LA Times Op-Ed

[achilleus]

Robert Scheer:
Law of Unintended Consequences
Careful what you wish for in Iraq.

In a heightened display of saber rattling, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have been saying nasty things about Iran's "unelected mullahs."

This is apparently so we'll be able to tell the difference between the theocracy in place in Tehran and the one coalescing in Baghdad. Although things are looking slightly brighter for Iraq after its debut election, it is still not clear why the United States has spent incalculable fortunes in human life, taxpayer money and international goodwill to break Iraq and then remake it in the image of our avowed "axis of evil" enemy next door.

In his State of the Union address, Bush denounced Iran as "the world's primary state sponsor of terrorism." At the same time, he celebrated an Iraqi election that handed power to Shiite ayatollahs who were sponsored for decades by their co-religionists in Iran and who share much of Tehran's vision of religion and politics. Does this make sense to anybody outside of the White House?

The final returns from the Iraqi election are not in, but it seems clear that the slate headed by the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution is going to have a clear majority in the new constitutional assembly. This is a classic example of how, in the real world, there is a lot more gray than an administration that sees everything in black and white wants to admit.

After all, Rice can call Iran's hyper-conservative religious leaders "loathsome," and Cheney can claim, paternally, that the United States knows many "responsible Iraqis," but the fact is that deeply religious Shiites with strong ties to each other will be in control in both Iraq and Iran.

And if what the mullahs have wrought in Basra and other parts of Iraq is any indication, the cause of human rights is in deep trouble — particularly for women, who enjoyed freedoms in the secular world of Saddam Hussein that are denied under fundamentalist Islamic law. Those photos of Iraqi women dressed in identical shrouds lined up to vote for candidates handpicked by the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani were, to say the least, an ambiguous advertisement for democracy.

"Public freedom should be regulated based on the country's Islamic character," said a top Sistani aide last week, opening the door to the institution of Islamic law, or sharia, that would lower the legal status of women in all important family matters — from inheritance to their basic rights in a marriage.

What we are witnessing here is a startling application of the law of unintended consequences: A U.S. president who is intent on breaching the wall between church and state in his own country on issues such as birth control and the "sanctity of marriage" has now used the world's most powerful military to pave the way for a new Muslim theocracy in the heart of the Arab world. Furthermore, Bush has unwittingly strengthened the hand of Iran, a nation allegedly developing weapons of mass destruction and supporting global terrorism.

For now, of course, the slate is fresh for Iraq's incoming leaders. But it would be naive for the White House to think that a winning coalition headed by self-defined Islamic revolutionaries long nurtured by Iran would not emulate key aspects of their former Tehran hosts' thinking.

Mind you, there is certainly no harm in the U.S. strongly urging that minority and individual rights and the separation of church and state be written into Iraq's coming constitution. Washington might seem a bit hypocritical on this, however, considering the tight ties the U.S. and the Bush family have with the totalitarian theocracy in Saudi Arabia.

Bottom line, though, is that the Shiite ayatollahs have held the keys to Baghdad since Hussein's predominantly Sunni military regime was dismantled after the invasion. They successfully demanded an election in the midst of a Sunni insurgency and boycott, and they won it.

Washington has crashed against the limits of foreign military power as an instrument for crafting a culture of freedom for another people. It does not help that our motives are corrupted by a rapacious thirst for petroleum, our vision blurred by an insufferable ignorance of the complexity of local cultures and our presumption exaggerated by the effrontery of our own leader's claims to the wisdom of God.

[Maeve_Mari]

It makes me wonder if, when sitting around the big table planning out their war games, did they think about what was going to happen afterwards? We just left the Taliban in Afganistan "crushed" because of the horrific treatment of women and other humanitarian issues, yet we just opened the door for the reversal of basic rights and freedoms in Iraq.

Is Imposing Democracy just a game for this White House Administration. Do they just want to practice a few "What If's" until they get it right? Oops, I got your rook but left my King exposed. Do Over! Do Over. I demand a Do Over!"

[Inquartata]

It makes me wonder why on earth anyone named Robert, as opposed to, say, Farouk or Nasem, would imagine that he "knows" what's going on in Iraq, much less what's going to happen...

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It makes me wonder why on earth anyone named Robert, as opposed to, say, Farouk or Nasem, would imagine that he "knows" what's going on in Iraq, much less what's going to happen...

Wow. I never thought I'd see you discriminate in such a way.

Actually a little disappointing...

I thought it was an interesting observation and was curious what others thought.

[Inquartata]

My point is that it's a different culture, and I think only those FROM that culture can truly understand it. Outsiders can only try to fit it into their own quite different experiential worldview, and look at through a glass, darkly...

We look back at ancient Egypt, for instance, with its incest, and tell ourselves that we can examine the phenomenon dispassionately. But we cannot really doff our own prejudices and mores and accept it as "normal", as they did. No more are we likely to be able to "know" what's going on in back rooms and mosques in the Middle East---not really.

Tom Friedman had a recent column saying just about the opposite of what this one insists: that is, he thinks the mullahs in Iran are actually worried about the election results in Iraq, and are not likely to be emulated by them. So, why is he any more to be heeded than Scheer? He doesn't really know what's going on, or is going to go on, either. It's duelling opinions from Olympus instead of from where the action is.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

My point is that it's a different culture, and I think only those FROM that culture can truly understand it. Outsiders can only try to fit it into their own quite different experiential worldview, and look at through a glass, darkly...

We look back at ancient Egypt, for instance, with its incest, and tell ourselves that we can examine the phenomenon dispassionately. But we cannot really doff our own prejudices and mores and accept it as "normal", as they did. No more are we likely to be able to "know" what's going on in back rooms and mosques in the Middle East---not really.

Tom Friedman had a recent column saying just about the opposite of what this one insists: that is, he thinks the mullahs in Iran are actually worried about the election results in Iraq, and are not likely to be emulated by them. So, why is he any more to be heeded than Scheer? He doesn't really know what's going on, or is going to go on, either. It's duelling opinions from Olympus instead of from where the action is.

Interesting...

Nowhere, in my reading of the article, does he say that knows what's going on in the back rooms and mosques in the Middle East.

In fact, he says our government is guilty of not understanding the culture fully, and this misunderstanding has the possibilty of creating a country that is closely allied with Iran.

In addition, unless you know exactly where he formed his sources, you really can't argue whether he know's what's going on or not. Basing it on his name is just stupid.

As another point of view, I'd love to see Friedman's article. It would be a great counterpoint.

Hopefully, it won't dismiss a point of view based on a person's name.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It makes me wonder why on earth anyone named Robert, as opposed to, say, Farouk or Nasem, would imagine that he "knows" what's going on in Iraq, much less what's going to happen...

Originally Posted by Inquartata

My point is that it's a different culture, and I think only those FROM that culture can truly understand it. Outsiders can only try to fit it into their own quite different experiential worldview, and look at through a glass, darkly...

We look back at ancient Egypt, for instance, with its incest, and tell ourselves that we can examine the phenomenon dispassionately. But we cannot really doff our own prejudices and mores and accept it as "normal", as they did. No more are we likely to be able to "know" what's going on in back rooms and mosques in the Middle East---not really.

Now that is a lame excuse for an argument if I ever heard one.

Are you seriously trying to argue that if you are not of a certain nationality that you couldn't undertand the culture of that nation? You couldn't have studied it, lived in it, become an expert in it? Maybe Robert's parents were progressive Iranians and named their wise son Robert. Perhaps Robert changed his name when he got his job at the Times so that ignorant readers wouldn't discriminate against a reporter named Farouk. OR maybe it's that Robert is a Middle Eastern scholar and has an extensive background and wealth of knowledge about Shiite politics!

My name ain't Betsy, but I can sew and pledge alligiance to the flag of the United States of America. I daresay reporters need to be foreign born to let us know what's going on in the world!

[Maeve_Mari]

Here's the Friedman article Inq tried to use in his argument above. I'm thinking Friedman isn't a Farouk, so I'm not sure why (using Inq's judgement and prejudice) he thinks this a better op-ed.

A Day to Remember
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: February 3, 2005


s someone who believed, hoped, worried, prayed, worried, hoped and prayed some more that Iraqis could one day pull off the election they did, I am unreservedly happy about the outcome - and you should be, too.

Why? Because what threatens America most from the Middle East are the pathologies of a region where there is too little freedom and too many young people who aren't able to achieve their full potential. The only way to cure these pathologies is with a war of ideas within the Arab-Muslim world so those with bad ideas can be defeated by those with progressive ones.

We can't fight that war. Only the Arab progressives can - only they can tell the suicide bombers that what they are doing is shameful to Islam and to Arabs. But we can collaborate with them to create a space in the heart of their world where decent people have a chance to fight this war - and that is what American and British soldiers have been doing in Iraq.

President Bush's basic gut instinct about the need to do this is exactly right. His thinking that this could be done on the cheap, though, with little postwar planning, was exactly wrong. Partly as a result, this great moment has already cost America over $100 billion and 10,000 killed and wounded.

That is not sustainable because the road ahead in Iraq is still long. We have to proceed with more wisdom and more allies. But proceed we must, and now we can at least do so with the certainty that partnering with the Iraqi people to build a decent consensual government is not crazy - it's really difficult, but not crazy.

But wait - not everyone is wearing a smiley face after the Iraqi elections, and that is good, considering who is unhappy. Let's start with the mullahs in Iran. Those who think that a Shiite-led government in Iraq is going to be the puppet of Iran's Shiite ayatollahs are so wrong. It is the ayatollahs in Iran who are terrified today. You see, the Iranian mullahs and their diplomats like to peddle the notion that they have their own form of democracy: "Islamic democracy." But this is a fraud, and the people who know best that it's a fraud are the ayatollahs and the Iranian people.

When any Iranian reform candidate who wants to run can be vetoed by unelected ayatollahs, and any Iranian newspaper can be shut by the same theocrats, that is not democracy. You can call that whatever you want, but not democracy. They don't allow bikinis at nudist colonies and they don't serve steak at vegetarian restaurants, and theocrats don't veto candidates in real democracies. The Iraqi Shiites just gave every Iranian Shiite next door a demonstration of what real "Islamic" democracy is: it's when Muslims vote for anyone they want. I just want to be around for Iran's next election, when the ayatollahs try to veto reform candidates and Iranian Shiites ask, Why can't we vote for anyone, like Iraqi Shiites did? Oh, boy, that's going to be pay-per-view.

Then there is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This Charles-Manson-with-a-turban who heads the insurgency in Iraq had a bad hair day on Sunday. I wonder whether anyone told him about the suicide bomber who managed to blow up only himself outside a Baghdad polling station and how Iraqi voters walked around his body, spitting on it as they went by. Zarqawi claims to be the leader of the Iraqi Vietcong - the authentic carrier of Iraqis' national aspirations and desire to liberate their country from "U.S. occupation." In truth, he is the leader of the Iraqi Khmer Rouge - a murderous death cult.

The election has exposed this. Because the Iraqi people have now made it clear that they are the authentic carriers of their national aspirations, and while, yes, they want an end to the U.S. presence, they want that end to happen in an orderly manner and in tandem with an Iraqi constitutional process.

In other words, this election has made it crystal clear that the Iraq war is not between fascist insurgents and America, but between the fascist insurgents and the Iraqi people. One hopes the French and Germans, whose newspapers often sound more like Al Jazeera than Al Jazeera, will wake up to this fact and throw their weight onto the right side of history.

It's about time, because whatever you thought about this war, it's not about Mr. Bush any more. It's about the aspirations of the Iraqi majority to build an alternative to Saddamism. By voting the way they did, in the face of real danger, Iraqis have earned the right to ask everyone now to put aside their squabbles and focus on what is no longer just a pipe dream but a real opportunity to implant decent, consensual government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world.

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Robert Scheer:
Law of Unintended Consequences
Careful what you wish for in Iraq.

In a heightened display of saber rattling, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have been saying nasty things about Iran's "unelected mullahs."

This is the only positive statement in the whole article, but what I would expect from a LA Times Op-Ed.

Originally Posted by achilleus

This is apparently so we'll be able to tell the difference between the theocracy in place in Tehran and the one coalescing in Baghdad. Although things are looking slightly brighter for Iraq after its debut election, it is still not clear why the United States has spent incalculable fortunes in human life, taxpayer money and international goodwill to break Iraq and then remake it in the image of our avowed "axis of evil" enemy next door.
[/font]

Break Iraq? Remake it in the image of the enemy? It is clear that Robert views the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the free elections in Iraq through a different filter.

Originally Posted by achilleus

In his State of the Union address, Bush denounced Iran as "the world's primary state sponsor of terrorism." At the same time, he celebrated an Iraqi election that handed power to Shiite ayatollahs who were sponsored for decades by their co-religionists in Iran and who share much of Tehran's vision of religion and politics. Does this make sense to anybody outside of the White House?

President Bush celebrates free elections. What would be the alternative?

Originally Posted by achilleus

And if what the mullahs have wrought in Basra and other parts of Iraq is any indication, the cause of human rights is in deep trouble — particularly for women, who enjoyed freedoms in the secular world of Saddam Hussein that are denied under fundamentalist Islamic law. Those photos of Iraqi women dressed in identical shrouds lined up to vote for candidates handpicked by the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani were, to say the least, an ambiguous advertisement for democracy.

Again with the pro-Saddam arguments. I do not know the direction Iraq will go as a result of their elections, but its their choice. Hopefully they will choose wisely and promote a system of fairness to all. Judging by the courage it took for them to show up to vote, and the joy they expressed after, I am very hopefull.

Originally Posted by achilleus

Washington has crashed against the limits of foreign military power as an instrument for crafting a culture of freedom for another people. It does not help that our motives are corrupted by a rapacious thirst for petroleum, our vision blurred by an insufferable ignorance of the complexity of local cultures and our presumption exaggerated by the effrontery of our own leader's claims to the wisdom of God.

Robert, Robert, Robert. Go suck on a sugar cube.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

This is the only positive statement in the whole article, but what I would expect from a LA Times Op-Ed.

Nice to see you're going into this with an unbiased mind...

Break Iraq? Remake it in the image of the enemy? It is clear that Robert views the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the free elections in Iraq through a different filter.

It is clear that his opinions on what is actually going on differ from yours.

President Bush celebrates free elections. What would be the alternative?

Should read "President Bush celebrates free elections as long as those who win are those he wants in power". An old Tom Lehrer line pops into mind, "They've got to be protected/until somebody we like can be elected!"

Again with the pro-Saddam arguments. I do not know the direction Iraq will go as a result of their elections, but its their choice. Hopefully they will choose wisely and promote a system of fairness to all. Judging by the courage it took for them to show up to vote, and the joy they expressed after, I am very hopefull.

*sigh* Ok, just because a man is an evil bag of scum dosn't mean he can do anything right. Hitler got the ball rolling on the Volkswagon, ok. Or are equal rights regardless of gender one of those things that you would define as Saddam's 'bad side'?

Robert, Robert, Robert. Go suck on a sugar cube.

Nice to see you're trying to keep this discussion at an academic and uninsulting level of discourse.

[darius]

In these times of uncertainty, I look to leaders of the past for wisdom.

"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?"

- Dick Cheney, 1991.

[jBirch]

I always wonder why the only reason people try to blow up buildings in the US is that they aren't "free".

[scrapinpeg]

Huh? People try to blow up buildings here? I haven't heard of anyone trying that in a long time.

And huh? You have better reasons?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

Huh? People try to blow up buildings here? I haven't heard of anyone trying that in a long time.

And huh? You have better reasons?

I was referring to terrorism in general and the assertion that the root of it is the fact that the populace isn't democratically free.

IMHO, poverty, education, philosophy, access to terrorist organisations and perceived injustice are bigger factors then the governmental system. Don't you think that if the people of Iraq were embracing terrorism because of their government, that they would be a threat to the Iraqi government and not the US?

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Nice to see you're going into this with an unbiased mind...

Never claimed to be otherwise. For those who couldn't tell, I just wanted to point out that Robert Scheer is a very biased op-ed writer. His article should be taken as such, not as the gospel truth from someone who actually has credentials to analyze and opine on the mideast situation.

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Should read "President Bush celebrates free elections as long as those who win are those he wants in power". An old Tom Lehrer line pops into mind, "They've got to be protected/until somebody we like can be elected!"

Do you actually believe this, especially given that the elections were held to choose seats in Iraq's new 275-member transitional assembly, 18 provincial councils and a regional parliament for the self-governing Kurdish area in the far north of the country?

Originally Posted by telkanuru

*sigh* Ok, just because a man is an evil bag of scum dosn't mean he can do anything right. Hitler got the ball rolling on the Volkswagon, ok. Or are equal rights regardless of gender one of those things that you would define as Saddam's 'bad side'?

Volkswagen versus the holocaust. Equal rights for women versus rape rooms. I think one would have to be morally confused to even attempt to make an argument by pointing out the virtues of Hitler or Saddam. To me, the fact that Saddam played nicely with his friends as a child (before he grew up and killed them) is irrelevant because of all the evil he has done. Hilter liked little puppies? How cute.

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Nice to see you're trying to keep this discussion at an academic and uninsulting level of discourse.

I really wasn't shooting for any particular level of discourse. Again, this is an Op-ed piece, not a scholarly position paper. Just trying to point that out.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

Never claimed to be otherwise. For those who couldn't tell, I just wanted to point out that Robert Scheer is a very biased op-ed writer. His article should be taken as such, not as the gospel truth from someone who actually has credentials to analyze and opine on the mideast situation.

It's an op-ed piece, not CIA intelligence. It's supposed to be an opinion, not fact. Meant to be discussed, not taken as Gospel Truth. Which means that's it's going to be biased.

The Friedman piece was interesting. Especially as to why Iran would be unhappy if the Shiites are elected in Iraq.

Of course, regardless of what Iran thinks, for the US to consider Iraq a success, a government would have to be installed that would be friendly towards us. The Shiites, on the whole, aren't.

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

I really wasn't shooting for any particular level of discourse. Again, this is an Op-ed piece, not a scholarly position paper. Just trying to point that out.

Huh. I thought I pointed that out in the title of the thread. Sorry if it confused you.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Of course, regardless of what Iran thinks, for the US to consider Iraq a success, a government would have to be installed that would be friendly towards us.

...why?

(Plus a few)