"Under the Kundara" in the new Iraq

[shereads]

Surprise! It's a theocracy.

This is Baghdad. What could be worse?
By Anthony Shadid
Sunday, October 29, 2006; Page B01
Washington Post


There was an almost forgettable exchange earlier this month in the Iraqi National Assembly, itself on the fringe of relevance in today's disintegrating Iraq. Lawmakers debated whether legislation should be submitted to a committee to determine if it was compatible with Islam. Ideas were put forth, as well as criticism. Why not a committee to determine whether legislation endorses democratic principles? one asked. In stepped Mahmoud Mashadani, the assembly's speaker, to settle the dispute.

"Any law or decision that goes against Islam, we'll put it under the kundara!" he thundered.

"God is greatest!" lawmakers shouted back, in a rare moment of agreement between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.

Kundara means shoe, and the bit of bluster by Mashadani said a lot about Baghdad today.

It had been almost a year since I was in the Iraqi capital, where I worked as a reporter in the days of Saddam Hussein, the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, and the occupation, guerrilla war and religious resurgence that followed. On my return, it was difficult to grasp how atomized and violent the 1,250-year-old city has become. Even on the worst days, I had always found Baghdad's most redeeming quality to be its resilience, a tenacious refusal among people I met over three years to surrender to the chaos unleashed when the Americans arrived. That resilience is gone, overwhelmed by civil war, anarchy or whatever term could possibly fit. Baghdad now is convulsed by hatred, paralyzed by suspicion; fear has forced many to leave. Carnage its rhythm and despair its mantra, the capital, it seems, no longer embraces life.

"A city of ghosts," a friend told me, her tone almost funereal.

The commotion in the streets -- goods spilling across sidewalks, traffic snarled under a searing sun -- once prompted the uninitiated to conclude that Baghdad was reviving. Of course, they were seeing the city through a windshield, the often angry voices on the streets inaudible. Today, with traffic dwindling, stores shuttered and streets empty by nightfall, that conceit no longer holds.

Even the propaganda, once ubiquitous and often incongruous, is gone. One piece I recalled from two years ago: a map of Iraq divided into three colored bands. In white, it read, "Progress." In red, "Iraq." In white again, "Prosperity." The promises are now more modest: "However strong the wind," reads a new poster of a woman clutching her child, "it will pass." More indicative of the mood, perhaps, was one of the old banners still hanging. Faded and draped over a building scarred with craters from the invasion, it was an ad for the U.S.-funded Iraqi network, al-Iraqiya. In Arabic, its slogan reads, "Prepare your eyes for more."

As I spoke to friends, some for the first time in more than a year, that was their fear: more of the kundara.

"When anyone is against you, when anyone has differences with me, I will put a kundara in his mouth, I will shove a kundara down his throat, I will hit him with a kundara, and so on," another friend told me.

"We live in a kundara culture today."

I had first met Karima Salman during the U.S. invasion. She was a stout Shiite Muslim matriarch with eight children, living in a three-room apartment in the working-class district of Karrada. Trash was piled at her entrance, a dented, rusted steel gate perched along a sagging brick sidewalk. When I visited last year, the street, still one of the safer ones in Baghdad, exuded a veneer of normalcy. Makeshift markets overflowed with goods piled on rickety stands: socks imported from China, T-shirts from Syria and stacks of shoes, sunglasses and lingerie. Down the street were toys: plastic guns, a Barbie knockoff in a black veil, and a pirate carrying an AK-47 and a grenade. There was a "Super Mega Heavy Metal Fighter" action figure and a doll that, when squeezed, played "It's a Small World."

On this day, the metal stands were empty, as were the streets.

"Praise God," Karima said as I asked how she was. In a moment, her smile faded as she realized the absurdity of her words. "Of course, it's not good," she said, shaking her head. "There's nothing that's ever happened like what's happening in Iraq."

On June 23, 2005, three car bombs detonated in Karrada, outside her home, wrecking the Abdul-Rasul Ali mosque and spraying shrapnel that sliced into the forearm of one of her five daughters, Hiba. Friends at school nicknamed her "Shrapnel Hiba." Two months ago, yet another bomb hurled glass through their window, cutting the head of Hiba's twin sister, Duaa. Four stitches sealed the wound. Over that time, Karima lost her job as a maid at the Palm Hotel, where she had earned about $33 a month.

"People are too scared to come," she said matter of factly.

Next to her sat her son Mohammed. During the invasion, Mohammed, an ex-convict, had joined a motley unit of a dozen men patrolling Baghdad's streets as part of the Baath Party militia. Now he had entered the ranks of the Mahdi Army, a Shiite militia loyal to a young cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, and blamed for many of today's sectarian killings in Baghdad. Karima's son-in-law Ali had been an officer in the American-equipped police force, earning $300 a month. He quit after receiving a death threat. Now he, too, had joined the Mahdi Army.

"Not all of them are good," Karima told me, casting a glance at her son.

Stocky and a little surly, Mohammed smiled. "Who else is going to protect Iraq?" he asked.

They debated the causes of the violence that, these days, is the topic of almost every conversation. Radical Sunnis, the Americans, Iranian agents, other militias. "Even the Egyptians," Karima offered. "And the Sudanese," Mohammed added.

"Brothers are killing their brothers," she said.

Stories poured forth: a bomb amputating the arm of a 10-year-old neighbor; another killing Marwan, the barber.

"If they brought the Israelis, the Jews, and they ruled Iraq, it would be better," said Karima, her face framed by a black veil. Sunlight bathed the room; electricity, as usual, was cut off. "It would be a million times better than a Sunni, a million times better than a Shiite."

Her first grandchild, 2-month-old Fahd, sat next to her. His expression was rare in Baghdad: eyes expectant, fearless.

"Is it not a pity to bring a baby in a world like this?" she asked. "It's a shame."

Her eldest daughter, Fatima, looked on.

"One-third of us are dying, one-third of us are fleeing and one-third of us will be widows," she said.

God forgive the arrogant bastards who've wasted so many lives on this absurd mission. And those of us who allowed it to happen.

 

[amicus]

That description of Baghdad reminds me of accounts I have read concerning Berlin, Germany at the close of world war two.

It also reminds me of a story by an author I met recently, she is from Germany, the story concerns the Berlin Airlift and how the German people were reluctant to welcome the GI's and feared the Russian Communists.

I am also reminded of the people in Saigon, South Vietnam, bewildered that the likes of you broke the will of the American people to set those people free.

I have been fortunate to have been born and raised in a free nation, one that respects and protects individual rights and liberties, thus I can have only a general feeling as to how people, under generations of oppression, might respond when the controls are removed and people are free to choose.

Freedom is a huge responsibility, even in America, I can only imagine how frightening it must be in present day Iraq, especially with detractors like you muddying the waters.

amicus...


(edit to add: http://www.amazon.com/Eagles-Over-B...ef=sr_1_2/002-6133436-9561647?ie=UTF8&s=books )

 

[shereads]

That description of Baghdad reminds me of accounts I have read concerning Berlin, Germany at the close of world war two.

It also reminds me of a story by an author I met recently, she is from Germany, the story concerns the Berlin Airlift and how the German people were reluctant to welcome the GI's and feared the Russian Communists.

I am also reminded of the people in Saigon, South Vietnam, bewildered that the likes of you broke the will of the American people to set those people free.

I have been fortunate to have been born and raised in a free nation, one that respects and protects individual rights and liberties, thus I can have only a general feeling as to how people, under generations of oppression, might respond when the controls are removed and people are free to choose.

Freedom is a huge responsibility, even in America, I can only imagine how frightening it must be in present day Iraq, especially with detractors like you muddying the waters.

I only wish we'd been able to muddy the waters enough to stop the flood.

How arrogant, to think we could deliver democracy to a country that didn't want it enough to attempt it on their own. How cowardly of your side, having plunged us all into this abyss, to blame your failure on the people who tried to stop you.

In the shock left over from 9/11, Bush/Cheney were practically given carte blanche to run this war as they chose. Verbal detractors at home and abroad have been the only thing they couldn't control on demand - and have been the least of Iraq's problems. Your side was wrong. Mine was right. Live with it, as the rest of us will have to.

BTW, the comparison of Iraq to post-WWII Germany/Japan has been debunked in this forum so often and so thoroughly that even you can't pretend not to know better. Germany and Japan were nations of their own making, not an artificial border drawn around ethnic groups with a long history of hatred. Homogenous states whose people united to wage war could reasonably be expected to unite for rebuilding. That ain't Iraq.

If democracy is a large pizza, you just delivered one with extra pepperoni to a prison of which half the occupants are militant vegans. You disarmed the guards, handed out copies of the master key, volunteered your neighbors' sons and daughters to keep order in the cafeteria, and are now standing there with your hand out, expecting a tip.

Here's a tip: If you're under attack by Islamic extremists, you don't improve the odds by laying the foundation for another Islamic theocracy.

You have screwed up, big time. Blaming the people who tried to stop you is just one more layer of absurdity. With anchovies.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[shereads]

Sher, don't get into it with that idiot. Your post was very moving to me. What you say, in my opinion, is truth. Ignore the bastard, and keep bringing to us what we need to see as you always do.

Thank you, mis. But he's our bastard, after all, and if we don't keep him busy he might get in trouble. Plus, I think he's cute when he's in a snit.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[amicus]

Aww, youse guys...'fess up....you really want me!

ami

 

[shereads]

Aww, youse guys...'fess up....you really want me!

ami

You da man, Smoove A.

Without people who are wrong, being right would be joyless.

 

[mismused]

delete

 

[amicus]

SheReads said, in part: "...How arrogant, to think we could deliver democracy to a country that didn't want it enough to attempt it on their own..."

~~~


I just completed a post to Pure on another thread, but was thinking all the while about you, SheReads...and debating whether to come back or not...as I well know I don't seem to get through to you.


I am going to try to create a little conundrum for your belief, or at the very least, I hope, offer a means of understanding some things...

Through several of your posts, you 'imply' that the United States has no moral foundation upon which to undertake either the invasion or the democratization of Iraq.

I make an assumption here, that you will at least accept that each human being has an innate 'right' to his own life. Can I assume that? That is a general principle, pretty much an absolute and universal, those concepts you shy away from.

Of course, it is not that simple, one could be caged like an animal from birth, still possess, 'life', but it wouldn't be very enjoyable, nor would it reflect the fundamental nature of an individual, as certain other values, derivative of life itself are also absolute and universal and defined as 'rights' also.

I think you are aware of this as you have the audacity to 'demand' as rights, equal pay, fair wages, equal housing and a whole host of 'social rights' that have nothing to do with individual rights, but at least you must be aware of innate and inherent rights.

Now...let's make a hop, skip and a jump here and postulate that you, Shereads, are aware of such a caged infant, being abused, molested, starved and beaten in the hut next to yours.

What do you do and why?

Do you have a moral right to go to the assistance of that child? Do you have a moral obligation?

Maybe you could call the village guards or the local cops? But under what circumstances, if any, would you act on your own and justify, morally and ethically, your actions?

Gonna leave it here and see how da cookie crumbles...


amicus...

 

[shereads]

Amicus, you're forever avoiding the point of posts that leave you with no logical retort. The main point of the article, and the thread, and my comments, had less to do with the morality than with the illogic of the mission to democratize Iraq, and the fact that the most likely outcome, with or without a civil war, is the creation of yet another Islamic theocracy.

It was first and foremost a stupid thing to do. The morality can be debated until we turn blue, but the stupidity of it is self-evident.

 

[amicus]

Sighs...next time I will cover the beartrap better...


amicus...

 

[shereads]

Sighs...next time I will cover the beartrap better...


amicus...

If you insist on making it an argument about morality, you still lose, because your argument is based on an unsupportable assumption: that when the dust settles, life will be better for the average Iraqi family than if there had been no U.S. intervention.

I'll even give you a handicap here, and not deduct any Morality Points for your evident lack of concern for the children who died, were injured, or will be lost as a direct result of the U.S. intervention. I'm sure the dead knew we meant well, and would have thanked us for our good intentions, had they lived. We'll agree not to count the collateral damage as actual children, and to deal instead with your rhetorical children: starving and tortured, etc., hoping for the assistance of some compassionate power.

My point:

Unless you can (a) demonstrate that life in an Islamic theocracy will be better for the average Iraqi citizen than life under the previous dictatorship or (b) provide a logical reason to believe that an Islamic theocracy is not the most likely outcome, you're caught in your own trap.

Edited to add:

There is a 'c' to be dealt with, but it may complicate things beyond your willingness to stick around: your reasons why an intervention for moral reasons was a good idea in Iraq but not in one of the places where most of the population are threatened with genocide.

 

[R. Richard]

Shereads, Amicus:
I think you both missed the point as did out forces in Iraq. I would have given the guy a kundara and turned him loose in a Shia area if he's a Sunni or vice versa. I would have then spoken with the locals telling them, "You guys are a bunch of wimps. Kundara boy here will show you how to keep peace in your neighborhood after dark."

 

[shereads]

Shereads, Amicus:
I think you both missed the point as did out forces in Iraq. I would have given the guy a kundara and turned him loose in a Shia area if he's a Sunni or vice versa. I would have then spoken with the locals telling them, "You guys are a bunch of wimps. Kundara boy here will show you how to keep peace in your neighborhood after dark."

"Who throws a shoe?!"

~ Austin Powers

 

[neonflux]

God forgive the arrogant bastards who've wasted so many lives on this absurd mission. And those of us who allowed it to happen.

I think that many of us tried to stop it - wrote letters to the editor, contacted our congressional representatives, protested along with millions of others - it seemed that half the world did so. But the Bush regime clearly was bound and determined. I am still convinced that for Bush (not the Neocons who control him) it as much a personal matter of "showing up Daddy" as anything else - frightening that such a man can have so much power as to do so in a way that results in the deaths of so many.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/cleasf/neonProtest.jpg
I am the one with the white hair in the center (now 47 pounds lighter), blocking the cable car turnaround, the day of the invasion, spent 30 hours in jail... Like Had spent much time writing letters / making calls to the White House, representative, senator, newspapers before hand.​

How arrogant, to think we could deliver democracy to a country that didn't want it enough to attempt it on their own. How cowardly of your side, having ignored those like Colin Powell who predicted this outcome and plunged ahead, tipping us all into this abyss, to blame your failure on the ones who predicted this outcome and tried to stop you.

Would add that it is extreme hubris to strut into a society so old that everything essentially operates on personal relationships and family ties/networks that go back not decades but millenia, a society about which many of us proudly profess to know nothing, and to expect that our tanks and our guns and our short historical experiment with democracy will be enough to turn people to our way of thinking...

Thank you!
Neon

 

[dr_mabeuse]

What I'm wondering is this: If we're so serious about winning this "war", then why dont we show we're serious and get off our asses and give the military what they need to do it? Send over enough troops to do the job? Why do Rumsfeld and Bush keep on refusing to increase troop levels despite their commanders' requests? It can't be a military decision (has a commander ever in the entire history of warfare said, "No, no! I have too many troops!"), so it must be a poltical one.

Now why would they make that political decision? It seems diametrically opposed to the military objective.

What we seem to have over there is just enough troops to inflame hatred and invite attacks without having enough soldiers to actually stop these attacks. In other words, the size of the American military presence in Iraq seems ideally suited to one objective: the preservation of a state of war and the justification of an American military presence in Iraq.

Now why would we want to do that? What political purpose is served by maintaining a low-level conflict that we don't really want to win in an Islamic state?

That's a good question. Almost as good as why, if we're so serious about this democracy in Iraq business, we don't give the military the tools they need to do the job and why any time a commander requests more troops, he's immediately shown the door.

I mean, it's almost like we want our people being killed over there, just so we can justify the "War on Terror". Consider - if there were no Iraq war, what would the "War on Terror" consist of? What would we see on TV and read in the papers? Not a hell of a lot. People might be asking what Bush was doing.

As the late Mayor daley said about the Chicago Police: "The police aren't there to create disorder. They're there to preserve disorder." That seems to be the role of the US Army in Iraq, at least from from a political point of view.

 

[rgraham666]

More soldiers would require a draft, Zoot. Which even the neo-cons realized would be political suicide. They very much wanted to avoid even the slightest hint of resemblance between this war and Vietnam.

Also an army that size would require raising taxes, another thing they are loath to do.

 

[shereads]

What I'm wondering is this: If we're so serious about winning this "war", then why dont we show we're serious and get off our asses and give the military what they need to do it? Send over enough troops to do the job? Why do Rumsfeld and Bush keep on refusing to increase troop levels despite their commanders' requests? It can't be a military decision (has a commander ever in the entire history of warfare said, "No, no! I have too many troops!"), so it must be a poltical one.

Now why would they make that political decision? It seems diametrically opposed to the military objective.

What we seem to have over there is just enough troops to inflame hatred and invite attacks without having enough soldiers to actually stop these attacks. In other words, the size of the American military presence in Iraq seems ideally suited to one objective: the preservation of a state of war and the justification of an American military presence in Iraq.

Now why would we want to do that? What political purpose is served by maintaining a low-level conflict that we don't really want to win in an Islamic state?

That's a good question. Almost as good as why, if we're so serious about this democracy in Iraq business, we don't give the military the tools they need to do the job and why any time a commander requests more troops, he's immediately shown the door.

I mean, it's almost like we want our people being killed over there, just so we can justify the "War on Terror". Consider - if there were no Iraq war, what would the "War on Terror" consist of? What would we see on TV and read in the papers? Not a hell of a lot. People might be asking what Bush was doing.

As the late Mayor daley said about the Chicago Police: "The police aren't there to create disorder. They're there to preserve disorder." That seems to be the role of the US Army in Iraq, at least from from a political point of view.

Last night on the news, there was a segment called "In Their Own Words." A soldier in Iraq expressed vehement opposition to bringing U.S. troops home 'before the job is done,' because that would mean his friends died for nothing. "As long as there's a mission, let us stay here until the job is done." Sure, it's depressing to contemplate the waste of all those lives. But before we add to the tally - with my nephew, for one, who will turn 18 in the spring and is chomping at the bit for a chance to 'fight for his country' or whatever country the president wants him to fight for, here's my question:

How will we know when the job has been done?

Is our goal simply a democratically elected government that can secure its borders and police its own people without the presence of foreign troops? That's a pretty tall order. But even that won't be enough unless we're prepared to welcome a new Islamic theocracy, which as a response to 9/11 would be, well, odd.

I recall a Rumsfeld press conference during the early days of Shock & Awe, around the time that statue of Saddam came down (and was beaten with shoes - aka kundara!) The mood was celebratory in the testosterone-oozing manner of a Superbowl locker room. Rummy was basking in what looked like victory if you didn't examine it too closely.

Then one of the less imbeddable journalists asked, "What if a majority of the people choose an Islamic theocracy?"

Rumsfeld snapped, "That isn't going to happen."

Democracy-wise, that complicates things. Mission-wise, it might mean we can'twin. Not if winning means we achieve not only a self-policing Iraqi democracy, but one whose elected leaders won't bring down the ol' kundara on the non-Islamic minority.

If only the current president of Iraq would stay on script and demand a timetable for the reduction of U.S. troops. It wouldn't solve Iraq's problem, but it would free Bush/Cheney to bring our boys home, host some victory parades and retire at the new Halliburton-Exxon-Mobil Golf Resort & Hunting Preserve, formerly known as Guam.

 

[shereads]

Also an army that size would require raising taxes, another thing they are loath to do.

Nah. There's plenty more money where the $300 billion came from. We just borrow it from future generations of taxpayers and let their elected officials worry about collecting it.

It's manpower that's the problem. And you're right that nobody wants to touch the draft. It isn't the concept of the draft itself that's so unsavory, but the inevitable debates over exemptions. Imagine the embarrassment to all the pro-military congressmen who supported our troops in Vietnam from the comfort of their college fraternity houses, if they have to participate in a debate about the fairness of the system that kept them safe.