I've been trying to steer clear of the whole Iraq/ Islam thing of late, not least because people like Harry do it so well, but this morning I read a story in the Guardian which, if it turns out to be true (and the front page suggests it probably is) must turn the stomachs of both pro and anti-war lobbies.
Conservative Shias, dominant in the Iraqi government, had clashed with Kurds and other minorities who wanted Islam to be "a" rather than "the" main source of law.
According to Kurdish and Sunni negotiators, the US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, proposed that Islam be named "a primary source" and supported a wording which would give clerics authority in civil matters such as divorce, marriage and inheritance.
If approved, critics say that the proposals would erode women's rights and other freedoms enshrined under existing laws. "We understand the Americans have sided with the Shias. It's shocking. It doesn't fit with American values," an unnamed Kurdish negotiator told Reuters. "They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state."
Dozens of women gathered in central Baghdad yesterday to protest against what the organiser, Yanar Mohammad, feared would be a "fascist, nationalist and Islamist" constitution. "We are fighting to avoid becoming second class citizens," she said.
What will be the ultimate measure of success in Iraq I wonder? Certainly the Iraqis will have won self-determination that "hard liberals" from Hitchens to Cohen, via Aaronovitch, trumpeted, but is Iran 2 what they had in mind?
I was never a knee jerk anti-warrior - a supporter of the war in Afghanistan, I opposed this one because I thought it safer to have a secular dictatorship in place in Iraq during these troubled times rather than create further instability - and I have some admiration for the idealism of those who sought to undermine corrupt Baathist and Islamist regimes by creating a beacon of (albeit Western) democracy in Iraq. But surely the impending betrayal of that dream (along with the secularists, democrats, trade unionists, and women who shared it) far outweighs that of the Marsh Arabs in Gulf War 1?
I was going to end by saying that unlike those of the 20th Century, rememberance of this war may as be as much in the peace as in the fighting, but then I recalled the tragedy of Versailles and its poison legacy, so perhaps nothing much has changed after all.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Its also interesting to reflect on the new line from people like that favourite of Harry's Place, the disreputable sophist and supporter of US government policy Amir Taheri, who was arguing on a discussion programme over the weekend about the proposed new Iraqi Constitution that the answer to Iraq's troubles on the vexed question of 'will there be a civil war over the Sunni opposition to the new constitution' was that Iraq NEEDED a civil war. BUT this would be OK because it would be contained and the 80% majority of Shia and Kurds would simply wipe out - as he put 'in the Oriential style' the 20% of Shia who opposed them and basically the sooner we occidentals let them do this the better - because then Iraq would have peace!
I've never rated Taheri and and always found his analysis to be bent to a line which it frequently failed to support even when knotted in illogic and unreality. On this occasion even the neutral adjudicator/chair exploded 'look you can't have it both ways'.
Even I, on my few brief visits to the middle east, have grasped that it just isn't that simple and that it isn't possible to contain the regions problems and conflicts within the somewhat arbitrary borders drawn up in the last century (often by us and the french) - for all that I have always argued that forms of strong iraqi nationalism exist and were singularly ignored by those occupying the country except in the sense that it was believed that this could simply be relied upon to generate cheers for the liberators...
Now with a different 'gulf' to re-build it is likely that we will see a reversal of recent increases in US troop numbers in Iraq immediately a referendum result provides an opportunity. Bush apparently wants his final term to be about something other than sandy body bags...
US administrations have repeatedly shown a lack of stomach for sustained overseas involvement. Vietnam was an exception that reinforced a rule. I suspect that Iraq will run to form, if only because, as even Taheri now admits, the western (or occidental as he likes to term it) 'democratic beacon strategy' is dead in the water.
Bush W's final term is however unpredictable as this politically liberated graduate of the twelve steps strives to avoid conceding the inescapable truth of Enoch Powell's maxim that 'all political careers end in failure' - in American presidential circles there's usually a dynastic angle to take the edge off that. So maybe we'll get a kind of Kelly Osbourne presidency some way down the line with Jenna W as candidate and maybe Paul Wolfowitz making a comeback in a Dick Cheney type role.
More likely however is that the power brokers will start thinking about the next 10 years and how to retain power. They have a headache given the potential for mis-match between their international strategic interests and domestic ones.
Post a Comment