[Dean's World] Dean: Becoming What You Hate, and, Civil War

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dean:
Becoming What You Hate, and, Civil War
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1141372847.shtml


   I recently spoke to a friend on the phone who I normally avoid
   politics with. He was happy, gloating, and said, "So now you know your
   boy George was wrong, and Iraq is about to fall apart in civil war eh?
   We should have left Saddam in power, at least he could keep order in
   that place!"

   Leaving aside the fact that I don't think civil war is a likely
   outcome--I don't--I found this laughing, gloating conversation with my
   friend to be quite racist and hateful. The despicable racist
   hatemonger [1]Bill Maher was virtually the same this week: we should
   have left Saddam in power, because at least he could keep order by
   killing those who needed to be killed.

   Yeah, and he made the trains run on time too. As usual, I wanted to
   barf when I heard it. Many of my leftish pals have simply become
   apologists for fascism and oppression, and the mirror image of Pat
   Buchanan at his worst.

   Meanwhile, on the subject of Civil War in Iraq: There are those who
   say that America will have failed if Iraq dissolves into civil war.
   Nonsense. A lot of us thought it might erupt into civil war even
   before we went in. This would not be a "loss" so far as I'm concerned,
   it would merely be unfortunate. And the fault for that result would
   not be America's, it would be the fault of the sectarian Iraqis who
   started that civil war.

   Yet I remain quite sanguine: there will be no true civil war in Iraq.
   The only way there can be a real, honest civil war is if America pulls
   up stakes and bugs out, and Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia start vying
   for supremacy in the vacuum. For consider:

   Iraq is dominated by a fairly well-educated populace with access to
   things like televisions, radios, cell phones, and the internet. And if
   you ask the average Iraqi whose side to be on in such a hypothetical
   civil war, you have:

   1) The Kurds. Everyone agrees that the Kurds have proven that they are
   capable of self-rule. And yet, do the Kurds actually have much to gain
   by taking a militantly independent stance? Before you say yes, read
   Michal Totten's latest dispatch from Kurdistan. As you read his words,
   just look at his photos. Photos like this one:

   [2]kurdistan photo 

   That's just one photo. [3]Look at the rest of Michael's photos, and
   just ask yourself: does that look like a region itching for a massive
   fight to the death? Or does it look like a bunch of people peacefully
   engaged in commerce and trying to build lives for themselves?

   Yes, there's separatist sentiment there. There's separatist sentimenet
   in Quebec up in Canada too. There's also separatist sentiment in
   Scotland in the United Kingdom. But does that separatist sentiment
   result in bloody civil war, or heated arguments at the ballot box?

   2) The Shia Arabs: while they have many grudges, and reasons to want
   unity with their fellow Shia, what would that practically mean?
   Perhaps it would mean closer ties to Shia-dominated Iran, but: what
   loyalty do they have to the non-Arab Persians of Iran? They don't
   speak the same language as the Iranians, and they are racially or
   ethnically or culturally the same. Meanwhile, so-called "Pan-Arabism"
   (i.e. Saddam's mentality) was used as an excuse to oppress them for
   generations. They hated Saddam, and as such they have no reason to
   love the Syrians who would almost certainly become involved in such a
   civil war. They have no reason to love the Saudis, who would also
   become involved in such a hypothetical civil war, and who despise them
   just for being Shia. So what is their interest in civil war? What do
   they gain from it, besides a weak independence that leaves them at the
   mercy of Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Iran?

   3) The Sunni Arabs: This minority group, like white South Africa,
   benefitted the most from fascist rule. They are the ones who are most
   likely to be angry and want a civil war. But consider again that they
   are well-educated, cosmopolitan, and intelligent enough to recognize
   that they are a clear minority. In a civil war, they would either be
   destroyed by the overwhelming supermajority of Shia Arabs, or, would
   wind up dominated by the Syrians or the Saudis.

   In short, if you break it down, none of the three major factions
   within Iraq has much to gain by civil war, and all have much to lose.
   And most of the populace is educated enough and cosmopolitan enough to
   recognize all of this.

   To put it even more shortly: Kurdistan could be independent but would
   rather not deal with the complications of dealing the Turks and others
   in the region who would fight them on it. The Sunnis would be in a
   weak position and at the mercy of their neighbors. So would the Shia.
   This is obvious to all of them.

   Even more shortly still: the Iraqis stand to gain more by hanging
   together than by hanging separately.

   There is one major assumption undergirding my entire thesis, so I
   ought to acknowledge it: I do not believe that ethnic tensions,
   religion, or even hatred, are the sources of war. I believe that
   self-interest is what motivates people to war. And most Iraqis have no
   self-interest in war right now.

   So I stand by my prediction: whatever the ethnic or religioius
   tensions, there will be no civil war in Iraq. The democratic process
   will be how most Iraqis choose to resolve their issues. Because it
   beats all the alternatives.

References

   1. http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/
   2. file://localhost/files/deanesmay-Suli_from_Hotel.jpg
   3. http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001066.html