Iraq Conundrum
Iraq is a mess and there are no easy solutions to improve the situation. Three thousand plus American deaths and seven times that number injured have made the Iraq war widely unpopular. Multiple tours of duty by regular armed force and reserve units have brought home the pain and suffering of the war to American families in every corner of the nation.
American troops have liberated Iraq from the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein but the liberation has failed to establish any semblance of a democratic regime in Baghdad, as President Bush had hoped. Instead, Iraqi insurgent attacks on Americans in the name of defeating foreign occupiers and as jihad sanctioned by Islam, combined with open sectarian warfare between Sunnis and Shias, may have set the stage for the long feared clash of civilizations between Islamic and Western societies and a widening regional warfare between the Sunnis and Shias for the control of the Middle East and Islamic identity.
These conflicts have resulted in Iraqi dead and injured several hundred times more than the American count. The U.N. estimated nearly 35,000 Iraqi deaths in 2006 alone. Nearly two millions Iraqis, including a large proportion of country’s doctors, teachers and other professionals, have fled the war torn country. The Shiite militias are engaged in ethnic cleansing have killed Sunnis or forced them to leave Sunni-Shiite mixed areas of Baghdad.
Islam has not modernized like Christianity and other great religions and is generally governed by its seventh century dogma, which includes jihad to convert or kill nonbelievers. And it may never modernize without a catastrophic upheaval in Islamic societies. Muhammad is believed to be the last prophet of God upon earth and as such the perfection of his seventh century Islamic model cannot be challenged or tolerated by any Muslim. Unfortunately, Muslims are not content to remain in the seventh-century backwater and leave rest of the world alone, but want to benefit from twenty-first century advances. The mandatory literal following of Muhammad’s teachings as enshrined in the Qu’ran and other scriptures in Muslim societies, and the punishment of apostasy by death, prevent free inquiry and freedom of thought, which are necessary for advancing in the modern world. As Theodore Dalrymple brilliantly summarized in his essay, When Islam Breaks Down, City Journal, Spring 2004: “They are faced with a dilemma: either they abandon their cherished religion, or they remain forever in the rear of human technical advance. Neither alternative is very appealing; and the tension between their desire for power and success in the modern world on the one hand, and their desire not to abandon their religion the other, is resolvable for some only by exploding themselves as bombs.”
Beyond Dalrymple’s logical explanation of Muslim dilemma and despair, the violent jihad against nonbelievers and suicide bombings are motivated by Islam’s promise to those killed committing these heinous acts of direct passage to heaven, where 72 virgins and other unimaginable luxuries of life await for them. These “other world lures” are so firmly planted in the psyche that they become a real outcome of choice in Islamic societies and their pull cannot be easily offset by the prospects of long, torturous and often frustrating economic and social progress in the West.
Islam is a supranational religion in the sense that a Muslim is likely to follow the dictates of religious laws over the laws of the country of his residence. This supranational nature of Islam is a result of Muhammad’s power as a spiritual and secular leader. The resulting inability to make a distinction between state and church likely will result in jihad-justified crimes by Muslim populations in various countries. The attacks in Britain, Holland and Spain are symptoms of this problem. The July 2006 Pew Global Attitude Survey found “roughly one-in-seven Muslims in France, Spain and Great Britain feel that suicide bombings against civilian targets can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam.”
Consider the following comments regarding the 9/11 attack in the very recently published autobiography of Ms. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, (Infidel, Free Press): “Every devout Muslim who aspired to practice genuine Islam, even if they didn’t actively support the attack, they must have actually approved of them.” Ms. Ali is a Somalia born Muslim woman who is highly critical of Islam in its current form and was a member of the Dutch parliament. She resigned her parliament seat because of controversy surrounding her views and moved to the United States.
The U.S. experience in dealing with Muslim nations during the early years of the republic as described in just published book (Power, Faith, and Fantasy, America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, Norton) by historian Michael B. Oran also illustrates the brutal nature of Islam. In those early years of the republic Muslim Barbary powers preyed on American shipping and captured, tortured and enslaved hundreds of innocent men and women, and when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson implored the pasha of Tripoli to stop, the pasha told them that the Koran made it the “right and duty” of Muslims “to make war upon” whichever infidels “they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take prisoners.” In retaliation, Congress created a navy in 1790s and the Barbary kingdom was crushed. (Source: Robert Kagan review in January 21-27, 2007 Washington Post Book World).
Iraq’s Sunni insurgency is supported by Jihadist al-Qaeda and there are numerous daily suicide bombings in the country. The Shiite death squads are from the America hating cleric Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mehdi army, whom Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has protected because of religious reasons and because Sadr support is crucial for keeping the al-Maliki government in power.
Iran is supporting Sadar and other Shiite militias by providing them with training and advanced weapons. Iran is also behind Shiite Hizbollaha’s attempt to overthrow Lebanon’s Sunni controlled government. Surging oil revenues have emboldened Iran. It is becoming clear that Iran will use Shiite minorities in Middle Eastern countries to foment uprisings and dominate the region. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries have large Shiite populations and this scenario likely will be repeated there. Iran’s push to acquire nuclear weapons in defiance of U.N. resolution has increased pressure on Sunni regimes, and Jordan has declared its intention to pursue a nuclear program for peaceful purposes. Iran is also supporting Islamic extremist Hamas in Palestine, which has resulted in fighting between U.S. supported Palestinian President Abbas’s Fatah and Hamas followers. The number of Fatah and Hamas casualties have surged recently.
Hamas came to power in a western style election but refuses to recognize Israel and abandon its declared policy of destroying that country. It is also refusing to participate in a new election suggested by Abbas. Thus the one vote-one person Western democratic concept is being transformed into one vote-one person-one time Islamic rule.
The National Intelligence Report published on February 2nd painted a starkly pessimistic picture of the Iraq situation. It warned that “the current winner-take-all attitude and sectarian animosities infecting the political scene” could lead to anarchy. It added that rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces “almost certainly would lead” to increased sectarian violence. A civil war designation of the conflict would fail to capture the full complexity of the situation, which includes Shia-on-Shia and Shia-Sunni violence, al-Qaeda and Sunni attacks on Coalition forces, and activities of criminal gangs.
Post-Weimar Scenario?
Growing American discontent with the war has resulted in GOP defeat in Congressional elections and Democrats now control both the House and Senate. Following the election setback, President Bush announced a new plan to secure Baghdad in order to create suitable conditions for political reconciliation between different factions, accelerated training of Iraqi forces and swift economic reconstruction. It is generally believed this is the final attempt to prevent sectarian violence from engulfing Iraq. There is a strong possibility that if the latest Bush plan fails, the U.S. forces may withdraw to well defended enclaves outside Baghdad and let Sunni and Shia fight until they are exhausted by mounting death toll.
According to the latest plan, additional 21,500 troops will be sent to help Iraqi troops secure Baghdad. The basic strategy will change from ‘search and destroy-and leave’ to ‘destroy, stay and protect’ in order to prevent insurgents from returning and restarting the mayhem. The new man in charge for implementing the strategy will be highly regarded Lt. Gen. David Petraeus. The success of the plan will depend upon Maliki government keeping its promise to disarm all militias and protect all Iraqi citizens irrespective of their religious affiliation. The President also expects Iraq to amend its Constitution to assure that all Iraqis benefit from oil revenues. Maliki has proven to be an unreliable partner and hence success of the Bush plan remains in doubt. However, recent actions of Maliki government against Sadar militia and determined fighting by Iraqi units are encouraging.
It has become fashionable to compare Iraq with Vietnam. Jane Fonda, who was prominent during the anti-Vietnam period, addressed the recent anti-War Washington rally and shouted peace now. Senator John Kerry was quick to repeat his famous (or infamous) line from his anti-Vietnam War testimony in a recent Senate speech.
President Bush’s favorable rating has plunged to 30 and many Republicans have declared themselves against Bush’s troop increase policy. Democratic presidential hopefuls are falling on each other with proposals for withdrawing from Iraq. In the latest move Senator Barak Obama has introduced legislation to withdraw all American troops by March 2008. Obama has become the first declared candidate to set a firm withdrawal date. The socalled Murtha (who is close to House Speaker Pelosi) proposal will cap troop levels at 140,000 and withdraw them no later than Inauguration Day 2009. Senator Hillary Clinton has suggested a cap on U.S. forces at the current level, redeploying them outside of Iraqi cities, conduct limited training and counterterrorism missions, urge reconciliation among various political factions and negotiate with Syria and Iran. Democratic senator Joe Biden and Republican senator Chuck Hagel advocate partition of Iraq and of course negotiations with S&I. Some Democrats, like Senator Russell Feingold, are advocating cutting funds for the war. The highly respected Republican Senator John Warner and Democratic senator Carl Levin, who now heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, are in the process of introducing a joint resolution opposing Bush troop increase policy.
While most of the resolutions are nonbonding, Democratic senators Christopher Dodd (a declared candidate) and Russell Feingold want a binding resolution to stop the war. Feingold will cutoff funds for the war. Others from the liberal wing of Democratic party go as far as passing a legislation mandating how the war should be managed and when the troops should be brought home, although the constitution gives the president sole authority to run a war as Commander-in-Chief.
The Obama Controversy
In the midst of the Iraq policy debate a new storm has been created by Senator Biden’s patronizing comment on the African-American background of Obama. Biden said: Obama is “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and many other black commentators and politicians took offense at these remarks. Eugene Robinson wrote in the February 2nd Washington Post: “The word articulate is being used to encompass not just speech but a whole range of cultural cues – dress, bearing, education, golf handicap…Just come out and say it: Gee, he doesn’t sound black at all.” Mr. Robinson probably forgets that Obama’s mother is white. Which means Obama is only 50% black.
Then there is Ms. Cynthia Tucker, editorial page editor for The Atlanta Journal Constitution, who in her February 5th Baltimore Sun article says: “Forget “clean”. Never mind “nice-looking”. The most intriguing word the Delaware senator used in describing Mr. Obama was “mainstream”…It’s harder for black people to get voted into the “mainstream” than you may think – especially black men.” She goes on to say: “Mr Sharpton who sought the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 2004, has already sent signals suggesting the Mr. Obama might not be suitably “black” for his taste.”
The Obama incident shows the difficulty of properly investigating the background of individuals seeking the Presidency of the United States, especially when they come from minority backgrounds. Most Americans admire Condolizza Rice and Colin Powell, but black commentators like Mr. Robinson have attacked Ms. Rice mercilessly because they disagree with her views.
So, why make such a big deal out of an inarticulate, but not malicious, comments of a white senator? Biden may be a motor-mouth but he is not a racist. Similar tactics were used to pressure Tiger Woods to ignore the Asian origin of his mother and emphasize his father’s African heritage. Tiger is married to a beautiful Swedish model and they are expecting their first child soon, who will be 25% black. As Ms. Tucker’s comments confirm, once the scene shifts from the “black-white” to “black” politics, the mixed race blacks are often seen as “not black enough”. A recent survey has suggested Mr. Obama will face this type of discrimination in the black community. May be Messers. Jackson, Sharpton, Robinson and Tucker could compile a “politically correct” dictionary to describe African-Americans and while they are at it tell us how to identify those of mixed race and have different degree of black skin. In my view the race issue is being exploited to impose a candidate on Americans without full investigation of his background.
In the case of Mr. Obama the issue is not whether he is African-American with a white mother, but is about his “true” religious beliefs. He has superb credentials. He has long held a position on Iraq consistent with the current mood of the country. He lacks experience, which is certainly a negative but it is up to Americans to decide if this disqualifies him from becoming President. But Americans will certainly like to know, I certainly do, how deeply he is committed to Christianity and secular principles and to what extent his father and stepfather’s Muslim background have shaped him and will influence him. Despite all the controversy surrounding his middle Muslim name Hussein and his attending a public school in Jakarta, Indonesia, where Islamic education was part of the curriculum, his pastor or anyone else from his Church has not come forward to say that he attends services regularly. We have not seen pictures of him and his family leaving the Church or participating in Church functions. Nor do we know if his children will attend an Islamic school or mosque when they visit their grand parents.
The dangerous role of Islam in the unfolding global crisis, its lack of modernization, the primitive nature of its many beliefs (like violent jihad) and the supranational nature of the faith, demands that Obama clarify his religious beliefs. The mainstream media is unlikely to touch the religion issue and it is up to others to raise it. The Washington Post had the audacity to attack Insight magazine for reporting that Obama attended a madrassa in Indonesia in its January 28th editorial. The use of the word “madrassa” could have been avoided, but it is essentially correct because Islamic teaching in a public school in predominantly Muslim Indonesia may not be too different than in a Saudi Arabia financed religious school in Pakistan. According to the Post editorial, here is what Insight said in response: “The media uproar over our reporting reveals a media establishment choosing not to ask the tough questions about Obama’s Muslim past: If he was raised in a secular household (as he claims), why does he have-or retain-Muslim names, Barack and Hussein?” “Were his father and stepfather as secular as he says? What is the exact nature of Obama’s current religious affiliation and what are the beliefs and teachings of current church in Chicago, the Trinity United Church of Christ?”
I like to trust Obama. He was wonderful on Opraha Winfrey show. He sounds good. Actually, everything about him sums up like something too good to be true. And that gives me nightmares: things that appear too good to be true often are not what they seem.
I get up at night wondering if we are being charmed by an Islamic Manchurian candidate, who is masquerading as a secular Christian, while in reality, deep in his heart, not just because of his name but because of his heritage and childhood education, he is a Muslim. God forbid. We have practically handed over Iraq to Iran and it would be a catastrophe if a camouflaged Muslim is elected U.S. president. To overcome such fears we need more answers from Mr. Obama.
P.S.: I am not a Biden fan and hope the Obama incident finishes his Presidential hopes. He has been involved in foreign policy for a long time and should know that dividing Iraq among Shia, Sunni and Kurds would effectively transfer control of southern Iraqi oil fields, which produce most of the Iraqi oil, to Iran and provide that nation with additional resources to develop nuclear weapons and finance terror attacks on Israel and the United States.
Unfolding Scenario
The comparison of Iraq with Vietnam is flawed because in Iraq we have serious strategic interests - such as oil, securing the Middle East against Iranian domination, diminish or eliminate Iranian nuclear threat and prevent terrorist attacks on Israel and the United States – and because we have learned from the mistakes of Vietnam. But, Democratic controlled congress’s actions are very similar to what happened during the Vietnam period: there were numerous hearings just as they are planned now; and the War Powers Act of 1973 was passed which required the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of any deployment of U.S. forces and to withdraw them within 60 days in the absence of further congressional approval. Today, Democrats have only one vote majority in the Senate, including the Lieberman vote, which they cannot count upon if they really want to rock the boat, and hence they cannot pass any serious anti-Bush legislation. The Democratic sponsored nonbonding Iraq resolution opposing Bush’s Iraq policy failed to attract 60 votes needed to launch the debate and get Congressional approval. Lieberman and all Republican senators, except Susan Collins of Maine and Norm Coleman of Minnesota, opposed it.
The mood of the country is not deeply anti-Iraq War because of 9/11. Americans are worried but also see the dangers of sudden and premature withdrawal. Furthermore, draftees fought the Vietnam War, while today’s we have a volunteer army. Discoveries of new terror plots in Britain and other countries keep the terror threat visible and provide an on going justification for the current conflict.
The growing unrest against the War partly reflects absence of terrorist attacks and steady economic recovery from the 9/11 shocks. Unfortunately, the unrest may grow with continued prosperity and security as Americans yearn to have their peace and prosperity party last forever. Opportunistic politicians are only ready to promise them that dream by suggesting withdrawal from the far away conflict, burying their head in the sand and hoping the problems will go away..
It is said the favorite scenes on Arab televisions are of U.S. troops packing up and going home from Beirut in 1983, Mogadishu in 1993 and that panicked flight from Vietnam in 1975. Islamic radicals are betting these scenes will be repeated in Iraq. Surely, they will offer “peace” if we sacrifice Israel, which has always been the red herring to detract attention from their goal of Islamic empire (See Islam’s Imperial Dreams by Efraim Karsh in April 2006 Commentary).
Almost all knowledgeable observers consider an immediate withdrawal or a declared policy of withdrawal disastrous. As Henry Kissinger put it in his brilliant January 21st WP article, Stability in Iraq and Beyond: “But under present conditions, withdrawal is not an option…An abrupt American departure would greatly complicate efforts to stem the terrorist tide far beyond Iraq; fragile governments from Lebanon to the Persian Gulf would be tempted into preemptive concessions. It might drive the sectarian conflict in Iraq to genocidal dimensions beyond levels that impelled U.S. intervention in the Balkans.” I might add it would substantially increase the risk of oil going to $100 or higher, nuclear proliferation, and an attack on Israel, which would force us to intervene because of our treaty obligations. As historian Michael Oren shows the U.S. encounter with the Middle East began centuries before the Iraq War and he predicts the U.S. “will press on with their civic mission as mediators and liberators in the area and strive for a pax Americana.”
In the immediate future, whether the Bush strategy succeeds or fails in securing Baghdad and allowing the elected “moderate” government to function properly, the U.S. forces are likely to handover day-to-day operations to Iraqis as soon as possible and withdraw into secure enclaves with the principle objective of, as Kissinger describes them, protecting “the borders against infiltration and to prevent the establishment of terrorist training areas or Taliban-type control over significant regions.”
