History shows Islam, democracy unlikely to mix in Iraq (by neocon?)

[RamboLiberal]

Buzzflash says this guy is a neocon? I don't recognize the name. Is he?

http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-pipes14.html

The current insurrection in Iraq was discernible a year ago, as I already noted in April 2003: ''Thousands of Iraqi Shiites chanted 'No to America, No to Saddam, Yes to Islam' a few days ago, during pilgrimage rites in the holy city of Karbala. Increasing numbers of Iraqis appear to agree with these sentiments. They have ominous implications for the coalition forces.''

The recent wave of violence makes those implications fully apparent.

Two factors in particular made me expect Iraqi resistance. First, the quick war of 2003 focused on overturning a hated tyrant so that, when it was over, Iraqis felt liberated, not defeated. Accordingly, the common assumption that Iraq resembled the Germany and Japan of 1945 was wrong. Those two countries had been destroyed through years of all-out carnage, leading them to acquiesce to the postwar overhaul of their societies and cultures. Iraq, in contrast, emerged almost without damage from brief hostilities, and Iraqis do not feel they must accept guidance from the occupation forces. Rather, they immediately showed a determination to shape their country's future.

Second, as a predominantly Muslim people, Iraqis share in the powerful Muslim reluctance to being ruled by non-Muslims. This reluctance results from the very nature of Islam, the most public and political of religions.

[Fenris]

1. OHHHHHHHHHH yeah. Bigtime. He's the one who

Is always complaining about the "liberal subversion" on college campuses. He's a hardcore Christian Zionist and horribly hostile to Arabs.

[drhilarius]

2. Hmmmm...

I guess we now know what party truly has a negative opinion of "brown-skinned people" and their ability to rule.

[kera]

7. I don't share your

sentiment on the article

regardless of the journalist political affiliation, this is the first article that describes accurately the history of these Muslim countries in their struggle against non muslim invaders- although they have accepted as normal turkey califat for centuries.

I don't either see any bias in it or brown skin stuff

may be your are too cliche minded to be objective

[drhilarius]

8. No.Just bored...

and wanting to be reductive.

[jobycom]

11. There's nothing accurate in his article

Sure, like every culture, people and nations who were Muslim have had to fight off invaders who had different cultures than they did. The idea that they did so because they didn't like non-Muslims is a trite and very Western cliche. They fought off invaders for the same reason we would-- they were invaders. And while Muslims did generally try to maintain Islamic rule, just as we generally try to maintain democratic rule, it wasn't some closed fundamentalism any more than our obsession with democracy is (and maybe it is)-- it's just the government and belief system we are most familiar with, that fits our culture. And Islamic rule took various forms, ranging from democracies (in Iran) to monarchies, to caliphates, to rather complex beauracracies. The form of government was based on a lot of factors, usually having to do with the form those forming the government were used to. Islam was the identity of the people, not the form of government. The same is true today, if anyone would bother to look.

The tone of the article tries to further the stereotype of a wild, fundamentalist people, and that's far from the truth. During most of world history since 650, Muslim cultures have been amongst the most enlightened, most cultured, most educated, most scientifically advanced, and most tolerant cultures of their times. Often Westerners were the barbarian hordes trampling their silks beneath swine feet. To try to portray history as some constant battle between Muslim fundamentalists and non-Muslims who always meant well is quite racist, and quite what I would expect from a neocon.

[Aidoneus]

3. Yes he is

This zionist is one of the most prolific propagandists of the current tendencies.

[Sandpiper]

4. The Sun-Times is a conservative rag

n/t

[Quetzal]

5. That prick is a big time neo-conservative

Daniel Pipes was one of the recess appointments of Boosh to the US Institute of Peace. He probably would have been filibustered were it not for the recess appointment. He is the director of the Middle East Forum and runs 'campus watch', an organization dedicated to pinpointing and 'mcarthyizing' members of the American inteligentsia in our universities. He is a good friend of Martin Kramer.

He basically believes that Racial Profiling is a good thing.

Now, he is just trying to make sorry excuses for himself. Richard Perle is also doing the same thing - covering up his tracks. They are trying to save any credibility they have left.

And this is the problem of the right wing think tanks - their ideas are not grounded reality, they only create ideas, not plans, and their ideas are not vigorously scrutinized.

[Old and In the Way]

6. Is this a joke?

"Iraq, in contrast, emerged almost without damage from brief hostilities, and Iraqis do not feel they must accept guidance from the occupation forces."

Let's see - War with Iran, DS1, 10year embargo, DS2....right this society has been hardly damaged. I can't think of a country that's been more damaged over 25 years.



"Iraqis share in the powerful Muslim reluctance to being ruled by non-Muslims."

Gee, I'll bet the Christian Fundies would be very accepting of an Muslim occupying force here.


No man is so blind as one who refuses to see.

[jobycom]

12. No, I think the idiot was serious

I guess if you're a neocon, you don't count 100k dead and the destruction of all semblance of order as a big deal. I mean, no one got out an eraser and redrew lines on a map, or anything destructive like that.

[Trajan]

9. Pipes is ULTRA Neocon ...

A Likudnik of the nth degree ...

Get THIS cite ...

"I therefore counsel the occupying forces quickly to leave Iraqi cities and then, when feasible, to leave Iraq as a whole. They should seek out what I have been calling for since a year ago: a democratically minded Iraqi strongman, someone who will work with the coalition forces, provide decent government, and move eventually toward a more open political system."

Explain what 'democratically minded' means ...

Explain what 'Strongman' means ...

I tell you what this means : a secular dictator who will pretend to admire a jiggered 'House of Lords', spewing meaningless platitudes about 'democracy' as he covertly follows the dictates of his true masters in Texas ....

Not unlike Karzai in Afghanistan, who was formerly a UNOCAL executive before he was installed by Zalmay Khalilzad: a PNAC signatory ....

Pipes is utterly anti-arab, which is why he finds some considerable support in a specific DU forum, ( even as he 'enjoys' VERY LITTLE DU support outside of that same forum ) ...

Nuff said ....

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Pipes is Chalabi's mouthpiece

MAXINE McKEW: What is your view of the re-entry into Iraq of the previously exiled Ahmed Chalabi? He's certainly the Pentagon favourite. Others have different views.

DANIEL PIPES: He's also my favourite. He's a remarkable man. Few realise he is someone with a PhD in mathematics from the University of Chicago. He's a very decent man. He's been working for this for many years now.

There are no obvious choices from within Iraq, because Iraq was a dungeon and there were no legitimate voices criticising Saddam Hussein so it must someone from outside Iraq and I think Chalabi has earned the right to be a contender for that position

MAXINE McKEW: If he's a plus, if you like, from people such as yourself and others in the Defense Department, will that necessarily count for much with the many different groups that he has to align himself with in order to form a governing group?

DANIEL PIPES: You're absolutely right. My opinion is not decisive here. What I was alluding to over the last 12 years, since the end of the war in 1991, he has been working hard to build coalitions and has done so successfully, not perfectly of course, and I think that gives him an authority and a consensual backing that could well—I'm not crowning him the ruler of Iraq, but I'm saying he could well be a very good basis for going forward.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1057

It would be hard to give a more misleading picture of Chalabi than this. Pipes is bought and paid for by Chalabi already.

[jobycom]

10. Bad history, but he's not saying democracy won't work

He's saying that non-Muslim rule wouldn't work, and therefore we are going to meet resistance by being there.

His history is very bad, to the point of being silly. During the Crusades, after the initial bloodbath, Muslims settled quite happily under European non-Muslim rule, until the Europeans began spreading into the territories of other rulers, finally stepping on too many toes.

Both before and after the Crusades, Muslims have lived in lands controlled by non-Muslims, especially when they were in the minority, or were part of an empirial takeover. Even in lands controlled by Muslims in the late medieval and early modern period, Jews and Christians sometimes attained positions of authority within Islamic governments.

He's right that tax structures and even work schedules would have to be crafted around Islamic laws and traditions, but that is not that big a deal to accomplish.

The period he claims Europeans and Muslims were avoiding settling in the same regions was a period where the Middle Eastern Empires and the European nations were both expanding, and each was strong enough to cause the other to avoid them. Some of the colonial patterns also had to do with trade routes-- the Red Sea trade route, for instance, was controlled by the Mamluks in Egypt, and was therefore not the most profitable route for the Europeans to use, as rivals. They searched other routes, traveling around the coasts of Africa, and eventually colonizing America (which everyone knew was there before Columbus got there).

Iran had a democracy before Eisenhower ordered its overthrow to install the Shaw. Iraq had a secular government before we overthrew it. I think the only absolute you can conclude about Muslims with regards to rulers is that they are getting a bit tired of being slaughtered by Americans for no good reason.

As for his advice that we need to get out now and let them work it out themselves, I think we owe them more than that, after the massive slaughter we created. But we should pull back to a non-confrontational posture, and our role there should end as rulers.

[DavidFL]

13. More of Pipes' handiwork:

http://www.stophr3077.org

Background: While extremist Daniel Pipes’ nomination to the USIP was being vehemently opposed by concerned citizens across the country, a brief and hasty show hearing in front of the U.S. House Subcommittee on Select Education was orchestrated by Chairman Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) at the behest of Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution and National Review, Martin Kramer, editor of Pipe’s “Middle East Quarterly”, Pipes and others. Kurtz, the star witness of the “hearing”, repeated assertions made by them that international studies programs (funded by Title VI funds) dominated as they were (according to them) by anti-americanism were effectively breeding grounds for terrorism or at best activities that worked against our ‘national interests’. As a consequence he proposed an advisory board made up of “experts” (e.g., from the Defense Department, or think tanks) with the full resources of the government intelligence community, to monitor departments, curricula, and faculty to determine which supported national interests (according to them) and which did not. In short, what Kurtz proposed effectively was to create an entity functioning like Pipes’ “Campus Watch” only with the full power and authority of the government. It was September-October 2003 when the Hoekstra’s Subcommittee approved H.R.3077 and it was rushed through the House with a unanimous bipartisan voice vote shortly thereafter (Section 633 of that bill contains the requirement to set up the watch-dog board).

DavidFL's note: In other words, Pipes and his cohorts would like to establish a Soviet-style advisory board within the Department of Education to dictate what may, and may not, be taught in Middle Eastern studies programs at colleges and universities across the country and withdraw Title VI funding from those programs that don't get with the neo-con program.