Where did I say that sympathy for the troops (I guess that is what you mean by “rank and file”) and sympathy for the Iraqi people are mutually exclusive? I said no such thing, I have never said such a thing, and I do not believe such a thing (hope I made that emphatic enough :0}) ).

How things are covered in the American or Arab or European media are certainly germane in that they influence what people hear and see, how they hear and see it, and therefore how they view the issues, and therefore how they feel about them.

More pertinently, they are germane to me. I saw an American sniper take careful aim at an 8 year old little girl standing on the balcony of her home, and shoot her dead. I saw another American sniper take careful aim at a clearly bewildered very elderly man hobbling slowly with a cane and shoot him dead. That was in the first weeks after the invasion.

I have seen video and photos and heard and read accounts of so much, much more. My friends and family members have described to me things that they witnessed or experienced in their own encounters with the “rank and file”. I knew Falluja when it was a real city. Some people I know – including an American journalist (unembedded) and relief workers – were in Falluja before, during, and after the devastating American attacks on that former city. I have heard their stories and seen some of their photographs. I know what the “rank and file” did to that former city, and to the people who lived there. You think that is not germane to my views and feelings about the people who executed these acts?

Schwifty, I could be mistaken, but I am getting the distinct impression that you are trying to get at something specific here, but I really do not know what that is. Perhaps if you could clarify it for me I could focus my response better.

Furthermore, talking about different primary concerns is not the same as talking about a dearth of “secondary concerns.” There are gaping inconsistencies here that should have been “intuitively obvious” to you before you went down this rabbit hole. Ignore them, and you lend credence to the other comments here that dismiss you as merely a troll. I’m sure that is not your objective.

“I would guess a proponent of the parliamentary system would argue yes, initially representation is based on geographic sectarian criteria…”

First, as tempting as it is given the “received truth” about Iraq, to conflate geography and sect/ethnicity, that does not coincide with reality. There is no such thing as “geographic sectarian”. Iraq’s demography is far more complex than that, which is one of many reasons the whole partition notion is bulls*** (another, VERY important reason is that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis do not and have never wanted it).

It might be useful to be aware of the fact that the first political system set up by the Americans – the hand-picked-by-Bremer so-called “governing council” – was organized strictly along sectarian/ethnic lines. That set the tone very clearly for what was to come.

“…but ultimately the representation would reflect the ideology of the constituents.”

If that had been the thinking, it was not even a little bit realistic (but then look whom we are dealing with here), but I doubt very much that they were thinking about the constituents or their ideology at all.

“I think a powerful argument could be made for Iraqis rejecting ANY government set up by America, simply because it was set up by America…”

Bingo!

“…the reality of the Kristol Krowd objectives, of which the least important is setting up a representative government in Iraq.”

I would bet that a representative government was never even on the agenda.

“More important are the permanent bases which allow staging for future wars (and the ability to remove troops from Saudi), the oil reserves, and the perceived defense of Israel.”

Yep!

In response to your request to me:

I really do not think it should be necessary for me to spell out why I do not feel a lot of sympathy for the troops who invaded and now occupy Iraq. It seems to me that should be as intuitively obvious as it is intuitively obvious why the primary concern of so many here is for the American troops – and oh, yeah – Iraqis are suffering too.

My first awareness of my inability to sympathize with the invaders came when one day in March or April, 2003 I changed channels from Al Jazeera, which was actually REPORTING on the situation, and tuned into CNNBCBSABC to hear a report about how the poor, poor, poooooor American invaders were having sooooooo much trouble coping in the desert what with the constant sand in their shorts and dry lips all the time (I am not kidding you, it was all about stuff like that).

Not a bloody WORD about the elderly man who was the sole survivor of an American aerial attack in which his entire – ENTIRE! – immediate family was wiped out, buried in the rubble of their home. Not a blood WORD about the eight year old girl who ventured out onto the balcony of her house only to have an American sniper carefully take aim and shoot her dead (film at 11), or the half blind old granpa, tapping with his cane, who got confused and, not knowing in which direction to move, took the wrong choice and was cut down by an American sniper, who also took careful aim at him before firing (also film at 11). These things I had seen with my own eyes, and yet I was supposed to feel sorry for the people who were committing deeds like this because they had sandy shorts and dry lips.

I can understand very well why so many people here have the American troops as their primary concern. Is it so hard to understand why I do not?

“I have not seen anyone who seems offended by Shirin’s comments actually reply to them in a substantive way.”

Who in God’s name has the time or the energy for that?

There are too many of her comments on this one post to even count.

Very interesting observation. I’m going to have to give this more thought, but I would guess a proponent of the parliamentary system would argue yes, initially representation is based on geographic sectarian criteria, but ultimately the representation would reflect the ideology of the constituents. Now, why the Kristol Krowd believes this is going to happen in a vacuum without accounting for Iraqi traditions or for the incredible violence the aggression has bought, is baffling. I think a powerful argument could be made for Iraqis rejecting ANY government set up by America, simply because it was set up by America – which brings us full circle to the idea of the U.S. simply getting out – but which ignores the reality of the Kristol Krowd objectives, of which the least important is setting up a representative government in Iraq. More important are the permanent bases which allow staging for future wars (and the ability to remove troops from Saudi), the oil reserves, and the perceived defense of Israel.

All over the place on this and need to organize my thoughts – again highlights the complexity and difficulty of this debacle.

The simple truth is that both “sides” here are succumbing to the temptation of us vs. them attitudes rather than taking a cold hard look in the mirror, and accepting that intellectual positions don’t always jive with visceral impulses, particularly when discussing such weighty issues as moral culpability. This is precisely why the discussion has veered away from the substantive in places, perhaps helped along by the OPs original tone.

If you want to move forward, you’re going to have to reconcile your gut feelings with your intellectual positions. I suspect that Shirin would have at least as much difficulty with that as people posting such nonsense as bewilderment at her gender, her citizenship, her loyalty, or even the fact that there may exist a diversity of opinion out there that expresses itself in these comments.

“Iraqis’ political affiliations have been based almost entirely not on identity, but not ideology” should be “ON ideology”

“The current “sectarian” violence has, reportedly, seen victims tortured, shot, beheaded etc. because they were either Shia or Sunni. This type of rage did not evolve since 2003.”

Your observation is correct, Mart. Although it DID evolve since 2003, it did not arise out of nowhere. The seeds were there, and they actually began germinating (if you will forgive the metaphor) around 2000-2001, and perhaps a little earlier. In 2003, with the application of large doses of Miracle Gro and growth hormones from the occupying power and other sources, it grew into what we have today. (OK, metaphor worn out now, I think.)

I don’t know how to explain this adequately without going into a lot more detail than you may want. So, rather than bore you with excessive detail, I will say that in Iraq there has been an imbalance in political and economic power favoring the Sunni Arab minority starting with the Ottoman empire, and maintained by the British. It improved with statehood, still more after independence, and the Ba`th party spread the power even more widely (the Iraqi Communist party actually had the most diversity, but thanks mainly to the U.S., they did not stay in power very long). Of course, there are historic resentments related to all this, but they were never strong or widespread enough to result in serious conflict, and stayed mainly in the political realm, and did not really affect day to day relations within the population.

The oppression of the Shi`a population under Saddam Hussein is directly related to certain Shi`a Islamist opposition to the secular nature of the State (SCIRI is the main actor here). My sense is that in the beginning it was less a matter of Shi`a vs Sunni than of Islamic vs secular state, but I would need more study to be sure about that, and it probably depends on whom you talk to.

It is important to understand that until the U.S. occupiers imposed a political system based on sectarian and ethnic identity, Iraqis’ political affiliations have been based almost entirely not on identity, but not ideology, and that includes the Shi`a parties now in power today, whose original goal was less “Shi`a power” than an Islamic as opposed to secular state. Still, there WERE some tensions based on the imbalance that favoured a minority group.

Contrary to the “received truth” that it was only the iron fist of Saddam that kept Iraq from splitting into the three parts some U.S. authorities want to split it into now, Saddam did more than any other Iraqi dictator to divide Iraqis.

I don’t know how coherent this will be to anyone who does not already know quite a bit about the history, but I have tried to present in a nutshell what really needs a stadium to explain completely. Let me say in closing this that for a long time since 2003 the general population of Iraq was bewildered and alarmed by this sectarian conflict, which was mainly between those seeking political power and their militias. It is only within the last one or two years that I have seen this conflict gradually take over the population as the violence affected them more and more. This fracturing of a once cohesive society is perhaps the greatest and most irreparable aspect of the catastrophe that the Bush regime has visited upon Iraq.

I don’t anymore thanks to Shirin.

Shirin writes: “What I don’t get is why, in this country of all places, those people are not completely marginalized.”

These people claim this is a fight between the left and right. They hide their true intentions in political babble-speak. They have money, power and the DC political elite in their corner–predominately on the right. They have an entire machine that they’ve built up over the last 30 years or so. Add to that an unquestioning media that wants a place at the dinner table.

Right away some – not a huge number, but some – Americans came rushing out of the woodwork to stand beside their Arab and Muslim fellows, and even in some communities took shifts standing guard at mosques and Islamic centers and Islamic schools. Others escorted particularly vulnerable members of the Muslim community on shopping and errands, and to and from school, and protected them from harassment. Groups of American women wore head scarves in solidarity, and also to find out how their treatment and interactions changed when they did.

The Muslim community strongly stepped up their community and interfaith outreach programs, and many temples, synagogues, churches, schools, and individuals responded. Mosques invited people to their Friday prayer services, and explained the prayers and the rituals. Churches and synagogues invited Muslims to speak to their congregations. My sense is that there has been a real increase in interfaith prayer services, and interfaith meetings, activities, lectures, exchanges, etc.

More Americans became interested in the Arab world, Arab culture, and Islam as a religion. For some of them I suppose it was a “know your enemy” kind of thing, and a certain percentage were no doubt looking for the “bad stuff”, but I would like to think that not all had that motivation, and that even some who were originally motivated by a negative impulse may have changed their outlook as they learned more.

The net change after 9/11 has certainly be negative for Arabs and Muslims, but not everything has been bad.

Yep! And not just the mainstream, but a kind of elite “mainstream”. Just look at some of the names in that article!

Of course, Dinesh D’Souza is just the kind of crackpot hypocrite that the media and the National Review types simply adore – a prominent and uncompromisingly jingoistic anti-brown-skinned-immigrant voice, who just happens to be himself a brown-skinned immigrant. That, of course makes him ultra-credible. (OK, maybe he was born in the USA, I’m not sure, but you can bet he is not more than one generation away from immigrant status.) He makes media whore Fu’ad `Ajami look like a decent, intellectually honest human being.

What I don’t get is why, in this country of all places, those people are not completely marginalized.