks like the utter hypocrisy of this administration and its claims about spreading freedom and democracy are becoming quite transparent -- at least to just about everyone except his moronic base here at home.

The author of the piece also makes some very interesting observations about the whole issue of supposed Sunni-Shia enmity and hostilities being historical. Might it be true, as he says, that it's the U.S. that's inciting Muslim to fight Muslim, not that these two sects have always warred with one another? Hmmm....

I do remember that when the U.S. invasion of Iraq began, and for a long while thereafter, I was reading a blog by an Iraqi dentist who didn't even bother to mention he was Sunni for some time. When he did, he didn't relate that fact strongly to any Sunni-Shia fighting. And I know there are neighborhoods all over Baghdad and indeed all over Iraq where Sunnis and Shias have lived side by side for a long time with no trouble -- that is, before the Americans came.

Does seem strange, doesn't it?

[MADem]

2. Yep, the "Democracy for the suckers" theme I can agree with

All of Porgie's good pals are dictators. In addition to those named above, don't forget Pervez of Pakistan, and the seven clowns from Dubai, UAE, and then there's Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait...

The Sunni-Shi'a thing, though, that's a different kettle of fish. The Sunni RAN Iraq under Saddam, so all was wonderful for them. The Shi'a WERE the oppressed minority, they're poorer and less educated, by and large, and they didn't have the clout they have today; now, the majority Shi'a are flexing their muscle and getting some payback as well. When they lived together without problem before Saddam, the "warlord" system took care of their needs. There was no need to get shirty with one another, your tribal leadership took care of that stuff.

I blame the Monkey for NOT UNDERSTANDING the theological dynamic, certainly. I don't blame him for causing it--that would imply an intelligent study of the situation...and that clearly didn't happen with these clowns. They put Western paint on an "Oriental" (in the old sense) structure, and it's peeling already.

Before you take every sentence of this article and buy off on it, this paragraph kind of shows you where the guy is coming from: President Ahmednijad of Iran, who came to office elected by Iranian people himself, :rofl: is a target of international criticism because of his hard stance against Israel....

Here's the truth of the matter--the Ayatullahs REMOVED all the "good candidates" (women, reformers, liberals, anyone who wasn't onboard with the Shi'a Theocracy) from the ballot. Only their "APPROVED" candidates were allowed to participate, and this clown was the best of a HIDEOUS lot. This bastard Ahmednijad wouldn't have gotten a double digit percentage of the vote had people been allowed to vote for a full slate. So, don't buy off on that shit. It's false.

He also fails to even consider the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" dynamic, and that, to me, is a bit disingenuous. We've seen plenty of circumstances where alliances were formed and broken over the years (the old North and South Yemens--now THAT was a shi'a-sunni mess; Egypt-Syria and the failed United Arab Republic; Iran-Iraq, a study in war and peace) and nations have gone from Kumbayah-Huggie-Huggie-Love-Love to hurling invectives or even shooting at one another.

Religion is an overlay to the whole imbroglio, but strategic maneuvering cannot be discounted. And anyone who thinks Iran does not have hegemonic designs on the regions is spending too much time puffing the hubble-bubble.

[vickitulsa]

4. All very good points you make, and I agree with you.

You clearly know a lot about the regional history, especially with regard to the Sunni-Shia dynamic there. Thanks much for your input!

I never for a moment bought into the entire article by any means -- that's why I put in the qualifying intro clause about "keeping in mind the source." Maybe to have shown more balance I should have expressed some of the disagreements I had with the article, but that would have taken a lot of space to do, considering that I had so many quibbles with what the guy wrote! Beyond what he actually wrote, as well, I definitely inferred a lot from his overall tone and the things he didn't say that were negative. I didn't agree wholly with what were clearly some premises he based all his conclusions on, either.

This is one of those threads I'd sure like to see make it to the Greatest page so more DUers would see it and continue the discussion -- it's been a VERY good one so far! What Enough posted, excerpted from the Billmon article, was also very interesting, and he made a helluva lot of sense with respect to this administration's policies (shadow and overt) in the ME.

Surely no one can predict exactly how things will turn out in any of the complex relationships in that region, and it seems to me that anyone who thinks he can go in there and "shape" the region must surely be running on fumes. Which is precisely how I view the state of things now in Washington, where so many of the pols have backed the wrong horse making the wrong moves in Iraq and thereabouts that the public's awakening to their ineptitude (at best) has left them without support. Continuing what they started, "staying the course" and even widening the area they're applying that misbegotten "course" to is insane, but it would appear that's what they're doing.

I guess this administration must figure that if they have already screwed up royally in Iraq and Afghanistan, it can't make things much worse if they try to influence the newest developments in Lebanon in a certain direction. I think they're wrong about that, but one thing we can probably all agree on: This bunch of criminals running our government is nothing if not determined to go wrongheadedly down a path that is perilous in the extreme. It's almost like they just don't bother themselves with considering the horrendous consequences of their words and actions in a tinder-box-hot region of the world, especially!

I thought nothing this crowd could do would shock me anymore, but lately I'm finding my jaw dropping repeatedly when I listen to what Chimpy or Condi or Bolton are saying, publicly and with a straight face!

[MADem]

5. I used to live over that way, and it's been an area of interest for me

for quite a few years now. Funny thing, though, when you live with people, you see the warts and all; and at least while you are there, they aren't an "other" so much as they become an "us" of sorts. Some of the "us" are swell folks, and others are like that nutty uncle you "forget" to invite to the family reuinion!

I agree completely with your comment about shaping the region (anyone who thinks he can go in there and "shape" the region must surely be running on fumes) and I have to say, the only persons of equal stupidity and hubris to the Monkey amongst the players in the Middle East are the damn Ayatullahs of Persia!! They clearly have "designs" on the region, and they actually think that a theological bent will trump nationalism in every case. I find that problematic for Lebanon and Syria, frankly--the old French influence created an interesting cohesion that separates these lands from others (they regard themselves as infinitely more worldly and sophisticated than other area nations, and they are RIGHT)...also, they DO have a nationalistic sense, and I don't think the Ayatullahs can really see that, or they believe their brand of religion can trump it.

I think the Iraqi shi'as might be persuaded to prance along with the program, but I think they'd want to see a few more of THEIR boys on the ruling council before they might want to join the game. I think they'd prefer a shi'a empire run out of one of the Holy Cities in IRAQ, not out of Teheran. They'd want the language to be ARABIC, not Farsi. They won't say anything straight away, but eventually, they'll start carping, and it will all come down to who gets the power.

I also think, twenty-seven years on into their little revolution, the Ayatullahs are so used to throwing starving people a bone and expecting gratitude, that they might not be prepared to see the crowd turn on them once they're nicely fattened up and living large. Of course, they are fairly good at 'iron fist' rule and they may have planned for this, and we see, with the number of Revolutionary Guard leaders who are directing the Hizb'Allah attacks in Lebanon (and getting picked off by the Israelis, and sent home in caskets to Iran), that they know how to exert tight military AND societal discipline.

But I doubt that, even along the "shi'a crescent" that the PERSIANS will be "greeted as liberators" with "flowers and sweets"--at least not over the long haul. Occupation is occupation. And it's a double-insult when your occupiers are NOT Arabs, but Indo-Europeans from the other side of the Zagros mountains. The Pan Arab spirit of Nasser, planted lo those many years past, is like a small, invasive weed--not big, not noticeable, but everywhere. They'll catch the same shit we caught in Baghdad, and they'll have to spend way too much time, money, and blood "enforcing" their hegemony.

Ah, the old devil, she is always in the details!!!! Empire building is a pain in the ass!

[enough]

3. Bilmon discusses the same subject:

http://billmon.org/archives/002555.html

The Daily Telegraph explains what we've been fighting for these past five years:

White House aides have said they consider the Lebanon crisis to be a "leadership moment" for Mr Bush and an opportunity to proceed with his post-September 11 plan to reshape the Middle East by building Sunni Arab opposition to Shi’a terrorism. Yesterday Mr Bush cited the role of Iran and Syria in providing help to Hezbollah. (emphasis added)

snip>

If it’s just bad writing or stupidity – if the phrase “building Sunni Arab opposition to Shi’a terrorism” doesn’t actually modify “post-September 11 plan,” but instead is just another way of pretending that Shrub is capable of the kind of leadership that has its “moments,” then the sentence is only unintentionally hysterical. However, given the current situation on the ground (all 18 zillion square miles of it) it may well be precisely the lie it appears to be, to wit: that fighting “Shi’a terrorism” was the point of Shrub’s post-9/11 master plan all along.

Either way, it boggles the mind that anyone who isn't a certified graduate of the Minitrue School for Outer Party Members could write an English sentence even suggesting such a thing. Is that why America crushed the most powerful Sunni regime in the neighborhood? Is that why Democracy Boy cheered as an Iran-friendly government took power in Baghdad? Does it explain why the Iraqi Interior Ministry was turned over to the tender mercies of an Iranian-backed militia movement?

snip>



And he cites this from the Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1826969,00.html

snip>

An adviser to Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz told The Observer: 'We are finally going to fight Hizbollah on the ground. The Israeli people are ready for this, and the Sunni Muslim world also expects us to fight Shia fundamentalism. We are going to deliver.'

snip>

[MADem]

6. If I had to pick between "just bad writing or stupidity" I'd go for the

latter with this administration, sorry to say!!! Good grief, that's a real LEAD BALLOON if I ever saw one!

But, if fighting shi'a terrorism was Monkey's goal all along, you have to ask yourself, why did he spend all his time bombing the living shit out of the Sunni triangle, instead of dumping those big 'uns on the tightly packed, densely populated shi'a slums in the southern Iraqi locales? He was killin' the wrong fighters, was our Georgie!! Could it be he doesn't know his players without his handy dandy scorecard? Or could it be...they're making this shit up as they go along???!!! I have to say, again, I vote for the latter!!!!

One thing that TELEGRAPH article nails is, that at the end of the day, EVERYONE is gonna hate our asses:

Critics of Mr Bush charge that this will only foment Sunni-Shia tensions, pushing the region towards a wider civil war and inflaming anti-American sentiment in the Arab world.

Ah, the BushCo legacy...we'll be left alone, in the dark (and cold in winter), looking over our shoulders at enemies coming at us from hither and yon.

We'd better get off our asses and start perfecting some alternative energy technology!!! And if we can't make friends post-George, we'll have to get a little "isolationist" until things blow over...no doubt China will take good advantage, then...