|
There Are Always ‘Solutions’
‘Ayatollah will not allow US-Iraq deal’
Iraq’s most revered Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has strongly objected to a ‘security accord’ between the US and Iraq.
The Grand Ayatollah has reiterated that he would not allow Iraq to sign such a deal with "the US occupiers" as long as he was alive, a source close to Ayatollah Sistani said.
The source added the Grand Ayatollah had voiced his strong objection to the deal during a meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in the holy city of Najaf on Thursday.
Hillary Clinton Mentions RFK Assassination in Relation to ’08 Race
In an interview with the Argus Leader, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., took the unusual step of invoking the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., when discussing the continuing Democratic nomination battle.
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it." Clinton said.
Since none of us know al-Sistani personally I can’t say whether deep down he is just another politician trying to get some ‘traction’ on a topic an opponent (if he and al-Sadr are opponents)has managed to “call his own”.
But I do know there is a huge amount of confusion and misunderstanding in the west about the exact role that a figure such as al-Sistani or even al-Sadr holds within their society.
Senior Islamic clergy don’t rise through a formal structure. There is no equivalent of a Pope or a bishops hierarchy in Islam where advancement if it call be called that, is made on the basis of how learned the person is, rather than some office jobbery or cardinals conclaving, to fill vacant positions. That said I’m sure that Islam just like most other human endeavours, does have it’s share of players, that is self-promoters who use situations to play people off against each other for their own ends.
Because we live in systems (so called democracies) which are almost entirely geared towards satisfying the needs of these player types we can make the error of thinking that everyone else does too, when in fact some societies contain institutions which have evolved beyond such destructive hierarchies.
Ever since amerika has been in Iraq they have been trying to get al-Sistani to ‘play the game’ something he has refused to do, in fact virtually everything the man has said and done can lead one to believe that he loathes politics and refuses to indulge in them. At first amerika thought that position was just a ploy. After all how could someone get to be so respected in society and still refuse to ‘play’. It was unheard of, certainly I’m unaware of any amerikan xtian god-botherer who, upon attaining even middle rank doesn’t immediately trade that position for chips in the ‘big game’, ie politics.
But al Sistani has never been interested in politics and probably understands that much of the respect given him by Iraqis, comes from the fact he doesn’t trade their loyalty for chips at the ‘big table’.
Most westerners would see that as pointless, after all “what is the point of being revered if you’re not gonna go anywhere with it?” Of course that also begs the question of whether al-Sistani devotes much time and effort to concerning himself with his ‘reverence index’. Somehow I believe it is unlikely he calls polls or holds focus groups on any issue, much less on what the peeps think of him.
Rather than seeing him as an operator, keen to undermine al-Sadr, it is just as viable to argue that al-Sistani is a devout person who withdrew from all social contact refusing to meet any amerikan from shrub on up, simply because he sees that entering into any dealings with the corrupt, venal infidel invaders as being a sin that would corrupt him, his thoughts, and the people around him. That no good could come of such a treasonous and probably blasphemous act.
He may understand that once the amerikans realised they couldn’t find any players in the few Iraqi institutions remaining after the invasion, and let’s face it, Islam was about the only institution that wasn’t completely levelled and it’s hierarchy tossed into abu-Ghraib, that amerika would try to create a structure they could comprehend.
al-Sistani saw that it became neccessary for the amerikans to create a structure where people had to play the game according to amerikan rules so there would be ‘opposite numbers’ in Iraq whose motives and actions amerikans could understand then suborn or defeat.
That as we know was no simple matter. The first attempts at creating a corrupt democracy where the peeps voted yet weren’t heeded were disastrous. amerika had to step in and sack the buggers and tell them to start again.
Sistani didn’t oppose those efforts, well speak against them, perhaps because he saw all the effort amerika was putting in, as being a good ‘sink’ or sponge for the deplorable belief that everything can be fixed with enough guns and money. amerika used up lots of time and resources especially the patience of Iraqis, micro-managing a power structure many Iraqis regarded as being irrelevant.
Why would al-Sistani speak against this process? As far as he could discern amongst the ‘locals’ (those who had been living in Iraq or Iran prior to the invasion, the outsiders such as Chalabi were never gonna win enough votes anyhow) in government most were patriotic Iraqis, on the same page about one thing. That is that Iraq’s resources would never be given up to the invaders.
The number of attempts by amerika to sequester the oil ‘legally’ that is in a way that can’t be found to be in breach of UN requirements on invader-colony relations, probably exceeds the number of attempts to assassinate Castro, OK I exaggerate, nothing could top that number, but still there must have been more than the proverbial 57 different cracks at skinning this cat, yet amerika still isn’t any closer to getting the oil now, than it was in Feb 03 with Saddam still in power.
They must have pulled out every stop on al-Maliki when Cheney dropped by to arm twist. al-Maliki has begun a civil war that has angered and upset all devout Shia, whether they supported al-Sadr or not. al-Sistani is probably one of those most upset at the heedless, needless spilling of the blood of brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters.
But al-Sistani isn’t a politician, so he’s not going to try and trade his position in the Shia community for some deal with amerika and what appears to be their loyal proxy/sock puppet al-Maliki.
Instead he shows courage and says in a way that all Iraqis can understand:
“If you proceed with this feckless, reckless and corrupt ‘security accord’ which will allow amerika to take what they want, when they want, killing whomsoever they desire; without having to answer to any law be it Iraqi, amerikan, or international, then you will have to kill me first.”
Will it work? Well it will give Iraqis a pretty good picture of how far into the diabolical corruption process that Faust, sorry Maliki is immediately prior to the elections.
If Maliki wants his deal he won’t just have to kill al-Sistani – he’s also going to have to fracture the Shia bloc which is his support base, right before asking that base to vote for him. Of course the amerikans don’t care, once the accord has been signed and the oil deal extorted using the accord, as far as BushCo and cheneyCorp care Iraq can do whatever the fuck it wants. A security perimeter will go around the oil fields. The roads system will become like the Israeli model where only the favoured few and their tankers are allowed to travel the high speed high priority roads connecting the oil fields to international transport hubs like sea ports and airfields.
Hell it’s not as if shrub and cheney are gonna have to worry about the festering sore that Iraq will have become some other sucker is going to have to try and recast Iraq into the image that amerikan citizens prefer, one that makes them seem to be ‘the good guys’.
I doubt the odds of cheney and shrub pulling this off are actually that great. There is a limit on what they can get away with while amerikans are distracted by ‘picking the patsy’. Maliki may be on board, but the deal still needs to be voted on in parliament and that means every “aye” vote will have to have a secure, viable ‘exit package’ for the pol, his immediate family, perhaps his entire clan. And that also presumes that there are that many pols in the Iraqi parliament prepared to be that treasonous.
Since no one outside Iraq anywhere, much less amerika, seems to be sufficiently disturbed by this travesty to throw sand in BushCo’s gearbox, the job of preventing this travesty will be up to iraqis themselves, but hell, they knew that right from the start.
Posted by: Debs is dead | May 25 2008 22:47 utc | 9
|
