Crunchy Con

Dividing Iraq

Tuesday July 25, 2006

Joshua Trevino makes a brief case for letting Iraq -- a country whose borders were determined and imposed by the British, not by any organic process -- separate into ethno-religious states. I don't see how this fate is to be avoided. Josh says that the West views pluralism as a moral good, when it isn't necessarily that. And anyway, not every society is capable, for whatever reasons, of maintaining a pluralist society. Now, as soon as one says this, you have people yelling, "Oh, you must be racist! You must be saying that Arabs/Muslims are incapable of democracy!" No, one would be saying that for historical, cultural and religious reasons, these Arab Muslims are incapable of (liberal, pluralistic) democracy in the present moment. Says Josh, "What is detestable is a United States Army worn down year after year interposing itself simply to keep savage men from doing savage things to the chronically ungrateful." And:

Pluralism never really had a chance in the Muslim world. There is diversity, to be sure, but it is an uneasy thing, and peace within it must be maintained by the stamp of the oppressor's boot, or the political supremacy of the non-Muslim. The former repels us, and the latter is far too tenuous to ever last. Egypt’s Copts exist at the sufferance of a suspicious and occasionally violent majority: they are the remnant of a once-thriving society of Nile Christians that ended when Nasser expelled the Greeks and other non-Muslims from Alexandria and the delta. The House of Sa’ud ruthlessly represses its eastern Shi’a. Syrian Alawites maintain power through plain brutality and fear. Iraqi Christians, having endured two genocides in the past century, and a subsquent Ba’athist cultural repression, live in quiet fear of their next ruling class. Iranian Shi'a harass and murder their Baha’i and Zoroastrian fellow-countrymen. The most obviously plural society in the region, Lebanon, was long ago reduced to a fictitious polity of borders without identity.

In this light, a unitary Iraq without an autocrat is a fool’s dream.
Advertisement
Comments
Bruce
July 25, 2006 10:35 PM
http://7leper.blogspot.com

Of course, the difficult thing in dividing Iraq is deciding who gets what. If I remember correctly, the Sunni areas of Iraq do not contain any of the oil fields.>

Basileus
July 25, 2006 11:47 PM

Allowing Iraq to fragment isn't probably a bad idea and one that I have pondered before. Look at other countries that have had different peoples 'artificially' stuck together through peace settlements and then later parted ways and are much better off as a result:

Czechoslovakia
Yugoslavia
East/West Pakistan

I am sure there are more, but that is what was right off the top of my head.

Why force them to be together if they don't want to be?>

armando basarrate
July 26, 2006 12:54 AM

Excuse me guys, but Crunchy Con and everyone else seems to be forgetting a pretty important factor: Turkey.

Any notion of an idependent Kurdistan means Turkey goes to war that day. Turkey would see that development as a threat to its existence.

Are CC and the aouthor of the article that he quotes that ignorant?>

Marian
July 26, 2006 8:17 PM

Arguably, the Brits are responsible for a lot of the messes in the world today. The subcontinent of India is in the process of disintegrating back into its original (pre-colonial) 124 states (4 and counting.) Iraq was another badly-designed arrangement; so was Palestine. Maybe we should be looking at ALL of the British colonial constructions to see which ones, if any, are still viable.>

Interpreter
July 26, 2006 9:09 PM
www.geocities.com/bmidyet/

I agree that dividing Iraq 3 ways, between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, is a good idea, and probably the only solution to the mess in Iraq.>

Read All Comments

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Please type the text you see in the box below to verify your post and help us prevent spam. You have a limited time to type - you may wish to compose your comment in a separate document and paste it here upon completion.

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Advertisement

Search This Blog

About Crunchy Con

Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.

feed icon Subscribe

RSS Feed

Receive updates from Crunchy Con

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement

Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.