| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Another Kennedy School of Gov't 'prof': Why Islam lies at the heart of Iraq's civil war |
| 2008-06-04 |
| By Monica Duffy Toft I already have a bad feeling about this article . . . . Cambridge, Mass. - It matters what we call things. It took too long for the Bush administration to admit that its intended liberation of Iraq had become an occupation, that US forces faced a home-grown insurgency there, and that a transition to Iraqi democracy might not result in a nation that supports US interests. Finally, not until 2007 did the Pentagon acknowledge that Iraqi sectarian violence had crossed a threshold to become a civil war. I don't remember them calling it a civil war. It was just a couple of gangs going at each other for a while. Want civil war? Think Gettysburg. More died on in that single battle than this whole Iraq thing to date. But policymakers still haven't come to terms with the implications of that fact. If they did, they'd see that a wisely executed withdrawal of US-led forces could well be the surest path to peace. That's because withdrawal is likely to transform the fighting in Iraq into a defensive struggle for power in a nation-state, as opposed to an offensive battle rooted in religion. Surely. How many times have you fired a pistol at a paper target? The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the war in Iraq is a religious civil war and that – even putting aside Al Qaeda in Iraq – Islam is at the heart of it for three reasons. Is? There wasn't even a was in this regard. A few people killed by a few murderous thugs in rival gangs in a country doesn't make a civil war. Have you read the news lately? Or do you think Kos is the news? First, Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites themselves see the war in these terms. They identify first and foremost as Shiites and Sunnis. Second, they use religious identity both to target opponents and define threats. Finally, they have appealed beyond the borders of Iraq for aid – fighters, arms, cash – in religious terms. Well, all of this is true for the terrorists and their sympathizers anyway. Who are obviously in the minority because they are losing big-time. The rest would probably disagree. Islam is not based in a specific territory; it is a transnational faith that unites its community, or umma, in the minds of men. Well then go erase all the countries' borders and see how they like it. Further, Islam does not have one leader who can dictate what is right or who is wrong. The absence of an ultimate authority figure means that Shiites – who, unlike Sunnis, believe that religious scholars are needed to help interpret the will of God – often latch on to charismatic imams. Who are trying to latch onto jihad to gain political power. This helps explain why the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has recently committed himself to further religious study in Iran. It also helps to explain why Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will fail to gain acceptance as a leader among the vast majority of Iraq's Shiite population. Sure. Especially now that they are turning against their own Shiite terrorists. Not only does Mr. Maliki not have support in the street – his government's failure to deliver even basic security and life's needs is apparent to most Iraqis – but he has no religious credentials of his own to fall back on. So what? The government is somewhat secular. And it's hard to deliver security when terrorists keep blowing things up thinking they are going to go to heaven or gain favor with their imam. Or, more likely, pull down $200 or gain the release of their family from terrorists for planting a bomb. By contrast, Mr. Sadr's ability to deliver security and services through his Mahdi Army, and his authority as cleric and the son of the martyred Grand Ayatollah Mohammed al-Sadr, has assured him a devoted following. And call for embarrassing itty bitty rallies? Sectarian conflict in Iraq was previously limited to fighting between Sunnis and Shiites. But today, the conflict has grown to include Shiites against fellow Shiites. Despite signs that security has improved, the religious civil wars in Iraq may have only just begun. That shiite vs. shiite thing is the shiites deciding that terrorists are bad, by the way, not a civil war, or the supposed continuation of a nonexistant civil war. My research on civil wars from 1940 to 2000 highlights three important facts about such wars, all of which apply to Iraq. First, nearly half of all ongoing civil wars (46 percent) involve religion in some form. Second, Islam has been involved in more than 80 percent of all religious civil wars. Third, religious civil wars are less likely to end in negotiated settlement. Instead, combatants tend to duke it out until one side achieves victory. Nice research there, miss. Can I assume that the rest of the article will be derived from these truths? In Iraq, a negotiated settlement is going to be very difficult for two reasons. First, the Shiites will want to remain in almost complete control due to two entirely legitimate concerns: (1) fears of Sunni repression as experienced in the past, and (2) a sense of majority-rule justice. Second, the Shiites themselves are divided on how Iraq should be ruled, so it's difficult to know whom to bargain with on the Shiite side, and therefore who can credibly commit to abide by the terms of any settlement. Maliki, a shiite, did away with the shiite militias, gaining lots of cred with the sunnis. They'll be fine. Especially now that they see other shiites running the guys with guns off, too. What then can the United States and its allies do to bring about a negotiated settlement? Ironically, the best way to support a negotiated settlement would be to leave Iraq. No, leaving Iraq would be a great indicator that their job was done properly. And what is this crap about negotiation? Who is negotiating? I don't know about any plans or needs for negotiations, present or future. Just the usual political maneuvering until everyone can trust each other. The withdrawal of US forces would allow Iraq's predominantly Arab Shiites and Sunnis to find common interest in opposing their two more classical historical adversaries: Kurds and Persians. The longer the US and Britain stay, the more they facilitate a shift away from the identity that long unified Iraq to the religious identity that is tearing it apart and facilitating its manipulation by Iran. I don't see anything getting torn apart. I see terrorists getting killed and run off, and lots of dancing in the street. There are three obvious downsides to this approach. Uh oh, brace yourselves. First, the end of violence in Iraq following a US withdrawal would lead to the emergence of a nonsecular, nondemocratic government in Iraq. It would be more friendly toward Iran (though not Iran's puppet, as currently feared), but less friendly toward Israel, although a democratic Iraq would be no improvement in this regard. No trust in your fellow man. Check. Second, since US withdrawal has been conditioned on a de-escalation of violence in Iraq, the Bush and Brown governments would be left the unenviable task of explaining to their countries that "withdrawal is the best way to create the conditions for, withdrawal." ??? Third, withdrawal before violence has fully ceased will look like failure to most Americans and Britons. No, withdrawl before the Iraqi government is able to fend for itself will look like failure. The idea of victory versus failure is really a false dichotomy, however. The real choice for US and British policymakers is between the more costly failure that will obtain from current policy and the less costly failure that might obtain from a well-thought-out and well-executed withdrawal. Get your fingers out of your ears, open your eyes, and stop making that awful bleating sound, Monica. • Monica Duffy Toft is a professor of public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Ah, the Kennedy School of Government. Didn't we have a similar article by another Kennedy "professor" recently? What is this place anyway? Does one have to be fully certified before being admitted, or is hearing liberal voices from the electrical outlets sufficient? They really need someone to show up there as a tuition-paying student to ask a few stragetigic questions and give some of those "professors" an aneurism. |
| Posted by:gorb |
| #6 Well, well, MONICA D. from PENN STATE - HAAAVERD YARD is now the Green Beret's JFK School = SpecWar center??? "Would be to LEAVE IRAQ" > 2008-2012 > unless something is done, Dubya's GOP-DEM POTUS successor WILL SEE THE RISE OF A NASCENT/BUDDING ISLAMIST NUCLEAR SUPERSTATE = REGIONAL BLOC INCLUD NUCLEAR JIHAD-TERRORISM, which in LT not even RUSS-CHINA-INDIA, etc. per se may be able to stop or contain. "LEAVING IRAQ-ME" > means the USA WILL HAD INDIR CONTRIBUTED TO NEW GEOPOL COMPETITOR, potens a SUBSTITUTE for Russ-Chin-India, + PERHAPS EVEN ITS OWN FUTURE DESTRUCTION??? THE KEY TO PRECLUDE THIS OUTCOME WILL BE THE RISE+ ENTRENCHING OF PRO-WESTERN DEMOCRACY IN IRAN + CENTRAL ASIAN MUSLIM STATES, 2008 -2012. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-06-04 21:50 |
| #5 Well, I guess if we can so quickly forget the victims of 911, there is no reason why we can't forget those shredded and tortured by Saddam. She did get one thing right - Islam lies at the heart of Iraq's war. Civil or not. |
| Posted by: Sninert Black9312 2008-06-04 17:33 |
| #4 Cold Harbour... Good times James, good times. |
| Posted by: AP Hill 2008-06-04 12:00 |
| #3 More Yankees died at Cold Harbor in 1865 in five minutes than we have lost in the entire Afghan-Iraq gig. Oops, don't let that out. Actually we have more servicemen killed in automobile/motorcycle and training accidents each year than we lose in the A-I campaigns. Dang am I starting to sound like a Republican? |
| Posted by: James Carville 2008-06-04 11:18 |
| #2 What a load of crap. Basically, it's liberals saying "how do we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?". If the US were to withdraw now, before the victory is complete, the likely end would be more sectarian violence and real civil war as Iran would throw more resources into Iraq. Which in turn would cause the Soddies to throw money (and jihadis) at the problem. She seems to think that Iraq exists in a vaccuum. |
| Posted by: Spot 2008-06-04 08:23 |
| #1 Some things she gets right. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the war in Iraq is a religious civil war. First, nearly half of all ongoing civil wars (46 percent) involve religion in some form. Second, Islam has been involved in more than 80 percent of all religious civil wars. Third, religious civil wars are less likely to end in negotiated settlement. Instead, combatants tend to duke it out until one side achieves victory. Third, withdrawal before violence has fully ceased will look like failure to most Americans and Britons. Some things she gets wrong. The withdrawal of US forces would allow Iraq's predominantly Arab Shiites and Sunnis to find common interest in opposing their two more classical historical adversaries: Kurds and Persians. The longer the US and Britain stay, the more they facilitate a shift away from the identity that long unified Iraq to the religious identity that is tearing it apart and facilitating its manipulation by Iran. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-06-04 06:42 |