Send him Gitmo? Why the hell did'nt they shoot him?

Since the Shi`a hold exactly the same views about us -- they differ from the Sunni only on doctrinal matters of no concern even to me, much less to Christians like Orrin -- the only advantage would be if the last Shi`a were strangled with the guts of the last Sunni.

Unfortunately, I don't think that's a given. I can just as easily see them ganging up on us, then fighting it out among themselves after I'm dead.

There's no percentage for us in choosing among 'em. They are all our deadly enemies.

Harry:

The difference is key. The Shi'a, like the jews and the Christians, were typically an oppressed minority. They therefore developed beliefs that do not require control of the State. With a little tweaking, Shi'ism could provide the third great bulwark against Statism in the modern world.

Yeah, Shi'ite Islam provided such a fine bulwark against statism in Iran (oh, sorry, that's Shiism before the "little tweaking").

And what makes you confident that the Shi'ites will prevail over Sunnis across the entire country? Saddam and the Sunnis managed to dominate the entire country; why wouldn't the Ba'athists manage to keep control in central Iraq, where Sunnis are the majority?

I think that what's being assumed here, and incorrectly, is that whoever gains power in Iraq will, together with most of the Iraqi people, show basic gratitude to the US.

That would be very nice were it to occur. That's not exactly the history of the area. (And look at large swaths of Europe, these days.)

Heck, you could say, they don't have to show gratitude; they should just be a responsible country. Well, one can always hope.

Peter:

The brief Iranian experiment with statism is drawing to a close, precisely because of Shi'ite theology.

As I recall, Sunni are a minority even in Baghdad.

What particular elements of Shi'ite theology are causing statism to end in Iran?

Younger Iranians are getting tired of being bossed around by semi-fanatical theocrats. Iran is improving, I think, because the population is becoming more secular, not due to any elements of Shiism.

A key element of Shi'ism is the belief that governments, until the Hidden Imam sets one up, exist to oppress the Shi'ites.

So what would motivate a Shi`a to participate in, let alone organize, a government?

My assessment is that Islamic societies are incapable of organizing an effective government under modern conditions.

Islam was very effective under premodern conditions, but that turned out to be a blind alley.

Harry:

That's one problem, but is easily surmounted by convincing them that the point of government is not to equal the epoch of the Hidden Imam, but to improve daily life slightly.

The associated problem, as Iran demonstrates, is convincing them that every imperfect government shouldn't be toppled.

But Iran is the only government they HAVE toppled, and that was a deal with the devil, as most Iranians would now freely admit. Harry is closer to the truth when he says that Islam and modern government have nothing in common. All the talk about yearning for the Caliphate is just talk - the real issue is power and who will be killed first (i.e., who is the most infidelicious). That is what we saw in Iran after 1979. Clerics, whether devils like the Ayatollah, or supposed 'moderates' like those we seek in Iraq, just don't want to run responsible governments.

jim:

Come now; it's hardly surprising that a people so long oppressed should have a spasm of foolishness and try out their dream government--how many revolutions in the West avoided the same mistake? Answer: one.