Islamic Fundamentalism and us-no easy moves
I read earlier this week that a rambling bulletin from Moussawi in Iraq revealed him to be more a fanatic Sunni tribalist ranting against Shia domination in Iraq than a calculating Al Quaida Pan-Islamicist. I read also that warring factions again are shredding the fragile quiet in Mogadishu and that the factions include Islamic fundamentalists of the Shiite Courts on one side opposed by tribal warlords on the other side. I had read an article a few weeks ago about a "trial" in the part of Mogadishu controlled by the Shiite Courts group. A young boy had the opportunity to kill his father's killer in a public execution- a standard under Sharia law. We read in other stories about young women condemned to death for the sin of being a rape victim in traditional areas. In Mogadishu, apparently, people on the street believe that the US is backing the
warlords. In Iraq by contrast we are working to support a Shia-led government in which there are powerful forces urging a move toward Sharia despite our efforts to insure the trappings of democracy. Reports from parts of Iraq chronicle the burning and destruction of businesses such as record stores which violate the fundamentalist sensibility. Then, of course, there's our relationship with the regime labelled as the "biggest supporter of terrorism" in Tehran, also a traditionalist country. We are inconsistent with our own stated goals of 'spreading democracy' if we foster fundamentalist governments whose values are incompatible with pluralism and tolerance. We are inconsistent with our own stated goals if we support warlords and disorder. Where in the middle of this tangle is a model and a policy that is consistent with what we believe? Is it Afghanistan? Karzai is a leader more truly consistent with what we want to achieve; however, despite our years in Afghanistan Karzai would not survive without our presence. We have not built the strong independent constituency to carry forward our values. At the end of the day I read all this as an American and struggle to think what the answer might be. I think, hearkening back to my Poly Sci days that being clear about what our real goals are and applying our will as a nation consistently, with constant honest communication to the American public about what we are doing and why might be the best strategy. I don't think our process at the moment comes even close.
davidrites
warlords. In Iraq by contrast we are working to support a Shia-led government in which there are powerful forces urging a move toward Sharia despite our efforts to insure the trappings of democracy. Reports from parts of Iraq chronicle the burning and destruction of businesses such as record stores which violate the fundamentalist sensibility. Then, of course, there's our relationship with the regime labelled as the "biggest supporter of terrorism" in Tehran, also a traditionalist country. We are inconsistent with our own stated goals of 'spreading democracy' if we foster fundamentalist governments whose values are incompatible with pluralism and tolerance. We are inconsistent with our own stated goals if we support warlords and disorder. Where in the middle of this tangle is a model and a policy that is consistent with what we believe? Is it Afghanistan? Karzai is a leader more truly consistent with what we want to achieve; however, despite our years in Afghanistan Karzai would not survive without our presence. We have not built the strong independent constituency to carry forward our values. At the end of the day I read all this as an American and struggle to think what the answer might be. I think, hearkening back to my Poly Sci days that being clear about what our real goals are and applying our will as a nation consistently, with constant honest communication to the American public about what we are doing and why might be the best strategy. I don't think our process at the moment comes even close.
davidrites
Comments