Picking Sides in a Religious War
One of the notions I keep hearing pop up from time to time regarding the clusterfuck that we’ve made of Iraq is that the Bushies, desperate for a way to pull out of Iraq and declare victory, will just pick a side in the civil war and go with it. As the Washington Post recently wrote :
The Bush administration is deliberating whether to abandon U.S. reconciliation efforts with Sunni insurgents and instead give priority to Shiites and Kurds, who won elections and now dominate the government, according to U.S. officials.The proposal, put forward by the State Department as part of a crash White House review of Iraq policy, follows an assessment that the ambitious U.S. outreach to Sunni dissidents has failed. U.S. officials are increasingly concerned that their reconciliation efforts may even have backfired, alienating the Shiite majority and leaving the United States vulnerable to having no allies in Iraq, according to sources familiar with the State Department proposal.
. . .
A second danger is that the United States could appear to be taking sides in the escalating sectarian strife. The proposal would encourage Iraqis to continue reconciliation efforts. But without U.S. urging, outreach could easily stall or even atrophy, deepening sectarian tensions, U.S. sources say.
Of course, the term “sectarian strife” glosses over the most troublesome aspect of this scenario. If the United States abandons the goal of reconciliation in Iraq, we will appear to the Arab world to have picked sides in a thousand-year-old religious war. To the Islamic world (who actually know the difference between Shi’a and Sunni), this would be seen as American endorsement of the idea that the early Islamic leadership should have gone to Muhammad’s cousin Ali rather than the three caliphs who succeded Muhammad. To Western ears that may seem like not that big a deal, but this is roughly equivalent to taking an official stance on whether Catholics or Protestants are the true inheritors of Jesus’ legacy. Not only does favoring one religious sect over another seem to clash with the establishment clause of the Constitution (not that the Bush Administration gives a damn about Constitutional protections), but it puts us at odds with the vast majority of the Islamic world.
Then again, maybe American endorsement of Shi’a Islam will help calm down the tensions with Iran.
6 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>


Would the Saudis allow Bush to go against the Sunnis?
Comment by Domino — December 1, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
Ah, yes…the enemy of my enemy is my friend–yet another chapter in the worn-out Bush playbook that has bitten them–and by extension, us–in the ass so many times in the past. Why not try it again?
Comment by Doobie — December 1, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
Favor Shi’a and watch Sunni fundamentalists blow up the current Saudi regime. Sounds like a plan.
Comment by PhillyD — December 1, 2006 @ 8:49 pm
Good post. I still can’t get over how little planning was done before this invasion was undertaken. It’s like the geopolitical equivalent of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey…
Comment by jim marquis — December 2, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
Well said. To pick a side and go with it is crazy. This administration continues to make mistake after mistake. They are clueless on what to do.
Comment by PoliticalCritic — December 2, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
In the words of X-Patriate: “More and more like a civil war.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jordT1Kuc88
Comment by Incisive32 — December 2, 2006 @ 9:32 pm