Certainly because we withdrew from the elections, that doesn't mean we won't be part of the drafting of the constitution. The elections are one matter: the constitution is another...All the Sunnis must take part in drafting the constitution.
-- Sheik Ibrahim al-Adhami, senior member of the Muslim Scholars Association
(Edward Wong, New York Times)
And there you have it, coming on the heels of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's declaration of "fierce war" against democracy: the beginnings of an open split between the leaders of the Iraqi paramilitaries and the foreign jihadists. The first have suddenly awoke to the fact that the Shia-Kurdish Democracy Train is indeed leaving the station and that Sunnis will have to get on board at a later stop; the second want to destroy the engine, tracks and passengers just as surely as their allies slaughtered hundreds in the stations of Madrid. Both wings of Islamofascism realize they face a more potent threat than even the U.S. military: a democratic constitution. And one side is buckling.
Wong reports that this talk of participating in the political process does not emanate from leaders of the "Sunni-dominated insurgency," but rather
powerful clerics [who] have considerable influence with the guerrillas and could act as a bridge between the new government...and the insurgency.
Fine. Good. But let us not forget what these "powerful clerics" and their "insurgent" allies have wreaked upon the people of Iraq and our soldiers. And let us note what their ridiculous distinction between "elections" and "constitutions" reveals: the political and moral bankruptcy of the so-called "resistance." And let us brand them, the "guerrillas" and all who support them either by deeds or words as history surely will: despicable.
Would the Viet Cong have so readily abandoned their struggle and leaped into constitutional talks with the Saigon regime? Would the FLN have stopped fighting the French colonialists and entered into a power-sharing agreement? Never--because their objectives were fundamentally at odds with their enemies'. But what do the Sunni "insurgents" stand for? What is their economic policy, their education plan, their vision for the future? What do they propose to replace the American-led liberation of their country? I was in Ramadi, Falluja, Tikrit; I asked people these questions. Their answer? "Saddam."
By this time, Saddam was in custody, awaiting the war crimes tribunal that will most condemn him to death. The inhabitants of the Sunni Triangle knew this full well: for them "Saddam" was not a man, but a symbol of the patronage machine that rewarded their families, tribes and clans with jobs, money, prestige--even irrigation water from the Euphrates River. "Saddam" represented their tribal supremacy over the Shia and Kurds--populations imprisoned, beaten, executed and when that wasn't enough, gassed into submission. "Saddam" embodied their own pride and self-esteem--lost, obliterated, stripped away in a pitifully few number of weeks by the American military machine. How would these suddenly-diminished Sunni Arabs regain the honor, the patriarchal "face" they deem necessary to act in the world? By killing those who shamed them: Americans, and their Iraqi allies.
No, no, apologists for the Islamofascists protest: the Sunnis fight to free themselves from foreign "occupation!" Really? Think for a moment what would happen if America were to do as the Sunnis claim they wish: withdraw from Iraq. Into the vacuum would pour Shia and Kurdish militias, eager to avenge decades of oppression and the death of hundreds of thousands of their kinsmen--and the continuing violence the Sunni "insurgents" inflict upon their people Shia and Kurdish memories are long and they are drenched in blood. The Sunni's make up 20 percent of the population. Who would win?
This fundamental fact is missed by all who blame the U.S. for the "insurgent" violence: the Americans stand between the Sunnis and the militias of those whom they oppressed for decades. Or, to put it another--bleaker--way: it is the American presence that protects the Sunnis, even as it allows them to attack and kill our troops. This is tribal warfare at its most tragic, most pointless, most nihilistic. The Sunni leadership brought it on and they have maintained it for no rational or legitimate purpose. And now, when the end is apparent and the futility of the cause is upon them--they want a place at the constitutional table.
And they will get one. They should get one. The majority of Sunni Arabs may not love America or even support the newly-elected government, but they do not wish to condemn themselves to a Palestinian-like hell of perpetual violence. They want peace, they want democracy. They want a united Iraq. And their "leaders" are listening.
But will these Sunni clerics and tribal sheiks ever be held accountable for their obscene and criminal "insurgency?" Probably not. For all their suffering--perhaps because of their suffering--the Iraqis have a kind of tragic maturity. Rivers of blood have flown too deep and wide in their land; they know that more death, more excuses for revenge, will not move them to a better, safer place.
But we, who do live in a better, safer place, should not forget, either. I'm thinking here of the Michael Moores and Ted Ralls of our society--those who profess to care so much about our troops, yet do their best to legitimize the nihilistic gunmen who seek to murder them. Let us remember those who supported--and continue to support--the fascists as they went about torturing, murdering, lynching people like Margaret Hassan, Hadi Saleh and thousands of other innocents. Let us remember those who did nothing as a nation trying to build a democracy bore assaults that are equivalent to a 9-11 attack per week. And let us ask them on the eve of elections in Iraq: if you do not support democracy here, now--when and where will you support it?
Comments