Subj : The War Has No Clothes
To   : Frank Reid
From : Angus McLeod
Date : Sat Oct 08 2005 08:41 pm

  Re: The War Has No Clothes
  By: Frank Reid to Angus McLeod on Sat Oct 08 2005 16:16:00

 >  > So to return to your question: do I want you to fail?  Let me re-phrase
 >  > it.  Do I want you to successfully train a strong force of fundamentalist
 >  > Shiites who will at the first opportunity, destroy or thoroughly subjugat
 >  > the progressive Sunni muslims in Iraq, thus making a political and
 >  > military union with Iran a real possibility, and jeopardizing the peace
 >  > and stability of the *entire* middle-east?  Answer:  No.

 > With the U.S. being Barbados single largest trading partner (for 
 > import/export of real goods alone, never mind tourism dollars and 
 > flat-out economic aid), it would have been very short-sighted of your 
 > own interests to wish failure upon us.  Like it or not we sink or swim 
 > together.

I, like most other Bajans, enjoy meeting Americans when thety visit.  
Watching American programming on television, and American movies at the 
cinema.  Visiting friends and relatives living in the USA.  For the most 
part, Bajans *like* Yanquis!  That goes for me too.  I would hate to see 
the USA suffer, because by and large, you guys are good guys.

True, a major upset to the US economy would hit my country hard, but the 
fact is the US economy is a major component of WORLD economic forces.  An 
upset (stock-market crash, for example) would affect the entire globe to 
some degree.

So here I am, like most other Bajans, with friendly feelings towards the 
USA.  But that does not mean I am blind.  I can see when errors are made, 
and I won't turn my head and pretend that there is nothing wrong when 
there obviously is.  If/when I see something wrong with my *own* 
government (and I frequently do), I don't air my thoughts on Dove-NET 
because nobody is interested, or indeed knows what I'm talking about.

 > Where we diverge is your opinion that Shiites are incapable of embracing
 > democracy simply because of their religion.  Two-thirds of Rwandans are avid
 > Roman Catholics, but I would question the validity of comparing Rwanda to
 > Italy.

There is a significant difference.  The Roman Catholic church acknowledges 
the difference between secular and spiritual authority.  The Shiites do 
*not* accept this, and believe that their spiritual leaders should guide, 
control and manipulate the secular affaires of their country.

 > In fact, prior to Khomeini's violent revolution in 1979, Iran enjoyed
 > an extremely progressive culture.

Of course.  Because Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi ruled that country with the 
greatest collection of state-of-the-art American military hardware seen 
anywhere outside of the USA itself.  His domestic policy was great for the 
*country*, being one of modernization, and generally considered to be 
highly progressive.  But he did this at the expense of the *people* (if 
you can grasp the distinction), because his regime was considered to be 
highly unpopular and repressive.  As his health failed and US support 
dwindled in the late 70's, his subjugation of the fundamentalists began to 
slip, and eventually, Khomeini was able to succeed with the theocratic 
revolution which sent the Shah into exile.  

What is happening in Iraq today is exactly the same.  The repressive 
leader who had pushed his country decisively in a progressive direction 
and kept the excesses of the fanatical theocratists in check, is now no 
more.  It is only a matter of time before there is another theocratic 
revolution, with some other Ayatollah (actually, 'Mullah' or 'Imam' would 
be more accurate in Iraq, I believe) snatching control.  What the US is 
doing in Iraq right now is training and arming the Shiite faction that 
will subjugate the Sunni minority, making that revolution a reality.

 > Khomeini squelched secular opposition notJ through positive 
 > governmental policies, or even by creating religious fervor but by 
 > executing the opponents of his ideology.  Moderate Shiites fled the
 > country en masse in fear of their lives, and they remain exiles today.

Exactly what will happen in Iraq, come the revolution.  The executions 
will be carried out by the so-called "Security Forces" that you are 
training and arming today.

 > The ensuing Iraq-Iran War a year later (led by none other than our 
 > favorite Saddam Hussein) cememted that position of intolerance against 
 > Sunni.  In other word he and his successors led through fear, 
 > intolerance and intimidation precipitated largely by Saddam's 
 > aggression, and not because Shia Islam endorses intolerance against the 
 > Sunni.

On paper, the tenets of Shia Islam may not endorse intolerance, but in 
practice, they do insist that only theocratic leadership is acceptable, 
and they also believe that physical force is a reasonable method of 
ensuring that this be so.  You can be sure they will insist on the return 
of the chador, along with all that it implies.  They won't take no for an 
answer, they have the majority, by two to one, and you are arming and 
training them to make sure that they will get their way at the expense of 
the Sunni minority, if necessary. 

 > In one of my technical training schools in the mid 1970s, one-third of my
 > classmates were Iranian military.  They were, for the most part, devout
 > Shiites.  By the same token, they also had personal ambitions of achieving
 > financial independence, raising families and experiencing what the world cou
 > offer to them culturally.  In other words, they were as "human" as you and I
 > and their religion was not an impediment to the hopes and dreams that every
 > free man enjoys.

When I was at college in the late 70's, there was an Iranian girl in class 
with me.  She wore jeans and shirts and a pair of sneakers, just like the 
other girls in class.  Apart from the slight accent and being a little 
conservative in her behaviour, I'd have to say she could have been any 
other girl in my class, with every expectation of getting a good job, 
getting married, and raising a family *without* having to perform a 
clitoridectomy on her daughters.  Then the Shah fell, and Khomeini moved 
in, and I never saw one square centimeter of her again, because she was in 
full chador, with a lace-covered opening to look through and her mother 
(similarly dressed) standing immediately at her side as she wound up her 
affaires in Britain, before heading back to Iran to be someone's silent, 
obedient wife.

 > Thus, your conclusion is based on the lowest expectations of humanity.  Whil
 > there are myriad examples in the region to warrant those expectations, it
 > completely dismisses the nature of humankind itself to crave freedom.

I base my expectations on my own personal experiences and observations, 
and the historical record.  

 > Yes, U.S. (and hopefully others) will need to remain there to steer 
 > that process, but ultimately it will be Iraqi people that create their 
 > own democracy. 

You asked a question of me and I ask one of you now:  How long do you 
think that the USA will have to maintain military forces in Iraq, before 
it will be safe for them to leave and not precipitate by their absence, an 
anti-Sunni bloodbath perpetrated by the fundamentalists, aided and abetted 
by the security forces you are currently making so much effort to train 
and arm?

 > Every human wants to be free, and freedom can only be suppressed by 
 > allowing an intolerant minority to enslave its people.  We intend to 
 > see that doesn't happen.  Frankly, if it does, we're all screwed 
 > anyway.

You have the entire situation completely, and absolutely, upside down and 
backwards.  The danger is that an intolerant *majority* will enslave (or 
eradicate) a significant, and progressive minority.  Past experience has 
shown that this is what we can expect.  You are installing a faction known 
for insisting on 'peace and freedom' on *their* terms only.  And you are 
arming this intolerant majority, and training them on the use of these 
arms.
 

---
 þ Synchronet þ Debatable wisdom from The ANJO BBS

.