A question for the anti-war
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
markjs
Banned
Thursday, January 15, 2004
IRAQI THEOCRACY?
Financial Times reports,
Iraq's Governing Council on Wednesday defended its approval of a controversial family law that would make it possible to apply Islamic law - Sharia - instead of civil statute in domestic matters such as inheritance and divorce.
Opponents, mainly Iraqi women's groups, say the measure is a sop to Islamic clerics, who are holding up agreement on the national political process.
Hamid Kifa'i, Governing Council spokesman, denied the text, which was approved with no announcement, was part of a political deal with clerics. "It is not a concession to fundamentalists, we don't have fundamentalists in Iraq," he said.
He added that Paul Bremer, the top US administrator in Baghdad, had not signed the measure and that without the signature it would not take effect before June 30 at the earliest, when sovereignty is due to be transferred to an Iraqi provisional government.
Kevin Drum wonders whether full-blown theocracy is far behind.
This is probably a foreshadowing of the tension between democracy and liberalism in Iraq that's been inevitable from the start: if it's truly the kind of democracy the neocons originally envisioned, it's likely that Iraqis will vote to implement an Islamic theocracy of some kind. It may not be as fundamentalist as, say, Iran, but that's liable to be small comfort once they decide they've had enough and start warming up the clan leaders to kick us out.
Not exactly what we had in mind when we invaded, I think.
I must admit, this move is somewhat discouraging. Aside from partitioning Iraq, at least on a very strong federal or even confederal model, I'm not sure how democracy and secularism are going to be compatible there. Unless we're willing, as we were in Japan, to simply write their constitution for them and impose our values--and we seem, oddly, not willing--then I don't see how we avoid sharia given a Shi'a majority.
While I fully admit I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, I see no indication that we've crafted the institutions for a stable Iraqi democracy. Why haven't we essentially written their constitution for them as we did in postwar Germany and Japan? We went to war for regime change. We've accomplished that in the literal sense of toppling and eventually arresting Saddam Hussein. But it's not clear to me what we've done to ensure that the follow-on regime will be one to our liking.
I understand that we don't want to alienate the other Arab states by appearing too heavyhanded. But we did, after all, launch a pre-emptive war to oust an Arab dictator and now have an army of occupation in the cradle of civilization. At this point, the primary objective has to be the creation of a system that gives Iraq the best possible chance we can give them to function as a stable democracy once we hand over the reins of power.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/004652.html
IRAQI THEOCRACY?
Financial Times reports,
Iraq's Governing Council on Wednesday defended its approval of a controversial family law that would make it possible to apply Islamic law - Sharia - instead of civil statute in domestic matters such as inheritance and divorce.
Opponents, mainly Iraqi women's groups, say the measure is a sop to Islamic clerics, who are holding up agreement on the national political process.
Hamid Kifa'i, Governing Council spokesman, denied the text, which was approved with no announcement, was part of a political deal with clerics. "It is not a concession to fundamentalists, we don't have fundamentalists in Iraq," he said.
He added that Paul Bremer, the top US administrator in Baghdad, had not signed the measure and that without the signature it would not take effect before June 30 at the earliest, when sovereignty is due to be transferred to an Iraqi provisional government.
Kevin Drum wonders whether full-blown theocracy is far behind.
This is probably a foreshadowing of the tension between democracy and liberalism in Iraq that's been inevitable from the start: if it's truly the kind of democracy the neocons originally envisioned, it's likely that Iraqis will vote to implement an Islamic theocracy of some kind. It may not be as fundamentalist as, say, Iran, but that's liable to be small comfort once they decide they've had enough and start warming up the clan leaders to kick us out.
Not exactly what we had in mind when we invaded, I think.
I must admit, this move is somewhat discouraging. Aside from partitioning Iraq, at least on a very strong federal or even confederal model, I'm not sure how democracy and secularism are going to be compatible there. Unless we're willing, as we were in Japan, to simply write their constitution for them and impose our values--and we seem, oddly, not willing--then I don't see how we avoid sharia given a Shi'a majority.
While I fully admit I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, I see no indication that we've crafted the institutions for a stable Iraqi democracy. Why haven't we essentially written their constitution for them as we did in postwar Germany and Japan? We went to war for regime change. We've accomplished that in the literal sense of toppling and eventually arresting Saddam Hussein. But it's not clear to me what we've done to ensure that the follow-on regime will be one to our liking.
I understand that we don't want to alienate the other Arab states by appearing too heavyhanded. But we did, after all, launch a pre-emptive war to oust an Arab dictator and now have an army of occupation in the cradle of civilization. At this point, the primary objective has to be the creation of a system that gives Iraq the best possible chance we can give them to function as a stable democracy once we hand over the reins of power.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/004652.html
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
markjs said:
So...We have an attempt to place sharia in the local laws...why is that a problem? We based our initial laws on the Christian ideals for justice, did we not? What you're seeing is not what you think it is. As the Iraqi women have said...it's a sop thrown to the clerics to get them to pass the rest of the interim constitution. Perhaps you need to look up the word sop before you leap to your conclusions...
Inkara1
Well-Known Member
I think the explanation for the increase in terrorism in Iraq leading up to the handover is pretty simple: the terrorists hope to delay the handover, which would give them all the ammo they need to persuade the general population their way, because they could spin that as a broken promise by the United States.
chcr
Too cute for words
I think you're right, Inky. I think there are more than one group at work though. Some want to make the US look bad, some are afraid their side will not get enough power in the provisional government. Either way, it's a delaying tactic. I think they're mistaken though, I think at this point the coalition has to turn over power on schedule, at least on the face of things. It looks to me like they intend to turn power over to the provisional government no matter what else happens.Inkara1 said:
catocom
Well-Known Member
IMO what we should do, is start right now, switching to more
covert actions. Maybe where hoods so that noone except the
Iraqi Gov, police, and such really know how many "American"
and how many Iraqis are doing what.
Secrecy has always been one of 'our' govs strong points.
I say we use that to 'our advantage like the terrorist have been doing.
(of coarse I don't really know how much is being applied now, but it doesn't seem like enough)
covert actions. Maybe where hoods so that noone except the
Iraqi Gov, police, and such really know how many "American"
and how many Iraqis are doing what.
Secrecy has always been one of 'our' govs strong points.
I say we use that to 'our advantage like the terrorist have been doing.
(of coarse I don't really know how much is being applied now, but it doesn't seem like enough)
Winky
Well-Known Member
The anti-war crowd is pro-terrorism
Iraqi Govt. boot the US Ha Ha Ha Hee Hee Ho Hoe
I think not Gertrude
A. Then they'd have to face all the warring factions alone
Would the puppet government of Vietnam have asked us to leave?
B. Shirley you don't think they are in charge of anything
Do Ya?
Once you take a piece of ground by force you don't yield it unless it is wrested from you by force. I don't see any Iraqi insurgency having the military firepower ever having the capability to accomplish that task.
The fact is the whole Mid-East thing is basically OVER.
We own end of story.
Time to focus on the next issue of consequence.
Iraqi Govt. boot the US Ha Ha Ha Hee Hee Ho Hoe
I think not Gertrude
A. Then they'd have to face all the warring factions alone
Would the puppet government of Vietnam have asked us to leave?
B. Shirley you don't think they are in charge of anything
Do Ya?
Once you take a piece of ground by force you don't yield it unless it is wrested from you by force. I don't see any Iraqi insurgency having the military firepower ever having the capability to accomplish that task.
The fact is the whole Mid-East thing is basically OVER.
We own end of story.
Time to focus on the next issue of consequence.
catocom
Well-Known Member
Re: The anti-war crowd is pro-terrorism
I didn't mean to sound like we should start pulling out now,
just make it harder to distinguish how many of us are there, and
so they don't know who is who.
I don't see completely pulling out in the foreseeable future.
Winky said:
I didn't mean to sound like we should start pulling out now,
just make it harder to distinguish how many of us are there, and
so they don't know who is who.
I don't see completely pulling out in the foreseeable future.
Winky
Well-Known Member
Re: The anti-war crowd is pro-terrorism
I understand what you mean. Actually I'd love to see our forces pull back reduce their 'cross-section' Heck withdraw to Kuwait perhaps anything to lower their casualty count.
Or...
I'd love to see them unleashed to decimate the opposition in a no-holds barred free for all. Once and for all!
Neither is likely tho
catocom said:
I understand what you mean. Actually I'd love to see our forces pull back reduce their 'cross-section' Heck withdraw to Kuwait perhaps anything to lower their casualty count.
Or...
I'd love to see them unleashed to decimate the opposition in a no-holds barred free for all. Once and for all!
Neither is likely tho
Winky
Well-Known Member
Freedom fighters hiding behind skirts!
We all know that wouldn't work.
Those freedom fighters hide behind
women and children. Now if the women
and children would complain about terrorists
er Freedom Fighters
hiding behind them and getting them blown to bits
maybe we'd have something there?
We all know that wouldn't work.
Those freedom fighters hide behind
women and children. Now if the women
and children would complain about terrorists
er Freedom Fighters
hiding behind them and getting them blown to bits
maybe we'd have something there?