Dying for Theocracy

The US didn’t go to war with Iraq to establish a theocracy. But that’s about what we got or will get, as a result of the much-ballyhooed election held the other day.

Based on the election results, the Shiite political parties managed to get a plurality of the votes, about 47%. The Sunni’s didn’t show up and the Kurdish parties got the rest. A recipe for a weak government, if any at all.

What exactly are the Shiite parties? Well, for one thing, they are parties dominated by the Shia sect of Islam as opposed to the Sunni sect. For most Americans the distinction means little. Except that the Shia sect that rules Iran, just next door. In case anyone isn't aware of it, the Shia sect favors theocracy.

Which should give everyone pause as to exactly what the US/UK coalition has gotten itself into.

Currently over 1,200 US soldiers have died and ten times that number have been wounded in an attempt to bring Western-style democracy to an area of the world where it has never been known. And where it is probably not wanted.

Those supporting the US effort in Iraq point with pride to all those who braved danger to go out and vote. All well and good. But there’s no evidence that Iraqi voters voted for Jeffersonian democracy, or anything like it.

There’s every bit of evidence to suggest they cast their vote for a Shia dominated government. That means a government dominated by clerics who will insist that Sharia, or Islamic law, or the Shia interpretation of it, become the bases of any new constitution. Sharia, at least as it is practiced in the Middle East is not compatible with the Western liberal democratic tradition, to put it mildly.

Since the Sunnis didn’t really take part in the election and since their brand of Islam doesn’t agree with the Shia brand, it follows that an election in which few Sunnis showed up could turn out badly in the long run.

I could, for example precipitate a civil war, and not just an ordinary civil war, as bad as that is, but a war cut from the cloth of religious differences.

Mr Bush and his neocon advisors believe, sincerely, I guess that all people want freedom and that if given the choice they will choose freedom over tyranny. But is that the case in the Middle East?

Probably not. There’s every reason to believe that some form of tyranny by clerics is not only acceptable but also desirable in many Middle Eastern countries.

The Iraqis have chosen all right, but they have chosen religious parties who can act tyrannically (that is, with no democratic or constitutional controls) if they want, and the people will more or less accept it, if it is sanctioned by Islamic clerics.

Shia rule in Iraq (absent US occupation) will bring the second class treatment of women and certainly a quick end to any future elections, and to the trappings of Western liberal democracy.

The US fought a war to get rid of a secular tyrant; but it looks as if what will replace Saddam Hussein will not be that much better. At least in the long run.

Where Islamic clerics are in charge, oppression is sure to follow. Usually in the form of Islamic religious police. Anybody who doubts this should look to Iran. Or to modern Saudi Arabia.

The only way to prevent the establishment of an Iranian-style Islamic republic is for the US and the UK to stick around Iraq for the next hundred years or so.

Already there is talk of military concessions to the US in the form of more or less permanent bases in Iraq. This will be a way of influencing Iraq’s internal politics for years after formal occupation ends.

If the US/UK coalition leaves, the clerics will take over.

Take it to the bank.

Punditwalla--