Some Iraq questions:Why was Saddam insistent on a secular government?

[blm]

Why did Bin Laden have Saddam on his hit list?

Did Saddam rule with a cruel fist because the Islamic fundamentalists were eager to use Iraq as their seat of government?

Is Civil War inevitable between the secularists and the fundamentalists?

Should the UN try to help establish a secular government or remove themselves entirely from the process?

[Old and In the Way]

1. You could have started a thread on each one of these questions, blm.

If Iraq survives as a State, I think it will need a secular government as an objective broker between the Sunni, Shi'ites and Kurds. But I'm not entirely convinced that Iraq can survive as a political state. I suspect that Bush and his neo-con buddies real intention was to start the break-up. Then they could negotitate away ownership of the oil fields more easily.

[blm]

6. I'm curious about the thoughts of those who think

the Iraqis can make up their government without any input from the rest of the world. As if the rest of the world has no interest when the Taliban takes control.

[ulysses]

8. !

I'm curious about the thoughts of those who think the Iraqis can make up their government without any input from the rest of the world.

I'm curious about why you (evidently) think that they need input from the rest of the world.

[blm]

9. the same reason that the Feminist Majority Foundation asked Clinton

to intercede in Afghanistan back in 96. Women were being brutalized and murdered at a horrific rate and forced out of any public life all in the name of the Taliban's fundamentalism.

If you think the world should accept the Al Qaeda and the Taliban control as head of state that's your call. I was involved in 96 against the Taliban's abuse of women and I still am.

[ulysses]

18. ...

If you think the world should accept the Al Qaeda and the Taliban control as head of state that's your call.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.

:eyes:

On a more serious note, I understand your point. I just wonder about the assumption that Iraqis can't form their own government without our input. It took us until 1920 to even enfranchise women. The argument is easily made that we were no more ready to form our own democratic government in 1776 than the Iraqis are now.

[dpibel]

10. !!

And I'm curious what makes you think the Taliban would have anything to do with it. The Taliban's a localized phenomenon. The Ayatollahs in Iran are not Taliban. The Wahabis in Saudi Arabia are not Taliban.

I assume you meant "Islamic fundamentalists," but Taliban is not a synonym for that term.

I'm not big on picking nits, but I think we lose a lot in the discourse when we lump disparate groups together. It's part of the problem with thought and discourse in the USA.

[blm]

11. Why did Bin Laden seek to overthrow Saddam then?

You think he had no intention of bringing the Taliban with him and spreading his brand of fundamentalism?

[NNN0LHI]

13. I think bin Laden hated Saddam because he was a USA puppet so long n/t

[zonmoy]

15. Assuming that he ever stopped being a puppet

Perhaps everything that happened to start this whole mess before the first gulf war was a setup to give haliburton Iraq's oil and make the middle east into an American/Israeli colony.

[Leilani]

2. Saddam had to rule with an iron fist

because Iraq is made of 3 separate factions: Kurds in the North, Sunnis in the Central area, & Shias in the South. The Shias outnumber the Sunnis, & they have different views on Islam. The Shias are associated with the group in Iran.

Iraq was thrown together, borders decided by outsiders, therefore without a leader who could hold the factions together, the outcome would be civil war.

I think the secular govt was necessary to keep Saddam at the center, & not the factional religious beliefs. That way he would not be challenged by mullahs, or religious leaders.

[KT2000]

3. Exactly! Buschco had to have known

that the dictatorship was suppressing these volatile factions.

Did they really think that Chalabai, a secularist as far as I can tell, would be able to hold off the religiously motivated people from trying to gain control?

[blm]

4. It does accomodate their Armageddon scenario.

Make sure that Israel is surrounded by their enemies and when they are "forced" to defend Israel by dropping their tactical nukes all over the region, the stupid fundies here in the US will hail them as heros of the Bible. All the while they are taking control of the earth's resources for their fascist goals.

[zonmoy]

16. I doubt it

they undoubtedly intended to make Iraq a military colony of ours.

[No2W2004]

5. Right...

Saddam was very woried about the mullahs getting too popular.

I have read an account where one was gathering a following. Saddam arrested him and his sister. He was forced to watch as his sister was raped and tortured before being killed. The mullah was then killed by having nails driven through his skull.

Saddam would not tolorate any potential challengers.

[JVS]

7. Because the Baath party was/is a pan-arab nationalist movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Party

Religious fundamentalism would split up a state based on Arab nationalism because the Arab people are split into Shia and Sunni sects.

[Djinn]

12. My two cents

Why was Saddam insistent on a secular government?

As others have said - and as a "socialist" movement religion was (supposedly) a personal thing - wasn't (technically) outlawed but was not to be mandated by the state either - in his later years (after loosing the support of the west) Saddam made overtures towards the religious groups and started making more Islamic references to avoid religion based overthrow.

Why did Bin Laden have Saddam on his hit list?

Osama and his band of merry madmen actually have FAR more of a beef with Muslims who they do not beleive are "proper" Muslims than they do with us "heathen infidels" If we left them alone and stopped invading and exploiting the third world they probably wouldn'y pay us too much attention - they'd be too busy slaughtering Muslims who do not view the teachings of Islam to condone sexism, brutality and a refusal and rejection of science and "modernity" Have to say I wonder about the Wahhabists - they seemed to have missed out on large tracts of the Koran but that's another thread...Saddam as a secular Muslim was more of an enemy to Osama et al than non muslims

Did Saddam rule with a cruel fist because the Islamic fundamentalists were eager to use Iraq as their seat of government?

No - the Wahhabbists have little hold in Iraq - alcohol has been freely available for decades and women had positions in government and the military for example - Saddam ruled with such brutality because he was a meglomaniac basically - he didn't just slaughter any religious leaders who he felt threatened him - his first mass killing was of the Communist Party members and supporters soon after his coup.
Saddam was not really a Pan Arab nationalist, nor a Socialist, not a Muslim - he was a greedy, violent bully who wanted to stay in power at whatever cost

Is Civil War inevitable between the secularists and the fundamentalists?

Again - the "fundamentalists" aren't really a big group in Iraq - if any civil war was to erupt it would be along Shia/Sunni lines or Shia & Sunni against the Kurds, with possibly other political/ethnic groups picking sides and switching regularly. Imagine what would happen if some people - completely alien to and unknowledgable about the US, it's history and people decided to re-draw the borders and parts of Southern US was suddenly now a "nation" comprising bits of Texas, Mexico and Guatamala and parts of the Northern states were glued together with Canada and Siberia. Do you think there could be civil frictions?

Should the UN try to help establish a secular government or remove themselves entirely from the process?

Unless ALL the forces in Iraq come under the command of the UN and are TRULY working for the Iraqi people (as opposed to using a war as cover to privatise all resources in the hands of a few western companies) then the UN would be insane to take over the running of the transition in Iraq - but that just my opinion

[markus]

14. Pan-Arabists v. pan-Islamisist

The Ba'athist Parties were part of a pan-Arab movement. They're identify was cultural rather than religious. Certainly Islam plaid a large role, in the same way Christianity plays a large role in the U.S. or certain parts of Europe.

But that movement was a 20th century nationalist reaction to colonialism. Thugs like Saddam Hussien or even the current rulers of Syria still cling to the pan-Arabist trappings of their past, rather in the way that the Bush Administration clings to the symbols of a Republican Democracy they have little real use for.

[nefarious]

17. A complicated situation

My poorly informed opinions:

Why was Saddam insistent on a secular government?

As virtually every leader in the Middle East, and in fact all of the Third World, he had to remain vigilent (call it paranoid) to prevent ambitious individuals representing other forces from finding a way to usurp his power and authority. In such a situation the leader is the absolute authority, and any question of that authority would be the first step towards an overthrow.

Power corrupts, Hussein's absolute power corrupted absolutely. He was a firm believer in ruling with an iron fist, and to that end he made every effort to instill fear in every would-be enemy with the secret police, the minders, the goon squads, and the torture prisons. He was a model mobster ruler, in the footsteps of Stalin and Hitler.

Why did Bin Laden have Saddam on his hit list?

IMO, Saddam Hussein may have talked the talk of being a true believer of the Muslim faith, but bin Laden was convinced he was a supremely evil plague casting a pall over a historically pivotal holy land. In his own misguided way, bin Laden saw a noble and heroic opportunity to free the Iraqis from Hussein's demonic grip.

Did Saddam rule with a cruel fist because the Islamic fundamentalists were eager to use Iraq as their seat of government?

He saw any individual or group who would rise to power in his country as a threat to his own power.

Is Civil War inevitable between the secularists and the fundamentalists?

This answer to the question appears to be being decided now. The real question turns out to be: Why is there such chaos and disorganization that every man with a gun and a grand design sees an opportunity to sieze the power when a vacuum appears?

Should the UN try to help establish a secular government or remove themselves entirely from the process?

There is an implosion festering in Iraq, so would the presence of UN peace keeping forces really guide the outcome of an imminent civil war? Or would those individuals simply provide more fodder for the senseless killing? Would they be viewed as just another agent of corrupt western powers trying to place a new puppet dictator in power? There is far too much distrust and misery.