Hope Amidst Horrific Killing By Donnel Jones, March 2, 2004	Home   Search   Forum   Terms

An outrageous atrocity against innocent Muslims occurred today in Baghdad and Karbala in Iraq during an important religious festival. More than 140 souls were taken from the world in the largest terrorist attack in Iraq since the American invasion.

I spoke briefly with my netWMD colleague over the phone about this. I called the murderers cockroaches. Ever the animal and nature lover, as I am, he pointed out that cockroaches do not make mass-murderers or fanatics and are, instead, quite interesting creatures. I apologize to the cockroaches of the world in using them as a point of comparison for the human filth who murdered Iraqi innocents today.

Al Queda mastermind and piece of filth, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had written a letter, intercepted by the Americans, in which he detailed the desire to provoke Shi'ites by attacking them, to create enough discord to drive the Americans out of Iraq. Today such a plan took place. What upsets me most is that the Americans could most probably have prevented this attack. Given the intercepted letter, they should have known an attack like this would come on such an important holiday for the Shi'ites. In fact, the gathering at the mosques to commemorate the martyrdom of Prophet Muhammad's son, Imam Hussein, was forbidden by Saddam for over thirty years. Surely this day was a prime target. What happened to let this happen?

In two words: political correctness.

General Kimmitt said Shiite leaders and the American forces had agreed that American troops should stay well back from Shiite mosques and shrines out of respect for what the general called "cultural differences." The only sign of the American military presence at the Khadamiya shrine was in helicopters circling overhead.

The Americans didn't want to have a military presence near the mosques that were attacked today. To guard the festivities would have been seen as a cultural "intrusion" or insensitivity. But now that so many have died, the New York Times reports:

After the attack at the Khadamiya shrine, an angry crowd estimated in the thousands marched to a nearby American base where they started pelting soldiers and tanks with stones. A witness, Ali Heider, said the soldiers opened fire and he saw at least two Iraqis in the crowd shot.

Understandably the Iraqis are furious, but not a few will blame the Americans, which is precisely what the evil al-Zarqawi wants. If we have to choose, should we err on the side of cultural insensitivity and protect the Iraqi people in moments like this or abandon them in the name of multi-culturalism? I wish the Shi'ites could have enjoyed this sacred day without mass murder—especially as they haven't had the chance to do so publicly because of the tyranny they had lived under for so long.

This is a very sick day that should have been one of celebration and observance. My prayers for the souls who were lost today and for their inconsolable families.

With that burden hanging on our shoulders there is some good news. The Iraqis now have a bill of rights, something unknown throughout the Middle East, except Israel. It also won the unanimous support of the Iraqi Governing Council.

The bill of rights is a temporary document until a permanent one is written and passed by an elected Iraqi legislature. The rights enumerated include freedom of speech, religion, and assembly as well as the protection of minorities. Islam shall be one source, but not the only source, of Iraqi law. And, yes, we even have socialists on board. If only their kindred in the West were also on their side:

That's our understanding of democracy: rule of the majority but guarantees for the minority as well," said council member Mahmoud Othman, who represents the Kurdish Socialist Party.

What is most remarkable is that Iraqis of all stripes decided on this document. Aren't the Arabs too culturally different to adopt democracy for themselves? Aren't the Americans imperialistic to "impose" democracy on the Arabs? The answer to these numbing questions can only be an emphatic NO.

There is much work to be done. A guarded optimism is not uncalled for but already we see a unity among Iraqis unheard of under Saddam. Of course, it also required the United States to insist that there not be an Islamist republic to replace the former tyranny, trading one evil for another: Over Arab objections, it [the U.S.] pushed for a federal state on the lines of Canada, Brazil and India, in which provinces and regions would have considerable autonomy.

Do you really believe Kerry or Edwards would have pulled this off? Let alone Al Gore?