The Inevitable Conflict? Civil War in Reconstruction-era Iraq.
After another horrific day of sectarian violence in and around Baghdad (see Reprisal Killings Leave 87 Dead Throughout Baghdad and Scores of Bodies Found in Baghdad), one's thoughts cannot help but turn to the imminent possibility of Civil War in Reconstruction-era Iraq. Seeing as how I currently live thousands of miles from this developing issue (not to mention the fact that I've never even set foot in the Middle East), I am reduced to piecing together what semi-impartial information I can, setting it out on the table in front of me and pondering the scenario as a cold, sterile grouping of facts. I'll spare you my hopelessly shortsighted conclusions in favor of a few general remarks...
I find it infinitely depressing that the current tensions in Iraq aren't even remotely founded in the major issues of ideological conflict throughout the greater Islamic word. I'm referring to the crisis of identity that Islam is experiencing as it struggles to acclimate to pressures exerted by both cultural change over time and the encroaching modern world. At the risk of gross over-simplification, it is that age-old debate taken up by all established doctrines at one point or another: to follow the word, or spirit of its founders.
Sitting here at the computer, it is both horrible and fascinating to "watch this struggle from the sidelines," so to speak. One can't help but marvel at how essential burgeoning media forms are in Islam's current debate as they were in the age of Johann Guttenberg and the Protestant Reformation. As Middle Eastern media giant Al-Jazeera spins for both sides in an effort to play to the center, websites such as Islaam: Pure and Clear (be sure to poke around the "Monthly Focus" section), Annaqed ("The Critic") and Salafi Publications disseminate wildly disparate views on the past, present and future of Islam. A comparison between the hard-line, fundamentalist views of Shaikh Abu Usaamah Saleem's The Current State of the Muslim World and the liberal, bordering on reactionary, stance of Dr. Wafa Sultan in a recent Al-Jazeera TV debate says it all.
And yet the current violence is not a physical manifestation of this debate, so vital to the growth and continued relevance of Islam, but the product of deep-seated sectarian/denominational hatred (I would even argue that the term "ethnic hatred" could apply in most cases, as the lines between religion and cultural heritage are often so tenuous within Islamic cultures). Yes, Iraq is an "artificial state" drawn up (literally) in the aftermath of World War One, and its diverse makeup is, and will always be, a dominant factor in its success as a social and political entity. But is Civil War a foregone conclusion? History offers instances of both peaceful and violent resolutions of internal division within artificial (or expansionist) states. While the people of Poland and South Africa found common ground through largely non-violent means, considerably more blood was spilt as countries like the United Kingdom and Rwanda fought for their identities.
Can we draw lessons from such historical precedent? Certainly, both Poland and South Africa were ultimately able to find common ground against a shared entity from without (Communist Russia; the imperial remnants of Apartheid). It has recently been the feeling among many historians that an external threat is not only favorable to Nationalistic unity, but utterly essential (see Linda Colley's Britons: Forging the Nation, for one). With this in mind, perhaps the only thing now holding Iraq together is a shared hatred amongst both Sunni and Shiite of the American-led "occupation." Nonetheless, the idea of a democratic Iraq still gives me hope (God help me, I'm beginning to sound like Bush). Hope that the multi-ethnic, multi-denominational "Iraqi" hodgepodge will come to understand that a modern democracy, when run correctly, provides the fairest possible platform for such a multi-ethnic, multi-denominational body. Hope that from this common foundation, and within these established social and political structures, the Iraqi people can begin to "lawfully" distill the essence of Islam in the 21st century, and perhaps even lead their implacable Middle Eastern neighbors along the way.
I find it infinitely depressing that the current tensions in Iraq aren't even remotely founded in the major issues of ideological conflict throughout the greater Islamic word. I'm referring to the crisis of identity that Islam is experiencing as it struggles to acclimate to pressures exerted by both cultural change over time and the encroaching modern world. At the risk of gross over-simplification, it is that age-old debate taken up by all established doctrines at one point or another: to follow the word, or spirit of its founders.
Sitting here at the computer, it is both horrible and fascinating to "watch this struggle from the sidelines," so to speak. One can't help but marvel at how essential burgeoning media forms are in Islam's current debate as they were in the age of Johann Guttenberg and the Protestant Reformation. As Middle Eastern media giant Al-Jazeera spins for both sides in an effort to play to the center, websites such as Islaam: Pure and Clear (be sure to poke around the "Monthly Focus" section), Annaqed ("The Critic") and Salafi Publications disseminate wildly disparate views on the past, present and future of Islam. A comparison between the hard-line, fundamentalist views of Shaikh Abu Usaamah Saleem's The Current State of the Muslim World and the liberal, bordering on reactionary, stance of Dr. Wafa Sultan in a recent Al-Jazeera TV debate says it all.
And yet the current violence is not a physical manifestation of this debate, so vital to the growth and continued relevance of Islam, but the product of deep-seated sectarian/denominational hatred (I would even argue that the term "ethnic hatred" could apply in most cases, as the lines between religion and cultural heritage are often so tenuous within Islamic cultures). Yes, Iraq is an "artificial state" drawn up (literally) in the aftermath of World War One, and its diverse makeup is, and will always be, a dominant factor in its success as a social and political entity. But is Civil War a foregone conclusion? History offers instances of both peaceful and violent resolutions of internal division within artificial (or expansionist) states. While the people of Poland and South Africa found common ground through largely non-violent means, considerably more blood was spilt as countries like the United Kingdom and Rwanda fought for their identities.
Can we draw lessons from such historical precedent? Certainly, both Poland and South Africa were ultimately able to find common ground against a shared entity from without (Communist Russia; the imperial remnants of Apartheid). It has recently been the feeling among many historians that an external threat is not only favorable to Nationalistic unity, but utterly essential (see Linda Colley's Britons: Forging the Nation, for one). With this in mind, perhaps the only thing now holding Iraq together is a shared hatred amongst both Sunni and Shiite of the American-led "occupation." Nonetheless, the idea of a democratic Iraq still gives me hope (God help me, I'm beginning to sound like Bush). Hope that the multi-ethnic, multi-denominational "Iraqi" hodgepodge will come to understand that a modern democracy, when run correctly, provides the fairest possible platform for such a multi-ethnic, multi-denominational body. Hope that from this common foundation, and within these established social and political structures, the Iraqi people can begin to "lawfully" distill the essence of Islam in the 21st century, and perhaps even lead their implacable Middle Eastern neighbors along the way.
posted by Ned at 11:25 PM
2 Comments:
Well said Mr. Ned. That's some of the best Iraq war blogging I've read in the three years since it started. As James Carville said in "Old School" when he got whupped by Will Ferrell in debate, "Oh... It... We... have no response. That was perfect." (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0302886/quotes)
I like this blog alot, and I think you guys usually put up some pretty thoughtful and original stuff. But I have to say that I find the argument you make here impossible to swallow. Placing the responsibilities of an ENTIRE REGION upon the shoulders of a single, 3rd world country is not only unfair, it's the dangerous mentality that got the US into this mess.
Post a Comment
<< Home