The Turban of Ignorance and America’s Disregard
The basis for the hatred of America is mostly its ignorance in most, if not all, circles. However, other reasons include historical, cultural, social, intellectual and ethical reasons, as well as customs, traditions, beliefs, military issues and the inevitable future end of the American occupation of Iraq. But across all points of view and in various circles, there is a genuine ignorance as to what Iraq truly is. The former U.S. ambassador in Baghdad, David Newton, confirmed this when he appeared yesterday on al-Arabiya to answer direct questions about the religious uniformity within Iraq and Iran. Responding to whether one is clerical or Shiite, he repeatedly said “religion” and not “doctrine.” Whether he said so deliberately or out of ignorance, it confirms my premise and connotes a kind of religious cooperation, solidarity and empathy between Baghdad and Tehran. Furthermore, although we know about the role of sectarian bias in the formation of political, economic and cultural relations between Iraq and Iran at the highest levels after the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the Iranian influence upon it, the ambassador forgot to mention that the relationship was formed upon these terms and that the Iraqi people reject the foundations on which the relationship was founded.
In response to another question, he said that Iraq was generally a strong rock to Iran during the reign of Saddam Hussein and that we have to strengthen its military strength at these times to become this rock again and play the same role.
Mr. Ambassador, when you say that the two governments follow one religion, what is the basis for this? If we arm Iraq to the same extent as we did during Saddam Hussein’s reign, will this make Iraq a regional rock in the face of Iranian aggression? Or will this added strength be given to that regime’s clerical, aggressive rule? This is the policy practiced daily in the Gulf, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine, North Africa, etc. Would the ambassador say nonsense and simply contribute to this phenomenon?
In answer to the third question, he said that Baghdad has the right to fear the fall of the Assad regime in Syria because the alternative would be a Sunni regime hostile to the Shiite rule in Iraq.
The immediate and automatic question presented to the ambassador pertains to whether one should bear the brunt of a sectarian system in Iraq and push for another establishment of an anti-sectarian system in Syria.
I also ask my fellow Shiites in Iraq if they were dissatisfied when he called Ja’fari a religion. If they were aware of the distinction, shouldn’t the U.S. ambassador have known?
I also pose a question to the Maliki government. Were you satisfied when he said that you will not meet with the Iranian regime because they are “Shiite clerics” and not because you are supposed to look out for the interest of the Iraqi people in regards to their relations, sovereignty, freedom and independence?
The silence of the diplomat affirms all that he had said.
In response to another question, he said that Iraq was generally a strong rock to Iran during the reign of Saddam Hussein and that we have to strengthen its military strength at these times to become this rock again and play the same role.
Mr. Ambassador, when you say that the two governments follow one religion, what is the basis for this? If we arm Iraq to the same extent as we did during Saddam Hussein’s reign, will this make Iraq a regional rock in the face of Iranian aggression? Or will this added strength be given to that regime’s clerical, aggressive rule? This is the policy practiced daily in the Gulf, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine, North Africa, etc. Would the ambassador say nonsense and simply contribute to this phenomenon?
In answer to the third question, he said that Baghdad has the right to fear the fall of the Assad regime in Syria because the alternative would be a Sunni regime hostile to the Shiite rule in Iraq.
The immediate and automatic question presented to the ambassador pertains to whether one should bear the brunt of a sectarian system in Iraq and push for another establishment of an anti-sectarian system in Syria.
I also ask my fellow Shiites in Iraq if they were dissatisfied when he called Ja’fari a religion. If they were aware of the distinction, shouldn’t the U.S. ambassador have known?
I also pose a question to the Maliki government. Were you satisfied when he said that you will not meet with the Iranian regime because they are “Shiite clerics” and not because you are supposed to look out for the interest of the Iraqi people in regards to their relations, sovereignty, freedom and independence?
The silence of the diplomat affirms all that he had said.
Next article![]( "Mitt Romney’s Likeability Chasm")
