Replies

Some in the west call for moderate Muslims. Some say the problem is literalist fanaticism. Some say they need a hierarchy or authority to adapt their doctrines to the modern world. Some call for people who are actually learned instead of merely rote memorizers. This guy fits every particular. He is not a literalist but believes in interpretation. He recognizes the need for interpreting authorities, rather than rule by dead letter. He has willingly supported democracy and avoided conflict with us.

The only thing anybody might refuse to accept about him is that he is a religious Muslim. If that is the problem, if that is unacceptable, then we are in the wrong business. If that is unacceptable then we are committed to destroying the Islamic faith by force, root and branch. If we are supposedly so committed, we should forget the idea of democracy and go straight to installing our own preferred tyrant in Baghdad, and turn the shredders back on. Because nothing else is going to do it.

If, instead, we mean the stuff we've been saying, then the people of Iraq are free to choose their own political future. And if they freely choose an Islamic Republic, with Islam in the constitution and judicial review by traditional qadis, then that is their business. If they later act in ways hostile to our interests, as they will be free to do, then we will deal with them again. I don't think they will, at any rate not immediately. Freedom is quite a precious thing, and people with a taste of it will tend to want to keep it.

Sometimes the only way to make a man trustworthy is to trust him.