[Winstonm]

Perhaps those who are more intelligent can help me understand what exactly is going on in Iraq and with Iran's suspected involvement - is this a clash of political divisions, cultural divisions, or religious divisions?

My understanding is that Saddam was a Sunni and the Sunnis were in power when he was there. The overthrow brought about a Shiite-controlled government. Supposedly Iran is sponsoring al-Sadr's Mehdi Army - but al-Sadr is Shiite with ties to the new Iraqi Shiite government. Is the U.S. claiming intra-divisional insurgencies, that there are "bad" Shiites sponsored by Iran? But aren't there Sunni insurgents as well? And what about the Kurds?

1979 produced the Islamic revolution in Iran - if Iraq is in civil war, it would seem totally normal for Iran to side with the groups that support their views. I believe that Iran is a Shiite-controlled nation, so why would they be trying to destabilize the Shiite control in Iraq? I can't make sense of it. It is obvious the U.S. is taking the other side and supporing those groups. But what side is it? Moderates? Sunnis? Shiites? Kurds?

It seems Iran can identify its suporters - but I am unsure if the U.S. can do likewise.

To me this seems more like a gangfight interrupted by a stranger who happens to walk by - the gangs temporarily put aside their own differences to pound the new guy into submission. The smart thing to do would be to get off their turf - unless your true objective is to take over that turf.

[mike777]

I guess one of the worse case scenarios is a wider Sunni, Shia war based on the European religious Christian wars that lasted hundreds of years. This time with nukes. Iran backed Shia vs Saudi, Syria backed Sunni battle it out in Lebanon, Iraq, parts of other countries. Turkey vs Kurds, etc.

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Feb 11 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

My understanding is that Saddam was a Sunni and the Sunnis were in power when he was there.

It's a thousand times more complex than that.

If you think of Sunni as like Catholicism and Shiite like Protestants, then Saddam, who was a Ba'athist, would be more like Greek Orthodox. Many Muslims do not consider Ba'athists to be Muslims. The Wahabbis, who are a Sunni sect that includes Al Qaeda, can't stand Ba'athists. In fact, until 2003, you could split Arabia into two sections- Ba'athist controlled (Syria and Iraq) and Wahabbi/mainstream Sunni controlled (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait), with the other nations split. There was a lot of fighting between the two groups.

For the Shi'ites, you have the Ayatollah groups, who are controlled by Iran, and the Arab controlled ones. al-Sadr is a strange combination, since his dad was a Grand Ayatollah but most of his people are pro-Arab and anti-Iranian control. In contrast, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani almost certainly gets his orders from Tehran. There's actually a strong possibility of a civil war between those two groups as soon as we leave....and in fact may have started with the recent attack and attempted assasination of Ali Sistani in Najaf.


These things are way more complex than Sunni and Shiite.

[Winstonm]

jtfanclub, on Feb 11 2007, 04:24 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 11 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

My understanding is that Saddam was a Sunni and the Sunnis were in power when he was there.

It's a thousand times more complex than that.

If you think of Sunni as like Catholicism and Shiite like Protestants, then Saddam, who was a Ba'athist, would be more like Greek Orthodox. Many Muslims do not consider Ba'athists to be Muslims. The Wahabbis, who are a Sunni sect that includes Al Qaeda, can't stand Ba'athists. In fact, until 2003, you could split Arabia into two sections- Ba'athist controlled (Syria and Iraq) and Wahabbi/mainstream Sunni controlled (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait), with the other nations split. There was a lot of fighting between the two groups.

For the Shi'ites, you have the Ayatollah groups, who are controlled by Iran, and the Arab controlled ones. al-Sadr is a strange combination, since his dad was a Grand Ayatollah but most of his people are pro-Arab and anti-Iranian control. In contrast, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani almost certainly gets his orders from Tehran. There's actually a strong possibility of a civil war between those two groups as soon as we leave....and in fact may have started with the recent attack and attempted assasination of Ali Sistani in Najaf.


These things are way more complex than Sunni and Shiite.

Thanks for the explanation. I knew it was complex and also knew I did not understand well the complexites. So, there is intra-shiite conflict as well as intra-sunni conflict on top of the inter-sunni/shiite conflicts?

So, would it be fair to say that the hostilities are predominantly religious-orientation based? Is the U.S. siding with a single religious ideology or a political one?

[hrothgar]

jtfanclub, on Feb 12 2007, 12:24 AM, said:

If you think of Sunni as like Catholicism and Shiite like Protestants, then Saddam, who was a Ba'athist, would be more like Greek Orthodox.  Many Muslims do not consider Ba'athists to be Muslims.  The Wahabbis, who are a Sunni sect that includes Al Qaeda, can't stand Ba'athists.  In fact, until 2003, you could split Arabia into two sections- Ba'athist controlled (Syria and Iraq) and Wahabbi/mainstream Sunni controlled (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait), with the other nations split.  There was a lot of fighting between the two groups.

There are a few problems with that explanation... The Ba'athist are political party, not a religious sect.

There have been some examples of tension between Ba'athist leaders and muslim clergy. For example, in Syria Hafez al-Assad was a member of the Alawili sect as is his son Bashar. In many cases, the Shia and the Sunnis don't recognize the Alawi as Muslims, however, thats not an inditement of Ba'athism per see. (A good analogy would the way many Christians view the Mormons....) Equally significant, there's a lot of overlap between Ba'athism and some of the Pan Arab Nationalist movements which were (typically) very secular in nature.

Oh yeah.... In general the word Arabia refers to either Saudi Arabia or the Arabian penisula which does not include either the Levant or Iraq.

[pbleighton]

"I guess one of the worse case scenarios is a wider Sunni, Shia war based on the European religious Christian wars that lasted hundreds of years. This time with nukes. Iran backed Shia vs Saudi, Syria backed Sunni battle it out in Lebanon, Iraq, parts of other countries. Turkey vs Kurds, etc."

Probably not with the use of nukes.

A terrible scenario, nonetheless. We may have unleashed the whirlwind. For whatever reason, I am hopeful most of the violence will stay inside Iraq. If it doesn't, though, it could get huge in a hurry.

Peter

[Winstonm]

From a little reading, I find that Islam is divided predominantly by Sunni and Shiite, but there are a number of smaller sects - but the total numbers of these smaller sects comprise only 15% of the Islam total. Sunni is by far the largest sect with Shiite the next largest. Another important but small group seems to be the Wahhabis, who are the extremely hardcore fundamentalist.

From what I have read, the Sunnis are the more orthodox while the Shiite would be more - liberal perhaps is the word? While the Wahhabis would just as soon return to the dark ages.

So what sect does the U.S. claim comprises the insurgents? Or is the claim there are subsets to each sect that are both involved? And how would a victory by either the Sunnis or the Shiites provide an expanded base for the Wahhabis?

If the Mehdi army is Shiite, it would make sense to me that Shiite Iran would be backing them - but for the purpose of overcoming Sunni opposition - not specifically to harm U.S. troops.

The clash in Iraq looks to me like a religious war to see which sect will gain power, and the U.S. is chosing sides based on fear of more fundamental Sunni believers winning, regardless of what the majority of Iraqis may want, while blaming Iran for supporting the same side the U.S. is supporting???

I am tired of the sloganeering of "fighting the insurgents" and not providing a base for "radical extemists" - tell me we are supporting, why we are supporting them, who Iran is supporting, who the insurgents are, and how a win by either side can increase the influence of the Wahhabis.

I don't think this administration can do that and make it plausible - hence, the reliance of sloganeering and generalities.

I also find it curious that although Pakistan is 97% Islamic, there was no great outcry when they became a nuclear power - and there is no saber rattling toward Pakistan although reports suggest they harbor terrorists. What gives there?

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Feb 12 2007, 04:26 AM, said:

From a little reading, I find that Islam is divided predominantly by Sunni and Shiite, but there are a number of smaller sects - but the total numbers of these smaller sects comprise only 15% of the Islam total.  Sunni is by far the largest sect with Shiite the next largest.  Another important but small group seems to be the Wahhabis, who are the extremely hardcore fundamentalist.

From what I have read, the Sunnis are the more orthodox while the Shiite would be more - liberal perhaps is the word?  While the Wahhabis would just as soon return to the dark ages.

Its been a long time since I studied this stuff, however, heres my best effort:

If I were going to break Islam into different sects, I start with three basic divisions

Sunni
Shia
Sufi

Wahbbism is associated with the Hanbali maddhab, and is therefore normally classified as a subset of Sunni Islam. (There are a bunch of others) In a similar fashion, there a wide variety of divisons amongst the Shia. You ahve "fivers" and "twelvers" and I think that there were even "seveners".

In addition to this, you have a bunch of odd little sects like the Alawi and the Druze who aren't always considered to be Muslims. In general, I always associates these sects with the Shia who struck me as much more mystical in nature (and also had a lot more splinter movements)

I certainly wouldn't differentiate between the Sunni and the Shia based on a concept like "Orthodoxy". The demarcation is much more based on demography rather than fevor. The Sunni (pretty much) won the civil war over the succession to the Caliphate. In general, the ruling classes and the wealthy tend to be Sunni. Shia are more heavily represented in the poor portions of different societies (you find lots of Shia working in agriculture in Lebanon). There is also a strong demographic component to this all. Iran is overwhelmingly Shia. Turkey and Egypt are predominatly Sunni...

[Al_U_Card]

It used to be the Balkans...now its the Middle East.... we will always find a place to sow destruction and hatred....as they already exist everywhere. What a failed experiment we are. Good thing that the human spirit is indomitable unlike the human form which is frail and fragile.

[helene_t]

Isn't the Syrian gvt Shia-dominated? At least it used to be.

As for Ba'ath: it's new to me that it's a (islamic?) sect. I thought it was a (secular) political party. Hussein just happened to have family and friends who were Sunni.

[Al_U_Card]

We might just be better off in polling 1st generation citizens of middle-eastern origin and doing what they suggest. At least they have an understanding of what the region and peoples are all about. Despite their own prejudices they might come to a sensible consensus that the US could at least claim some form of legitimacy to. One thing is for sure.....Saddam had his "tribal" homeland around Tikrit.....that says volumes......like Bush going "home" to Texas when he is homesick.....oops, he does do that, doesn't he?

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Feb 11 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

Perhaps those who are more intelligent can help me understand what exactly is going on in Iraq and with Iran's suspected involvement - is this a clash of political divisions, cultural divisions, or religious divisions?

My understanding is that Saddam was a Sunni and the Sunnis were in power when he was there.  The overthrow brought about a Shiite-controlled government.  Supposedly Iran is sponsoring al-Sadr's Mehdi Army - but al-Sadr is Shiite with ties to the new Iraqi Shiite government.  Is the U.S. claiming intra-divisional insurgencies, that there are "bad" Shiites sponsored by Iran?  But aren't there Sunni insurgents as well?  And what about the Kurds? 

1979 produced the Islamic revolution in Iran - if Iraq is in civil war, it would seem totally normal for Iran to side with the groups that support their views.  I believe that Iran is a Shiite-controlled nation, so why would they be trying to destabilize the Shiite control in Iraq?  I can't make sense of it.  It is obvious the U.S. is taking the other side and supporing those groups.  But what side is it?  Moderates?  Sunnis?  Shiites?  Kurds? 

It seems Iran can identify its suporters - but I am unsure if the U.S. can do likewise.

To me this seems more like a gangfight interrupted by a stranger who happens to walk by - the gangs temporarily put aside their own differences to pound the new guy into submission.  The smart thing to do would be to get off their turf - unless your true objective is to take over that turf.

As an intellectual exercise I think this is great and important.
I think at the President's level at some point he or she has to be a decision maker and not get bogged down in endless details of fulling understanding the enemy.

I doubt Roosevelt fully understood German or Italian politics or religion or their leaders that well. They certainly had no fully developed post War plan the first years.

As some point you just need to make a decision on very imperfect information to fight or not.

Of course read nothing into this post that going into Iraq was best or that our planning was sane.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Feb 11 2007, 05:20 PM, said:

There are a few problems with that explanation... The Ba'athist are political party, not a religious sect.

I'm sure that you're right about this...it gets confusing quickly!

[Al_U_Card]

I guess intellectual exercises imply mental muscles which explains why the US political juggernaut launched into an ill prepared and poorly executed war.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Feb 12 2007, 09:33 PM, said:

I doubt Roosevelt fully understood German or Italian politics or religion or their leaders that well. They certainly had no fully developed post War plan the first years.

As some point you just need to make a decision on very imperfect information to fight or not.

I don't think your comparison is remotely accurate...

When Roosevelt was president the US was dragged in to an existential struggle with a convential military power. The US entered WWII when the Japanese government launched a sneak attack and destroyed most of the Pacific fleet. The US really didn't have an option not to fight.

Bush's invasion of Iraq was a war of convenience. He made a concious decision to launch and attack then and there with the "army we had"...

[mike777]

If it was a war of convenience and not a necessary war then I agree the comparison is not the same. At the very least I do not remember the majority of Congress saying that at the time.

In any event I doubt a President and Congress would do any study in that case.

[Winstonm]

Quote

As an intellectual exercise I think this is great and important.
I think at the President's level at some point he or she has to be a decision maker and not get bogged down in endless details of fulling understanding the enemy.

I doubt Roosevelt fully understood German or Italian politics or religion or their leaders that well. They certainly had no fully developed post War plan the first years.

As some point you just need to make a decision on very imperfect information to fight or not.

Mike, I don't understand your reasoning here. It seems to me that at the presidential level it would be even more important to understand cultural and religious interactions of the region if your intent truly was in helping the region.

However, if you intent is simply to occupy then who cares, right?

You seem to skip right past the question I am asking when you say at some point you have to make a decision whether or not to fight. It is this circular non-answer I am trying to avoid:

Q) Fight whom?
A) The enemy
Q) Who is the enemy?
A) The insurgents
Q) What group comprises the insurgents?
A) The terrorists and Islamic extremists
Q) What group is this?
A) The insurgents.
Q) And the insurgents are who?
A) The enemy.

So if I understand this correctly, we are really fighting the boogeyman? A nameless, faceless, groupless, sectless Islamic boogeyman?

Or might it be more accurate to think the Sunni, Shiite, and Wahhabis all are trying to force the U.S. out of the middle east and the only real enemy is anyone who stands in the way of the U.S. agenda?
Well, I certainly have that clear in my mind now.

[pbleighton]

"At the very least I do not remember the majority of Congress saying that at the time."

Would you expect any Congress or any President to admit this for any war?

If not, your point is meaningless.

Peter

[mike777]

Hmm I thought my point was clear, Congress does not read bills that it votes on.
To expect Congress and our President to know the culture of our enemies in depth I think is naive at best.


How many USA citizens know who the head of state of Canada is?
The prime minister?
Can name 4 provinces

Ok maybe too tough

Do you think Congress knows much about the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico?
Yet you expect them to know something about Iraq or Iran or etc?

Heck if they could find Iraq on the map before 1991 I would be shocked.
Be honest we all know people who cannot find Asia on the map.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Hmm I thought my point was clear, Congress does not read bills that it votes on.
To expect Congress and our President to know the culture of our enemies in depth I think is naive at best.

I agree that Congress for the most part does not read bills.

I do not expect Congress to know the culture of our enemies, but I would expect the president to know well our enemies as commander-in-chief with a vast array of intelligence subordinates whose job is to know the enemy thoroughly and keep the president so informed.

If the president - by being informed by CIA, DoD, and others does not know the culture of the enemy, who he is, where he lives, what he believes, and how best to engage him, then the president is simply swatting flies with a hand grenade.

And Congress was derelict in their duty by allowing it to happen.

So, Mike, can you tell who is the enemy of which the president speaks? Can you pinpoint them? Are they the enemy due to their religious beliefs? Is Iraq simply a renewal of the crusades? Or is it more like the Branch Dividians at Waco raised to the 10th power - we can demonize with sloganeering radical Islam because they are "weird".