Quote:
What about the goal of creating a secular democracy in Iraq that respects the rights of women and non-Muslims?
Give it up. It's not going to happen. Apart from the Kurds, who revel in their secularism, Iraqis overwhelmingly seek a Muslim state. Although Iraq may have been officially secular during the 1970s and 1980s, Saddam encouraged Islamism during the 1990s, and the difficulties of the past decades have strengthened the resurgence of Islam. In the absence of any other social institutions, the mosques and the clergy assumed the dominant role in Iraq following the invasion. Even Baathist resistance leaders told me they have returned to Islam to atone for their sins under Saddam. Most Shiites, too, follow one cleric or another. Ayatollah al-Sistani—supposedly a moderate—wants Islam to be the source of law. The invasion of Iraq has led to a theocracy, which can only grow more hostile to America as long as U.S. soldiers are present.
|
I'm not particularly comfortable with this, and as an extension I may not be able to accept this proposal as a whole. The idea that we need to just accept that whatever government is put in place will be more oppresive towards women and less tolerant of other religions than Saddam Hussein doesn't sound right to me. I understand that there needs to be a unifying force in place to fill the void left by Hussein's oppression but do we need to replace that with another form of oppression? Why are the foreign jihadist's goals all unrealistic and unlikely except these?