The age of horrorism

[Mickey Brausch]

Martin Amis is now past 50 and can no longer lay claim to the turf of anrgy young men. His novels, though still burning with intellect and full of illuminating insights, are hopelessly burdened down by the weight of their self-important prose. Well, Amis may have found a new calling in writing essays about current events. He does it rarely, but does it rather well.

This is a somewhat longish but very clear-eyed and somber article about Islam, the war in Iraq, the religious terrorists, and our West.
Choice sample:

* * *

The Iraq project was foredoomed by three intrinsic historical realities.

First, the Middle East is clearly unable, for now, to sustain democratic rule - for the simple reason that its peoples will vote against it. Did no one whisper the words, in the Situation Room - did no one say what the scholars have been saying for years? The 'electoral policy' of the fundamentalists, writes Bernard Lewis, 'has been classically summarised as "One man (men only), one vote, once."' Or, in the trope of Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason", democracy will be 'little more than a gangplank to theocracy'; and that theocracy will be Islamist. Now the polls have closed, and the results are coming in, region-wide. In Lebanon, gains for Hizbollah; in Egypt, gains for Sayyid Qutb's fraternity, the Muslim Brothers; in Palestine, victory for Hamas; in Iran, victory for the soapbox rabble-rouser and primitive anti-semite, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In the Iraqi election, Bush and Blair, pathetically, both 'hoped' for Allawi, whose return was 14 per cent.

Second, Iraq is not a real country. It was cobbled together, by Winston Churchill, in the early Twenties; it consists of three separate (Ottoman) provinces, Sunni, Shia, Kurd - a disposition which looks set to resume. Among the words not listened to by the US Administration, we can include those of Saddam Hussein. Even with an apparatus of terror as savage as any in history, even with chemical weapons, helicopter gunships, and mass killings, even with a proven readiness to cleanse, to displace, and to destroy whole ecosystems, Saddam Hussein modestly conceded that he found Iraq a difficult country to keep in one piece. As a Sunni military man put it, Iraqis hate Iraq - or 'Iraq', a concept that has brought them nothing but suffering. There is no nationalist instinct; the instinct is for atomisation.

Third, only the sack of Mecca or Medina would have caused more pain to the Islamic heart than the taking, and befouling, of the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, the seat of the Caliphate. We have not heard any discussion, at home, about the creedal significance of Baghdad. But we have had some intimations from the jihadis' front line. In pronouncements that vibrate with historic afflatus, they speak of their joyful embrace of the chance to meet the infidel in the Land Between the Rivers. And, of course, beyond - in Madrid, in Bali (again), in London. It may be that the Coalition adventure has given the enemy a casus belli that will burn for a generation.

* * *

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
He does it rarely, but does it rather well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like the OP said: long, but thoughtful.

Thanks for the post.

[Borodog]

His novel Time's Arrow is utterly fantastic. Dynamite. Amazing. Awesome.

So, yeah, I liked it.

As for the OP, his first two points are what I have been saying for years. Aside from my personal feelings that democracy is an inherently bad thing, what kind of government do you think will be elected by a population that practice a religion base around religios law and government? And second, the only way to hold together 3 cultures who hate each other is either through armed and continuous millitary occuptation (like the British did it) or through iron-fisted totalitarianism, ala Saddam. Why SHOULD three cultures who hate each other be forced into the same state? It's like a recipe to ensure that the maximum possible number of people hate the situation.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Why SHOULD three cultures who hate each other be forced into the same state? It's like a recipe to ensure that the maximum possible number of people hate the situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
His novel Time's Arrow is utterly fantastic. Dynamite. Amazing. Awesome.

So, yeah, I liked it.

As for the OP, his first two points are what I have been saying for years. Aside from my personal feelings that democracy is an inherently bad thing, what kind of government do you think will be elected by a population that practice a religion base around religios law and government? And second, the only way to hold together 3 cultures who hate each other is either through armed and continuous millitary occuptation (like the British did it) or through iron-fisted totalitarianism, ala Saddam. Why SHOULD three cultures who hate each other be forced into the same state? It's like a recipe to ensure that the maximum possible number of people hate the situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's fair to say that the different cultures/sects/ideologies are in conflict with each other in the sense of being at war with each other.

Over 99% of the Iraqi people get along peacefully with one another. Less than 1% of the population is causing the problems.

[andyfox]

The Kurds already have their own de facto independence. One of the first acts the Kurdistan National Assembly adopted after convening in June 2005 was to bar the Iraqi military from entering Kudristan without the assembly's approval. The permanent Iraqi constitution adopted in October 2005 allows Kursdistan to have its own military. The Kurdistan constitution is superior to the federal constituion within Kurdistan and prevails when there is a conflict with federal law.

Kurdistan owns and manages it land and water. The Kurdistan Regional Government, not Baghdad, determines the legal regime for the development of new oil fields, decides where drilling takes place, and makes investment decisions. Baghdad has no power to impose taxes on Kurdistan unless Kurdistan agrees to be taxed.

In January 2004 a group of Kurds asked for signatures for a referendum on Kurdistan de jure independence. In three weeks, they collected 1,700,000 signatures; Kurdistan's adult population is about 2,300,000. When the January 2005 federal elections took place, there were referendum booths just outside, or actually inside, every polling place in Kurdistan. 2,000,000 Kurds voted in the referendum and 98 percent chose independence.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The Kurds already have their own de facto independence. One of the first acts the Kurdistan National Assembly adopted after convening in June 2005 was to bar the Iraqi military from entering Kudristan without the assembly's approval. The permanent Iraqi constitution adopted in October 2005 allows Kursdistan to have its own military. The Kurdistan constitution is superior to the federal constituion within Kurdistan and prevails when there is a conflict with federal law.

Kurdistan owns and manages it land and water. The Kurdistan Regional Government, not Baghdad, determines the legal regime for the development of new oil fields, decides where drilling takes place, and makes investment decisions. Baghdad has no power to impose taxes on Kurdistan unless Kurdistan agrees to be taxed.

In January 2004 a group of Kurds asked for signatures for a referendum on Kurdistan de jure independence. In three weeks, they collected 1,700,000 signatures; Kurdistan's adult population is about 2,300,000. When the January 2005 federal elections took place, there were referendum booths just outside, or actually inside, every polling place in Kurdistan. 2,000,000 Kurds voted in the referendum and 98 percent chose independence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the hell haven't I heard of this? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[andyfox]

Shocking that our government doesn't publicize this, isn't it?

I highly recommend Peter Galbraith's The End of Iraq.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
His novel Time's Arrow is utterly fantastic. Dynamite. Amazing. Awesome.

So, yeah, I liked it.

As for the OP, his first two points are what I have been saying for years. Aside from my personal feelings that democracy is an inherently bad thing, what kind of government do you think will be elected by a population that practice a religion base around religios law and government? And second, the only way to hold together 3 cultures who hate each other is either through armed and continuous millitary occuptation (like the British did it) or through iron-fisted totalitarianism, ala Saddam. Why SHOULD three cultures who hate each other be forced into the same state? It's like a recipe to ensure that the maximum possible number of people hate the situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong but didnt the South and North in the U.S. fail to get along at one point? If I recall correctly, I believe there were some doins and shufflin about because of it.

It seems to me that there are always a ton of people who tell you why you can't do something. They are always bitching and whining when anyone tries something even remotely difficult. I am not speaking about you but all the uppity pundits who write about such things.

Maybe Iraq ends in disaster. Maybe it was a terrible idea in the first place. But, the idea of getting rid of corrupt dictators who oppress their people and then replacing those dictators with democracy and freedom is a fight worth having.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His novel Time's Arrow is utterly fantastic. Dynamite. Amazing. Awesome.

So, yeah, I liked it.

As for the OP, his first two points are what I have been saying for years. Aside from my personal feelings that democracy is an inherently bad thing, what kind of government do you think will be elected by a population that practice a religion base around religios law and government? And second, the only way to hold together 3 cultures who hate each other is either through armed and continuous millitary occuptation (like the British did it) or through iron-fisted totalitarianism, ala Saddam. Why SHOULD three cultures who hate each other be forced into the same state? It's like a recipe to ensure that the maximum possible number of people hate the situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

I could be wrong but didnt the South and North in the U.S. fail to get along at one point? If I recall correctly, I believe there were some doins and shufflin about because of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely my point. One part of the country wanted to (peacefully) go their own way, the other launched a bloody military invasion and conquest, installed and ruled via muliple (highly corrupt) military dictatorships and puppet governments, with the result that one ethnic group bore the brunt of another's violent resentment for over a century.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that there are always a ton of people who tell you why you can't do something. They are always bitching and whining when anyone tries something even remotely difficult. I am not speaking about you but all the uppity pundits who write about such things.

Maybe Iraq ends in disaster. Maybe it was a terrible idea in the first place. But, the idea of getting rid of corrupt dictators who oppress their people and then replacing those dictators with democracy and freedom is a fight worth having.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it isn't. You've totally ignored the OP.

Just to make this perfectly clear, imagine a country run by a brutal dictator. But the majority of the populace are only slightly less brutal relgious fanatics of three different sects who each believe in their own supremacy and the righteousness of the supremacy of their religious law and the subjugation of the other two sects.

What do you believe will be the result of installing democracy in such a country?

Note that I am not claiming that this is the exact case in Iraq; I am using an extreme example where the consequences are clear to make a point.