February 23, 2006

IS ANYONE LESS REALISTIC THAN A REALIST? (via Kevin Whited):

There is no silver medal for second in race for Iraq (CRAGG HINES, 2/21/06, Houston Chronicle )

Some analysts believe that neighboring, technically noncombatant Iran has already won and, being just next door, is prepared to wait out U.S. troops to fully claim the prize. With a view to hurrying things along, weaponry from Iran, especially the deadly improvised explosive devices, is said to be finding its way to both Shia militias and Sunni insurgents.

A leg up for Iran would be yet one more wildly unintended (although not necessarily unforeseeable) consequence of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein and establish a democratic foothold in the Islamic Middle East.

If any international development is scarier than voraciously revolutionary Iran consolidating its dream of regional supremacy as Islamic (Shia branch) hegemon, it's difficult to imagine.

"This would be an unmitigated disaster," British analyst Allister Heath writes in the Spectator, under a menacingly accurate headline: "A monster of our own making."


As always, the Realist view is completely unrealistic. Let us accept for the moment that Muslims are uniquely biologically incapable of evolving towards democracy. If that's the case then the best we can hope for is an internecine bloodbath, in which case pitting Shi'a vs. Sunni and Arab against Persian is the most desirable outcome in the Middle East. The bloodier the fight within, the less time and energy for bothering those of us without, Shrine attack deals blow to anti-US unity (Syed Saleem Shahzad, 2/24/06, Asia Times):
The aim of these people in Iran is to establish a chain of anti-US resistance groups that will take the offensive before the West makes its expected move against Tehran.

Iran has been referred to the UN Security Council over its nuclear program, which the US and others say is geared towards developing nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency is due to present a final report to the Security Council next month, after which the council will consider imposing sanctions against Tehran. Many believe that the US is planning preemptive military action against Iran.

With Wednesday's attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra in Iraq, home to a revered Shi'ite shrine, the dynamics have changed overnight.

Armed men detonated explosives inside the mosque, blowing off the domed roof of the building. Iraqi leaders are trying to contain the angry reaction of Shi'ites, amid rising fears that the country is on the brink of civil war. At least 20 Sunnis have been killed already in retaliatory attacks, and nearly 30 Sunni mosques have been attacked across the country.

The potentially bloody polarization in the Shi'ite-Sunni world now threatens to unravel the links that have been established between Shi'ite-dominated Iran and radical Sunni groups from Afghanistan and elsewhere. [...]

Both the Ansar al-Sunnah Army and the Mujahideen Shura Council - an alliance that includes Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda-affiliated group - are suspected of perpetrating the attack. Both groups have insurgents operating in Samarra, and have claimed responsibility for attacks against US and Iraqi forces there in recent weeks. No group has claimed responsibility for the Samarra attack.

Given that the sensibilities of both Shi'ites and Sunnis have been violated by the attack, the foreign factor in the Iraqi resistance could be curtailed.

At the same time, escalating sectarian strife will hamper the national resistance movement in cities such as Basra in the south and Baghdad, which have strong Shi'ite populations. People in these areas could quickly turn against what is perceived as a largely Sunni-led resistance, with a strong al-Qaeda link.


Blast at Shiite Shrine Sets Off Sectarian Fury in Iraq (ROBERT F. WORTH, 2/23/06, NY Times)
A powerful bomb shattered the golden dome at one of Iraq's most revered Shiite shrines on Wednesday morning, setting off a day of sectarian fury in which mobs formed across Iraq to chant for revenge and attacked dozens of Sunni mosques.

The bombing, at the Askariya Shrine in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, wounded no one but left the famous golden dome at the site in ruins. The shrine is central to one of the most dearly held beliefs of Shiite Islam, and the bombing, coming after two days of bloody attacks that have left dozens of Shiite civilians dead, ignited a nationwide outpouring of rage and panic that seemed to bring Iraq closer than ever to outright civil war.

Shiite militia members flooded the streets of Baghdad, firing rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns at Sunni mosques while Iraqi Army soldiers who had been called out to stop the violence stood helpless nearby. By the day's end, mobs had struck or destroyed 27 Sunni mosques in the capital, killing three imams and kidnapping a fourth, Interior Ministry officials said. In all, at least 15 people were killed in related violence across the country.

Thousands of grief-stricken people in Samarra crowded into the shrine's courtyard after the bombing, some weeping and kissing the fallen stones, others angrily chanting, "Our blood and souls we sacrifice for you, imams!"

Iraq's major political and religious leaders issued urgent appeals for restraint, and Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari called for a three-day mourning period in a televised address. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most senior Shiite cleric, released an unusually strong statement in which he said, "If the government's security forces cannot provide the necessary protection, the believers will do it."


Iran's Gift: New Unity In the West (Jim Hoagland, February 23, 2006, Washington Post)
The fog of negotiation is not for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He prefers to confront the United States and Europe directly over Iran's nuclear and political ambitions. The ex-mayor of Tehran thus sets history's tectonic plates moving faster toward a new era of global conflict.

Two visible changes suggest how far-reaching this conflict is becoming: First, Europeans, not Americans, are the primary immediate targets of Iran's recent gauntlet-hurling. Second, the Europeans are tossing the gauntlets back at Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian firebrand seems to believe that intimidating Britain, France and Germany provides a surer path to nuclear weapons, hegemony over Iraq and the destruction of Israel than did the softer-shoe approach of his ayatollah predecessors. Ahmadinejad is the gift to President Bush's diplomats that keeps on giving.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 23, 2006 10:23 AM
Comments

Concerns about the breakup of Iraq have always been strange to me--does anyone lament the demise of Yugoslavia anymore? If a split is inevitable, and certainly Kurdistan at least appears to be so, we should prevent it from being violent, but not prevent it from happening.

That being said, not taking out Syria at the same time as Iraq was breathtakingly stupid. Woulda been nice to do Iran too, but it would have entailed much more difficulties...

Posted by: b at February 23, 2006 11:56 AM

Patience b., remember it ain't over 'till the fat lady sings. Watch for it.

Posted by: erp at February 23, 2006 11:59 AM

Mr. Judd;

Let us accept for the moment that Muslims are uniquely biologically incapable of evolving towards democracy
You keep writing this kind of thing, but it makes no sense at all. One might as well say "Communists are uniquely biologically incapable of …". Why do you persist in treating "Muslim" as a biological / ethnic classification, rather than an ideological one?

Moreover, even if one took your viewpoint that Muslims were some sort of ethnicity / nationality, I don't see where the "uniquely" comes in to play, given your own comments about Haitians.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 23, 2006 12:00 PM

b:

Why shouldn't it be violent? The Shi'a owe the Sunni.

Posted by: oj at February 23, 2006 12:02 PM

AOG:

Of course it makes no sense.

Posted by: oj at February 23, 2006 12:04 PM

aog-

Biological,ideological. It's all same to the anti-'phobics'. (Is phobaphobe a word?)

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 23, 2006 12:14 PM

Tom:

Bingo! All they've ever known is that the "others"--Catholics, blacks, Asians, Slavs, now Muslims--are uniquely incapable of being democrats.

Posted by: oj at February 23, 2006 12:27 PM

That was a form of 'racism'. This is an ideological concern.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 23, 2006 12:31 PM

Catholics aren't a race. Confucianists either. Nor Hindus.

Posted by: oj at February 23, 2006 12:38 PM

Thus quotes around the word.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 23, 2006 12:41 PM

Yes, Muslims are just the latest race that can't be democrats.

Posted by: oj at February 23, 2006 12:49 PM

Let's come up with a word to describe the irrational fear of a rational concern.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 23, 2006 12:53 PM

It's not "racism," it's "categorism," which I who have imported the word to this field of discussion (unless someone else did it first) shall define to mean the act, by a foreign policy "realist," of declaring that people in a certain category (to which the "realist" himself does not belong) are incapable of self government just because of their membership in that category. The category may be racial, ethnic, religious, or some combination.

Posted by: Mike Morley at February 23, 2006 12:58 PM

Mike:

Very good.

Posted by: oj at February 23, 2006 1:01 PM

How about 'ideologicism', since ideas, like human beings, are equal in the eyes of the creator and should be treated equally. Wait, that won't work...

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 23, 2006 1:06 PM

Tom:

Yes, the precise problem is that categorists think ideas aren't universally applicable to all humans.

Posted by: oj at February 23, 2006 1:10 PM

Well done, A.O.G. and Tom.

The error which you point out is known as "multiculturalism." This consists of playing the race card in cultural contexts.

Conflating race and culture could itself be d'Gobineau/Chamberlain-style, 19th century European racism, or it could be just out-and-out stupidity. Here, I think it is neither, but rather cynical bullying. The card is played, and one's opponent is just supposed to fold up.

We all know that the non-racist position is the opposite one to the multicultural. The non-racist holds that a Black or an Indian may become an American, A Pole may become a Roman, and an Arab or Persian may become a civilized human being.

Posted by: Lou Gots at February 23, 2006 1:12 PM

Lou:

Except that the Categorists/Realists/Nationalists/Nativists/whatever you choose to call them never believe those things possible.

Posted by: oj at February 23, 2006 1:17 PM

Sure we do. As our great chieftain once said, trust but verify.

Posted by: joe shropshire at February 23, 2006 1:20 PM

Lou-

Or a form of 'reactionary' relativism, otherwise known as multi-culturalism.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 23, 2006 1:21 PM

The point being that every person and culture can be made to conform to our cultural standards.

Posted by: oj at February 23, 2006 1:26 PM

oj-

Then stop rationalizing abhorrent behavior.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 23, 2006 1:34 PM

What behavior?

Posted by: oj at February 23, 2006 1:38 PM

The behavior of your 'anti-Islamic' Islamists.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 23, 2006 1:57 PM

Tom:

Yes, the problem with Islamicism is that it's a Western corruption and anti-Islamic. It'll have to be treated as we did Communism and Nazism among us.

Posted by: oj at February 23, 2006 2:22 PM

Tom,

This Catholic feels Anti-Papism is a pretty good word:P

Anti-Imamism? Anyone? Bueller?

Posted by: Brad S at February 23, 2006 4:20 PM

Brad-

I agree. Pretty silly stuff.

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at February 23, 2006 4:42 PM
« INDEPENDENCE FOR BLACKS IS THE END OF BLUE: | Main | NO REALITY, PLEASE, WE'RE EMOTING.... (via Kevin Whited): »