My prediction on Iraq
I thought I'd throw this in, because Frontline had . . . um, some guy from the NY Times, the Baghdad bureau chief, in fact, talking about how things are over there.
Shortly after we invaded Iraq, lo, these many moons ago, I turned to my wife and said that within three years of that invasion, Iraq would be either in civil war or under a tyrant (as the outcome of a civil war). At the time, my reasons for so predicting were as follows:
1) The Kurds have no vested interest in a unified Iraq: they governed themselves in the northern region more or less okay. Not entirely, though, as it was on their watch that Ansar al-Islam set up shop in their territory. Yes, it was only in that region that Saddam could not control that Islamic terrorists could operate. Fuck you, Georgie-Porgie!
2) The Shiites, being mostly rural and not well-educated (a la Iran -- anybody remember Khomeini?), have no real notion of the real basis of enlightened democracy, that is, the inviolability of individual sovereignty. As a result, their majority would result in at the very least an attempt to screw the Sunnis. At worst, it would be "Shi'a, shi'a uber alles, uber alles im Iraq!"
3) The Sunnis, as a group the most urbanized and educated, are in the minority. Those prone to violence will foment it, in an effort to provoke a response that'll unify the Sunni Syrians et al. against the Shi'ites. Those not so inclined shall still be screwed by the Shiite majority, of which some members inevitably will react.
And let's not forget Iran.
So the countdown is on. I'll get back to y'all in March 2006 on this.
Shortly after we invaded Iraq, lo, these many moons ago, I turned to my wife and said that within three years of that invasion, Iraq would be either in civil war or under a tyrant (as the outcome of a civil war). At the time, my reasons for so predicting were as follows:
1) The Kurds have no vested interest in a unified Iraq: they governed themselves in the northern region more or less okay. Not entirely, though, as it was on their watch that Ansar al-Islam set up shop in their territory. Yes, it was only in that region that Saddam could not control that Islamic terrorists could operate. Fuck you, Georgie-Porgie!
2) The Shiites, being mostly rural and not well-educated (a la Iran -- anybody remember Khomeini?), have no real notion of the real basis of enlightened democracy, that is, the inviolability of individual sovereignty. As a result, their majority would result in at the very least an attempt to screw the Sunnis. At worst, it would be "Shi'a, shi'a uber alles, uber alles im Iraq!"
3) The Sunnis, as a group the most urbanized and educated, are in the minority. Those prone to violence will foment it, in an effort to provoke a response that'll unify the Sunni Syrians et al. against the Shi'ites. Those not so inclined shall still be screwed by the Shiite majority, of which some members inevitably will react.
And let's not forget Iran.
So the countdown is on. I'll get back to y'all in March 2006 on this.
posted by heavynettle at 14:24
3 Comments:
The Sunnis also have no vested interest in a democracy. One man, one vote would assure their political obscurity. Even Sunnis who did not directly participate in the exploitation & subjugation of the other groups under Saddam more or less supported the internal colonial system that kept them on top.
Priviledge elites tend to view priviledge as their God-given right, and pretty much never get over the desire to reassert themselves as the local masters. The South Shall Rise Again, and so, apparently, shall the Sunnis.
One man, one vote alone certainly would be the death of any minority -- and remember, the smallest minority in the world is the individual. If the majority were interested in the kind of restraint that still undergirds our own democracy (bollox to you, Delay, and your disingenous "constitutional option"), the Sunnis (and Kurds) would have no reason to worry about their demographic status. The real problem with Iraq, and most of the world, is the acceptance that the central government is responsible for everything, from municipal utilities to the preservation and advancement of culture/religion and language. It isn't just privileged elites that view power as their right, as a look at domestic politics here should indicate. "Underprivileged" individuals band together to create pluralities or a majority bent equally towards seizing control of the apparatus that distributes privilege. Getting the privilege out of the central and federated levels of government is the only way to save Iraq from internecine war -- and, let's face it, it ain't gonna happen. Such limited government is under real and present threat here, and it's not the elites or other minorities that have the authority to destroy it, but the mob that coalesces into a majority.
I agree that your prediction will happen, or maybe already has to some degree. It's impossible to start a country as a welfare state and have it be stable because one group knows they're the ones that will be fleeced for someone else's benefit. You said the Shiites "have no real notion of the real basis of enlightened democracy," and I agree. I also bet the Sunni's know this. In addition to not wanting to give up power, the Sunni's are just trying not to get dicked with the new government.
One last thought: People in the U.S. were so shocked when people in Iraq resisted. Of course they would, I would hope that someone in our country would resist invasion from an outside force. I know I would!
Post a Comment
<< Home