It is the August 6, 2004, and the conflict within Iraq is still ongoing. I wish to understand the nature of this conflict: first, what are the objectives of both sides to the conflict, and second, is it true that the majority of people in the world (regardless of their religion or ethnicity) would prefer the Americans to institute their organizational structures within that part of the world?
Does every conflict have an outcome that influential and the silent majority favor; for example, would people always choose the Allied powers over Napoleon? Would people always choose the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima instead of some other route. Are we locked in history, in that certain key variables determine only a few or single solution to a problem. Is that the nature of fate then?
Objective of someone like Muqtada-al-sadr
Obvious one:
Power ß stems from personality of individual (self-centered and/or antisocial—may be) and/or values he believes in that will not thrive in the Iraq as the Americans want it to be. The battle could be ideological. It may even have economical objectives, especially the people who might want to support Sadr. Who benefits, if the conflict is ongoing: is it a distraction?
If the majority of Iraqi’s begin believing in the idea of freedom of the presses, freedom of speech (at least to a degree greater than that found in a traditional theocracy), freedom of movement, security (in the general sense of no looting and murder)
Why do people fight for someone like Muqtada-al-sadr: fear (perhaps every soldier /militant is afraid of everyother militant. These soldiers have families, and if should they refuse to fight for him, Sadr or his henchmen might threaten that soldier or his family. If a soldier assumes that taking such a risk endangers himself or his family, he is unlikely to speak up against Sadr, even if the soldier is brave enough to battle American soldiers, he may perceive that to be a less riskier prospect as many would be fighting alongside him.
Second, shiite soldiers come from a tight-knit community of shiites who strongly believe in the sanctity of the shrines and of the values of the Shiite religion. Seeing outsiders, would only enrage them—insular people. It could be that people like Sadr have no genuine ties to religious piety but that he uses religious symbolism to rally believers to his side.
The silent majority (usually many), always are moderate, and that means they do not take everything about their religions seriously. They are willing to compromise and coexist with members who would violate some of their beliefs, at least regarding some of the relatively trivial customs, at least to moderates. Example: dress code for women, drinking, etc.
At the root of any ideological conflict, there is always one group that is more uptight than the other. One is strict about personal behavior, the other is relatively lax. It has always been this way. It always will be.
Why is it I side with the Americans?
Shared values – I can tolerate the taste of the American Republic, but I cannot toleratethe taste of an Islamic Republic. The punishments of the latter are always harsher and they tend to micromanage people’s behavior to a greater extent, at least in those areas not as strictly governed in the American Republic. Consider an Islamic Republics strong stance on premarital sex, infidelity, alcoholism, financing. The Islamic Republic refuses individuals to take risks concerning their own welfare, at least from a Utilitarian perspective. People in an Islamic Republic live in fear, at least those who are deviants. But such deviants thrive in a country like the American Republic.
Consider people like Britney Spears, and other pop-stars, they would not be allowed to thrive in that Republic. Nor would homosexuals. Nor would writers. Nor would artists. Sensuality is shunned, at least overt signs in public. It is a relatively more totalitarian govt than the United States, though the U.S. does regulate sexuality and alcoholism too. But in a different way.
But is it only superficial traits that keep people from different sides of the aisle from embracing each other? Or is it something else. What do people mean when they say an Islamic culture is incompatible with the American way of life? Where does the incompatibility stem from: the main one I can fathom is the difference in how opposite genders are allowed to behave with each other. In one the conception of shame is highly pronounced but not so in America. It would be strange if what people are fighting for is to preserve certain tastes and thus certain synaptical connections withing their brains. Perhaps synaptic connections are self-sustaining—they want to retain their integrity.