Article

2004-04-08 Iraq-Jordan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mhw 2004-04-08 10:07:40 AM|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 If you even consider negotiations or appeasement, then we are all doomed.

Then they probably are. While watching a news proggy before coming to work this morning, the little ticker at the bottom of the screen said that there were negotiations going on for Sadr to call off his followers. If there's any truth to this, then this development is NOT good. Losing nerve and chickening out is not the way to run a war, or an occupation.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-04-08 10:35:05 AM|| 2004-04-08 10:35:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Deal with him and his boys NOW. With a bullet in the head. Then you won't have to deal with them anymore. The Iraqis have been here before and if we don't deal with this situation better then we did the first time we were over there, Iraq is gone. They'll never trust us again.

Posted by tu3031 2004-04-08 10:47:36 AM|| 2004-04-08 10:47:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Will I be proven as right about Iraq as I was proven right about Kosovo? I mentioned from the very start that the overthrow of Saddam, instead of being a blow against the Islamofascists. did nothing but pave the way for them to try and take control of it. If they were utterly crushed that'd be good ofcourse -- but it's now becoming obvious that the Coalition either doesn't have the forces or the will to do that.

In which case, the overthrow of Saddam did nothing but hand over Iraq to the Islamofascists on a platter.

The war against Sadr is as important and difficult -- possibly even more so -- as the war against Saddam. Saddam was a secular dictator that didn't belong to any kind of "axis of Terror" with Iran and Syria. Proof of it is that the chief terrorist organization (if they were indeed so, I've not studied their actions and history) he supported were the MEK who *opposed* the mullahs of Iran.

Sadr on the other hand would be an Islamofascist dictator who has already publicly declared his allegiance to such an axis with Syria and Iran.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-08 11:04:17 AM|| 2004-04-08 11:04:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Aris> before you go patting yourself on the back, may want to review Gen Kimmit's & Gen Mattis' remarks. We have the will & the fire power. Sadr has too many enemies - even amongst his own people. If anything we're erring on the side of caution because of the bystander casualty prevention - as we always do. Let's give it some time before the "I told ya so's" comes out.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-04-08 11:14:02 AM|| 2004-04-08 11:14:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Aris - And it was under Saddam that civil society in Iraq was destroyed, leaving what little political space the Baathists did not take up to the fundies. Relying on Saddam as a barrier to fundamentalism was never a long term strategy. Your post would seem to imply that IF the Iraqi people were to overthrow Saddam on their own, we should have opposed that, since such an overthrow would equally have handed iraq to the fundies "on a platter". The strategy of using secular dictators as a barrier, tried through the '80s and '90s, failed. We all saw it fail, on September 11, 2001. Thats why we determined to do something different.

And evidence from Iraq is that the fundies are NOT getting Iraw on a platter. The majority of Iraqi Shiites do NOT support Sadr, and we're seeing this being played out on the streets of Sadr City and elsewhere right now.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-08 11:23:13 AM|| 2004-04-08 11:23:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Liberalhawk> If the Iraqi people were to overthrow Saddam on their own, then America wouldn't have had to spend more than half of its available troops in Iraq, when they could have been used to with far greater purpose in Syria or Iran.

The point isn't whether you should "rely" on Saddam as a barrier to fundamentalism, the same way that the point isn't to rely on Musharraf or Qaddafi.

The point is that Iraq under Saddam wasn't part of the global Islamofascist axis. Iraq under Sadr will be. It'd be the equivalent of the allies invading Spain during WW2, wasting half their troops in an effort to occupy Spain, just because Spain had Nazi sympaties, despite the fact of it not being an actual member of the nazi Axis.

If you had troops to spare, then by all means, overthrow every dictator in the world, install democracies -- I have no problems with it on a moral level.

But you don't have the troops to spare.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-08 11:41:04 AM|| 2004-04-08 11:41:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Jarhead> Let us hope you are right, and that Sadr will be killed or captured.

But any outcome that leaves Sadr alive and free will be an outcome that essentially leaves him in power -- a triumph for him, and a disaster for the secularists of Iraq.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-08 11:44:15 AM|| 2004-04-08 11:44:15 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Aris> agreed on both counts. A great outcome would be if Sadr gets detained or neutralized by Iraqi police or ICDC para-military w/US as backing force. Better outcome is that he gets taken care of by rival Shiites. I see the first outcome having more chance though most likely it will be US troops doing the dirty work and hopefully we are savvy enough to give credit to the ICDC.

Posted by Jarhead 2004-04-08 11:50:49 AM|| 2004-04-08 11:50:49 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 First Baathism is form of Islamofascism, if that term is a meaningful reference to movements in the Islamic world that were based on fascism, and not just a snarky way of referring to fundamentalism. Second your reference to troops is NOT the point you made in your earlier post. Third we are not going around overthrowing dictatorships everywhere - we ARE doing so in a key strategic location in the heart of the Middle East, adjacent to Saudi, Syria and Iran.
Third where else would we be using troops - extra US troops would probably not be a good idea in Afghanistan.

You think US troops could have been used to better purpose in Syria or Iran. I disagree strongly. In Syria the majority of the population IS hostile to the US, and we would have had few if any friends on the ground. A US occupation of Syria would have been a grand disaster. Iran is gradually moving towards its own revolution. A US intervention there would have solidified support for the regime, given historic US-Iranian relations. Iran is a more open regime than Iraq, and the prospect for internal change considerable greater.

I would welcome a decision by Greece to invade Syria, however :)

Fourth, you say Sadr "will be" i doubt Sadr will take power.
Fifth, you compare Saddam to Perv. That is absurd, Perv has held elections, allows a vibrant press, opposition parties, etc.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-08 11:58:02 AM|| 2004-04-08 11:58:02 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 Which Islamofascist group have we handed Iraq over to on a platter?

I heard that sadr's malitia is slated for distruction.

Posted by Lucky 2004-04-08 12:17:54 PM|| 2004-04-08 12:17:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Liberalhawk> "First Baathism is form of Islamofascism, if that term is a meaningful reference to movements in the Islamic world that were based on fascism,"

It's not. It's a reference to fascist movements based on Islam. The Baath party even included Christians in it.

"and not just a snarky way of referring to fundamentalism. "

Snarky? For starters "Islamofascism" would be a shorter way to refer to "Islamic fundamentalism".

Secondly I've seen before debates on the meaning of "fundamentalist", and arguments that to be a fundamentalist doesn't necessarily mean that you want to impose your views on anyone else, it simply means "strict adherence to fundamental principles".

I don't really buy that argument, but either way "Islamofascism" seems a more accurate way to refer to fascist-like movements based on Islam than "fundamentalism".

The same way that "anti-abortionist" seems to me a more accurate expression than "pro-life". You call them fundamentalists if you like, but "Islamofascist" works better for me.

Lucky> Being slated for destruction and actually being destroyed is two different issues. Let us see.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-08 1:05:50 PM|| 2004-04-08 1:05:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Aris

I have to agree with you. I hear a lot of talk about "destroying this" and "destroying that," but I don't see much actual destroying being done. If all we're going to do is negotiate with these people, we should just cut our losses and pull out now. Negotiating with Sadr means that he's won.

Posted by Infidel Bob 2004-04-08 1:15:05 PM|| 2004-04-08 1:15:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Aris

Baathism was based on notions of arab superiority which are rooted in Muslim texts. The Christian founder of Baathism admired the role of Islam in history as advancing Arab power and glory, and is said to have converted to Islam on his death bed. Baathism in power, notably in Iraq, has assimilated considerable Islamic elements.

Saying that the Qutbist jihadi ideology is "basd on Islam" is, to my way of thinking (and i know a lot of clash of civers here and elsewhere disagree) a concession as to what "Islam" is. Many Islamic moderates claim that Jihadism/Salafism is NOT based on Islam, but is based on a misinterpretation of Islamic texts, and Islamic tradition. I am not a muslim and it is not my role to determine which side in that islamic debate is correct. What I CAN say is that when fascism hit the SOCIAL and POLITICAL conditions of the Islamic world, it generated two fascist movements - one which focused on arab racial superiority, and one which focused on the Wahabist form of Islam. Both are forms of Islamofascism. Both are results of the failure of the core Islamic world to adapt to modernity, and both in turn are obstacles to modernity.

I suggest reading Paul Berman's "Liberalism and Terror"

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-08 1:25:09 PM|| 2004-04-08 1:25:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 On the issue of destroying Sadr's militia. It may be easier than it looks right now. There doesn't seem to be much depth to the Sadr brigades. All they have is Sadr's pedigree and money from Iran and the second is dependent on the first. There is a good chance that Sadr's capture or death will be the end of the movement.

Posted by mhw 2004-04-08 1:51:33 PM|| 2004-04-08 1:51:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Liberalhawk> "Many Islamic moderates claim that Jihadism/Salafism is NOT based on Islam, but is based on a misinterpretation of Islamic texts, and Islamic tradition."

And there are many Christians that claim that the Pope isn't a Christian but a heretic instead, and that therefore the Spanish Inquisition wasn't composed by Christians either, but I really don't give a damn about such kind of arguments.

If the fanatics themselves try to impose what *they* see as Islam on the world, that's enough for me. The same way that the Spanish Inquisitors believed themselves Christians and that's enough for me to call them such.

-------

"it generated two fascist movements - one which focused on arab racial superiority, and one which focused on the Wahabist form of Islam."

Look, like it or not, a Christian can't be an Islamic fascist, okay? That's self-evident. Would you call Nazism and Communism forms of Christian fascism, just because they originated in Christian lands?

And you are talking about Baathism and Wahabbism as if they are the only two forms of "Islamofascism" as you call it -- does that mean that you don't consider Iran to be an Islamofascist state? The state which after the fall of the Taliban, becomes the primary example of Islamofascism in my view?

Because Iran is neither Baathist nor Wahabbist. It's Persian and Shiite, which means that it can be neither.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-04-08 2:29:40 PM|| 2004-04-08 2:29:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 But the crusades and Nazism didnt evolve in the same period, under the same influences.

The Baathism and Qutbism did evolve at the same time, subject to the same influences, and resemble each other in many key aspects.

Should we not call Nazism faschist, becuase it was a fundamentally racist and antisemitic movement, while Italian fascist placed nation over race, and was not in origin antisemitic?? Should we not call Francoism fascism, because it was a traditionalist Catholic movement, in contrast to Mussolonis modernism?? Indeed, by such narrow definitions, how can we call Jihadism fascism at all???? since its not a nationalist movement?? Clearly we need a deeper analysis of fascism. I think the best is found in Paul Bermans "Liberalism and Terror" which i heartily recommend.

He also goes into great detail on the ideology of Michael Afleq, the Maronite origin Lebanese who founded Baath ideology, and his relations to Islam.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-08 2:54:06 PM|| 2004-04-08 2:54:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Yet another excellent discussion of stuff that matters at Rantburg University. I think LiberalHawk and Aris are in violent agreement.

European fascism did indeed inspire more than one movement in the Arab world, and generally one could group these into the more secular (Ba'athist) and religious (Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, etc) fascist movements. Aris suggests that we reserve "Islamofascist" for the latter, and I've heard other bloggers (e.g., Andy Sullivan) use the term the same way -- a fusion of radical 'fundamentalist' Islam and fascism that elevates both their particular notion of Islam and Arab racial superiority. I generally also reserve my use of Islamofascist to this view to avoid confusion.

Aris asks whether the Iranian black turbans would be considered Islamofascist. I think so -- it has its own version of religious fundamentalist primacy combined with a totalitarian group on power and the use of the state as the prime mover of events in the nation. It's objectively Islamic and fascist at the same time. I'd use the term on Iran, yes.

For the secular Arab/Muslim fascism, I think "Ba'athist" or "neo-Ba'athist" is perfectly proper. Ba'athism is the major secular Arab fascism that has survived to date.

But I will quibble gently with Aris on one point: Naziism and Communism do have similar roots, that being in 19th century European socialism and marxism. The fascists elevated nationalistic and racialist superiority into their blend of state-sponsored socialism, while the communists elevated the worker and proletariat. In practical matters they were not always distinguishable. Aris might disagree, and unfortunately Greece has had some first-hand experience with both of these in its history.

Posted by Steve White 2004-04-08 2:58:09 PM|| 2004-04-08 2:58:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 SW. good summary. I would note that Berman, democratic Socialist, would find parallels between Leninism and Fascism NOT in Socialism, but in terrorism and the cult of death. Terrorism was a key part of the Russian revolutionary movement before Lenin, and is one of the antecedents of Leninism, quite apart from Marxism. Berman lays out the entire net of relations among 19th century anarcho-terrorism, the romantic cult of death, european fascism, Baathism, and Qutbism/Jihadism much more elegantly and learnedly than i can do here.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2004-04-08 3:08:51 PM|| 2004-04-08 3:08:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 [Troll droppings deleted]

Posted by Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-04-08 7:45:28 PM|| 2004-04-08 7:45:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]

Posted by Man Bites Dog TROLL 2004-04-08 7:45:28 PM|| 2004-04-08 7:45:28 PM|| Front Page Top

11:26 Man Bites Dog TROLL
10:14 Man Bites Dog TROLL
13:28 Man Bites Dog TROLL
04:14 Man Bites Dog TROLL
04:13 Man Bites Dog TROLL
19:45 Man Bites Dog TROLL
05:50 Man Bites Dog TROLL
11:01 ConservativeView
11:01 ConservativeView
05:51 tipper
00:20 Edward Yee
00:16 Edward Yee
23:20 Robert Crawford
23:11 Phil B
23:07 Phil B
23:04 Super Hose
23:01 Super Hose
22:59 Rafael
22:52 Dripping Sarcasm
22:49 Frank G
22:48 Frank G
22:44 AF Lady
22:43 Super Hose
22:40 Jarhead