April 6, 2004
SANER HEADS PREVAIL:
THE ROAD TO IRAQ'S RIOTS (Amir Taheri, April 6, 2004, New York Post)
[T]his is not the start of the much-predicted Iraqi civil war.The riots were orchestrated by a group led by Muqtada al-Sadr, a 30-year-old cleric nicknamed by his friends as "al-qunbulah" (the bomb). Sadr hails from one of the seven clans who have led Iraq's Shiite community for two centuries. He was propelled to the top of the clan's pyramid when most of its senior members, including his father and uncle, were murdered by Saddam Hussein or driven into exile.
But Muqtada is too young to claim the coveted theological title of "Marjaa al-Taqlid" (Source of Emulation) for himself. Nor can he circumvent the two dozen or so senior ayatollahs who dominate the Shiite seminaries throughout Iraq. He is, therefore, trying to make up for his lack of theological gravitas by flexing his political muscles. [...]
Like all who use violence in pursuit of political aims, Sadr knows he would fare badly in any free election. This is why, shut out of the process, he will do all he can to disrupt elections. The best way to counter Sadr and other anti-democratic figures and groups in Iraq is to speed up the electoral process and bring forward the date at which Iraqis will be able to choose their rulers for the first time.
For whatever reason, most likely simple ignorance, folks seem to be having a difficult time grasping that the Shi'ites are quite different than the Sunni. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 6, 2004 5:17 PM
Things are getting, as they say, "sporty" over there. Fox is reporting that 11 marines have been killed in a city west of Baghdad.
Hold tight.
Posted by: Twn at April 6, 2004 5:38 PMSure seems like Sunni extremists and Shiite extremists have teamed up on this one, doesn't it?
Posted by: brian at April 6, 2004 5:54 PMActually with the Sunni it is not extremists only, while with the Shi'ites it is only extremists. That's the key difference in the entire Middle East.
Posted by: oj at April 6, 2004 7:43 PMUntil last summer, probably not 1 in 10,000 Americans would have known what a Sunni or a Shia was, much less articulate the difference. The ratio is probably lower now, but not by that much.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 6, 2004 10:25 PMOr an Ismaili.
Differences without distinctions. They all are committed to eliminating the infidel.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 7, 2004 1:02 AMHeaven's Gate or the unfortunate residents of Jonestown.
Cultists all...
Posted by: M.Murcek at April 7, 2004 8:45 AM"[T]his is not the start of the much-predicted Iraqi civil war."
Yeah, it's worse; it's a war of national liberation, since the Iraqis have quit fighting each other and are targeting us.
The divide between Sunni and Shia in Iraq is notoriously overblown. Both groups are mixed with each other and intermarry. Even during the most repressive periods of Hussein's anti-Shia rule, Shiites turned out in the millions to fight against their Shia co-religionists in Iran.
Another historical point to bear in mind, this isn't the first time the Sunni and Shia fought together against a western force. They did the same thing in 1920s with the British. Now they appear to be doing it again.
Posted by: Derek Copold at April 7, 2004 10:29 AM"For whatever reason, most likely simple ignorance, folks seem to be having a difficult time grasping that the Shi'ites are quite different than the Sunni."
Indeed. The Shi'ites are even more fractious and self-destructively hotheaded than the Sunnis, as we are seeing now. All the Shi'ites have to do is wait for us to hand them Iraq in a One Man, One Vote, Once election, but large nubmers of them can't resist biting the hand that is feeding them.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at April 8, 2004 3:20 AM