Meanwhile in Baqubah…
Suicide Bomber Kills 68 in Iraq
Whole story here, along with disturbing chart of foreigners kidnapped, executed, or freed.
Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is still talking a good game, most recently coming out in favor of Saudi-led, all-Islamic force in Iraq.
Saudi Arabia is also saying that they'll be sending Iraq promised development aid, just as soon as the ink on the billion-dollar check dries.
I don't know the specifics of the Saudi proposition to lead a Muslim army in Iraq and anything that helps US troops leave sooner rather than later--and stabilizes the region--would be a good thing. But if one of the US goals was to develop a democracy in the Middle East, it seems unlikely that turning Iraq over to one of the most despotic regimes on the planet is going to get that job done.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Will Iran send in (Shia) Islamic troops as well, you know, just to help out?
Death toll hits 70.
"Under the proposed Saudi plan, any new Arab and Muslim troops would supplement coalition troops, not replace them, but could reduce the need for so many troops as security is restored, according to a State Department official. The Saudi initiative would involve Muslim nations that do not border Iraq, meaning Saudi troops would not be included."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/29/iraq.main/index.html
So the "insurgents" tried "revolution" and after a while that failed. Because of America's superiority in the field.
Now they are trying a bombing campaign. It took the Israelis 3 1/2 years to subdue the Palis. You think people can't remember what happened yesterday? That is reserved for news reporters.
The current wave of bombings will not severely shake America's faith in the war. Especially since we handled worse shocks in April and May.
You are thinking of this incorrectly.
Think of seeding Saudi with troops who have watched Islamic democracy in action. An Islamic people living without morals police.
Islam without sharia.
When they rotate home they are going to talk.
There is a deeper game being played here than your typical Libertarian can imagine. This is the Middle East.
Evidently no Saudi troops will be included. How unfortunate. Perhaps in the 2nd round.
There is a deeper game being played here than your typical Libertarian can imagine.
I somehow doubt that our leaders are as clever as you credit them with. Hell, I'm not sure if the Smoking Man from the X-Files (the ultimate chess player!) is that clever. Somehow I can't help but think that letting the Saudis gain sway in Iraq is a good thing.
But I hope you're right. Because if you're wrong, things will only get worse.
CORRECTION:
When I wrote "Somehow I can't help but think that letting the Saudis gain sway in Iraq is a good thing"
I screwed up. What I should have written is:
"Somehow I can't help but think that letting the Saudis gain sway in Iraq is a bad thing."
M. Simon,
Maybe Mo can help me out on this...
...but it's my understanding that Islam without Sharia is like Constitutional Democracy without a Constitution.
Much of the Qu'ran is like a legal document covering things like divorce and inheritance laws. Much of the Islamic world has abrogated the part of Sharia that cuts off people's hands, etc., just like Christians did with the Old Testament in the Bible. But the Wahabists, if they've abroagated anything at all, haven't abrogated much.
When you hear about Sharia being popular in parts of Nigeria, for instance, I read it as being because Sharia, as it's being applied for most people there, is preferable to the alternative. Indeed, not long ago, Hit & Run linked to a report that people in Canada who submit to arbitration can have their case arbitrated in a Sharia court if they choose. For Muslims, even here in America, Sharia is synonymous with justice.
Unfortunately, I wouldn't put much stock in the hope that Wahabi fanatics in Saudi Arabia will suddenly realize that Muslim Democracy isn't so bad after all once they've listened to the stories of returning Saudi troops who've observed a successful Islamic democracy in Iraq.
A couple of years ago, I went to a Muslim conference in Long Beach, and I saw a Sunni Imam, who had been educated in Iraq, describe America as a Muslim paradise. I don't think he could get a good reception to a message like that in Saudi Arabia, even if it is true. This may sound like something Jackie Gleason would say, but Fanatical Wahabists, just like fanatical Christians here in the United States, already know everything they need to know about everything they need to know about. That?s what makes them fanatics.
How many Saudis came to study in the United States prior to 9/11?
"That's when the explosion happened. I saw smoke, people running everywhere, shrapnel falling and pieces of flesh. I don't know whom to blame, because no Muslim and no Iraqi could do such a thing."
Bring unto me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning for someone to blame for the shortcomings of their anachronistic ideologies.
Well, rst, he's probably half right. It probably wasn't an Iraqi.