11 Mar 2006
Juan Golblado
I think you're right about the problem with Islam. But I think Rich Lowry may be right about the fact that the people in a religion determine what it is at the end of the day. In other words, the scripture and history of the religion count for a whole lot and explain the problems we see today. But they don't necessarily determine the future.
It may sound right to say that people like Sistani will never cooperate in the undoing of their worldview, but it may not be true.
Why, you may ask? :) Because they recognize that their worldview, nor the Iranian theocratic revolutionary worldview will serve their society well, will bring it success, that their options are being narrowed down to the Iranian way or something that is compatible with liberal democracy. In other words, because they recognize that liberal democracy is better for them than theocracy is and better for them than tribalism is.
Anyhow, if he makes the opposite decision, we'll kill him, or see that it gets done, and work with people who will work with us. And if that fails then we'll do what you say we ought to do. But it's worth the try because the costs of not doing it are very high.
Read
The Coming Normalcy by Robert Kaplan (he who wrote The Coming Anarchy in 1994 and got it right) if you want to get a up-close and positive view of transformation in Iraq. I'll email it to you if you like, if you don't have access to the full text.
Rife with problems, of course, but not stagnant and certainly not moving backwards. Just moving very slowly forward. Yes, damn it, women may be the last to benefit. But surely they will benefit sooner this way than any other.
.jpg)
%20(2).jpg)
Rich Lowry’s vast ignorance of Islam, not to mention the history of Iraq, is once again on display in this new cover story for National Review. He labels those who disagree with the President’s stay the course approach in Iraq as “to hell with them” hawks. It sounds like he’s been getting an earful from the party faithful, but nonetheless plows forward with an argument that isn’t much of an argument at all, as he ignores the actual option of troop withdrawal and what the likely outcome of such a move would be.
.jpg)
