Posted on 12/07/2005 7:34:15 PM PST by tgslTakoma
PRESIDENT BUSH'S war critics have made a remarkable discovery - some people in Iraq want us to leave! "The people of Fallujah love Cindy Sheehan," Farouk Abd-Muhammed, a Sunni candidate for National Assembly, told The Washington Post in a front-page story fetchingly titled, "U.S. Debate on Pullout Resonates As Troops Engage Sunnis in Talks."
After describing how Abd-Muhammed had "watch[ed] recent television reports with his family showing Americans waving banners that read 'Stop the war in Iraq,' " The Post quoted him again: "I salute the American people because we know after watching them on satellite that they are ready to leave."
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., was right in the thick of things, too, condemning the presumed "scandal" of our military paying for newspaper stories.
"The Pentagon's devious scheme to place favorable propaganda in Iraqi newspapers speaks volumes about the president's credibility gap," the senator declared. "If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn't have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people."
Let's get a few things straight. The Sunni are unhappy we are in Iraq.
The Shi'ites, a 60 percent majority, are generally glad we came. The Kurds, a persecuted minority in the north, think we're the greatest people on earth.
Why is this so?
Maybe it's time for a little historical background. The Muslim world is divided into two main sects, the Sunni and the Shi'ites. The Sunni are a kind of aristocracy, claiming to be the original followers of the prophet. The Shi'ites are centered in Iran and Iraq. The division goes back to the wars of succession after Mohammed's death in 632 A.D.
Under the banner of Islam, the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula quickly conquered most of the Middle East, from Granada to Kabul. In the process, they subjugated many people, forcing them to convert. All were now Muslims, yet the Sunni held themselves apart.
Those outside this Meccan old guard grouped around Ali ibn Abi Talib, a cousin of the prophet, who had married his daughter Fatima. A scholarly man, Ali abjured the wars of succession but was finally asked to become caliph in 656. Five years later he was assassinated, but his mantle fell to his son, Hussein.
In 681, Hussein and an entourage of 72 soldiers were intercepted by a Sunni army of 40,000 in southern Iraq. The Sunni demanded Hussein yield his claim to the caliphate. After deliberating eight days, Hussein rejected the offer and elected to do battle. He and his small band were slaughtered to the last man. The Shi'ia still celebrate this martyrdom in the "Ten Days of Muharram."
Today, the rivalry between Sunni and Shi'ia persists, with the Sunni a ruling caste and the Shi'ia an underdog splinter group.
Although a minority in Iraq, the Sunni have ruled since the days of the caliphate.
Saddam Hussein's Baathist party was a minority-within-a-minority, the entire clique coming from one small town, Tikrit. It was as if the Los Angeles Crips or the Chicago Mafia had seized control of America.
Inevitably, they ruled ruthlessly.
In invading Iraq, we have deposed the Sunni and are trying to give power to the Shi'ites. Naturally, the Sunni are unhappy. The real test is whether the Shi'ites will be mature enough to govern democratically or will degenerate into vengeance and repression.
When the radical young Shi'ite mullah Moqdata Al-Sadr assembled militias and started fighting both Americans and Sunni, we were in big trouble. But Al-Sadr has calmed down and agreed to join the political process.
The Baathist holdouts are a desperate and fanatical lot, ready to die before submitting to minority status. Worse, they are ready to kill any Sunni who show signs of compromise. It is an old story - extremists wiping out the middle so they can go toe-to-toe with the other extreme.
The communists were experts at this. The Viet Cong always made a point of assassinating South Vietnamese village officials.
"So aren't we just in another Vietnam?" you may argue. But there are differences. Vietnam was a peasant country that had been arbitrarily split in half. Although most South Vietnamese wanted peace, our only true supporters were the thin Westernized elite.
In Iraq, we are on the side of the majority.
In truth, the Sunnis are skilled and educated enough to hold their own in an elected government. The problem is the Baathist die-hards - plus al-Zawahri and his al-Qaida brigades - who are determined to rule through violence.
It will take patience to get through this. But the Dec. 15 election should be another step in the right direction.
William Tucker is an associate at the American Enterprise Institute. His column appears Tuesdays. Contact him at billtucker@nyc.rr.com. Send comments about this column to opedpage@gmail.com.
Good catch...
Cindy Sheehan, Cindy Murtha and Cindy Clark would make good IED detectors....
Great article bump!
Interesting article, good points argued.
Have you ever noticed that a lot of the anti-war crowd seems to have zero understanding of the Middle East, the geopolitical situations, the ethnic/tribal factions, etc.? They also seem to know zip about MidEast history, Islam, or Iraq. It's just, War is bad, Bush is bad, everything is AMerica's fault. Maybe it's just me, but I've noticed that.
As a lifelong Jersey resident, this article appearing in the Bergen Record has totally stuned my beeber.
Great article! I am SHOCKED, however, that it was in the Bergen Record, lol!
The poor beeber
Liberating Iraq PING
Tahnks for posting this most excellent article.
I'd be more likely to call them all by the name of Clark, as in wesley and ramsey. What traitors.
ping
I can't believe that tgsl didn't ping the DC Chapter. My beeber is stunned!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.