Look! The New York Times Learns a New Word!

If you think about it you'll note that I rarely, if ever, use the words "fundamentalist" or "extremist." I just don't think that they add to our understanding at all -- they throw far more heat than light.

I prefer the word Islamist, which you'll find in the literature has a very narrow and very specific meaning. It refers to those who see Islam as not just a relgion but a political ideology -- the root and branch and basis for all politics and all law in other words. If you believe Islam is compatible with democracy, but that Islam must somehow be a critical source for law, giving democracy an Islamic cultural tone or flavor, you ain't no Islamist. If you believe the only legitimate form of law is the Shari'a, you are an Islamist.

This is a fairly bright line question.

Taliban: Islamists.

Current government of Afghanistan (even though they are using Islamic concepts as the basis for legal concepts, or trying to): not Islamists.

You can be an Islamist and not be a terrorist, but you can't be an Islamist and still be a moderate.

The New York Times, in its constant search for ever more euphemistic ways to neuter the language, its ever growing repetoire of increasingly meaningless adjectives, its list of insurgents, rebels, gunmen, guerrillas, hostage-takers, extremists, and so on and so forth, has not in general tripped to the uses of this word.

But look at their second article this morning (with a headline slightly different in the online edition than the print edition, the relevant word remains):

"Shiite Alliance in Iraq Wants Islamist as the Prime Minister" (online) "Shiites in Iraq Back Islamist to Be Premier" (print)

There's no doubt the man represents a party grounded in Islam and Islamic principles.

Thomas Jefferson he ain't.

But is he an Islamist? Zarqawi is an Islamist. Is that truly what we're dealing with here? The article is co-authored by John Burns, so it's to be taken seriously. But it's also co-authored by Dexter Filkins, so it's to be taken with a grain of Prozac. The question is a simple one: can the Times back the initial assertion made in the headline (because that headline is an argument) up?

They begin:

Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shiite doctor with an Islamist bent, was chosen Tuesday by the victorious Shiite alliance as its candidate to become Iraq's new prime minister. The decision may well open a period of protracted and rancorous negotiations with a coalition of secular leaders intent on sharply curtailing Dr. Jaafari's powers or blocking him and his clerical-backed coalition. (My emph.)

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Of course, part of this is that we Americans have fairly well developed sensibilities about the separation of church and state. We may fight like cats and dogs about what that means, and where the line should be drawn, but is there anyone in the mainstream who disagrees that there should be a line?

It's easy to present the fact that the new Iraqi leadership won't support that concept and suggest we've failed in putting in place a functioning democracy, but if we mean what we say about supporting democracy but understanding that other people will have to do it in a way that fits their own culture, then one of the first things we'll have to accept is that Islam doesn't really acknowledge a line between mosque and state. A system that keeps the clerics from running things but merely enshrines Islam as the "basis" for laws is as close as any government in the Islamic world is likely to come. (I'd argue Turkey is a rather exceptional case.)

The article continues:

Ayad Allawi, the current prime minister, and Barham Salih, a Kurdish politician and deputy prime minister, said in separate interviews on Tuesday that without guarantees renouncing sectarianism and embracing Western democratic ideals they were poised to block Dr. Jaafari's nomination and possibly peel off enough members from the Shiite's United Iraqi Alliance to form a government of their own.

Now, now, tsk, tsk, tsk, we're conflating two arguments here. They want guarantees against sectarianism -- good, good, we should need those guarantees as well -- and they also want guarantees of a commitment to Western democratic ideals.

Where's the evidence the Shia's guy isn't prepared to sign onto those (with certain adjustments)? Because so far he's been making all the right noises.

More:

Iraq's interim constitution effectively requires a two-thirds majority in the new assembly to choose a prime minister and government, and the Shiite alliance, led by two religious parties with close ties to Iran, won a bare majority in the Jan. 30 election. (My emph.)

Oh yes, that other boogey man.

Define "close ties" please. All these articles and stories use that same phrase. But beyond the fact that many of these guys received sanctuary there during the regime years, all else is left murky.

More:

Indeed, initial indications were that a potentially polarizing battle was possible, one that could expose the deep fissures in Iraqi society that have been held in check since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Those fissures not only cut across sectarian and ethnic lines but also track a wide disagreement about the nature of the Iraqi state: whether it should be religious or secular, centrally led or governed by a federal system, allied to Iran or anchored in ties to the West.

Well, we could phrase that another way, couldn't we? Those fissures have been "held in check" since the fall of the old regime in part because there's just been no point, no venue, and no framework for the debate.

My argument, which simply became overtaken by events, had been that in an ideal situation you would hold off elections in order to permit genuine civil society to develop so that parties would represent political positions. That became impossible because elections became so important as a way to reestablish sovereignty and overcome occupation. But given that, there was no way for parties to come to represent political positions as opposed to communities.

Surely the lack of campaign debate due to the security situation didn't help, but lets be honest about it -- the Iraqis were learning or relearning politics for the first time in thirty years. The elections just weren't going to be textbook opportunities for debating structural issues about the nature of government.

That really means, pragmatically, that the forum and opportunity for that debate -- federalism or not, how Islamic, how secular, etc etc etc -- is the writing of the constitution.

Well, that's what this election was for, to elect the men and women who would hold that debate. In other words, now is precisely the time that was set aside for that debate to take place.

Only deep into that article do we get the reminder that since it takes two thirds agreement to get anything done:

Despite the appearance of inevitability, Dr. Jaafari faces a difficult task in persuading a large bloc of mostly secular parties to support him.

If the Kurds and Dr. Allawi do not scuttle Dr. Jaafari's candidacy, they are likely to set a number of stiff conditions for their support, regarding not only the shape of the government but also of the permanent constitution to be drafted this year. (My emph.)

Like those Western democratic ideals, perhaps?

In other words, there's only so much Islam Jaafari could stuff down people's throats if he tried.

Later in the article we get this:

Since returning to Iraq after Mr. Hussein was toppled, Dr. Jaafari has cut a cautious political path, tacitly supporting the American presence here but staking out a strongly adversarial position on many key issues. (My emph.)

What we don't get is a mention of what the good doctor said just a few days ago, something that might have been relevant to mention at this point, that he actually supports keeping US forces in Iraq for the forseeable future. That goes a bit past "tacit" support. (Note that in that interview he also rejects using Islam as the sole basis for law.)

More from the article:

As a member of the American-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, Dr. Jaafari pushed for a more expansive role for Islam in the country's interim constitution. And he was one of several Shiite leaders who initially refused to sign the document, based on his opposition to a provision that would allow a two-thirds majority in three of Iraq's 18 provinces to nullify the constitution when it goes before voters later this year. Dr. Jaafari, whose Shiites represent a 60 percent majority in the country, said the provision was undemocratic.

He eventually signed the interim constitution, but even now says he may lead a move to reverse the provisions he opposed last year. That prospect is viewed with alarm by many groups here, including Kurds, secular parties, and the Americans.

Yeah, too late now. Two thirds would appear to be locked in.

Here comes the tempering good news, in paragraph twenty, deep in the jump page and deep on the second computer screen, well after that damning headline:

At a news conference after his nomination on Tuesday, Dr. Jaafari, who spent more than 20 years in exile in London and Iran, declared the defeat of the insurgency his first priority. In recent public statements he has made it clear that an Iraqi government cannot accomplish that without the continued support of American troops. He also promised to forge a coalition that included Iraqis of all sects and ethnicities, particularly the Sunni Arabs, who largely boycotted nationwide elections last month and who are generating most of the violence against the American-backed government here.

"If need be, we will be strong against the perpetrators of acts of violence, and at the same time we will be lenient with anybody who will work with us," Dr. Jaafari said at the news conference. Flanked by a smiling Mr. Chalabi, he sat before a poster of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the powerful Shiite religious leader under whose guidance the alliance came together.

So, yes, yes, the man has said some moderate things -- but who will ever read about them?

I particularly love the last two paragraphs:

Dr. Allawi predicted that settling the issue of who would lead the new government could take weeks, and hinted that the battle could be bitter. He said he had heard rumors that the alliance leaders had consulted with Iran's ruling ayatollahs, and had been told that Dr. Allawi, a secular Shiite with close ties to the United States that go back at least 15 years, would not be acceptable to Iran as prime minister in the new transitional government. "I have heard that they don't want me," he said. "Why, God knows."

Any suggestion that Iran has played a role in the alliance's choice of prime minister would be politically explosive in Iraq, particularly among the Sunni minority population that was Iraq's traditional ruling group for decades until the overthrow of Mr. Hussein. That, in turn, could re-energize the Sunni-led insurgency that has paralyzed much of the country in the 23 months since the American-led invasion, blighting hopes that key Sunni groups with links to the insurgents - including tribal leaders who have met secretly with Dr. Allawi in recent months - might agree to help curb the insurgency and join the political process. (My emph.)

Allawi has no evidence, of course, at least none that he apparently can produce to the Times-men. What he has is a rumour. But I've no doubt that they're correct about the damage that could be done by repeating such a rumour.

Yet they're quite happy to do so, without even noting the fact that they cannot confirm his statement.

Nice going.

Comments

[Subsunk]

Good analysis, Ma'am. I like the Joe Friday "just the facts" approach to this one. You must have some nuclear submariner blood in your veins.

I'm tired of taking the MSM's word that everyone on the slate has close ties to Iran and will install a mini-Taliban when seated. My family were cattle ranchers. I used to work with lots of cowboys. That don't mean I invite folks to put their cowshit covered boots on my table. I live next door to two lesbians. That don't mean I hate them, love them, or have anything to do with them. But I do have ties to lesbians and cowboys. So what?

Subsunk

[Athena]

Hahaha, nice comments subsunk.

[hhhhh]

出会い出会いデリヘル