What kind of a secular state was Saddam’s Iraq?
Unlike Turkey, another state in the ME, Iraq, under Saddam, was not a secular society, if you consider that it was a totalitarian society under the rule of a despot who suppressed all religious tendencies for sectarian awareness. Saddam’s Ba-ath party, with claims to being secular was only about 5% of the population but was strictly Sunni, and so the Shia majority in Iraq was being dominated by Sunni a minority, as it is elsewhere in the Arab ME. In reality, then, Iraq’s Ba-athists, while calling themselves a “renaissance” party, as well as secular if only as a device to subjugate the Shia, to keep them in thrall of the usual Sunni power aristocracy; and calling themselves renaissance appears designed to imbue some kind of respectability to a murderous regime.
In the war between Iraq and Iran, 85% of the cannon fodder came from the Shia population, which was about 65% of the population. This showed a willingness to support their Arab heritage as well as their Iraqi state over sectarian fealty to the form of Shiasm which completely dominates Iran. They attach more relevance to being Iraqis and Arabs than Shia, at least as it pertains in Iran.
Iraq is the zone of departure, the fault line for the Sunni-Shia sects. Consider the importance of a peaceful solution to sectarian divisions there, if that can be managed.
Iraq may not have a Kemal Attaturk, but at the present it has Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and others of equal equanimity. Mr. Sistani, a follower of the ISCI led by the Hakim family, is the true hero of Iraq’s survival and its incipient true renaissance. They are the standard bearers of the traditional Shiite view of politics called “quietism,” which rejects the clerical rule invented by the Ayatollah Khomenei in Iran.
March 07. 2010 12:40AM UAE - “BAGHDAD // Ammar al Hakim, the leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), said today’s Iraqi elections could usher in a new era for the country, but will damage its future if not perceived as free and fair.
Speaking on the eve of the country’s elections, seen as a critical test for the fledgling democracy, the Shiite scholar pointed to demonstrations and violence in Iran last year in the wake of the presidential election as an example of what could happen if the vote is not perceived to be transparent” (read more on the Hakims by clicking here Shiite scholar warns that Iraq poll must be perceived as free and fair - The National Newspaper
So if the achievement is as you call it a "Theocracy" but it tolerates different religions, and they can make it work while being democratic to suit their needs, that is far superior to what was there before, and to what we find elsewhere in the ME except for in Turkey.
You ask if I am aware of the regression of basic human rights in Iraq. I suppose that depends on what the word regression means. I don’t buy it. Since the fall of Saddam, the people of Iraq have more real human rights than they ever had before, and for the greatest proportion of the population.
When you say that we tapped into a quasi-partnership, etc, etc. .....some of that may have been necessary but it's a real departure from what we have done in the past with the likes of the Saudi’s, (and others). Those in Iraq we have sought to establish a "partnership" with were needed to come to the fore to take a role in leadership in Iraqi society, and because of the new existence of a franchise, at least they are more and more LEADERS chosen by the Iraqi people. It looked for a while as if they didn't have the talent for real political leadership, but that was more a function of a fear of being left to the terrorist murders; and that was because for so long it looked like the left in America would force a premature withdrawal, leaving anyone who stood for a new society in the lurch once we left precipitously.
Your definition of who is and is not an insurgent is debatable, when you consider how these people (a term which raises their recognition to a human level which they don’t deserve) have killed many many multiples of innocent civilian citizens more than they have killed American service men and women. If not insurgents, then they are vicious terrorists by any proper definition, and the Iraqi people are finally, since the surge, identifying them and reporting their activities.
Are you aware that in 2009 the economy of Iraq was one of the world’s strongest economies, ranked 13th in growth? This is a positive sign because economic activity only does well in a secure social environment, and strong growth shows a willingness to take risks in all kinds of venues.
But actually every aspect of Iraqi society and culture is improving. There are concerns, but as they learn to practice their own brand of “democracy” they still want to maintain a strong relationship with the US. They will be among our strongest allies in the Middle east, along with Turkey, and they will become the new model for Arab states in the region, just as America was once the model in the western world.
Last edited:
