Theocracy in Iraq?

Remove all ads!

http://antiwar.com/cole/index.php?articleid=1701

"The Baghdad/London daily az-Zaman reports that there were widespread demonstrations on Tuesday by women against the order decreeing abolition of Iraq's uniform civil codes in favor of religious law, which they say "repeals women's rights" in Iraq. This story appears to have been completely missed so far by the Western news media, which is a great shame."

"US observers, including US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, have continually worried in public about Iraq becoming a theocracy, and have rejected that option. But the American-appointed Interim Governing Council has suddenly taken Iraq in a theocratic direction that has important implications for women's rights."

"Since the Interim Governing Council was appointed directly by the United States, it is in effect an organ of the Occupation Authority. As such, it is a contravention of the 1907 Hague Regulations for it to change civil law in an occupied territory. The US appointed a number of clerics and leaders of religious parties to the IGC, almost ensuring that this sort of thing would happen.

The US is now in the position of imposing on the Iraqi public, including the 50% who are women, a theocratic code of personal status. The question is whether this step is just the first in the road to an Iraqi theocracy."

I never did agree with a forced regime change in Iraq to begin with... but I thought at least it was supposed to be some sort of democracy...

Although, I must say this kind of thing doesn´t really surprise me. I mean, the majority of Iraqi people apparently WANT a theocratic government...

 

See it that way: Their country, their choice .. theoretically.

Practically, I doubt it, unless things look really really bad for the whitehouse so that they *need* to withdraw for political survival. A shiite uprising, added to the trouble tzey have with the Sunnis, is the very thing that is probably scaring sh*tless brits and US alike, could be such an event. And that is the card the Shiites play: Either you give in to our demands or, if we see you are not willing to compromise, well, what do we win by being nice and making no trouble?
The Shiite position is totally stringent, logical and legitimate, mind, it's their country. Plus, the US owe them one still, for leaving them alone to be butchered after encouraging them to rebell against Saddam in first place.

From a business point of view: The US haven't spent billions on Iraq only to lose control over the investment. That is, they will try, at all costs, to install a more or less obedient puppet-government, maybe under Mr. Chalabi, who they can bend to their will.
And the elections in Iraq will be in time to look good right before elections in the US. That or if they work is of secondary concern - if neccesary, you have 4 more years time to wipe up the mess. So it should be fair to say: The US elections are more important to deal with for Bush.

That's kinda ironic considering the promises made during the war: Leading Iraq to democracy. The choice made whenever a fundamentalist islamic party was likely to gain power was, and that is a constant line in US foreign policy, support for their opponents, mostly autocrats. Look at Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and others who very much enjoyed their US support when cracking down on islamists.

Of course, maybe iraqi people could later regret a religious regime, but in a time of unrest and instability it, and the sharia, offer law and order. They may regret later, as the people of Iran did. But Iran also shows that change is possible and emerging, without outside pressure, even though that takes too long for the hardliners.

IMO the core pheomenon behind the idea of regime change. Diplomacy takes to long, ultimatums are the way to go. Beware, fools at work!

 

I wouldn't care so much about it becoming a theocracy, as long as the theocracy didn't advocate a holy war against the United States and her allies.

I think there's plenty of room on this planet for everyone. Plus, if Dubya gets his way, we'll have a vacation spot soon enough - on Mars!!! Whoohoo!

 

Maybe, when people on the one side would stop being so terribly biased ... so I'll make a little look back in the history book:

First about the Shah himself. He was CIA/ MI6 installed after an the elected Iranian leader suggested something outrageous: The nationalisation of Iranian oil, taking it away from US and British control, worse, denying them the profits for their investments. During his reign the Shah committed plenty of serious human right abuses against his people. That resulted in growing unrest and dissatisfaction with his style of government that eventually led to the revolution in which the mullahs came to be the strongest faction.
After the revolution the Shah found refuge in the US. When Iran demanded extradiction to punish him for his crimes, the US refused. Then Iranian students, inspired by their religious leaders, seized the US embassy in retaliation.

In consequence Iranians held the US embassy staff hostage. That produced the pictures that aroused the US so much. Plus, it humiliated the US who were unable to change anything about it. Worse, their rescue operation Operation Eagle Claw failed, adding further humiliation. After that it only got worse.
And then, and that also didn't get lost on the Iranians, the US supported Iraq during the war, guarding non-iranian tankers from Iranian attack, inviting the neighbours to sell oil at dumping prices to strangle Irans economy, and looking away when Iraq attacked Iranian tankers ...

That is to underline that point that the US were seen as the big Satan by Teheran ... wasn't all because of the evil mullahs "irrational hatred". Before saying that, it is useful to examine the rational reasons they were given.
The US gave them plenty of reason to be hated: The US indeed wanted to finish them off, they actively worked on that - the Iranians very well knew who they were fighting, and why ... and what they had to expect when the US succeeded: Return of the Shah and the old game or: autocratic repression again ... that can enflame sentiments.

IMO a conciliant rhetoric would help a lot, on both sides (and recently the tough talk came all from one direction), but that is impossible with people who have their list of countries to finish off, crying for war.
So, whenever Powell achieves some minor success there always is a little jack in the box, be it Cheney himself or Bolton, who pops up to spit some venom to Teheran or whoever Powell was negotiating with.
This is just some background ... and