Thomas Friedman (The New York Times): A Nobel for Sistani

From The New York Times
Dated Sunday March 20

A Nobel for Sistani
By Thomas Friedman

As we approach the season of the Nobel Peace Prize, I would like to nominate the spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for this year's medal. I'm serious.

If there is a decent outcome in Iraq, President Bush will deserve, and receive, real credit for creating the conditions for democratization there, by daring to topple Saddam Hussein. But we tend to talk about Iraq as if it is all about us and what we do. If some kind of democracy takes root there, it will also be due in large measure to the instincts and directives of the dominant Iraqi Shiite communal leader, Ayatollah Sistani. It was Mr. Sistani who insisted that there had to be a direct national election in Iraq, rejecting the original goofy U.S. proposal for regional caucuses. It was Mr. Sistani who insisted that the elections not be postponed in the face of the Baathist-fascist insurgency. And it was Mr. Sistani who ordered Shiites not to retaliate for the Sunni Baathist and jihadist attempts to drag them into a civil war by attacking Shiite mosques and massacring Shiite civilians.

In many ways, Mr. Sistani has played the role for President George W. Bush that Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev played for his father, President George H. W. Bush. It was Mr. Mandela's instincts and leadership - in keeping the transition to black rule in South Africa nonviolent - that helped the Bush I administration and its allies bring that process in for a soft landing. And it was Mr. Gorbachev's insistence that the dismantling of the Soviet Empire, and particularly East Germany, be nonviolent that brought the Soviet Union in for a soft landing. In international relations, as in sports, it is often better to be lucky than good. And having the luck to have history deal you a Mandela, a Gorbachev or a Sistani as your partner at a key historical juncture - as opposed to a Yasir Arafat or a Robert Mugabe - can make all the difference between U.S. policy looking brilliant and U.S. policy looking futile.

An intersting perspective.

As usual, I have my problems with Friedman's idea of what democracy is. To me, it is a system of government based on universal, equal citizenship. I don't think that a system that allows foreign concerns to have a greater influence on a nation's economy is democratic; yet that is Mr. Bush's designs on Iraq. I don't think a system of government that allocates participation by how good a Muslim some elite council deems one to be is democratic; yet that seems to be where Iraq is headed under Sistani's influence.

Still, if Iraq can peacefully transition to a post-Saddam future, Sistani will have more to do with it than your favorite Frat Boy and mine.

Sistani could have turned the place into a total blood bath, as opposed to the partial disaster that it is. Since he runs the Shia show, he gets my interest for a prize.

Move along, nothing to see here. Still the same ol' Tom. His one talent is managing to adopt a convincing air of intelligence even though he's a complete idiot.

Sistani is an Iranian Shiite. He's sitting in the catbird seat. There is no reason for him to rock the boat at all. He demanded elections. The Bushies refused. He called his hoards out into the streets. The Bushies changed their minds. Sistani is getting what he wants, and we are killing his enemies for him. Why would he have a problem with that?

Yet another Friedman column based on a fallacious premise; in this case, the idea that Sistani would even think about unleashing a bloodbath.

Here's something to consider. The Neocon policy is a Domino Theory. The problem with Domino Theories is that we aren't the ones that get to set up the Dominoes. Well, now they are toppling, creating a Shia axis in the Middle East, with Iran as the center of power. This is a totally unacceptable outcome to the United States. Therefore: War with Iran.

And Friedman is passing out Peace Prizes?

The guy is a fucking moron.

Friedman is pathetic. He's like the * neocons, treats the Middle East like it's a civics project. He is fatuous in the extreme. I saw him on Charlie Rose once, watch for about five minutes, and realized just how sick our political culture is when someone this fucking stupid can write for the "premier" paper in America. Oh, My, effing, God!

I would like to make a case for Sistani and the Nobel Prize (considering some of the past recipients). You're right, he's biding his time, behaving intelligently, not putting his people at risk when they can't win, and perhaps loading up for another day. While this does not put him on the crew of the Rainbow Warrior, it does sound awfully "rational;" something we see very little of in any major political leader. So, for being rational under pressure, let's at least nominate him. If he turns into a monster, he's just another of that ilk who has won the prize.

:hi:

He's the man in Iraq, no doubt. But, IMO, it's kind of a gimme. It's not hard to look smart when you're going up against Bush, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Feith, etc. After all, Gen. Franks called Feith the "dumbest fucking man on the planet."

Sistani's got the best hand at the poker table, and he knows it. He doesn't really have to do much. His biggest problem, though, is that we've really got ourselves into a position where we can't (or don't want to) tolerate Iran's current government.

I was sorta taken aback when I heard that Sistani wasn't even an Iraqi citizen. He's Iranian. Is he independent? Or will he side with Iran when/if the Neocons pull something on Iran. If Israel bombs Iran as a preamble to a US/Iran war, what is Sistani going to do?

What, me worry?

As will the newly minted Gold Star mothers. A Nobel Prize for someone or something connected with the god damn atrocity that is the Iraqi War? Sweet mother of God! Friedman is as full of shit as a xmus goose.

If anything, he deserves to be hauled up before the International Criminal Court.

However, Sisitani didn't ask Bush to come to Iraq and overthrow Saddam. He had nothing to do with US troops coming to Iraq; he may have quite a bit to do with they're leaving.

but, since the US is the biggest bully on the block right now, Bush is not worried about paying a price for what he has done.
One thing about all the talk of democracy coming to the middle east seems to ignore the history of just who has been the powers there. The military and organized religion have been the powers when the the British and French were not running each and every country. What would happen in Iraq when a so-called elected government makes a decision the mullahs and/or colonels don't like. Is chimpie or his successor going to invade to enforce democracy?

Iraq degenerates into civil strife on sectarian/national lines; Bush uses this as a pretext to maintain foreign troops in Iraq while transnational corporations continue to loot the country.

But Tom seems to be jumping ahead to an imagined rosy future
as usual. In fact, I suspect that is the point of the piece,
to get that "rosy future" idea out there.

I certainly would give al Sistani credit for seeing that a mass
uprising would be an ugly business, better avoided, but he seems
to have always been a cautious fellow.

Even if the Sunnis have nothing to fear from whatever Iraq will emerge, the fact that they perceive something to fear is a concern. There is not one insurgency against US occupation but many; the Shia were able to express their insurgency at the ballot box by rejecting Allawi and electing a slate that calls for a timetable to withdraw foreign troops and for Iraqi resources to be controlled by Iraqis for the benefit of Iraqis (i.e., repealing Bremer's decrees). The Sunnis abstained from the elections and have taken up armed insurgency that is as often aimed at the Shia as at foreign troops.

As an opponent of Bush's policy in Iraq, I am hoping the Iraqi people will assert there sovereignty and tell the Bush to take his troops and go home and tell the war profiteers to leave, leave Iraqi resources exactly where they found them, and never return. It won't be a system that I would call democratic, but the kind of nationalism that is being expressed is a prerequisite to democracy.

Nevertheless, the situation could break down very, very fast. Civil war could break out and give Bush and the corporate pirates an excuse to keep troops in Iraq and continue to loot the country.

But the bullshit level is simply amazing.

I just posted it on this forum.

He lays a lot of the BS bare.

It's really a sad commentary on American opinion journalism that this piece by war-booster Friedman in The New York Times is about the most reasonable assessment of the situation that I saw all weekend. We have every reason to be concerned that Americans who get their news only from the "reliable" sources of the mainstream media aren't getting the real story and aren't even aware that they're not. Yet there is no government control of the press. The methods of propaganda and news control are entirely different from the totalitarian models of the middle and late twentieth century, but the result is the same.

Sistani has shown great restraint, and if this horrible Iraq mess ever turns into something good (keep in mind its go a long way to go) Sistani will deserve a great deal of credit.