This is a map of the (those underlined) Holy Cities of Shia Islam (click here). The focus of 'democracy' in The Middle East has to surround Human Rights. As a form of government it is not a viable option.
The fact that Bush/Cheney even conceived of such a concept is proof enough of their illegitimate and incompetent strategy for the Middle East.
The article in The New York Times today raises the issue to a legitmate conversation about what 'type' of government actually works with half the world's population, namely Muslim, and how does The West interface with it.
"...The consensus among democracy advocates, diplomats and citizens interviewed around the Middle East is that the reverse is true. Elections, it appears, have increasingly become a tool used by authoritarian leaders to claim legitimacy...."
Certainly, the 'idea' of warring with Islam is the worst concept in reducing extremism such as noted with The Taliban and it's affiliation with al Qaeda. Confronting Islam with violence only begets more of it. It is why a 'pluralistic' society in Iraq, Iran or otherwise won't work. Won't work today or any other century to come.
Recognize this. "The Hem of the Skirt/Robe/Shadow They Cast." If Christians find themselves 'giddy' about that concept, realize that Roman Catholics worship The Pope and on a regular basis seek to 'kiss his ring' or 'touch his garment.' That is the same concept in Islam. The 'holy men;' the mufties, the clerics, the Imams, the Ayatollahs in the case of the Shia are all authorities and worshipped as deity no different than The Pope is worshipped as a diety. The holders of the 'faith' the 'wisdom' of the 'everlasting truth' to the religion.
Now, extrapolate that into political factions and what do you have? You have a people enthralled with their faith over and above anything their government can do. That is why elected officials without a 'familial' connection to Mohammad are viewed as disposable. If elected and unable to 'deliver' governing based in Islamic 'fundamentalism (if there is such a thing)' then the leaders are considered a corruption to the people. They are then assassinated. It happens in Iraq chronically because the government is viewed as a 'quasi-Bush regime' rather than an inspired 'branch' of religious pretext.
I have once before done an expose' on the difference between Shia and Sunni and why the two could never co-exist as is demanded by Bush in preserving Iraq as a sovereign authority. I have explained the injustice of the Shia by The West in favoring the Sunnis and nearly annhilating their lineage to Mohammad. The 'prejudice' of The West of 'The Ayatollah' has given Sunnis 'the idea' that killing off the Shia, including Hezbollah, is the right and just thing. It isn't difficult to 'push' Sunni Islamists into destroying other factions of faith as they believe they are the 'ones' most correct. It is why the Shia have been so radicalized and why The Grand Ayatallah al Sistani is such a rarity in Islam and a very important figure. To match him with a Sunni equivalent it would have to be the Jordanian King, as both believe in peace over confrontation and are moderates when it comes to their political views; separating those political views from religious views. In Jordan and in the opinion of The Grand Ayatollah al Sistani, the world of Islam has to find a 'peace' with a greater world different than them. Definitively, they identifiy 'peace' and not 'domination.'
The King of Jordan has lectured about the 'diffuseness' of Islam and the allowance of different 'ideology' within the faith and how that needs to be contained in order to contain the violence. The King of Jordan does not recognize violence as a legitimate form of belief and has demonstrated that over and over and especially since the bombings of Amman, a city of over a half million people. The Jordanian King has a strong lineage that can be traced to Mohammad. That lineage is very powerful in The Middle East. His protectionism of his people is a strong indication to 'the will of Allah.' King Abdullah is a good and decent man, with a father that found approaching 'The West' in benevolence a better path for his people. A path that brings Jordan a better quality of life. The extremists would argue 'that quality of life' is a corruption of 'the faith' but with King Abdullah being of such a strong lineage to Mohammad it is easily argued differently and extremism more easily viewed as an 'abberation' of the faith rather than a central belief.
Elections in these countries need to be somewhat limited to parliamentary elections, such as that which Iran has. The parliaments 'give voice' to the desire and needs of the people. The leaders of these nations of people seek 'the voice' of their people to guide their decisions. It is the only place a democratic concept can be implimented with success and mostly unquestionable authority. The Parliament is not the decision maker as in the USA Constitution, which is SUPPOSED to have a strong legislature as the dominating policy maker of 'the people.' The Parliaments of Islam are more an advocacy role and not a 'law making' role. The rules they pass are viewed as 'the need and will' of the people of Allah but not the ultimate authority. The ultimate authority is always Allah and to that end is where violence dominates the process. When government 'strays' from Islamic principle that is where members of 'the faith,' whom could be anyone find their legitimacy in violence.In Iraq. The government has been 'instilled' primarily by 'exiles,' the folks that spoke English and what Bush and Cheney, the power brokers, wanted to hear. The people of Iraq were completely ignorant to the 'concept' of democracy although familiar with elections. They elected parliments which answered to Saddam Hussein, their dictator. So, to attempt to 'teach' the people of Iraq about democracy as dictated by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Madison, Monroe and Adams and all the other non-Islamic white guys takes a whole lot of time realizing the 'audience' to the instruction is listening with 'ears for Allah' and not 'the right to individual freedom' from The Burger Court. I understand that violence and why it is never ending. It will be never ending until the USA leaves Islam. Iraq. Iraq is 'the heart' of Islam along with Mecca. And. Right now. The Shia feel they are under seige. I am not certain they are not. Hence, the 'rise' of Iran.
We don't belong in Iraq.
We never did.
Oppose the draft.
Troops home now.
