Rumfeld's Rejection Of Islamic State Angers Shias

Independent (UK) ^ | 4-26-2003 | Phil Reeves

[blam]

Rumsfeld's rejection of Islamic state angers Shias

By Phil Reeves in Baghdad
26 April 2003

Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of State, will have won plaudits from his zealous friends by declaring that an "Iranian-style" Islamic government "is not going to happen" in Iraq. But his words fell on stony ground outside the al-Muhsen mosque in Baghdad yesterday.

Members of the huge Shia crowd gathered for Friday prayers were quick to spot the contradiction in his position.

"I thought the Americans said they wanted a democracy in Iraq," said Kassem al-Sa'adi, a 41-year-old merchant. "If it is a democracy, why are they allowed to make the rules?"

About 13,000 people gathered outside the mosque where the imam, Jabal al-Khafji called for an Islamic state in Iraq. The cleric's view is widely shared by Iraq's Shia majority which is clamouring for the occupying forces to be removed.

Dr al-Khafji said that no political alliances should be formed by Shia groups unless it was with Islamic groups. Islam must dictate all policy-making, he added.

Any move to an Iranian-style Shia Islamic state would also be opposed by the Kurds, the Iraqi secular intelligentsia and the Sunni minority. Yet pressure is building. Iran is quietly at work in Iraq's Shia community, with intelligence agents reportedly active in the south. The Iranian-backed Badr militia has been asserting itself in border towns.

The millions of Shias who gathered this week in the holy city of Karbala served as a warning to the US that it must find some way of accommodating the clerics. A move in that direction was evident yesterday on the streets.

Patrolling the worshippers was a band of Iraqi policemen wearing freshly pressed uniforms, moustaches and nervous frowns. They are members of the old civil police force. They played a mundane walk-on part in the regime's apparatus but their appearance was enough to set off alarm bells.

These men had been re-packaged in an effort to ease their passage into one of the most sensitive parts of the new Iraq. It was also a tentative attempt to bring the Shias under the larger umbrella of the still-unformed government and its law enforcement agencies. Only a few carried pistols, and these were hidden.

All wore labels stating their rank and – in an effort to establish their legitimacy before the locals – a logo showing Mohammed Bakr al-Sadr, the Shia cleric whose murder by Saddam has made him a martyr. His stature is such that Saddam City – the Shia quarter of Baghdad – has been renamed after him.

While the crowd listened to the imam's address, police formed a line separating the media from the mullahs and their followers. But their authority was nothing compared to the other force supervising the occasion – young men with ammunition belts and Kalashnikovs, charged by their religious leaders with maintaining order. They directed the traffic and the crowds, and stood on the rooftops, guarding against attack. These are part of the Shia apparatus which currently runs the show in this part of the capital, just as they do in the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala and some of the border towns.

[blam]

"If it is a democracy, why are they allowed to make the rules?"

Shias or not, dummies, you lost the war!!

[jimkress]

As Powell or Rumsfield put it, "we are not going to work with the Iraqi people to put into place a government which offers thr people: one person, one vote, one time. It will be a representative state in which there are regular transfers of power from one group to another via the ballot box."

[TheConservator]

Dr al-Khafji said that no political alliances should be formed by Shia groups unless it was with Islamic groups. Islam must dictate all policy-making, he added.

That ain't democracy, idiot.

[Mister Magoo]

Unfortunately, we didn't advertise ourselves as conquerors, which makes the job more delicate. After WWII, there was no question that we were occupying Germany as a victorious power. With Iraq, we are coming as a "liberator." Consequently, we cannot immediately and swiftly supress rebellion and dissent. Ironically, the very group we need to run the regime, the educated Sunni elite, was co-opted by Saddam and his thugs.

[RightWhale]

why are they allowed to make the rules?

Bwahahahaha

And: an angry Muslimist? Imagine that.

[GirlShortstop]

Bwahahahaha
And: an angry Muslimist? Imagine that.

LMAO!  A seething muhammaden, can you imagine it?!?

[MEG33]

Next thing you know they'll call us the Great Satan and declare jihad.

[beckett]

Did The Independent really call Rumsfeld the "Secretary of State?"

Bozos

[MEG33]

I clicked on the site and yes, they did.

[easonc52]

Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of State

Hard to imagine how anyone can make supposedly credible statements about an individual they don't even know what position they hold.

Last I looked, Rummy has to do with the defense department. :)

[Arpege92]

You would think that everything this country has been put through with one dictator making all of the rules all of the time, that this kind of power should not be held to one person. Let all of the people vote in an Iraqi who will work for them and not them working for him.

[kittymyrib]

Again, the peace-loving Islamists prove that they have s*** for brains. You would think after they had their ears cut off by Saddam for 24 years (story on CNN this evening said the DOCTORS in their hospitals did this little service for Saddam), they would be a little grateful to us for overthrowing him. But no-o-o-o-o....they want to inflict their own god-awful lifestyle on other Iraqis now. It makes one think we wasted an awful lot of tax dollars and over 100 very precious American lives for this pathetically clueless bunch of loudmouths. We owe them NOTHING more!!!

[TalBlack]

These people aren't even ashamed that THEY didn't have the manhood to fight for their own freedom. They step right up like the ingrates they are and DEMAND things from their liberators! Of course we won't slap them down, we're too sensitive for that sort of hairy-chested behavior. Whatever...

[SuziQ]

"I thought the Americans said they wanted a democracy in Iraq," said Kassem al-Sa'adi, a 41-year-old merchant. "If it is a democracy, why are they allowed to make the rules?"

Someone needs to splain exactly what 'democracy' means. It doesn't just mean "one man, one vote, one time" as Newt Gingrich put it so succintly at the AEI panel discussion earlier this week. It means a Constitution that allows freedom of worship (missing in every Islamic run govt. on the planet!)regular unimpeded elections, and freedom to criticize the govt. without fear of threats or physical harm to yourself or your family. It does not mean trading a secular dictatorship for a sectarian one, a la Iran!

[RLK]

In a land full of nuts, one brand of nut will want to run the country. Democracy will allow them to do it through the vote.

[American Soldier]

Most of the people are used to the idea that one tribe is always and top and everybody else has to be that tribe's bitch. As soon as we make it clear there will be no Sunni or Shia dominated Iraq, I think a lot of folks on both sides will be willing to forget about the power games and just get on with their lives.

As it stands, I'd wager that a great number (if not most) of the Shias see this as their golden opportunity to nail the Sunnis. I don't think they care whether their government is "Iranian-style" or anything else -- this is payback.

Also, besides the exiles, most of them really have no clue what democracy means or why its beneficial. Even the dumbest East Asians I know can look at Japan or Taiwan and kind of "get it." But there is absolutely no example for the Arabs. It is not at all irrational for them to suppose that a theocracy might improve their lot. It's ignorant yes, but not irrational.

[easonc52]

Until verified otherwise, I choose to agree with Rumsfield and others, that these are minority groups (maybe even funded etc. by outside parties).

As all of us know, anti-war groups in the U.S. are sometimes funded and pushed by anti-Bush, and anti-U.S.A. groups.

[ricpic]

"Next thing you know they'll call us the Great Satan and declare jihad."

And if 51% of them agree with that position, isn't that democracy? And what then?

Our continual pumping of the notion that democracy is the highest value, is coming back to bite us on the butt.

[Nick Danger]

I don't believe this reporter is being straight with people. He's just trying to cause trouble.

The cleric's view is widely shared by Iraq's Shia majority which is clamouring for the occupying forces to be removed.

How does he know what "Iraq's Shia majority" thinks? He's been to one frigging mosque, and heard the only guy with a pulpit call for this. Last week, a million Shia pilgrims showed up in Karbala, and the Mullahs tried the same thing there. 3,000 people shouted what the Mullahs wanted shouted. The other 997,000 shined them on.

The millions of Shias who gathered this week in the holy city of Karbala served as a warning to the US that it must find some way of accommodating the clerics.

The Hell it did. The Shias didn't just "gather," and the Mullahs had nothing to do with why they were there. It's a traditional pilgrimage that occurs on that day, and this is the first year since Saddam took over they've been allowed to do it. So a million showed up. But it had nothing to do with Mullahs, and it had nothing to do with wanting an Islamic state. To suggest that this is some "warning to the US" is more wishful thinking from the Quagmire Salesmen in the press.

[jerrymdss]

Its not about democracy, its is about a democratic secular government -- you know, seperation of church and state? A decocratic government will promote democracy, but certainly a bunch of Islamists complaining about democracy will not. Lets move on, not much to see here.