Our Bewildered War Leaders!
Earl J. Prignitz
December 07, 2006
As a pacifist I must confess first of all that I am not very knowledgable in the field of war. But I have read enough to realize that the first thing you must know is "Know your enemy."
When George W. Bush and his war council decided to invade Iraq they obviously didn't know the first thing about the culture they were confronting. If they had they would have realized that they were unleashing a hornets nest that had been bottled up for many years.
The factions in Iraq date back to 632, when the Prophet Muhammad died and his followers literally battled over who would assume his leadership role. Some wanted to select the leader, or caliph, by consensus; they came to be known as Sunnis, or followers of the “sunna,” or “path” of the prophet. Others favored a hereditary line, beginning with Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali. They were known as “the party of Ali,” or “shiat Ali.”
Hence reconciling anything in Iraq, especially religion, is a very disheartening problem . The situation is complex to say the least. We obviously can’t possibly do it justice with a few sentences but there’s no understanding Iraq apart from its religion. That religion just happens to be dominated by the ongoing clash – some call it civil war – between the two main branches of Islam, Sunni and Shiite, which is costing hundreds of lives each and every month.
While Sunnis and Shiites indeed differ in some beliefs and practices, these groups agree on core tenets of Islam and have lived in peace for years. Iraq itself was barely segregated in the past. Shiites and Sunnis lived next door to each other, sent their children to the same schools and even intermarried. That’s not to say that tensions do not exist. Making up about 85 percent of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims, Sunnis have always been politically dominant, sparking occasional Shiite uprisings.
Iran and Iraq are notable exceptions, where Shiites form the majority; in Iran they have ruled for 600 years. Iraq, about 60 percent Shiite, was ruled by Sunnis until the overthrow of Saddam Hussein – and that is a very significant detail. It’s almost impossible to separate religion from Iraqi politics, since almost every political party – and there are dozens – has some religious dimension. Saddam Hussein was able to set Shiite against Sunni as had never been done before, a strategy to divide his enemies. But in the post-Saddam free-for-all, leaders on both sides exploit those divisions, playing not only on their followers’ religious beliefs but also on their resentments about the past and fears about any future if their opposites rule.
For now, political leaders on both sides believe their best interest is to keep the situation in chaos, to prolong the turmoil until they can grab an advantage. They will use religion or any other means to do that.
Too bad our leaders didn't have a little better knowledge of the tensions that were there all these years just waiting for some leader to stir them up once again.
When George W. Bush and his war council decided to invade Iraq they obviously didn't know the first thing about the culture they were confronting. If they had they would have realized that they were unleashing a hornets nest that had been bottled up for many years.
The factions in Iraq date back to 632, when the Prophet Muhammad died and his followers literally battled over who would assume his leadership role. Some wanted to select the leader, or caliph, by consensus; they came to be known as Sunnis, or followers of the “sunna,” or “path” of the prophet. Others favored a hereditary line, beginning with Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali. They were known as “the party of Ali,” or “shiat Ali.”
Hence reconciling anything in Iraq, especially religion, is a very disheartening problem . The situation is complex to say the least. We obviously can’t possibly do it justice with a few sentences but there’s no understanding Iraq apart from its religion. That religion just happens to be dominated by the ongoing clash – some call it civil war – between the two main branches of Islam, Sunni and Shiite, which is costing hundreds of lives each and every month.
While Sunnis and Shiites indeed differ in some beliefs and practices, these groups agree on core tenets of Islam and have lived in peace for years. Iraq itself was barely segregated in the past. Shiites and Sunnis lived next door to each other, sent their children to the same schools and even intermarried. That’s not to say that tensions do not exist. Making up about 85 percent of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims, Sunnis have always been politically dominant, sparking occasional Shiite uprisings.
Iran and Iraq are notable exceptions, where Shiites form the majority; in Iran they have ruled for 600 years. Iraq, about 60 percent Shiite, was ruled by Sunnis until the overthrow of Saddam Hussein – and that is a very significant detail. It’s almost impossible to separate religion from Iraqi politics, since almost every political party – and there are dozens – has some religious dimension. Saddam Hussein was able to set Shiite against Sunni as had never been done before, a strategy to divide his enemies. But in the post-Saddam free-for-all, leaders on both sides exploit those divisions, playing not only on their followers’ religious beliefs but also on their resentments about the past and fears about any future if their opposites rule.
For now, political leaders on both sides believe their best interest is to keep the situation in chaos, to prolong the turmoil until they can grab an advantage. They will use religion or any other means to do that.
Too bad our leaders didn't have a little better knowledge of the tensions that were there all these years just waiting for some leader to stir them up once again.
Print
Email
