Iraq is not going to have a Civil War

I know that Iraq is not going to have a Civil War. It is in the midst of a very uncivil conflict, but that is really nothing new. I have noted before that conflict in this region is nearly unceasing since Hammurabi and Shamshi-adad. But in the sense of an all encompassing civil war, even one like the Spanish Civil War that merely simmers along, just shy of boiling over, is not likely. And what is my proof for this? My own eyes.

As I drive through the little city nearing the base where I am stationed I see many things. The most numerous by far is trash, since waste disposal is a foreign concept to most of the cities here. Second to trash, is building materials. There are building materials everywhere. Whether bricks, mortar, or wood, you cannot drive ten feet, literally without encountering something being built or repaired.

Now admittedly this is a city which has planted its flag firmly with the Americans, and therefore has received a large portion of money from rebuilding efforts. But we are only a scant distance from places that are not friendly to Americans. This means that in a civil war, even a low order one, this city would get shelaqued. If they thought that were coming, they would not be building shops, they would be building bunkers. They are not, and neither is anyone else.

So there you have it. The Iraqis do not believe there will be a civil war. Let us hope that they are right.

Release of Jill Carroll

I just learned of the release of Jill Carroll. No further information has been available, but I am truly elated that she has been freed apparently unharmed. I hope that she will return to her family with only increased wisdom of the human experience. Good luck. I wish you the best. I hope that this modicum of humanity shown by terrorists active in Iraq will soon spread so that the people of Iraq can enjoy true peace.

We can help the Iraqis by defining democracy with our example

A little while ago I sat in on a meeting between several Shaykhs and Mullahs of a particularly troublesome region in our area of operations. One Mullah, who is vehemently anti-western and has praised Saddam publicly many times, recounted a story, which is probably an amalgam of stories that occurred in the area. The Americans and the Iraqi Army raided a house, woke everyone, and detained a few people. I do not remember clearly, but he may have said we may have killed someone. This is likely not far from the truth, since this is a problematic area with many raids, bombings, and an occasional death. At the very end, he said a phrase that I hear over and over again, “Is this democracy?”

This is something to which many Iraqis, especially criminals, appeal. Whether it is the recently detained terrorist or the screed of an angry Mullah, repeatedly they appeal to democracy. It is not that they actually want democracy; they could care less. They believe that our love of democracy is so great that this is the strongest appeal to us that they can make. Yet every time they ask if democracy means people crashing into your house at night and arresting you, or bombs blowing up houses, I always want to scream, “Yes!"

Many Iraqis and Americans have made the mistake of confusing democracy with the right to do whatever they want, no matter what they want to do. Not only is this not true, strictly speaking, democracy is the tyranny of the majority; majority rules, period. In the west, we have limited the majority’s power by guaranteeing rights. Nevertheless, we cannot do whatever we want. We cannot build bombs. We cannot kidnap. We cannot shoot at the Police. We cannot fire mortars into the neighboring town. If we do, the majority will beat us down. The same is true in any democracy.

In fact, this is democracy. We all want peace, but if you will not live by the rules, then you are breaking the peace and it is not incumbent on the ‘powers that be’ to refrain from restoring the peace over your dead body. Iraq is struggling to figure this out. Most people want to do whatever they want. That is not possible in civil society, and they simply do not understand that. This is in large part because America is setting a bad example. Both parties are guilty. If they do not get their way they sulk, instead of move on, or act as legitimate loyal opposition. We in America need to set the example.

We need to show that actions have consequences. Whether it is the vice-squad raiding your house, or a raid by the U.S. Army, there will be repercussions for violating the law. We chose our laws in the United States and Iraq is choosing its laws too. It is fine to oppose the government, but it is not fine to blow people up. Otherwise, you get to taste the swords edge of democracy and that is never as pleasant as you think it will be.

Note: This is no justification of the abuse of power either. The political and military powers need to be judicious in the use of their authority; otherwise it is no longer a democracy.

The importance of hope

I noticed today that there is a fundamental difference between Americans and Iraqi's. Americans have a great deal of hope for the future. Not to say that Iraqi's don't but it is a different hope. Americans hope that one day things will be OK, like they are in the United States or something. Iraqi's hope that someday everyone will leave them alone. They don't think that it will ever be OK.

This makes for a huge problem when dealing between Iraqis and Americans. Americans get frustrated because Iraqis won't turn in their neighbors who are criminals. The Americans think that it makes sense because they will have a better neighborhood. But the Iraqis just want to be left alone. They have always had criminals for neighbors, and as long as they mostly leave them alone, no big deal.

Iraq has never been more than barely holding on. Whether it was the Assyrians and Babylonians, or the Sunni's and the Shi'ites there has always been conflict. They see no reason to believe that they can ever have a stable life. That hope is what is holding up the whole process. Everyone is hedging their bets, but democracy has no room for hedging bets.

Mixing Religion and Politics is Good

As we consider the issue of Abdul Rahman in Afghanistan, or the formation of the Iraqi Government, or for that matter, the role of the Christian Right in American politics, it is worth looking into the proper position of religion within politics. Many in America state as fact that combining church and state is fatal to both systems. It is. However, it is good to have a little religion in politics. The real mistake is to put politics into religion. That ultimately leads to the mixture of church and state, as opposed to politics and religion. Allow me to explain.

When you inject religion into politics, you are introducing morality, and the worldview of a religion into the political arena. That is not only good, because hopefully it results in moral government, but also inevitable. The only people who even claim that they don’t do this are those that deceive themselves to believe that their humanism, socialism, or environmentalism is not a religion. In the end, all moral systems appeal to faith, and take on a basic religious value whether housed in a church or not. But with religion placed into politics, the main goals of the political structure remain political, and not religious: stability, community, and prosperity to name a few.

The error comes when you introduce politics into religion. The most dramatic example of this is Wahhabism, but there are others out there. In this case, political goals and aspirations are injected into a religious system. The critical distinction is when religious organizations become concerned with enforcement of political goals. Religion is appealed to for law, order, and stability, and therefore dissent is heresy. You end up with judicial punishments for religious crimes. At that point, you have mixed church (a group as opposed to a belief structure) and state. The religion has taken over the politics, or politics has taken over the religion and they are both worse off for it.

The distinction has to be made between religion and politics. Religions need to be free from political intervention, and likewise should shy away from intervention in politics. The only involuntary punishment churches should be allowed to inflict is expulsion from their group. If they truly believe that they speak for God, he will take care of all the real punishment eventually. This is not to say that moral systems with appeals to faith should not exist, but issues of faith should not be legislated. Leave government to practical concerns. As long as government is primarily concerned with stability and prosperity, things like Catholic and Protestant, Shi’a or Sunni, Muslim and Christian become unimportant. God will take care of it in the end…or maybe not.