| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraq militias warned of showdown |
| 2003-09-08 |
| Iraq militias warned of showdown The US-led coalition appeared yesterday headed for a showdown with Iraqi militias after giving them an ultimatum to lay down their arms that was immediately rejected by a leading anti-US firebrand. Captain Edward Lofland, spokesman for the US Marines in this holy Shi’ite city, said coalition forces had given unauthorised militias until Saturday to disarm or have their weapons confiscated and face possible arrest. A leading Shi’ite group, whose head was among 83 people killed in a massive car bombing nine days ago, gave qualified backing to the disarmament drive. But an aide to the cleric Moqtada Sadr dismissed it categorically. "We obey only God and our religious leaders. We don’t care about what the Americans say," said Sheikh Juad Al Issawi, a member of Sadr’s office. The presence of heavily-armed militia in Najaf and elsewhere has become a key issue in efforts to stabilise Iraq, which has been plagued by violence and lawlessness since Saddam Hussein was toppled. Lofland said the deployment by the two largest Shi’’ite factions on the streets of Najaf and nearby Kufah since the car bombing here was a clear violation of the ban on militia imposed by the coalition in June. He said they had until Saturday to surrender their weapons. "After that, we will take their arms away and, if they resist, we will arrest them and put them in jail," Lofland said. He said the coalition would prefer the militia to disarm voluntarily and, in the second instance, would call upon Iraqi police. But in the last resort, he said: "We will not hesitate to disarm them by force if necessary." Sedreddin Al Kubbanji, the Najaf chief of Hakim’s Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), agreed with the deadline but called on the coalition to clear more people protecting Muslim shrines and clerics. "I think there is no problem in principle," Kubbanji said. "The principle is that those who carry the weapons should do so within the regulations and with licences." Kubbanji also said that an assassination attempt on leading Shi’ite leader, Ayatollah Bashir Al Najafi, was foiled by the SCIRI. A man was discovered in Najafi’s house on Saturday and confessed to being a member of Saddam’s Fedayeen and that he went there with the intention of assassinating the religious figure, Kubbanji said. He also confessed to previously killing two American soldiers in Baghdad. US troops battling Saddam loyalists have struck an "unusually" quiet spell with no dead or wounded reported for 48 hours, a US military official said in Baghdad yesterday. "In the last 48 hours there have not been any casualties. It has been unusually quiet." He said no casualties meant no US personnel dead or wounded. |
| Posted by:Murat |
| #18 It is interesting when tribal societies clash with the more modern societies. How does the Tribal cultures of the Middle east compare to the Native Indians during the settling of America? Weapons like the Ak-47 and RPG-7 seems like such effective fits with Tribal Fighting techniques. Thank you Soviet Union for spreading so much of that crap around the world! |
| Posted by: Patrick 2003-9-8 8:56:55 PM |
| #17 I hate to intervene when Murat is qualified than me but Turkey is a very special muslim country 1) It hadn't been a tribal society for centuries. I think some tribal leaders lost their heads in the process. Not having tribes is important because you cannot have democracy, rule of law, real capitalism and tutti quanti as long as people vote for a guy not in function of his ideas but in function of his tribe, as long as the president handles jibs and funds to his co-tribemen instead of to the best, as long as judges will tell you or the other guy is right depending on your tribe and the tribe of the judge. 2) In most Muslim countries the political power was historically dependent on the religious power. In Turkey during the Caliphate the mullahs got their pay from the State and obeyed orders. This tradition of submission to the state made much easier Ataturk's work: there weren't thousand f mullahs promising 72**2 virgins to the one who would kill him or at least took arms against him. 3) Third factor: The schools of Islam prevalent in Turkey are not the same than in Arab countries. AFAIK sufism is influent in Turkey, Wahab (the creator of Wahabism) hate sufis as much or more than he hated shias. 4) Ataturk was a hero and his luck was that he ruled at a time Turks were disillusioned by the way the Arabs had backstabbed them during WWI. In Irak it looks like most people are resentful about Arab countries support to Saddam, but there is no indisputed hero like Ataturk. |
| Posted by: JFM 2003-9-8 3:47:57 PM |
| #16 How could a triple security handling needed to launch a ship missile fail and hit our flagship? I'm not sure. The Saratoga hit your flagship with a Sea Sparrow missile which may be capable of being turned "ON" without triple security. The Sea Sparrow doesn't have the range or accuracy to be much of an offensive weapon. I have never been a big fan of close-in response weapons systems to missiles. If they are effective, you still get hit with the missile parts, fuel and explosives in a rain of scrapnel. On a carrier I doubt there would have been much command attension paid to a close-in defense drill conducted by ship's force (non-air wing or embarked admiral's staff) in the early morning. Never heard what happened to the idiots that planned and executed that drill, but I'm sure that every officer involved met an immediate dead-end to their career goals. I know it is of no consolation to the Turkish people, but the level of required live air defence was increased after Iraq air force shot the USS Stark full of Exocet missiles. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-8 12:50:55 PM |
| #15 Murat,using reasonable arguments is a welcome change from you.However somethings have not changed.1)Your still an enabler/appeaser of criminals and tyrants. 2)You still believe that maintaining the status quo is the only way to do things. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-9-8 12:43:23 PM |
| #14 Super Hose Well the fact that Turkey is so moderate is due to Ataturk I would say, he saw what kind of danger radical sects imposed. The law is forbidding forming of sects and self-proclaimed spirituals aka sect leaders where punished very severely. If you can keep a moderate mainstream in the religion the chance of extremist fractions will decline so much that they don’t pose a threat any more. Actually there are so many similarities between Christianity and Islam that one can call these religions next editions of each other. Only one big difference is the reason they differ, that is the backwardness of some tribal based countries where radicalism flourishes in the same way of Christian inquisition ages. I don’t regard the incident of the USS Saratoga as an accident, how could a triple security handling needed to launch a ship missile fail and hit our flagship? |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-9-8 12:00:58 PM |
| #13 Historically speaking, Murat is quite correct: many experts feel that Turkey is a good model for future Islamic democracies. It has a unique system under which its military officers swear an oath to the nation's constitution (rather than its leadership); a constitution which they are responsible for keeping in place, kind of like our Supreme Court here in the United States. The result has been about eighty years of relative stability and democracy, with a few bumps in the road here and there. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2003-9-8 11:45:53 AM |
| #12 Murat, I have not read any comment of yours that would indicate that Turkey is the best model for an Islamic Democracy. The Egyptian educator that I linked indicated that there exists an actual moderate school of Islam in opposition to the Wahabist. I am curious if that is consistent with how Turkey is governed. During one of the times that my ship was visiting Izmir, some bozos on the USS Saratoga accidently shot a missile into a Turkish frigate that was operating as a carrier escort. While this was a regrettable situations, I was impressed with the way Turkey handled the situation. I saw no protests or bombings at least in Izmir. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-8 11:33:49 AM |
| #11 Raptor They should nominee you for president of Iraq. What is keeping the US from doing so if it is that simple? I read todays news alert, someone has sabotaged the pipeline again! |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-9-8 11:05:52 AM |
| #10 Thier are several ways and all should be used,here are a couple:1)Tell the leaders the free ride is over,if thier tribesmen need jobs offer to put them to work building roads,schools,etc. 2)patrol the pipeline with predater drones, especially at night when most of the sabatoqe would occur.Have a couple of Black Hawks loaded with troops on stand-by.When these extortionists are spotted bust thier ass' and throw them in prison.Let the Chieftan know in no uncertian terms if it keeps-up his ass will go down too.How long do you think this chieftain and associates will keep-up the extortion when the the risks out way the profits. It will not be easy and they won't like having to do honest work,but they will eventually get the message. If this is not stopped it will continue and get worse.How long do you think it will be before buisness'and neighborhoods start needing"Protection". As Fred has stated many times actions=consequences,when fear of punishment outways possable rewards this crap will cease. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-9-8 10:59:53 AM |
| #9 al-Sadr sticks his skinny neck in the noose. Good. Keep it up, chuckles, see what it get ya... |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-9-8 10:39:44 AM |
| #8 Raptor So,Murat'you suggest we pay"Protection money",this is called extortion. How does it work in Turkey? In the U.S. this is called Racketering and Mafioso's go to prison. I have no problem giving these Tribesmen jobs gaurding the pipeline.What I do have a problem with is paying"Protection money"to the same people who are blowing-up the pipeline in the first place. Paying"Protection money"to criminals will not solve the problem,it will only encourage more extortion. Yes it is extortion, I never said this is proper, but tactically it is clever for the time being, how do you propose to change these extortion habits of the tribes (which was even tolerated by Saddam to keep them friendly) in such a short time. All I see is that the US is making them more and more enemy, which I can hardly call improvement. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-9-8 10:17:47 AM |
| #7 Super Hose, I have never implied that Turkey is a good model for Islam, though in my personal opinion I do think she is. I gave Turkey as an example for the mere fact because she is the only secular Islamic country I know. Islam as pure is a religion of peace (many of you might regard it as a contrast) the many fundamentalist sects (Wahhabi, Taliban etc.) however are the rotten minority who defiles it. And these sects are more or less connected to the tribalism as they origin from Bedouin Arab tribes. Look at the map and you discover that fundamentalist Islam exists mainly in countries with a tribal society (Arabs, Afghans, Iran and Pakistan partly). Recap: I think the only way to reach democracy is to get rid of tribalism (how I don’t know) and secondly teaching the people the virtue of secularism (separation of Church and politics) this will eliminate misusing the religion by extremists for political reasons. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-9-8 10:09:42 AM |
| #6 So,Murat'you suggest we pay"Protection money",this is called extortion. How does it work in Turkey? In the U.S. this is called Racketering and Mafioso's go to prison. I have no problem giving these Tribesmen jobs gaurding the pipeline.What I do have a problem with is paying"Protection money"to the same people who are blowing-up the pipeline in the first place. Paying"Protection money"to criminals will not solve the problem,it will only encourage more extortion. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-9-8 9:41:56 AM |
| #5 I'm pleased that you are offering us thoughtful perspective, Murat. Educating us probably works better than taunting us. Likewise, educating those in the tribes probably works better than taunting the tribal leadership. That said, I also have to note that we "Yankees" were quite tribal once. [Maybe you think Bush is our tribal leader even now?] Various tastes of freedom, however, eventually deposed the lords and monarchs. The separation by an ocean helped to a large extent. But here is my question: when does the tribe become so large that it is really a government? I don't think the supreme leader of 500,000 is arranging or approving every marriage! Personally, I think this is a false construct. Every group of every size has leaders, and we need to purge the dangerous ones regardless of whether they are tribal or non-tribal. I'll grant you that we could use a little more finesse. |
| Posted by: Tom 2003-9-8 9:16:21 AM |
| #4 Murat, I appreciate the thoughtful answer. Your response has helped me seperate in my mind the excesses of tribal society from the excesses of Taliban style fundementalist Islamic Political rule. Dowry killing for example would be inherent in tribalism and has nothing to do with Islam per say. To form a peaceful relatively stable society in Iraq, strengthening the tribal structure would be a mistake. Adopting a tribal structure into the Electoral College, for instance, like Afghanistan has sort of done, will inhibit liberal democracy. Murat, I read some writing on Winds of Change by Tarek Heggy. In your opinion, Is this guy the real deal? He seems to agree with your view that Turkey (and his native Egypt) are good models for liberal Islamic societies. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2003-9-8 8:10:16 AM |
| #3 realize how stupid it can be to turn halve a million people against you Still, should the chief turn out to be a troublemaker, these 1/2 million people will have to decide whether it is worth dying for him. I'd be willing to bet some have IQs in the upper range and would prefer life over someone who wouldn't give a rats ass about them anyway. Secondly, the key in Iraq is to provide opportunities for wealth and advancement (in other words, jobs). Give the Iraqis something to lose, should they choose the way of the AK47. They can keep their tribal loyalties. But how many will risk losing a job, for some tribal leader who tells them to go and fight? All of the sudden the 1/2 million becomes 1000. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2003-9-8 5:27:34 AM |
| #2 to Super Hose, Iraqi pipeline blasts are as much about tribal politics as Saddam |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-9-8 4:56:53 AM |
| #1 Super Hose, Pardon me for the delay in answering, I had a few days off. I got only a small taste of Turkey during my travelling days. I stopped in Izmir twice for a couple of weeks total. I enjoyed it very much and felt welcome there. I am glad for you, my hometown is only 20 miles away from Izmir my favourite city. . Here is my question for you: Should the Coalion be trying to encourage the Iraqi's to build a form of democracy that is culturally familiar to them rather than zeroing out their system and trying to build a western system from scratch? Are there elements of the Ottoman system that Turkey built its current governemtn on sucessfully that would be recognizable to the Iraqis? In your opinion would the coalition be better off using Turkish consultants to assist in nation building rather than trying to Yankify the place? I ask this because I read a good book called Somalia on 5 Dollars a Day by an officer in teh 10th mountain during the semi-sucessful portion of the Somali relief effort. The 10th mountain effort was sucessful by strengthening the existing tribal structure that had been surplanted by the war-lords. That’s truckload of questions, first about democracy for Iraq, which will be a very difficult task especially because of all those tribes. The base on which Democracy rests are the laws, each person has the right to choose, live the life and perform the religion he/she likes. Every person can seek his/her rights and every person has his/her right of privacy etc. etc. Well as you can maybe feel, this is absolutely contra to the hierarchical society of a tribe, in which the tribe leader rules as a king. In most of the Kurdish and Arabic tribes, people cannot even marry the women/men they love without the permission of their tribe leader, let alone to speak about the rest of democratic rights. So, I would say to Yankify the place is impossible, how to dissolve the tribes and forge them in to a democratic society. In your opinion would the coalition be better off using Turkish consultants to assist in nation building rather than trying to Yankify the place? Well my personal opinion may be known to you already, I don’t see the occupation of Iraq as justified at the first place, but apart from that using consultancy from those who are more familiar with a tribal Iraq is better of course. For instance now Turkey and the US have agreed of sending Turkish ‘ |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-9-8 4:39:30 AM |