Why Wesley Clark is right about Iraq - he met my expectations and then some.
Submitted by Camille on December 8, 2005 - 7:58pm.
From the Diaries -- Brent
As usual, with his op-ed piece, "The Next Iraq Offensive" in the The New York Times on December 6, 2005, Wesley Clark met my expectations, and then some.
As some of you already know, I am originally from New York, but grew up in the Middle East, and then lived in France for 25 years. I've been back home now for over six years, and am so glad to be here.
I have absolute faith in Wes' extraordinary mind and superior intelligence, and thus his ability to understand the complexities of a region and to place its current conflict in its correct historical and geopolitical context.
Of course, we need to work on diplomacy, politics, and the other countries surrounding Iraq, not to mention our European allies, with whom Wesley has already worked in the past, and would continue to do so if he was president today. He knows many languages, has lived in many countries, and has already solved the complex situation in Kosovo. Oh, how I wish he was leading our country today! If he were to travel to foreign countries as our president, crowds would come out to welcome him, and we could hold up our heads again on this planet, instead of what happens today, with the staged protests displaying effigies of our president dressed up as Hitler, with whole cities completely locked down... .
I digress.
Let's not forget that Saddam waged war on Iran for eight from 1980 to 1988, and that approximately one-half million people lost their lives (excuse me for not finding the exact number of casualties). Saddam's regime was inherently secular, a Ba'athist government similar to the Ba'athists of Syria and Egypt, touting a pan-Arabism born with the emergence of the Egyptian president Nasser. Ba'athism is a secular political movement that grew up after WWII and the rise of communism and other progressive socialist movements in the Arab world. Led by Nasser of Egypt, it fed pride to the Arab street, and counter-balanced the rise of communism and Islamic governments, promoting the idea of a greater Arab nation. The cry of grief all over the Arab world upon Nasser's death in 1970, coupled with their loss of hope, was painful to witness.
Saddam Hussein was a Ba'athist if there ever was one, and went to war against Iran to gain a victory over the rise of the Islamic state there (remember Khomeini?), with its Shi'ite Muslim majority (about 90%), thus keeping the Shi'ites in his own country under his strict iron fist. In fact, the pundits say that Saudi Arabia's focus on the most fundamentalist movement in Islam, Wahhabism, was insituted by the Saudis to give a balance to the Shi'ite form of Islam and the Iranian revolution of 1979. Think about Osama Bin Laden's fundamental Islamic ideas and his Saudi background.
As for Syria, the recent weakening of the police state there, headed up by Assad, also a Ba'athist but from a family of a very small minority Muslim sect called the Alawites, makes it a perfect occasion for us to start negotiating with him, since, in his weakened and isolated position, he might be ready to help. Let's not forget that Syria fought on our side during the first Gulf War. Of course we need to keep Syria in check, and also continue to pursue it for its meddlings in Lebanon, and get to the bottom of the on-going investigation of the assasination of the former prime minister of Lebanon, Hariri. However, I question the need for making yet another enemy in the region at this point in time, and truly believe that careful diplomacy could definitely create some positive effects.
Back to Iran, with its 90% Shi'ite majority, and its recent menacing mumblings, we must definitely keep them in clear focus. The Shi'ites of Iraq, now gaining some political might after years of torture and near-slavery, might be tempted to start making alliances with their Shi'ite brethren in Iran, to continue to strengthen their position, and create the balance always needed with the Sunnites, who are, after all, the majority of the Muslims the world over (about 90% of the Muslims in the world are Sunnite). Chalabi keeps talking to the Iranians, always insisting that he is just being neighborly, but we must continue to pay attention.
Another country that has a heavy Shi'ite majority is Lebanon, and the Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed group with control of the south of Lebanon on the Israeli border as well as being prevalent in the Beka'a Valley, in Lebanon just west of Damascus, are yet another bunch with whom we must contend. Lebanon is still quite fragile after a civil war of 15 years, and the danger of more violence spreading from Iraq through to Syria, Jordan, and then Lebanon is definitely a possibility. Who needs another powder key in Beirut, just when the Lebanese are finally beginning to throw off the shackles of Syrian dominance and finally assume pride in their Lebanese identity? Never before in the short history of Lebanon have I seen so many Lebanese flags raised!
Wesley Clark is right when he talks about all these nations and groups, and the current administration is completely incapable of understanding any implications for its actions, or listening to the experts that surely line the halls of the Pentagon and keep the night oil burning long hours in the State Department.
To sum up, following September 11 when I heard that Iraq was back on the table, and that they were trying to prove that there was linkage between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, it just made absolutely no sense to me, knowing how secular he was - he added the words "Allah Akbar," or "God is the greatest" to the Iraqi flag very recently to gain some respect from his people to show that he was a good Muslim (you gotta be kidding!). "Allah Akbar" is the first sentence of the call to prayer broadcast five times a day from mosques in all Muslim countries throughout the world. The Ba'athists have always been secular, believing in the pan-Arabism above all, and it still doesn't make any sense to say that Saddam Hussein had dealings with Osama Bin Laden, whose ultimate goal is to re-establish the Islamic caliphate. I still laugh or wince in disgust, depending on my mood, whenever I see "Vice" - as Maureen Dowd calls him - insist that there is proof that Saddam and Bin Laden were planning September 11 together.
In my next posting, I'll be talking about WMDs and some recent revelations from a former federal agent with whom I am currently giving lectures on Middle Eastern customs and counterterrorism. I also plan to discuss the recent unrest in France, as well as my understanding of the rise of radical Islam in European communities, as I witnessed the lives of Muslim Arabs in Europe while I was there.
I would be delighted to receive your comments on my understanding of the issues, and am most honored to take part in this CCN.
Camille
of the ME is embarrassing! I really appreciate and enjoyed reading your take on things. Thanks Camille!
Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right. - Hunter/Garcia
Wow, Camille. You're on a roll. You've probably forgotton more about the Middle East than I've ever known.
I remember being in college in the late 60s, perusing my weekly Newsweek. As early as '68 or '69, I was already tired of the problems in that region. And that was over 35 years ago. Imagine how tired of the problems I am now!
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
Great post. I have been reading about the so called geopolitical implications of our leaving Iraq and lack the expertise or writing skill to participate. Thank you. I will be adding your name to my buddy list, if I can figure it out!
Your comment below is critical.
<<Wesley Clark is right when he talks about all these nations and groups, and the current administration is completely incapable of understanding any implications for its actions, or listening to the experts that surely line the halls of the Pentagon and keep the night oil burning long hours in the State Department.>>
Experts complain the Clark's plans have been tried and don't work. If he is attemp[ting to write a plan for Bush, then of course they are right. Bush lacks the intelligance, desire, stature, good will amoung foe and friends to pull this off. General Clark's plan will work for General Clark. He has taught me the importance of patience and hard work through his Kosovo campaign.
Haypops, I'm curious about your statement that experts have said that the plans have been tried and don't work. Although I've read some comments that brush off the General's latest op ed, they are hardly experts. As for those with experience and credibility who have proposed other ideas, I think that with such a mess brewed up, that is to be expected. Also, I'm reading General Clark as looking at a problem with the intent to solve it, rather than view it as intractable. That doesn't mean that he doesn't see the situation as grave. Anyway, if you can provide some links, I'd love to read their objections.
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
You are right in as much as I should have refered to them as self proclaimed experts. Sorry no links, but I get much of my interest from here so we all prbably read the same things.
I have a question. Is Wes Clark's plan meant to be implemented by himself, some undisclosed typical Democrat, or, forgive me: The Chimp that would be president. I think it is a question that those who object to his plan need to consider.
I gave you a 10 on your first blog post here. I look forward to reading the next installment. You bring a new voice and another point of view to the CCN. So glad you have joined us here:)
I can't wait to hear more from you. It's nice to read someone that has knowledge beyond the American viewpoint. I hope Wes Clark reads you, too! Thank you for this, and please become active here, as much as you can? Damn this administration for starting this war!
I enjoyed reading this greatly! You're a great value here,... looking forward to reading your future posts!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Debate, Dialogue, Discussion, Disagreement - that's not wrong -that's not unpatriotic, that's one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it!" - Gen. Wesley Clark (US Ret.)
Looking forward to your next installment.
Where in the world is Kevin Shelley?!?
Thank you for this wonderful post, Camille!
This is a wonderful post! I've been reading things here and there, trying to understand more about the geopolitics of the ME and it really is very complicated. Thank you so much for sharing your knowledge. I'm looking forward to your next post. Sounds interesting.
really looking forward to reading your thoughts on the recent unrest in France and how it has left France politically. I've followed the De Villepin v Sarkozy saga since the former Foreign Minister sparked my interest with his security council speech against the iraq invasion.
And I couldn't agree more that the secular Arab nationalism of Saddam was always totally at odds with the radical fundamentalism of Bin Laden. I don't know as much about the ME as you do, but the disconnect between the two was so glaring that it was what started me asking questions when talk of invading Iraq came up after Sep 11.
What I appreciate most is your take on Wahhabism. I always wondered how it fitted into the scheme of the Sunni-Shia divide given that I understand Sunnis to be, as a general rule, less rigid in their practice of Islam than Shiites.
Can you explain when and why you think the need arose for counter-balancing the Shia with a more regressive (if I can use that word?) form of Sunni Islam?
You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003
Phoebe_in_Sydney:
Thank you so much for your reply and kind words. Amazing to find a CCN member who is following the De Villepin and Sarkozy saga. Do you read French? If so, I would highly recommend LeMonde.fr - they have a members version called "LeDesk" that costs Euro 6.0/month, and the information is really outstanding. Perhaps you're watching the French-language cable channel, TV5. Anyway, I promise to say more in my next posting, if there is an interest, otherwise we could perhaps take the discussion off line.
Let me attempt to answer your question:
Can you explain when and why you think the need arose for counter-balancing the Shia with a more regressive (if I can use that word?) form of Sunni Islam?
Once again, I am neither Muslim nor a Muslim scholar, but I have read widely, and perhaps can offer a bit of understanding, since living in the region does help me grasp some of the notions in their context.
What you are calling the "regressive" form of Sunni Islam, Wahhabism, would perhaps be better described as a more "fundamental" strain of Islam, a return to a more puritan view of the religion, to what Muhammad ibn al Wahhab (1703-92) considered to be the true fundamentals of Islam. Many would indeed consider it as a "regressive" form. However, I would like to maintain my neutral stance, and just say that Islam fundamentals are beliefs in the Ten Commandments, the Five Pillars of Faith, the Six Principles of Faith, and often, also strict interpretation of Shari'a Law. Shari'a Law was also prevalent during the Ottoman Empire, which was dismantled at the end of WWI.
I quote from the following sources:
- Headden, Susan, ed. “Secrets of Islam.” Collector’s Edition, U.S. News & World Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
News & World Report Inc., 2005.
- Hourani, Albert. History of the Arab Peoples. New York: Warner Books, Inc., 1991.
"Critical of mainstream Sunni legalism ... [Wahhab] forged a crucial alliance with the Saud clan .... In 1932, when the clan was established as the royal family of Saudi Arabia, the ... Wahhabi strain of Islam effectively became the established religion of the kingdom."
Thus, when the Shi'ite Islamic republic arose in 1979 in Iran with Khomeini's return from his exile in France, the Saudis saw this as an obvious threat to their kingdom, which they wanted to maintain as precisely that - a kingdom. In no way did they desire the establishment of an Islamic republic in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, they continued to proselytize and heavily finance the Wahhabi flavor of Islam. Just as a reminder, the majority of Saudis are Sunnite (Wahhabism is a Sunnite strain), while the majority of Iranians are Shi'ite.
In a nutshell, Sunnites ("followers of the prophet's way") and Shi'ites ("partisans of Ali"), both Muslim sects, vary in that they believe in different successors to the prophet Muhammad, as well as the way Muslims should interpret the Qur'an. Sunnis believe that Muhammad's successor need only be a true believer, and they must take direction from the consensus of the community (UM-MAH); they consider the Qur’an to be a divine text that needs no further interpretation.
The Shi'ites on the other hand, accept the authority of an infallible spiritual leader named by God (known as the IMAM), and believe that Muhammad's successor must come from his family line, namely from Ali, who was Muhammad's son-in-law and first cousin. They believe that last IMAM has been alive for 1,000 years but that humans cannot perceive him – in the absence of physical authority, “earthly imams” can assume the mantle and become prayer leaders and interpreters of the Qur'an, which, in modern times, does need interpretation.
To sum up,
"...the Shi'ites tradition of re-evaluating the Qur'an to fit modern sensibilities makes them comfortable with such political notions as compromise and flexibility."
In my opinion, the Saudis aren't really that interested in compromise and flexibility, which is what makes them uncomfortable with Shi'ism.
Phoebe_in_Sydney, I really hope this helps.
Camille
thanks for the explanation, camille.
My basic understanding of the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam (and perhaps I'm wrong) is -- leaving aside Wahhabism, which is a specific form of Sunni faith -- that the Sunnis are generally more flexible than the Shia.
Apart from in Saudi Arabia, for instance, most predominantly Sunni countries allow women to just wear a simple headscarf rather than a full covering don't they?
My use of the word "regressive" was offered with reservations (I knew it was too judgemental perhaps!) What I was referring to was my impression that Wahhabism had re-introduced some restrictions on Sunnis that their faith had eased.
The main point I was interested in was when (and why?) Sunnis felt the need to compete with the more fundamental beliefs of Shia Islam. that was the reason for my question.
Are you saying it's a Saudi-based phenomenon, born of the need for the Saudi royal family to exercise more strict control over their population? Did they see the Iranian Shia having more effective control over their people in Iran and want to create a Sunni equivalent?
Also can you tell me is Sharia law practised by both Wahhabists and Shiites?
Sorry in advance if I'm misinterpreting your answer. My main knowledge of the differences between the Sunni and Shia strains of Islam comes from a book called "The Nine Parts of Desire" written by a friend of mine, a journalist who covered the Iran/Iraq war and worked as a Middle East correspondent.
I am also a journalist and have a lot of exposure to international news, hence my interest in De Villepin v Sarkozy. Unfortunately I don't read French -- which is an enormous frustration. Since his Security Council anti-Iraq war speech I've found De Villepin an intriguing person. I know he is politically on the right but can't quite work him out because on occasions where I've heard him speak in English, or read translations of his speeches from French, he seems very "liberal". Especially for a Chirac insider. But day-to-day there is little reporting of French politics in the English-speaking media so my knowledge is limited.
Maybe this is a topic we should take "off-blog" as it doesn't directly relate to Clark or US foreign policy.
My user name here plus @yahoo.com.au is my email address.
I look forward to your analysis of the recent friction in France.
thanks again for addressing my questions in your last post.
You'd be taking them to the Better Business Bureau if you bought a washing machine the way we went into the war in Iraq. Wes Clark, CNN Aug 17 2003
This is, indeed, a Best of Blogs!
Thank you, Camille, for expounding so eloquently and for sharing...
the teacher will appear.
Thanks Camile...I think you are one of those teachers and look forward to learning more through your insightful posts.
my idea thread that she grew up in Beirut. However, she was originally from New York. She lived in France as an adult for 25 years, I believe.
...in the Dallas area.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
Yes, 16 years in Beirut (with travel) and then 25 years in Paris, France (with travel), and now in Plano, Texas, a suburb of Dallas. I am a precinct chair for the Democratic Party of Collin County, and just recently stepped down as PR chair for the same party. Oh, and I was born in New York City of American parents, and I am also an American, of course.
Thanks again for all the wonderful comments.
Camille
Sure thing. I grew up in Beirut, Lebanon, and was fortunate enough to travel several times to Syria, Jordan, and what is now Israel (West Bank), the Holy Land. I was only six years old when I arrived there, and then left when I was 22. I graduated from the American University of Beirut, a.k.a. by Time Magazine as "Guerilla U." Kidding aside, it is still the best American university outside of the U.S.
Thanks for asking,
Camille
Looking forward to your next Post. Your insight and knowledge of the ME helps us understand the complexity of resolving the issues of the Iraqi War. Thank you so much for adding your voice! Welcome!
I find this discussion fascinating and ask you and Phoebe to please not take it off the blog. I for one feed on geopolitical information. ;)
George Bush has had his day and he's bollixed it up.
...will be a good way to keep the discussion between Phoebe and me on line. Thanks so much for your suggestion, mad4clark.
What I propose it to perhaps talk about France (and the recent unrest there), yet tie it in with how well Wesley Clark could just get on the phone to talk to all of our allies and bring them back on board. Yes, and he's the only one who can really do it. Kerry could have perhaps done it to some degree, what with his French and being related to a well-known French politician (Lalonde), but Wesley is the only true diplomat for our country now.
I can't thank everyone enough for the kind words and warm welcome that I have received here. Thank you.
Camille
...caused it's own internal problems. By refusing to recognise their minority, mainly ME, citizens, they have sewn the seeds of discontent.
I used to think that the French were the most tolerant people on earth. I spent a few weeks here and there in Paris during the very early 60s and I was blown away by the diversity.....at least in the poorer sections like Mon Martre, where I stayed. Coming from a 'white bread' homeland like Scotland, it really opened my eyes. I loved it!
As for Wes....Yes, he knows personally most of the European leaders and would be able to just pick up the phone. Also, he has first hand diplomatic experience garnered from his work on the Dayton Accords.
George Bush has had his day and he's bollixed it up.
I love the French and France (I have a Master's in French), but they're among the most chauvinistic people around. They're especially disdainful of the Middle East and North Africa, dating to France's ownership of Algeria.
As early as the 18th century, allegedly the Age of Reason, French literature was rife with using Turks as the butts of jokes.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
If not us, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
....name one country that doesn't do this. I remember Brits talking about 'wogs' etc.
George Bush has had his day and he's bollixed it up.
He is very aware of all these things -- but we aren't. At least I am not. Thanks for filling me in on what opportunities there are if done the right way. That is, if done by smart, sane people and not neocon extremists.
Noel
Noel,
Thanks so much, since this is exactly what I was hoping to achieve. It makes me feel useful to have some of the knowledge of places where I grew up and then lived; I also hope to gain more knowledge from this group about issues here and now, since I've only been back in the U.S. for just over six years. I wasn't even allowed to vote until 1992, when voting restrictions on U.S. citizens abroad were lifted. Now, U.S. citizens can vote using their previous address, which, in my case, was the address on my birth certificate in New York City. If you ever need a voice about why it is important to vote, just ask me...
Your background is also amazing, Noel. I just went and looked at your profile. Great!
Camille
A Pact of Honor
Lifted from a diary at Kos.
Although the Pact of Honor was published by the Sadrists at the end of November according to Al-Hayat(Arabic language), this declaration of Iraqi independece appears to have attracted suspiciously little coverage in the western press. Admittedly, there are practically no real English-language journalists left in Iraq who aren't in the Green Zone, but it still seems a pretty glaring omission. The only reference I could find was on Indymedia here.
The AP appears to have accorded the signing of this document by as worthy of four paragraphs and so far has appeared only in only India and Israel so far. The story does not yet appear in the American or British press.
A group of Shiite and Sunni parties signed a declaration Thursday condemning terrorism, urging a timetable for the end of the US military presence, and vowing never to normalize relations with Israel.
The parties to the "code of honor" included followers of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Sunni Iraqi Consensus Front.
The code also declared that resistance is a legitimate right and condemned "terrorism, violence, murder and kidnappings."
The code is non-binding but it indicates what parties might choose to work together after the new parliament is elected next week.
Note: I've been reading this diary at Kos all day. There is much more information included in the comments section. What it underscores for me is just how complex this situation is. Bremer had opportunities to negate Sadr's influence and failed to find the political will. I understand that Sistani has not endorsed this move, but that does mute the message. If Iraq continues to drift in this direction, I am not hopeful about the outcome of the 12/15 elections. Notice that de-baathification is to proceed at pace which is another of Bremer's blunders. So many chess pieces, so little board...
You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.--J. V. Marley
Bremer couldn't have been a worse choice for restructuring of Iraq. Every decision he made was the wrong one.
George Bush has had his day and he's bollixed it up.
Very interesting post. Thanks again. What is Sistani's position with regard to the elections on December 15? I need to come up to speed on this - there is a good analysis in the NYTimes' "Week in Review" section today. All we can hope is that the Sunnites come out and vote. They know they made a mistake by not taking part in the elections last time. Yes, and Bremer's blunder continues to plague us.
Camille
