Even in the mjdst of existentialist horror, you have to smile at some stuff, and I get a little grin every time I think about how torn the really hard line conservative Christians must be about situations like this. After all, there's nothing they'd like better than to establish this kind of strict theocracy here in America... the Saudi Arabian tendency towards letting devoutly religious men roam the streets in gangs beating those they see violating Scripture with heavy clubs must just make our own Born Agains positively priapic (in a spiritual sense, anyway).

Yet, the notion that these people are doing all these really wonderful things, and enforcing all these really wonderful morals and ethics and strictures, in the service of a completely wrongheaded and misbegotten and hellbound belief structure, must just drive them crazy.

You just have to figure Jerry Falwell is staring at most of the Middle East and going "My God, My God, why do the BLASPHEMERS get to have all the fun?" I'm sure he'd like to close down some liquor stores and make quite a few American harlots cover themselves, too... so why don't the CHRISTIAN nutballs ever get to do this stuff?

How it fits in? Something like this:

"Only objectively pro-mullahists are bringing up such revisionist history!!!!! Get over it and move on - to Iran!!!! We must invade Iran ***now***!!! Those who oppose the war to Liberate Iran are supporters of Terrorism!!!"

Gee, I just read a story in WAPO or the Times or somesuch about a Baghdadi entrepreneur opening up a kind of patio bar and getting lots of customers.

Maybe some counties will be dry and some will be wet?

(I'm not trying to make fun - the theocrats are trying to intimidate women and everyone else who wants a liberal society. But Iraq has never been a theocracy and has always been a cosmopolitan place, so I am hopeful.)

Yet, the notion that these people are doing all these really wonderful things, and enforcing all these really wonderful morals and ethics and strictures, in the service of a completely wrongheaded and misbegotten and hellbound belief structure, must just drive them crazy.

You just have to figure Jerry Falwell is staring at most of the Middle East and going "My God, My God, why do the BLASPHEMERS get to have all the fun?"

It is distinctly possible that Jerry Falwell is that cynical. However, the majority of fundamentalists will not see it that way. They will not see Iran, or a Shiite-ruled Iraq as a theocracy. They will see it as a terrible, heretical danger to the world. The theocratic nature of the country will not arouse envy, it will arouse fear. They will see them as the great Satan, an enemy of Christ, etc. etc. The wrong religion as ruler is worse than a secular ruler by far. It is only a theocracy if it is exactly their view of God. We secular humanists are more even-handed when it comes to defining a theocracy, we don't care whose god it is.

(I'm not trying to make fun - the theocrats are trying to intimidate women and everyone else who wants a liberal society. But Iraq has never been a theocracy and has always been a cosmopolitan place, so I am hopeful.)

I wonder how "cosmopolitan" the society always was.

Right now, I think the Mullahs are using the void of any real governmental body to make like Carrie Nation and smash everything they disapprove of, knowing that whatever government comes into place will at very worst sweep this "untidiness" under the rug. There's not a chance in hell that the liquor store owners will be able to sue the mullahs for vandalism, not with the vandalism everywhere already and the "hunt" for WMD, so there's no reason at the moment for them to not do as they please.

This sort of thing won't stop until the US sets up whatever sort of puppet government is deemed necessary and gets down to the business of governing, instead of the continual business of "mopping up."

Uh... my initial post was meant to be humorous, however heavy handed I was when I wrote it. I realize Jerry Falwell lacks the vision, sense of humor, and proportionate self perception to realize exactly how similar what HE wants for America is to what the mullahs want for the Middle East... (and, well, for America, too, when they can get that far...). I was simply trying to point out, in a satirical manner, that repression is repression, regardless of what god or government's name is on the label.

Kevin, I agree with your assessment of the situation on the ground and the role the US occupation has to play. I do get reports that they are doing just that. And the mullah intimidation is happening also - I am not trying to dismiss it. And we don't know how it will turn out, but Iraq was pretty westernized before and was never a theocracy. But ditto Iran, and they ended up in the position they are in now anyway. And Iran is trying to export its theocracy into Iraq.

There was a report that the major Shiite groups all agreed NOT to pursue a theocracy. (I wish I had these URLs handy, but I refuse to bookmark everything in case I may need it someday for a blog thread - that way lies madness. And googling can be time-consuming too.)

"Iraq was never a theocracy"? True. But neither was Palestine. Living under the Israeli occupation has tended to make the Palestinians more fundamentalist. It's a question whether the same will apply under the American occupation of Iraq.

I suspect not, because the whole point about the forcible exile of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1948 was that they were Muslims or Christians, not Jews: the Israelis have effectively created their own theocratic opposition.

While I've heard rumours that the American right-wing wants to send over an army of Christian missionaries to Iraq, I doubt if even Bush is that stupid. He must realise that the Iraqi reaction to American occupation of their country would become vastly worse if there was any such attempt.

thanks for the info

As for cosmopolitan... only in the largest of cities (i.e. Bagdhad, Mosul and Kirkuk). As for the rest, they are {and in the last 5-6 years Hussein was working to make it moreso) fairly religious.

We had to let people look through our goggles to show them we weren't using our, "x-ray," vision to look at women's bodies under their clothes.

Some of the attacks in the recent weeks are because in searching for weapons we entered the women's parts of the house, and saw things which shamed them, their families and their religion.

It may not be a theocracy (though in the very southern parts they would like one) but it is far from what we, in the West, would call secular.

Terry

(whose observations will soon be dated, as I am no longer in downrange).

Some of the attacks in the recent weeks are because in searching for weapons we entered the women's parts of the house, and saw things which shamed them, their families and their religion.

Wow, somehow that never occurred to me. Now that you've mentioned it, it seems so obvious. This is the utility of a Man On The Ground.

Brings up a whole host of questions, like: Did no one consider having female soldiers search those bits? Is it just too difficult or time-consuming to distinguish? Are there not enough females in those types of units?

You may not know the answers to these questions, but even your speculation is better than ours.