Centerfield

8 for 8. Is there a prize?

Me, too. The question about al Sadr was a bit of gimme, if you're paying attention, because of the earlier question about his militia.

What's horrifying is the thought that some of the people who are making U.S. policy for the Middle East would NOT get 8 of 8 on what is, after all, an extremely basic quiz on the subject.

Ditto; 8 for 8.

What's horrifying is the thought that some of the people who are making U.S. policy for the Middle East would NOT get 8 of 8 on what is, after all, an extremely basic quiz on the subject

Sylvestre Reyes, the new chairman of the House Intel Committee, failed the test. In fact, I think that's where the quiz came from.

Of course, Sunni versus Shi'ite is but one of the many, many divisions in the Middle East. what political parties do the various militias front for in Iraq, even within the Shi'ites? Tribes are very important. In the Afghanistan/Pakistan area, tribes are the primary loyalty groups, well before country and other divisions. In Lebanon, there are religious differences, tribal differences, regional differences, political party differences, political philosophy differences, you name it.

Not to mention the various flavors and denominations of Sunni and Shia. That's a whole lengthy post in itself.

Color coded map...like this?

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuude! Most excellent. Many thanks. Kinda scary too. Focuses the mind.

For anyone else who might miss it, I believe that what this very excellent map is leaving out is that some of the light green nations are not exclusively or mostly muslim. The light green simply indicates that the muslims in that region are sunnis.For example, don't make the mistake of assuming India is 4/5 muslim. It's not. It's 80+% Hindu. In other words, notice that the map tells us that there are muslims across much of India, and they are predominantly sunnis.

I don't know if there's a way to also include various players in the game who are, let's say, geographically independent. Terrorist organizations, IOW. Maybe by giving each a color or pattern (some sort of flag icon) and planting it within every state where that org has major operations.

I'll have to re-read my Tufte. What I imagine would be super ideal would be a map that re-drew the sizes of each state on the basis of comparative population, and made each state into some sort of circle graph showing percents, and had a flag for each operating terrorist group. of course, that would be a sh!tload of work for anyone who didn't already have a spreadsheet with each nation's population poured into it.

This quiz should probably be longer than 8, right folks? Granted, maybe that's graduate level, but still. I mean, we have hamas and fatah to think about, plus the not to be dismissed details for Africa and Asia...

By the way, you often hear the claim that various factions in the Islamic world would never collaborate because of their religious (or other) differences.

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has a discussion on collusion between Sunni and Shiite terrorist networks.

Interesting you bring that up. Pat, because it's something I'd been thinking about due to this thread...

...presumedly what we're trying to achieve (at least in part) in Iraq is a model home for muslims/middle easterners to tour, one where sunnis and shi'ites function, if not in harmony, in toleration, and under the auspices of a functional, peaceful, somewhat democratic government.

Even if we leave aside the question of how realistic this is, it still leaves us with the question of whether we really want muslims to set aside their differences and unify.

I mean, while I was looking at that map, I found myself asking "why do we want sunnis and shi'ites to live together peacefully with each other again? Because it makes the US safer and more secure?" Maybe. But that's a big bet on the emergent properties of representative government beating out age-old grudges...

Americans have a deep and abiding belief in the benefits of democratic pluralism, and the ultimate capability of all people to live in peace with their neighbors. We've managed to do it, and I think others can, too... even in that region of the world.

Oh yeah me too, at least I hope so. I don't want to re-start the Iraq debate, just saying that I have plenty of worry to go with my hope. The bet is not just on democracy, but on democracy at this time in this place.

Even if democracy is good, there is still a question of how difficult the establishment may be depending on the suitability of the populace for it. If we left ALL other considerations aside and kept everything equal, and only wanted to establish a democracy, we'd probably have chosen a location on that map that was all one shade of green, not half and half. (granted not a luxury we had). The more homogenous the better. Of course, the more homogenous, the less the need for democracy, loosely speaking.

AND, nations can become democratic, get economically powerful, and then backslide. Any given imposed democracy's sutainability is IMO going to be a bit more subject to underlying schisms thn one that arose more, let's say organically.

I have seen a variety of arguments about democracy, democratic pluralism, and the ability of people to live in peace with their neighbors. It is certainly an enticing prospect. But all of them seem, to me, to glide over one critical precondition:
Those who win an election (of any kind) have to have sufficient regard for those that they defeated that they will refrain from using their victory to try to totally eliminate their opponents.

If the victors aren't content to be victors, rather than sole survivors, the losers won't be willing to wait for a future election. A case for that kind of mind-set in Iraq (or most of the rest of the Middle East) would be hard to make. To the extent that it does it exist, it appears to be a very fragile flower.

Of course, a case could also be made that the state of politics in the United States in the last decade or so reflects a growing unwillingness by the victors to accept that a given electoral victory might not be absolute and permanent.

wj... the secret is to have the structure of the government and the political system to be such that power is spread out among enough groups and interests such that they all have an interest in stability and the success of the system as a whole.

The Magna Carta came about when the strength of the various lords was strong enough to keep the king from imposing his whim on them, but not quite strong enough to completely overthrow him. Over time, as different groups (craftsmen, merchants, industrialists) gained in strength in society, they sought inclusion in the system. None of them by themselves could hope to gain pure power, and they all had an incentive to keep anybody else from trying to seize all power, because they did have enough strength to gain some power in the system.

That's why the design of the governmental structure is so important. In a post-chaos period of a developing nation, it must divide power among different factions and interest groups in a way that no one of them can completely succeed.

Pat, I agree that the design of the government is important. Specifically in the sense that a poor design will cause the government not to work.

But even a great design will not work if there is no willingness to tolerate the existance of those with differing views. You can start building that willingness by having several groups, no one of which can dominate all of the others. But build it you must. The alternative is repression by one group or another -- which leads the rest to resist allowing anyone else to take charge, violently, if necessary.

I suspect that the reason that the Kurdish areas of Iraq are in so much better shape than the rest of the country is that the Kurds know that they have to be tolerant. Failure to do so will rapidly induce someone outside (the Turks, or the Iranians, or whoever) to invade and shut them down. So "Kurdistan" has Shiites and Sunnis and Christians, Kurds and Turkomen and Arabs, all managing to rub along together with a modicum of civility.

Here's the real difference between Sunni and Shiite,
Sunnis' contribute millions of dollars in Saudi Arabia to purchase arms such as should fired missiles and fund Sunni militias in Iraq that are killing our soldiers and our government looks upon them as friends. Shiites contribute millions of dollars in Iran and other countries to fund Shiite militias in Iraq that are killing our soldiers and our government looks upon them as enemies.