Powell Vs Rumsfeld!

[stevisecret]

Defense, State Differ on How to Handle Shi'ites
Fri Apr 25, 1:21 PM ET

By Jonathan Wright


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - While Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rules out
Shi'ite clerical rule in Iraq (news - web sites), U.S. diplomats are calmly
sounding out opinions in southern Iraq among the very Shi'ites who might see
neighboring Iran as an example to follow, U.S. officials say.

The different approaches illustrate the continuing divide between the U.S.
military and the diplomats over how to handle the internal politics of Iraq,
where the collapse of three decades of Baathist rule has left a gaping power
vacuum.

Ideally, the two branches of the U.S. executive probably want something very
similar -- a liberal democracy favorable to the interests of the United
States and its ally Israel.

Before Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) disappeared and
anarchy replaced repression, U.S. officials spoke about the possibility of
Iraq serving as a model of democracy for other Arab countries such as Syria,
Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

The realities of patching together a credible Iraqi authority has made them
lower their sights somewhat, as has the unexpected political assertiveness
of the majority Shi'ite community, among whom opposition to the U.S.
military occupation of Iraq appears to be a rallying cry.

The experience of the last few weeks has raised the specter in American
minds that Iraqis might choose an Iranian-style government dominated by
Shi'ite Muslim clerics who see the United States as the Great Satan.

But Rumsfeld told a briefing at the Pentagon (news - web sites) on Friday
that the United States would not let that happen.

"This much is certain. A vocal minority clamoring to transform Iraq in
Iran's image will not be permitted to do so. We will not allow the Iraqi
people's democratic transition to be hijacked by those who might wish to
install another form of dictatorship," he said.

Earlier this week, asked how Washington would handle attempts to set up an
"Islamic republic" in Iraq, he said: "I don't think that I would
characterize what's going on in Iran as a democratic system. I don't think I
would say that it fits the principles that I've just indicated."

"There are an awful lot of people in Iran who feel that that small group of
clerics that determine what takes place in that country is not their idea of
how they want to live their lives," the defense secretary added.

NO ALARM

His remarks were in strong contrast with those of Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage, who said earlier this year that Iran was different from
Iraq and North Korea (news - web sites) because it was democratic. President
Bush (news - web sites) said last year that the three countries made up an
"axis of evil."

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), widely seen as the
leading conciliator in the Bush administration, has taken a very different
attitude to religion and politics in Iraq.

While far from endorsing an Iranian-style government, he has refused to act
alarmed about the choice Iraqis might make.

"Just because one is in an Arab country or one is practicing the Muslim
faith, to suggest that therefore you are denied the benefits of democracy, I
think is a false choice. Democracy can coexist with any faith," Powell told
the U.S. government-funded station Radio Sawa on Thursday.

"Why cannot an Islamic form of government that has as its basis the faith of
Islam not also be democratic?" he said in another interview with the
Dubai-based station al-Arabiya.

A State Department official said diplomats on secondment to the office of
retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner have been going to meet Iraqi Shi'ite leaders to
find out how years of isolation have changed their ideas about religion and
government.

 
In many ways the Iranian revolution of 1979, which was led by Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini and other clerics, was an aberration in the history of
Shi'ites, who have traditionally been more comfortable in opposition than in
government.

The State Department experts say that is especially true of what they call
the Akbari tradition of Iraqi Shi'ites.

Until the United States has a better idea of what Iraqi Shi'ites want, it
could be counter-productive for people like Rumsfeld to make statements
which could be seen as an attempt to impose U.S. ideas on Iraq, one official
said.

The immediate problem faced by Garner, the U.S. civil administrator in Iraq,
is to persuade more leading Shi'ites to take part in the political process
he is hosting.

The influential Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)
boycotted Garner's first meeting and will do so again when he brings Iraqi
politicians together in Baghdad next Monday, SCIRI representative Hamid
al-Bayati said on Friday.

Bayati, head of the SCIRI office in London, told Reuters that the State
Department had more experience of the Iraqi opposition than the Pentagon and
had a better understanding of the political landscape of Iraq.

"It's been very rare than we see people from the Pentagon," he told Reuters
in a telephone interview from Madrid.

Stevi Secret
http://www.stevisecret.com

 

[avethibaltus]

Message?

Powell is going to lose this one too and at least part of Iraq will in the end become a Muslim state. No one else in the region has the cohesion, organization, and support to even begin to get the ball rolling while the Muslims already have a tried and tested battle plan.

There is even a high probability that a North and South Iraq could come into being, since the Kurds will not under any circumstances side with anti-American Shi'ites for fear of the Yanks giving the Turks the go-ahead to blast their way into Iraq. The Kurds are short on allies in that part of the world anyway, so they can be counted on to "do the right thing".

 

[sushi854]

It seems that one of the most unpredictable variables in this whole situation may be the degree of factionalism that could emerge among the various ethnic/religious groups in Iraq. Tensions could blow over quickly, or a situation reminiscent of a post-communist Yugoslavia could rapidly emerge. If these groups ultimately let their differences impede cooperation, they will obviously undermine the stability of any attempted unitary democratic regime in Iraq. On the other hand, Shi'ite opposition to US occupation may not automatically mean that they will be modeling their government after the Taliban. While this prospect certainly remains a possibility, I would be reluctant to predict anything for certain at this point. It will certainly be interesting to see how it plays out if and when the transition from US occupation nears completion. Hopefully there are enough secular-minded Iraqis involved in the transition process that the influence of the anti-American clerics can be minimized. If avethibaltus' prediction ultimately comes to pass, I can only assume that someone would have to have made a serious miscalculation during the planning stages of this little operation. Of course, our government in all its wisdom will undoubtedly have planned for this contingency...(ahem) It would certainly be an ugly situation if the Bush Administration was rewarded with a bite on the ass from a fundamentalist Shi'ite regime in the south and general unrest and instability in the north.

 

[avethibaltus]

Just to clarify a couple of things:

I do not believe that a Taliban style government will pop up in the south of Iraq, rather one modeled on that in Iran, which has, thank Allah, in recent times shown a general tendency away from the religious extreme towards the center (And if we could keep our damn nose out of their business, it would probably get even better) A Theocracy isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if you are a member of the religious group in control. Just ask the Republicans.

The Kurds have in fact had their own state within a state since GW1 and seem to have things under control. They handled the routed Iraqi Army fair and generally have avoided causing "bad blood" in the course of supporting the American invasion. They just have to be really careful how they act so that the Turks will not see them as a threat, in the broadest Federal Government sense of the word.

Given these two existing tendencies, if nothing is done to counter the trend or bring these two parties together, there will be a defacto division of Iraq.

 

[sushi854]

Ok, so the whole "Taliban" thing may have been a bit of an exaggeration. There is no question that establishing the type of regime favored by Bush & Co. remains contingent on overcoming cultural and ideological differences at least to the point of reluctant cooperation. Personally, the two most interesting variables are the degree to which the Turks (and everyone else for that matter) view the Kurds as a threat, and the amount of influence the Shi'ite clerics may ultimately exert. Based on their track record in other Muslim states it is certainly not unreasonable to conclude that the same will happen in Iraq. I can almost see a situation in which at least three divisions exist within Iraq, with the north obviously being the most turbulent. The Iraqi people are certainly not accustomed to thinking for themselves, and will likely support whoever has the loudest voice. I'd like to think this remains to be seen. A moderate theocratic regime would not be the worst thing that could happen, but a violent division of Iraq certainly would not look good at the UN. Of course, our government in all its infinite wisdom will likely have considered all of these possibilities and has a plan for every possible scenario to make Iraq a shining example of democracy and freedom to the Muslim world.

 

[Haltickling]

Just another problem

... is the fact that the Kurds are far from united and homogenous. There are two major fractions (Bassani and Talabani) and dozens of smaller groups who are constantly at war with each other. They only united for the common purpose to get rid of Saddam. Now that the major threat is gone, they will fight for dominance again. They could reunite if they get attacked by the Turks (which will happen if they strive for an independent state), or if the majority of Iraqis (60% of them Shiites) try to make Islam a dominant force, as most of the Kurds are Christians, the rest are Sunni. Ex-Yugoslavia after the death of the dictator Tito comes to my mind inevitably.

Although Powell shows a much greater understanding for those problems than Rumsfeld, his views will probably be ignored in the neo-con concert which dominates the US government presently. I think Powell is useful to them as representative towards the rest of the world, but the real power is elsewhere. So in the long run, Powell will be sacrificed...

 

[avethibaltus]

I agree with you Sushi and don't think a division along the lines of a Kurdish north, "moderate" central, and Shi'ite south Iraq based on the current situation is far fetched at all.

Hal has a point but the Kurds have in fact shown tremendous restraint and diplomatic finesse in the years since Ocalan was captured. I think that they are smart enough to realize that the Turks will use any Kurd vs. Kurd violence as an excuse to invade. The comparisons to Yugoslavia are inevitable and accurate in my humble opinion, with the major difference is that all of the key "external" players already have their forces on site in significant numbers to steer the locals in the direction they want them to go. It took several years of massacre in the Yugoslav Republics before anyone really lifted a finger to take charge.

Since the Americans are only really interested in having a long lasting military presence in the region, I think that ultimately their only goal will be to have a secure base area close enough to the oil that they will not have to beg for overflight rights before taking action, which causes me to believe that they wouldn't necessarily view a division of the country as a bad thing.

Most confusing are the Invasion Forces statements that the Iraqis should take things in their own hands then arresting any that try. It really sounds like they are TRYING to keep things stirred up.