Gatekeepers of Religious Truth

Hey, y’all: check out my latest piece on the American media’s inconsistency in its portrayals of Islam on BoomGen TV entitled The American Media: Gatekeepers of Religious Truth?* Here’s an excerpt:

“When news broke out in November that a US Army psychiatrist and self-identified devout Muslim shot his colleagues at the Fort Hood military base in Texas, it didn’t take the American media long to start speculating on what role Islam played in the massacre. But five months earlier, when the American media began covering the post election protests in Iran where many invoked the name of Islam in a quest for human rights, this sort of speculation was mostly absent.

As more details of the Fort Hood story were surfacing, there was already a fierce debate on what the shooter’s motivations were. The American right and left even took it as an opportunity to blame the other’s approach to radical Islam and for allowing, or at least silently encouraging, this sort of atrocity. Always at the heart of the debate was the question of who had the correct view of Islam and how to respond to radicalism…

Nearly six months after the protests began, the American media has displayed either little to no interest in discovering just who these protesters are or has simply forgotten that the opposition includes many Muslims who deem their faith important to their politics…

The American media is playing a dangerous game in directly and indirectly telling the public what is and is not “orthodox” in Islam. Constant repetition of violent images with significant emphasis on the religious language involved will reinforce the idea that the only true Muslim is some wild-eyed fanatic with guns and bombs. If that is the message that is sent we will be placing ourselves in a position to make it a truth and essentially take on a good portion of the proselytizing for militant Islam. It is essential that we take ourselves out of this game if we are to revitalize our policies towards Muslim engagement and quell the threat of Islamic radicalism in Iraq and Afghanistan as well preventing it from gaining ground at home the way it is in many European countries. Much of American media is already in poor journalistic shape; we don’t need it to play God too.”

Please join me in the discussion of the American media’s attitudes towards violence and nonviolence in the name of Islam and how the media can also engage in “truth-making” instead of “truth-telling”.

While you’re on the site, please check out some of the other great articles on the politics of human rights resolutions, the successes of the women’s movement for freedom and democracy in Iran, and daily video updates on the situation in Iran. Why not even take some time to send BoomGen a Christmas gift in the form of a donation?

Special thanks to the BoomGen team!

*I know its tempting, but don’t get distracted by the photo of Charles Krauthammer looking like a very unhappy snapping turtle.

Nonviolence Finally Gets Some Action on American TV

The most important interview on any global affairs issue the Daily Show has ever had happened last night with the appearance of Mustafa Barghouti and Anna Beltzer, both advocates for a nonviolent solution in the Israel Palestine conflict. There are so many great sound bytes in the unedited version that appears on the Daily Show website. Here are my favorites:

• Barghouti says the Palestinians are victims of a system of segregation that is totally unjust. Someone from the audience shouts “Liar!” Neither Barghouti or Baltzer seem thrown off in the slightest, and Barghouti even expresses a wish to sit down with the man and explain his position to him.
• “This severe reaction sometimes reflects a nervousness on the side of people who are afraid of change, and the change is happening, the change is coming. Palestinians are entitled to the same freedom that the Jewish people should have.” Barghouti
• “The controversy around our appearance here shows that people don’t want to hear from nonviolent activists and [yet] people say ‘Where are the Palestinian nonviolent activists?’” Beltzer
• “Palestinians are not only Muslims, they’re also Christians. We have Palestinian Muslims and Christians.” Barghouti
• “I don’t tend to think that the Palestinian issue today is an Arab issue or a Muslim issue, its a human issue.” Barghouti
• “The Israelis will never be free until the Palestinians are also free.” Barghouti
• “There’s nothing defensive about denying Palestinians water. There’s nothing defensive about preventing people from having materials to build their homes. So much of the institutions that I understood to be defensive cannot be justified by security anymore.” Baltzer
• Another man, or possibly the same man as before, shouts while Baltzer is speaking. I think he’s announcing that he’s leaving because something Baltzer said was so offensive to him. Still, neither of the guests are really thrown off.
• “I don’t think the question is should Israel be singled out for criticism. I think the question is should Israel be held to the same standards that every other country has held.” Baltzer
• “You know a lot of people don’t realize how much, first of all, cooperation there is on the ground. That so many Israelis oppose…the settlements, the majority of Israelis oppose the settlements. And that busload after busload of Israeli activists are coming in to stand in solidarity with the Palestinians.” Baltzer
• “I personally believe that the best peace that will last, like in the experience of other countries, is the one between two democracies where a solution is not imposed from one side on the other but it is accepted by both people and I think that is achievable.” Barghouti
• “Remember that Jews lived better in the Arab world than virtually anywhere in the Western world … and the important thing is this shows us a precedent. That these things are not unachievable, that these are not peoples who are somehow fundamentally incompatible.” Baltzer

However, I’m not 100% behind everything that was said. For instance, I have trouble believing that 90% of the Palestinian struggle is nonviolent. Simply because I have no idea what is being included in “the Palestinian struggle”. Is he talking about the struggle of the Palestinian National Authority? Or is he including the PNA, the various resistance groups that have been formed over the years, and the everyday struggles of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories? We could come up with a variety of different statistics based on what we consider part of the struggle. And then of course we can slip into the debate over whether or not stone throwing or property damage can be considered part of nonviolence.

But Barghouti is a politician, and so it only follows he speaks in the language of politicians. However, none of that invalidates what he’s trying to do.

Both of these people are incredibly brave and incredibly necessary to the global struggle to ensure human rights for all. w00t!

Film Review: Pluralism in America

This Fourth of July I had the extreme pleasure of going to the world premiere of Islam in America, the latest project of Dr. Akbar Ahmed and his wonderful team of motivated youngsters. The film takes a look at the various Muslim communities across America, from big cities in the East to small towns in the Midwest, and focuses heavily on the voices of these ordinary American Muslims. It is done in a very low-tech style that may not be for everyone, but certainly it helped capture a very down-to-earth and intimate feel.

My own feelings going into the film were mixed; I was excited by the mission of the project itself yet nervous that I would be assailed by stories of discrimination and victimization leaving me with little hope for the future. My fears were not eased by the opening, in which a stream of protesters shouted offensive epithets at participants in a Muslim parade. As a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (or WASP), I often cringe when I see my ethnoreligious kin demonstrate their own hate-fuelled ignorance. Even more embarassing was the scene in which a woman with unfortunate teeth started talking about the Somalian Muslims in her community going with “the American way”, as though the Muslim way and the American way were mutually exclusive lifestyles. I imagine this is how many Muslims, not just in America but across the globe, feel when the ugliest aspects of their community are put on display as though they were the only face of Islam.

As the film proceeded, I was pleasantly surprised and inspired by the positive stories of friendship and cooperation between non-Muslim and Muslim Americans. There was the story of a bishop and an imam in Las Vegas who find ways to work together and support each other in serving the local poor and underprivileged. There was also the story of a little town in Alabama, ironically named Arab and to be pronounced as Ay-rab, whom the team was expecting to react rather badly to Hailey dressed in hijab. Instead of what we might have expected (i.e. some barely comprehensible Deliverance-esque hill billy telling them he didn’t take kindly to their folk, which really should reveal a lot about my own prejudices) Hailey, Dr. Ahmed, and the team were greeted with genuine southern hospitality.

Islam in America touches on so many different layers of American and Islamic identity, and while we never quite come to a conclusion in reconciling the different characterizations of these social constructs we nonetheless conclude that they are varied and equally legitimate. It would be impossible to survey the full history of Muslims in America or even list all the different views Muslims have of their own American communities and how they relate to non-Muslims, but the most important feat of this film is that it broke the surface. And in breaking that surface, we are confronted with a challenge to look deeper into ourselves in order to better relate to those who we perceive as an other. What better way to engage the rest of the Muslim world than to take a critical look at our own Muslims, our own diversity and pluralism?

More than a nation of immigrants or (as some consistently claim) Christians, America is a nation of human beings. The American experience is the human experience: complex and often contradictory, full of noble ideals and actions and plenty of shameful ones too. But if nationalism is anything, it is an optimistic drive towards the better qualities of our human nature. We as Americans must accept our strengths and our weaknesses while continuously pushing toward a “more perfect union”.

For more information on the team, the documentary, and the project itself please visit Journey Into America.

Obama Talks the Right Talk

Cairo is an ancient city that has become a modern urban hub of the Arab world. It is the primary place to produce Arabic pop music, the favored study abroad location for Americans looking to study the Arab world, and the birth place of Pan Arabism and the Muslim Brotherhood. Ponder all those contradictions for a moment, and you’ll understand just how un-monolithic Egyptian and Arab society really is. This week, Cairo was also the chosen site for President Obama to deliver what he promised would be a historic speech to the Muslim world. Historic it may very well have been, but it was not without controversy.

The Hype and The Reactions

Some, including author Reza Aslan, decried Obama’s choice of Egypt for the apparent message it would send about American complacency towards their brutal government then later expressed excitement over his talk of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In the aftermath, the Huffington Post’s Peter Daou also expressed disappointment with regards to Obama’s talk of human rights and women’s rights. Michael Hirsh of Newsweek praised Obama’s fine words, but fears that they will remain just words. International reaction has mixed, as many see hope for better policies and others have been jaded by American promises of change. My former professor and colleagues over at Team Akbar Ahmed were genuinely excited by Obama’s embrace of the concept of a Dialogue of Civilizations. Its something Dr. Ahmed and others have been supporting fervently for years. Dr. Ahmed asserts that the speech is evidence that America is finally engaging in dialogue. Frankie Martin, my friend and Ibn Khaldun Research Fellow, writes in the Huffington Post that of course, a dialogue about dialogue isn’t enough.

“Dialogue of Civilizations” is not meant to be a “kumbaya” philosophy for the President, but a real strategy to combat anti-Americanism and win allies. The President’s use of the phrase should be followed by action including reform of U.S. visa policy to bring more people from Muslim countries to the United States, programs to encourage American students to study abroad, and more vigorous public diplomacy to bring our diplomats out of their embassy fortresses and interact with Muslims where they live.

UPDATE: Here are two of the aforementioned authors discussing the speech with Chris Matthews on Hardball.

more about “Hardball:Arab world reacts to Obama s…“, posted with vodpod

Choice Moments

I absolutely loved the speech. I hate that I love it, because it makes me look like an eager to be pleased Obamania victim. I assure you, my love of the speech has nothing to do with the man who actually delivered it, but of course I greatly commend him for it. So here are a few of my favorite excerpts.

“Tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.”

“So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.”

“The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: ‘Out of many, one.’”

“Six million Jews were killed [in the Holocaust]- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve. On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

“The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’

The Talmud tells us: ‘The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.’

The Holy Bible tells us, ‘Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.’”

Additionally, I also loved the entire portion of the speech where he praised the scientific and cultural achievements of the Arab and Islamic world. That acknowledgement I think goes really far, especially since it seemed our last administration was much more impressed their oil wealth.

Time To Get To Work

I will remain a skeptic about the potential of any American president to make significant strides in proving good will through action and not just words. I think our presidents have shown they can do a lot more good when they’ve left office than when they’re in it. My hope is less that Obama will make good on his speech, but that all Americans will make good on his speech. I want the American people to feel empowered to create better relations, to demand better relations, to demand the right kind of action from our government and non-government organizations.

And to be a shameless plugger of my own contacts and colleagues in the field, I want the American people to check out Dr. Ahmed and his team and the media organization that provides proof that there are committed nonviolent peacebuilders in Israel-Palestine, Just Vision. You should absolutely become a fan of them on Facebook.

Prose, Violence, and Problems with Aslan’s Cosmic War

In a post-college world, looking at grad school and gainful employment on the horizon, it appears I need to step up my reading habits. So in an effort to make this a more regular segment of the blog, I’m going to read and review at least one book a month. This month, I bring to you How To Win a Cosmic War by Reza Aslan, author of No God But God,  who was one of my favorite Islamic authors when I was just starting out in the field.

He’s a young articulate scholar of religion and so its no wonder he’s been invited to the Daily Show and the Colbert Report a few times as well as numerous other media appearances. While I’m happy that there is such an Islamic scholar who’s so acceptable and successful in mainstream America, I continuously wonder whether or not he is someone I would want representing myself, my colleagues, and other academics in the field of religion, Islam, and global affairs.

The Premise

In Aslan’s own words, the book is a proclamation:

The War on Terror, conceived by the previous administration as a cosmic contest between the forces of good and evil for the future of civilization, is over. It is time to strip this ideological conflict of its religious connotations, to reject the religiously polarizing rhetoric of our leaders and theirs, to focus on the material matters at stake, and to address the earthly issues that always lie behind the cosmic impulse…Because in the end, there is only one way to win a cosmic war: refuse to fight in it. (11)

After taking a hard, unpleasant look at the plight of European Muslims, Aslan declares that America now has a great opportunity to become the champions of the slaughtered and reframe the War on Terror not as a war between good and evil, but an “earthly contest between the advocates of freedom and the agents of oppression”. He declares that Bush was right, only democratic reform can defeat the Global Jihadists. America must “strive to create an open religious and political environment in the Muslim world that will blunt the appeal of Jihadist ideologies”.

Honestly, when I first heard that was what the book was about, my initial reaction was that this topic has been done…like five years ago. My own personal favorite is of course Dr. Akbar Ahmed’s Islam Under Siege. With the War on Terror being in its eigth year now and the Bush Administration a thing of the past, do we really need another study on violent Islamic fundamentalism and the mistakes the US has made in dealing with it? I decided it was worth it to see if he could add anything new. Cosmic War unfortunately fails to deliver on that front, but it absolutely delivers on Aslan’s many talents as a writer.

Violence, Its Like, Whatever

Speaking as someone who’s undergraduate studies frequently lead me to explore the relationship between religion and conflict, I also was fairly disappointed that much of Aslan’s look at the role of Islam and religion in general dealt with only with its destructive aspects. I was even more deeply disturbed by the brevity of his nod to Gandhi and the Civil Rights Movement.

Religion of course can be just as effective in promoting nonviolence and civil disobedience, as was the case with America’s civil right’s movement or India’s movement for independence from Britain. But for movements that operate in societies where democratic institutions are either wholly absent or brutally repressed by the ruling regime, countries where legitimate opposition is simply not allowed, collective violence may be the sole means for a social movement to pursue its goals of radical social transformation. (137)**

It is my belief that these societies are in the most need of nonviolent social movements. While it is certainly understandable that the populations under such regimes would accept collective violence as the best means of affecting change, it is becoming increasingly clear that the only way to break these cycles of brutality is through nonviolence. What’s more, I think the author is dangerously close to diminishing the brutality that the groups involved in the Civil Rights Movement and India’s demand for indepence were up against.

The Hype of Moderate Islam

If the Islamic fundamentalism that is implied is the extremist violent and intolerant kind, the one Bin Laden has become the icon of, then its polar opposite is not secularism or even “moderate” Islamism. These are near antonyms, many steps removed but not completely antithetical. The true opposite is a tolerant and nonviolent Islamic fundamentalism, militarism for peace.

Chaiwat Satha-Anand, a Thai expert on nonviolence and Islam, argues that because of the nature of modern warfare, nonviolence is not just the best option, but also the only option. If the violence used cannot discriminate between soldiers (real or self-identified) and civilians, then it is not keeping with Islamic principles. With modern technology being what it is,  that kind of discrimination virtually impossible at present. (Islam and Nonviolence)

One of my favorite quotes on the subject comes from Michael N. Nagler, whom I discovered while reading Mohamed Abu Nimer’s (one of my favorite former professors) seminal work on nonviolence and Islam:

There is no theological reason that an Islamic society could not take a lead in developing nonviolence today, and there is every reason that some of them should. (War and Its Discontents)

The Verdict

How To Win A Cosmic War, while artfully and thoughtfully written, but it reads a bit like a jumbled mess of good but inadequately explored ideas. It jumps from the author’s own experiences in becoming an American citizen to the Arab-Israeli conflict to the hardships of Muslims in Western Europe without ever really tying it all together in a satisfying way. Even the epilogue feels out of place as Aslan describes his excitement at the election of Barack Obama. While certainly all such subjects have common elements, they never seemed to fit really well with the overarching theme of the dangers of buying into the violent militant’s black and white cosmic world view.

My conclusion is therefore that Mr. Aslan’s How To Win A Cosmic War is not a very good “how-to” book nor is it a comprehensive look at Islam in the Age of Globalization or the War on Terror. However, if you are in the market to read something about the current state of the world in lovely prose and fresh eyes this is the book for you.

Sources

1. Chaiwat Satha-Anand, “The Nonviolent Crescent: Eight Theses on Muslim Nonviolent Actions,” in Islam and Nonviolence, ed. Glenn D. Paige (Honolulu: Center for Global Nonviolence, 1986), 22.

2. Michael N. Nagler, “Is There a Tradition of Nonviolence in Islam?”, in War and its Discontents: Pacifism and Quietism in the Abrahamic Traditions, ed. J Patout Burns (D.C.: Geo. U. Press 1996), 165.

Notes

**It was at that point in the book I wrote in the margins “WTF?!”

Obama’s Election Didn’t Defeat al-Qaeda, Surprise!

Al-Qaeda has released a new tape directed at the US administration, and many are calling it a “mild” approach.

In the tape, the leader of al-Qaeda’s Iraqi division “calls on the incoming US administration and allied Western leaders to embrace Islam, withdraw troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and release Muslim prisoners from there and from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba”. The tape also implores America to return to its “impartiality” and even offers not to disrupt Western oil supplies if its conditions are met.

But certainly this “mild” approach can’t be due simply to Obama’s election, could it? It would be naive to think so. The BBC reports that al-Qaeda in Iraq has suffered some major setbacks as of late, “having been largely driven out of their former strongholds in central and western Iraq by a combination of US firepower and, more significantly, a tribal uprising by predominately Sunni Iraqis who rejected al-Qaeda’s extreme brutality”.

The BBC quotes several jihadist sources saying:

We are not interested in who’s won because they all follow the same strategy which is a war against Islam and Muslims.

…

Muslims in Waziristan, Pakistan and Afghanistan must brace themselves…Obama’s dogs will be preparing to fight you even harder soon.

So there you have it. Obama, for all his merits, has not single handedly defeated militants just by being elected. Any decline in militant efforts is due to a number of factors that have less to do with US action than the internal debates within the Islamic world. That doesn’t mean we can relax, but we as fellow human beings, Abrahamic brethren, and Americans should continue to provide support to those who are fighting extremism in their own societies.

(Re)Discovering Iraq: Restoring Sovereignty or Undermining Security?

Members of Iraq’s 37-member cabinet voted on Sunday to approve a security agreement setting conditions for the U.S. presence in Iraq.

The Latest Deal

The Iraqi Cabinet has agreed to a new pact with the US military. The terms of the pact are an agreement to place US troops in Iraq under the authority of the Iraqi government, the departure of US forces from the streets of Iraqi towns and villages in mid 2009, the transfer of US bases to Iraq during 2009, and that US forces may only raid Iraqi homes with the authority of an Iraqi judge and permission of the government. Part of the pact also includes provisions for investigating alleged crimes of US forces outside the bases to face the Iraqi justice system in accordance with a decision from a joint committee. The deal is set to go to the Parliament in the next week. Once approved in Parliament, it will have to be ratified by an Iraqi presidential council before PM Maliki and President Bush sign the deal. (BBC) The date for complete withdrawal, according to the text, will be in 2011 regardless of the situation on the ground, one Iraqi official has said. (Reuters)

The New York Times quotes a Brookings expert on what this means for Iraq:

This vote shows that the Iraqis have figured out how to stand up for themselves, to Iran and to the U.S…They will have stared in the face at the various options and concluded that none are ideal but the best for their security is an amount of ongoing but finite American cooperation, while also indicating their strong desire to run their own country on their own as soon as possible.

Its approval by the cabinet is a testimony to the negotiations between Iraqi Kuds and Shi’a. However, a widespread Sunni opposition could block the deal from passing in Parliament and further weaken its position of a national consensus. The approval also demonstrates how the Iraqi government has become increasingly confident in its ability to maintain law and order, though it still recognizes a need for the US military in combatting Sunni militants. If the agreement does not pass, the consequences would make US involvement in Iraq even more difficult.

Shi’a Reaction

The loudest protests against the agreement have come from influential Shi’a cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his followers, even though it offers them their much desired committment to withdrawal. They have called for mass demonstrations to oppose any agreement with the American “occupier”. Sadr has said the agreement is tantamount to putting the Iraqis up for sale. (Reuters) One follower is quoted as saying:

We don’t want an agreement with Israel. We don’t want an agreement with Iran. They (the government) should work towards reinforcing the gallant Iraqi army. We fully and totally reject this security pact. (BBC)

Another influential Shi’a cleric, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, did not oppose the pact as it met his conditions of “full Iraqi sovereignty, transparency and majority support”. His approval has been key to the success of the deal amongst the Shi’a community.

Iran, a Shi’ite country, has also opposed the agreement, but may be inclined to ease its stance once it is passed. (Reuters) This may very well be due to a section of the pact bars the US from launching attacks against Iraq’s neighbors. Some analysts also credit this “softening” to the election of Barack Obama and its impact on Iran’s perceptions in dealing with the US. An analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace is quoted as saying:

If George Bush’s presidency were going to continue on through 2012, I think people would be a lot more concerned…Having [the Obama] administration really lightens the blow for the Iranians. (NYT)

Sunni Reaction

Many Sunnis have opposed the pact for the opposite of Sadr’s reasoning: “they worry that without the Americans, they could be at the mercy of Iraq’s majority Shiite population and, behind it, the Iranians”. The largest Sunni bloc in Parliament, however, appears to be divided. Approximately a fourth of its members have said they will vote in favor while the largest member party demands a referendum, which is unlikely to happen. It is possible that the Sunnis will adopt an anti-American stance for future political benefit. (NYT)

Analysis

For a while I had remained undecided on whether or not a timetable for American withdrawal was a good idea. Its become a topic of heated debate amongst politicians discussing American foreign policy, and of course that didn’t help me decide any quicker. Well, now I think have. Isn’t it convenient that I make up my mind once it appears that it is in fact going to happen and its making a lot of people very happy?

Convenience aside, the timetable appears to have a very positive impact on restoring confidence in Iraqi sovereignty and possibly America’s committment to a sovereign and democratic Iraq as well. Obviously, there are those who are not thrilled by the text of the agreement, but if Iran can live with it then I think the others can deal. Sadr, it appears, will protest anything that even mentions the US so I honestly don’t take his opposition very seriously. Sadr and his followers should be taken seriously, but their stance on this issue seems very uninformed. The Sunnis may be brought around if more is done to assure them that they will not suffer at the hands of the Kurds and the Shi’a. I think more should be done to build confidence between all interest groups in Iraq anyhow, but it should be done in conjuction with the proposed pact.

Opinionize!

As is the case with my “(re)discovering” of Iraq, my views are subject to change. So feel free to influence that change and give me your comments.

Do you think US troops should be given a timetable for withdrawal?

Do you think US troops should be subject to the authority of the Iraqi government as described above?

Thanks for all of your answers in advance, and rest assured I will not allow for any derogatory comments in response to anyone’s expression of their views.

References

1. BBC News, “Iraq cabinet backs US troops deal“
2. New York Times, “Pact, Approved in Iraq…“
3. Reuters, “Iraq cabinet backs pact..“

Rediscovering Iraq: Triple Bombing, Working with Locals

Today, when I looked at the news headlines I saw a story about iraq. Its been a long time since I’ve paid attention to Iraq. In Fall 2006, I took a class entitled Post Saddam Iraq and it was one of the most intense classes I’ve ever taken. Since then, I’ve been largely unaware of current events though I have retained a decent amount of pre-2003 invasion Iraqi history.

So I’m going to start a little project to re-acquaint myself with what’s going on, how we’ve gotten to the places we have, and what are the plans for the future.

Al-Qaeda Strikes in Baghdad, Kills 28

A triple bombing in the capital of Baghdad has killed 28 and wounded 68. Two car bombs exploded simultaneously and as police and civilians rushed to help, a suicide bomber blew himself up. This is one of the deadliest attacks to take place in Iraq in months. The neighborhood where the bombs went off is full of tea shops and restaurants and was a popular spot for students.

Such coordinated and massive strikes have become rare but steady reminders of the capacity of militants to unleash mayhem in Iraq, even though they no longer control whole swathes of towns and villages and violence overall has fallen sharply.

Using Local Militias

The BBC reports that there are suspicions that this was an al-Qaeda attempt to reignite sectarian violence in Baghdad. Such conflict was rife throughout the city in 2006-7, but has since subsided as local militias have joined Awakening Councils set up by US forces.

The US military has been transferring control of the Awakening Council militias to the Iraqis since October 1st. The government has just begun paying the salaries of these militias. These councils, along with the US troop surge have been credited with the dramatic improvements in security.

According to the New York Times, the councils are comprised of groups of Sunnis, many who are former militants themselves, who have bonded together against the most violent Sunnis insurgents. They are also called Concerned Local Citizens, Iraqi Sunni Volunteers, and Sahwas in Arabic.

Female Suicide Bomber

A separate suicide bombing also occurred in Baquba at a checkpoint staffed by the local Awakening Council militia. Six militia members were killed and 14 were wounded. The bomber is believed to have been a 13 year old girl.

The attack by a female suicide bomber in Baquba is part of a trend that has increased this year. U.S. forces say al Qaeda Sunni Islamist militants are increasingly recruiting female bombers — often teenaged girls — to thwart security checks.

Many of the female bombers have lost male relatives and are seen as psychologically vulnerable to recruitment for suicide missions. (Reuters)

Conclusions

I was not previously aware of the existence of the councils, but I am impressed at the ability of military commanders to tap into social groups already in place to build up security. It is very encouraging to see that there are Iraqis who are committed to bringing about a change and are actively doing so. It is also very encouraging from the perspective of someone studying peacebuilding that such organizations may be extremely helpful in bringing about the security needed to rebuild Iraq.

Peace is Supposed to Make You Squirm

In a recent high profile interfaith dialogue between the Pope and other notable Muslim and Catholic leaders, the Pope announced that political and religious leaders everywhere must honor the rights of each individual to their faith. He further stated that Muslims and Christians are members of one family.

While the Vatican has protested attacks on Christians in Iraq and Saudi Arabia’s ban on worshipping in public, Bosnian cleric Mustafa Ceric noted that Muslims have also suffered. Ceric specifically pointed to the genocide he and his Bosnian brethren experienced during the war in the Balkans.

An Iranian Islamic studies professor also spoke of the shared values of religious freedom in Islam and Christianity.

However, he added: “We, Muslims, do not allow an aggressive proselytising in our midst that would destroy our faith in the name of freedom, any more than would Christians if they were in our situation.”

I am very pleased to see such a high profile interfaith dialogue going on, but I think some notable religious representatives are absent. Namely, Protestants and Jews. That’s not a condemnation, because certainly the dialogue is happening because of Muslim grievances against the Catholic church. But I think it would be an even more powerful symbol to see both Protestants and Jews involved in the dialogue.

I think the comments of the Iranian professor are very interesting. I am sure there are cases of aggressive Christian proselytizing, but perhaps he and other Muslims in the Muslim world have deeply ingrained perceptions of Western intervention as a form of religious proselytization. I don’t think this is what we in the West are truly guilty of in our foreign policy, but I don’t know if we’ve done very much to reassure those in the Muslim world that it is not our intent while a few corrupt leaders continue to preach just that for their own non-religious ambitions.

To conclude, yay interfaith dialogue! I’m a Christian and I consider both Jews and Muslims to be very close and dear to my religious heritage. I also choose not to proselytize my own faith because of a deep respect for other religious traditions though that is my own personal choice and I have no wish to condemn anyone who chooses otherwise.

Alright, that might be a little too peacenik-y. Ok, well if at any point you felt uncomfortable just turn to your nearest religious rival and beat the tar out of them while shouting bigoted remarks until you feel better.

Peace is supposed to make you squirm. You know why? Because its way harder. It takes more balls to do the right thing than it does to not do the right thing. That’s what Jesus taught me.

Commending Belligerants for Nonviolent Actions in Iraq

I was very pleased to see this article as the main headline on the BBC News website this morning. However one may feel about Shi’a cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his followers, it is imperative that nonviolent actions in Iraq be publicized and positively acknowledged.The group may condone violence, but to only talk about their expressed grievances and goals when they engage in violence only serves to reinforce the idea that this is how they will be heard.

In that spirit, I will go so far as to commend the cleric and his followers for choosing to express their opposition to an extension of the US mandate in Iraq by a mass demonstration. It is my sincere hope that more efforts like this will be done so that the Shi’a do not get left out of negotiations and that less US soldiers, contractors, and Iraqi citizens will die for political strife.The opposition itself may be unpleasant, but we must always accept an opposition when it expresses itself nonviolently.

Supporters of Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr have staged a mass demonstration in Baghdad in protest against plans to extend the US mandate in Iraq.

An estimated 50,000 protesters chanted slogans such as “Get out occupier!”.

Iraqi and US negotiators drafted the deal after months of talks but it still needs approval from Iraq’s government.

Under the agreement US troops would withdraw by 2011, and Iraq would have the right to prosecute Americans who commit crimes while off-duty.

The UN mandate for US-led coalition forces expires at the end of this year. About 144,000 of the 152,000 foreign troops deployed there are US military personnel.

Political battle

Chanting slogans and waving banners, tens of thousands of Shias, mainly young men, marched on the eastern suburb of Sadr City towards the centre of Baghdad.

Iraq regards blanket immunity for US troops as undermining its sovereignty

The BBC’s Jim Muir in Baghdad says Moqtada Sadr’s militant opposition to the US presence has strong grassroots support among many Shias – and this was a physical manifestation of that opposition.

He says leaders of the 30-strong Sadr bloc in the Iraqi parliament will have expressed that rejection at a meeting of Iraq’s Political Council for National Security late on Friday.

The meeting of top political leaders and the heads of parliamentary factions was convened to discuss the draft agreement covering the US military presence after its mandate expires.

No decisions were taken but the Council is to meet again to hear back from military experts on what is a very complex and detailed document.

Our correspondent says its passage through parliament may follow naturally if it is approved by the Council, but this is by no means assured and a tough political battle is already shaping up.

In Washington, US defence chief Robert Gates has been courting support for the deal from key members of Congress – although their approval is not mandatory.