[lit-ideas] Re: Iraq, democracy, and ayatollas

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 09:01:15 -0800

This is certainly different information from what I've been getting.  I've
heard people coming back from Iraq as well as people still there.  We are
working hard to improve their economy and are succeeding.  This is a
successful effort by any standard.  Google on "Iraq" and "progress" and you
will find a long list of largely unreported accomplishments.  That the
Iraqis continue to support their religious leaders isn't surprising, but
those leaders for the most part have seen the advantages of democracy and
are supporting it.  

 

My friend in the Army Corps of Engineers over there tells me the "word on
the street" is that many of the insurgents are backing off and looking for
ways to come in from the cold because they fear Iran.  They would rather
support an independent democratic Iraq than one dominated by Iran.

 

As to Iran.  CNN says: - U.N. nuclear watchdog agency passes a resolution
reporting Iran to U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.

 

 Lawrence

 

  _____  

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 8:25 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Iraq, democracy, and ayatollas

 

It's always good to hear what someone from the *inside* a situation that is
being madly dialogued about by people who are outside it has to say.  This
post address both some of Andreas' and Lawrences assertions (not to leave
out Mike!)  

 

Julie Krueger

 

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

 

<<Thursday, February 02, 2006 


Election Results...

Iraqi election results were officially announced nearly two weeks ago, but
it was apparent from the day of elections which political parties would come
out on top. I'm not even going to bother listing the different types of
election fraud witnessed all over Iraq- it's a tedious subject and one we've
been discussing for well over a month.

The fact that a Shia, Iran-influenced religious list came out on top is
hardly surprising. I'm surprised, however, at Iraqis who seem to be
astonished at the outcome. Didn't we, over the last three years, see this
coming? Iranian influenced clerics had a strong hold right from 2003. Their
militias were almost instantly incorporated into the Ministry of Interior
and the Ministry of Defense as soon a move was made to create new Iraqi
security forces. Sistani has been promoting them from day one.

Why is it so very surprising that in times of calamity people turn to
religion? It happens all over the world. During tsunamis, hurricanes,
earthquakes, blockades, wars- people turn to deities. It's simple- when all
else fails, there is always a higher power for most people.

After nearly three years of a failing occupation, I personally believe that
many Iraqis voted for religious groups because it was counted as a vote
against America and the occupation itself. No matter what American policy
makers say to their own public- and no matter how many pictures Rumsfeld and
Condi take with our fawning politicians- most Iraqis do not trust Americans.
America as a whole is viewed as a devilish country that is, at best, full of
self-serving mischief towards lesser countries and, at worst, an implementer
of sanctions, and a warmongering invader.

Even Iraqis who believe America is here to help (and they seem to have grown
fewer in number these days), believe that it helps not out of love for
Iraqis, but out of self-interest and greed.

Shia religious parties, like SCIRI and Da'awa, have decidedly changed their
tone in the last year. During 2003, they were friends of America- they owed
the US their current power inside of the country. Today, as Iraqis are
becoming more impatient with the American presence inside of Iraq, they are
claiming that they will be the end of the 'occupiers'. They openly blame the
Americans for the lack of security and general chaos. The message is quite
different. In 2003, there was general talk of a secular Iraq; today, that no
longer seems to be an option.

In 2003, Jaffari was claiming he didn't want to see Iraqi women losing their
rights, etc. He never mentioned equal rights- but he did throw in a word
here and there about how Iraqi women had a right to an education and even a
job. I was changing channels a couple of weeks ago and I came across Jaffari
speaking to students from Mustansiriya University- one of Iraq's largest
universities, with campuses in several areas in Baghdad. I couldn't see the
students- he might have been speaking with a group of penguins, for all I
could tell. The camera was focused on him- his shifty eyes and low, mumbling
voice.

On his right sat an Ayatollah with a black turban and black robes. He looked
stern and he nodded with satisfaction as Jaffari spoke to the students (or
penguins). His speech wasn't about science, technology or even development-
it was a religious sermon about heaven and hell, good and evil.

I noticed two things immediately. The first was that he seemed to be
speaking to only male students. There were no females in the audience. He
spoke of their female 'sisters' in absentia, as if they had absolutely no
representation in the gathering. The second thing was that he seemed to be
speaking to only Shia because he kept mentioning their 'Sunni brothers', as
if they too were absent. He sermonized about how the men should take care of
the women and how Sunnis weren't bad at all. I waited to hear him speak
about Iraqi unity, and the need to not make religious distinctions- those
words never came.

In spite of all this, pro-war Republicans remain inanely hopeful. Ah well-
so Ayatollahs won out this election- the next election will be better! But
there is a problem.

The problem with religious parties and leaders in a country like Iraq, is
that they control a following of fervent believers, not just political
supporters. For followers of Da'awa and SCIRI, for example, it's not about
the policy or the promises or the puppet in power. It's like the pope for
devout Catholics- you don't question the man in the chair because he is
there by divine right, almost. You certainly don't question his policies.

Ayatollahs are like that. Muqtada Al-Sadr is ridiculous. He talks like his
tongue is swollen up in his mouth and he always looks like he needs to
bathe. He speaks with an intonation that indicates a fluency in Farsi and
yet. he commands an army of followers because his grandfather was a huge
religious figure. He could be the least educated, least enlightened man in
the country and he'd still have people willing to lay down their lives at
his command because of his family's religious history. (Lucky Americans- he
announced a week ago that should Iran come under US attack, he and his
followers would personally rise up to Iran's defense.)

At the end of the day, people who follow these figures tell themselves that
even if the current leader isn't up to par, the goal and message remain the
same- religion, God's word as law. When living in the midst of a war-torn
country with a situation that is deteriorating and death around every
corner, you turn to God because Iyad Allawi couldn't get you electricity and
security- he certainly isn't going to get you into heaven should you come
face to face with a car bomb.

The trouble with having a religious party in power in a country as diverse
as Iraq is that you automatically alienate everyone not of that particular
sect or religion. Religion is personal- it is something you are virtually
born into. it belongs to the heart, the mind, the spirit- and while it is
welcome in day to day dealings, it shouldn't be politicized.

Theocracies (and we seem to be standing on the verge of an Iranian
influenced one), grow stronger with time because you cannot argue religion.
Politicians are no longer politicians- they are Ayatollahs- they become
modern-day envoys of God, to be worshipped, not simply respected. You cannot
challenge them because for their followers, that is a challenge to a belief-
not a person or a political party.

You go from being a critic or 'opposition' to simply being a heathen when
you argue religious parties.

Americans write to me wondering, "But where are the educated Iraqis? Why
didn't they vote for secular parties?" The educated Iraqis have been
systematically silenced since 2003. They've been pressured and bullied
outside of the country. They've been assassinated, detained, tortured and
abducted. Many of them have lost faith in the possibility of a secular Iraq.

Then again. who is to say that many of the people who voted for religious
parties aren't educated? I know some perfectly educated Iraqis who take
criticism towards parties like Da'awa and SCIRI as a personal affront. This
is because these parties are so cloaked and cocooned within their religious
identity, that it is almost taken as an attack against Shia in general when
one criticizes them. It's the same thing for many Sunnis when a political
Sunni party comes under criticism.

That's the danger of mixing politics and religion- it becomes personal.

I try not to dwell on the results too much- the fact that Shia religious
fundamentalists are currently in power- because when I do, I'm filled with
this sort of chill that leaves in its wake a feeling of quiet terror. It's
like when the electricity goes out suddenly and you're plunged into a deep,
quiet, almost tangible darkness- you try not to focus too intently on the
subtle noises and movements around you because the unseen possibilities will
drive you mad.>>

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 02-2006