| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraq Beginning to Become a Normal Society |
| 2004-01-30 |
| Amir Taheri At a radio phone-in program the other day I was taken to task by some listeners for what they believed is Iraqâs âslide into chaos.â âYou campaigned for the liberation of Iraq and now look what has happened!â This was followed by a âwhat has happenedâ list of events that included Shiites demonstrating, Kurds asking for autonomy, Sunnis sulking, and various political parties and groups tearing each other apart in the Iraqi media over the shape of the future constitution. The truth, however, is that, far from sliding into chaos or heading toward civil war, Iraq is beginning to become a normal society. And all normal societies face uncertainties just as do all normal human beings. Just look at the Democratic primaries! One should welcome the gradual emergence of a normal political life in Iraq after nearly half a century of brutal despotism, including 35 years of exceptionally murderous Baathist rule. The central aim of the war in Iraq, at least as far as I am concerned, was to create conditions in which Shiites can demonstrate without being machine-gunned in the streets of Baghdad and Basra, while the Kurds are able to call for autonomy without being gassed by the thousands as they were in Halabja under Saddam. Somehow Michael Moore and Polly Toynbee both miseed that. It is good that Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani can issue fatwas, something he could not have done under Saddam Hussein. It is even better that those who disagree with the grand ayatollah could say so without being murdered by zealots. Why itâs almost ... western! And why shouldnât the Sunnis sulk if they feel that they may not get a fair deal in the new Iraq? And what is wrong with Kurds telling the world that they are a distinct people with their own languages, culture and even religious faiths, and must, therefore, be allowed to develop within the parameters of their identity? If anything, the Iraqi political fight is taking place with an unusual degree of courtesy in which the Marques of Queensburyâ rule applies, which is not the case even in some mature democracies. The new Iraq, as it is emerging, will be full of uncertainties. But that is precisely why the liberation war was justified. Under Saddam the Iraqis faced only the certainty of concentration camps and mass graves. And shredding machines. The Iraqis are now free to debate all aspects of their individual and national life. The fact that different, often conflicting views are now expressed without fear should be seen as a positive achievement of the liberation. Democracy includes the freedom to demonstrate, especially against those in charge, and to âtear each other apartâ in the media and town-hall political debates. It also includes the difficulty of reaching a consensus on major issues. Those who follow Iraqi politics would know that Iraq today is the only Arab country where all shades of opinion are now free to express themselves and to compete for influence and power in a free market of ideas. Thatâs the neo-con argument in a nutshell. Even the Baathists, whose party was formally banned after the liberation, are beginning to group in a number of local clubs. What are the key issues of political debate in Iraq today? Here are some: ⢠The Arab Sunnis want Iraq described as âpart of the Arab nation.â This is opposed by the Kurds who say the constitution must describe Iraq as a âbinational: Arab and Kurdishâ state. The Shiites, some 60 percent of the population, reject both the Arab and the âbinationalâ formulae. Instead, they wish to emphasize the concept of Iraqitude (Uruka).Most of these issues have haunted Iraq since it was carved out of the Ottoman Empire and formed into a nation-state some seven decades ago. Successive Iraqi despots tried to keep a lid on these issues either by denying their existence or by stifling debate. This is what most Arab regimes, which share many of Iraqâs problems, have done for decades and continue to do today. If Iraq is to be transformed into a model for all Arabs it should take a different path right from the start. The US-led coalition that now controls Iraq could well revert to that despotic tradition by imposing an artificial consensus. The fact that the coalition has chosen not to do is to its credit. Real consensus is bound to be harder to achieve and Iraq is certain to experience a lively political debate, including mass demonstrations and a war of leaflets, until a compromise is reached on how to form a provisional government and how to handle the task of writing a new constitution. Most Iraqi political figures, acting out of habit, constantly turn to the coalition authorities with the demand that their own view be adopted and imposed by fiat. The coalition should resist the temptation to dictate terms. It should also refrain from making any partial alliances. Today, the entire Iraqi nation, in all its many different components, could be regarded, at least potentially, as a friend of the US and its allies. The US-led coalition should accept that the road ahead will be bumpy. But that is not necessarily bad news. For democracy is nothing but a journey on constantly bumpy roads. This ought to be printed/broadcast over the Voice of America to the entire Arab region. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #13 Tao Gold, where'd you go? It must have hurt getting smacked upside your hollow skill with actually FACTS! LOL! Fear the Clue-Bat! People, and I use that term loosely, like you make me laugh! Thanks! But as funny (funny stupid, not funny haha) as you are, please don't come back to this battle of wits unless you arm yourself first. TaTa! |
| Posted by: Swiggles 2004-1-30 3:05:23 PM |
| #12 ..are you forgetting Saddam is the creation of America. Who armed him,.. Certainly not the U.S., unless you believe that civilian use helicopters converted for military use by the Iraqis constitutes "arms". |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-1-30 2:41:16 PM |
| #11 Zhang, are you forgetting Saddam is the creation of America. Who armed him, who looked away as he was commiting atrocities against the Shiites. Tao Gold, are you forgetting that the US had no diplomatic relations with Iraq until the early 1980's, and that Saddam's armory was composed mainly of Russian, Chinese and French equipment? Even if Saddam was a CIA agent (for intelligence on Iraqi politics), as some allege, that's quite different from saying that he carried out his invasions and massacres on the CIA's orders.* Sammy the Bull Gravano (the mob consigliere) murdered people and trafficked in drugs after he became an FBI agent, but it's hard to argue that the FBI was involved. If the FBI was unable to control Gravano, and Gravano was in the US, it's hard to see how the CIA might have controlled Saddam, given that Saddam had the resources of an entire oil-rich country protecting him. * Even if we accept the anti-American argument that Saddam was an American operative gone rogue, wouldn't it be America's reponsibility to shoot him down, just as it is the responsibility of a dog's owner to put down his rabid dog? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-1-30 1:53:19 PM |
| #10 Tao, fill us in on the "Us armed saddam" thing. It would make a great thread. Start at the beginning and lay it out. You do have some facts right? |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-1-30 1:38:16 PM |
| #9 Ok, who's got the link to that Swedish/Swiss group that shows Russia at 57% thru 1990 and the US at 1%(?) The truth is out there, Tao. And you don't have it. |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-1-30 1:25:51 PM |
| #8 "Tao Gold" -- check the facts, and you'll see that the primary weapons suppliers to Iraq were Russia (thus the AKs and T-series tanks), France (Mirages) and China. The US sold them a couple of transport helicopters during the Iran-Iraq War, when we were hoping Iraq would soak up Iran's jihadi supply. Do people like Tao Gold work hard to maintain their ignorance, or does it come naturally? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-1-30 1:22:11 PM |
| #7 Damn Proud American....let's start up an award in honor of Faisal and his couch surfing, rent avoiding buddy TG. Fellow Rantburgers, how about the "BBC Award" for continued spouting off of tired old BS in defiance of the facts, especially if it is anti-American or anti-Israel? |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2004-1-30 12:48:57 PM |
| #6 Tao Gold-- If the US armed him, why did he have so damn many Russian tanks? And if you want to know who looked away while he was killing his own people, look no further than the UN. |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2004-1-30 12:45:03 PM |
| #5 Zhang, are you forgetting Saddam is the creation of America. Who armed him, who looked away as he was commiting atrocities against the Shiites. |
| Posted by: Tao Gold 2004-1-30 12:38:01 PM |
| #4 Tao Gold... wow that was an incredibly stupid statement. Is there an award for that kinda stupidity? Because you went all out and I'd vote for ya. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-1-30 11:42:45 AM |
| #3 They could not possibly do any worse than their occupiers, who have been lurching from crisis to crisis for the last eight months in a haze of incompetence and ignorance. Actually, they could end up with another ruler like Saddam and hundreds of thousands of freshly-created mass graves. The incompetence and ignorance rests on the side of the anti-American crowd, which compounds its malice by lying about American intentions in Iraq and brushing aside the scale of Saddam's evil. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-1-30 11:26:29 AM |
| #2 could not possibly do any worse than their occupiers Judging from past history I bet they're perfectly capable of doing worse, much worse. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-30 11:13:17 AM |
| #1 Iraqi sovereignty belongs to Iraqis. They need to write their own constitution, elect their own leaders and make their own mistakes. They could not possibly do any worse than their occupiers, who have been lurching from crisis to crisis for the last eight months in a haze of incompetence and ignorance. |
| Posted by: Tao Gold 2004-1-30 11:03:36 AM |