MyDD :: Demonization of the Shi'a government

Demonization of the Shi'a government

by azizhp, Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:34:27 PM EST

I freely confess to my bias - I am an American muslim, a Shi'a, highly orthodox, and even slightly socially conservative on the issues. I still identify as a liberal because I do not see social consevatism and political progressivism as neccessarily at odds.

That said, here's my beef, below the fold.

I have noticed a disturbing tendency at both kos and mydd to accuse the Shia government in Iraq of being an "Iranian ally". This is presumably a talking point against Bush's foreign policy. Unfortunately it demonizes both Iran and Iraq unfairly and obscures the legitimate security concerns related to both countries. Plus it also subtly damages the image of Islam itself - because the implication is that voting for muslim values is a fundamentalist rather than a socially conservative act.

If Democrats can't make a principled case against Bush on foreign policy grounds, rather than partisan polemical cases, then they will continue to lose elections.

I realize that kos and myDD are designed to be partisan. But can't partisanship be principled, rather than knee-jerk?

More on this topic soon at Dean Nation.

Tags: (all tags)

Permalink :: 17 Comments :: Post a Comment

I don't know how linked they are to Iran (none / 0)

I suspect this is an attempt to blame the Iranians if and when it turns out the new government is fundamentalists. But it does look the new government will be Shia fundamentalist. Many have stated that they will impose Sharia, that women will be worth half of what a man is, in court and in terms of inheritance law, and that adulteresses will be stoned.

by noalternative on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:06:49 PM EST

Re: I don't know how linked they are to Iran (none / 0)

can you provide specific examples rather than asserting "many" ?

by azizhp on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:10:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See Juan Cole (none / 0)

Although he also says he is for women's rights and the right of a woman to be a professional and to hold high political office, many in his party want women's testimony to be worth half that of a man's and want girls to inherit half what their brothers do. Islamic law is a dynamic tradition and Jaafari is perfectly entitled to have his own, modernized, version of it. But it is not clear that he can carry his party along with him in this regard. In Iran after the 1979 revolution, Mehdi Bazargan was something of an Islamic modernist, but Khomeini and his hardliners quickly outmaneuvered him. Jaafari isn't even the leader of the entire Dawa Party, which is divided into factions. Abdul Karim al-Unzi, who is a somewhat shadowy figure, leads the Islamic Dawa Party, which was reputed to have as many seats in the UIA as Jaafari's branch.

Jaafari is on record opposing the establishment of a specifid timetable for a US military withdrawal from Iraq..............

http://www.juancole.com/

There is are other articles there too.

by noalternative on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:17:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BTW, that maybe just be par for the course (none / 0)

in Islamic countries. Iran is more democratic today than under the shah and Iranian women lost out for it. I think the point people are trying to make, is that this result wasn't worth a war.

by noalternative on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:19:40 PM EST

partisanship is knee-jerk (none / 0)

You need a message, and I think the "Iranian ally" argument is the most persuasive one.

Is it true?

I think it may not be true today, but they are natural allies. It's like Europe and the U.S. The realism of geopolitics will trump any subtle differences between Iraqi Shias and Iranian Shias.

Did a hard-line policy toward Hussien, starting with Bush I after Kuwait accomplish anything meaningful? I don't think so. Has our military first strategy in the Middle East accomplished anything? We have Osama Bin Laden now and an aggressively anti-US government in Iran.

The legitimate security concern for Iran is the United States. Iraq knows this, and Iran will not threaten Iraq, lest the United States have a reason to build up tensions.

I agree with you that demonizes Iran and Iraq does nothing good for the country. However, we are caught in a bind. If we publicly take a soft-line to Iran then we will lose every election for being weak.

by srolle on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:56:45 PM EST

Re: partisanship is knee-jerk (none / 0)

absolutely un true. Just because both are Shi'a, does not mean an alliance is natural. In fact, the stigma of Iranian support is political suicide in Iraqi politics.

by azizhp on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:13:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who's being "knee-jerk" (none / 0)

Absolutely untrue? Are you sure there is no truth to it at all? If the stigma of Iranian support is suicide, why is Sistani (an Iranian) calling the shots? Iraq used to be part of Iran and vice versa. Religious ties are incredibly strong in Iraq. I noticed that in the first couple of days there. Give the Kurds their own land and the shiite dominance will exceed the vaunted 2/3rds in the remainder of Iraq.

Consider this parallel claim: "the stigma of French support is suicide in American politics"

It is true, yet we are allies with the French and will continue to be for the indefinite future.

by Paul Goodman on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:33:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sistani (none / 0)

Sistani is definitely not calling the shots because he's of Iranian descent. Unlike a lot of people in Iraq, Sistani has never been an Iranian client. Others in the UIA have been (i.e. Hakim of SCIRI).

I do think that Sistani's unfairly demonized among the left in general. He is an Islamist, does believe in sharia as personal status law, etc. but he's certainly not Khomenei version 2.

by Ramo on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:16:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

2 Points (none / 0)

I think you're conflating the concept of Iraq as an Iranian ally, with Iraq as an Iranian satellite. The first possibility seems to me quite likely and relatively benign, while the second unlikely (barring a civil war, etc.) and far more objectionable. Remember that the leaderships of both SCIRI and Da'wa, as well as the PUK (which seems to me a not improbable ally with the UIA coaltion) have been close to Tehran in the past.

I think there's a tendency in the US to confuse the relative moderation of Khamenei with the extremism of Khomenei, and to ignore the reformist elements in Iranian society (politically marginalized, but not dead - hopefully radicalized). An Iranian alliance doesn't seem to me as that disastrous.

by Ramo on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:11:18 PM EST

this quote (none / 0)

I have noticed a disturbing tendency at both kos and mydd to accuse the Shia government in Iraq of being an "Iranian ally"

I've actually not said that, at least that I remember. Though I've seen it said in places, it's not something that I think is solid. What I've written about is that Sistani is going to sway the now majority Iraq Gov't, and he's a member of the long-oppressed minority, and is a member of a fundamentalist belief that is anti-secular, and therefore, anti-democratic and against the beliefs of this nation.

But nevertheless, the Republican hawks, desperate to salvage something good coming out of this fiasco of invading Iraq and wasting $300 Billion and 1500 of our soldiers, have siezed onto creating this election as their salvation.

All I'm trying to point out, is how fucking dumb this Bush-led idealism is in realization.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:14:07 PM EST

Re: this quote (none / 0)

To be clear, I wasnt talking about a specific post,but more of a general attitude that I see developing. However, when you wrote:

"What I've written about is that Sistani is going to sway the now majority Iraq Gov't, and he's a member of the long-oppressed minority, and is a member of a fundamentalist belief that is anti-secular, and therefore, anti-democratic and against the beliefs of this nation."

I think that you have made some leaps there which are rather unfair, and that really do exemplify the mindset I am concerned about. Namely, that the belief that one cant have their politics informed by their religion, or that being anti-secular is anti-democratic. Being secular is perfectly copmpatible with democracy - especially in Islam.

Im not out to write a polemic here, Im trying to point out just what the implications of that bolded statement above are.

Agree that Bush is a bonehad but that is tangential to the issue of whether sistani is a force against democracy. Ultimately I believe that a functioning Iraqi, Shi'a dominated but constitutionally liberal state (not neccessarily a democracy, mind you, but read Fareed Zakaria's new book ...) will be the one piece of good to come out of an otherwise boneheaded legacy of the present administration. But the issue of iraqi domestic politics is exactly what i am trying to separate from the issue of US domestic politics.

by azizhp on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:55:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this quote (none / 0)

I understand where you are coming from.

I should have explained where I was leaping. Secular in the sense of a separation between Church and State. Nowadays, conservatives equate secular with athiest or anti-spiritual. What I mean by Secular, and this seems in line with the normal definition of the word in a political sense, is a government not bound by religious restrictions. ie, a government that doesn't try and meld together chuch and state, rather than keep them separate-- at this point is where the absolutists get confused with only their either-or mentality.

Also yes, that sort of non-secular government is very anti-democratic, as anytime a government has a religious doctrine infusing its governing, it means that anyone of a different religious doctrine is excluded.

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:57:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this quote (none / 0)

Historical examples abound, Jerome, which contradict the general assertion that lack of separation of church/state automatically equals exclusion of some groups. For example, many (though emphatically not all!!) of past Islamic dynasties, notably the Fatimids in Egypt, were unabashedly a Shi'a regime, however had Christians and Jews serving at highest levels of government, including Wazir (pretty much second in command after the benevolent monarch). Also, given the backstory behind why the Prince of Wales also holds the title of Defender of the Faith (an interesting read, check it out via google), you have to admit that England still manages to get along pretty well with its non-Anglican minorities.

My point is that religion is not a litmust test for who can be in a government. It is often instead a guiding set of principles for the internal structure of that government. No one need be excluded and history proves the point.

Separation of chrch and state can be abused. I am not suggesting otherwise. But neither am I going to accept that lack of separation is automatically abuse.

And "democratic" ness is simply whether citizens can particip[ate in government. But democracy is just one mechanism at work within a nation - in fact, the US itself is only partially democratic, by design. There are grossly undemocratic institutions as well - ignore the elctoral college, just look at the Legislative branch. And teh Senate used to be also before the 17th amendment.

The real goal is not democracy for democracys sake, but constitutional liberalism. Theres a huge distinction. The latter is a means of ensuring that individual freedoms are preserved. The former is just a means of doing so, to some degree.

by azizhp on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 12:45:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this quote (none / 0)

Aziz, are you trying to tell me that any of those Islamic dynasties are anywhere close to "democratic" in the sense of inclusion and individual rights among everyone that the United States is now at? Really?

There were no discriminated groups of people in those times and places? I'm sure there were, and odds are, the basis of their rationale for such, was the religious doctrine they adhered too.

The goal? I think one could argue that the goal is democracy as an end, and I think the obvious "undemocratic institutions" are there for the changing, and that "constitutional liberalism" is an ideological byproduct of ultimate democracy.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 01:29:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: this quote (none / 0)

its probably nlot fair to evaluate a 7th century society according to 21st century rules - espcially since the equality we enjoy in the US has only existed (arguably) since the 1960s. And is under perpetual attack. I guess I prefer not to follow that discussion tangent at this time, though I will address it later in a blog post, and if you are still interested, will drop you a line.

But as to the chicken and egg qiuestion of democracy vs constitutional liberalism, I think that again you have to look at historical evidence. Democracy is o guarantee of freedom. In fact, there are many illiberal democracies, and many liberal non-democracies. I freely confess to having been enormously influenced by Fareed Zakaria's recent book which I do believe is essential reading if we are to discuss and informedly critique the Bush Administration's rhetoric of freedom on the march. I will try to review the book, and focus heavilyt on the issue of democracy vs liberty (and how these concepts are not synonymous) as Zakaria presented it. If you are still running the book club thing here at mydd, do think about adding that one to the rotation. Even if you fervently disagree with everything that is said, it will still be hugely useful. Its opened up entire realms of criticism of the Bush Administration for me!

ps jerome, its a pleasure to chat with you again. Its been far too long. Your daughter's loveliness matches her name's. get some sleep!!!!

by azizhp on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 01:06:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think that a government should (none / 0)

be controlled by any one religion...

Most Americans don't either.. as far as I can tell..

Theocracies are known, throughout history, for their inhumanity and barbarity...

Thats one of the reasons the US was founded originally.. to get away from all that...

Something we forget when the right is trying to shove their dreams of a return to a patriarchal past down our throats is that many Americans who describe themselves as 'religious' don't go to church...

Perhaps because they see many churches as not representing real spirituality..

Instead, they seem to increasingly be divided and often, the leaders view 'their' flock as just another commodity to be bought and sold, lock stock and barrel..

by ultraworld on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 06:25:36 PM EST

We can't afford to *subsidize* Iraq.. (none / 0)

Getting rid of Saddam is one thing..

We've done that..

Now, instead of subsidizing Halliburton and Bechtel (the real goal of Bush's policies?) we need to start subsidizing a return to prosperity for Americans

It is our tax money.. as taxpayers..to spend as we want..

I think that with all that oil, Iraq should be able to make it on their own.. don't you?

We are hurting over here....

by ultraworld on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 06:29:54 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.