Will it make a difference?

Sunday, October 22, 2006
From the Mudville Gazette

Iraqi religious leaders sign in Mecca a covenant to interdict spilling of Iraqi blood.

By Adil Fagher & Thergham Mohamed,

Tonight (Friday) in Saudi Arabia, Iraqi religious leaders sign a covenant to interdict spilling of Iraqi blood.

Iraqi TV channel AL-Iraqiah showed clips showing Iraqi Sunni and Shiite religious leaders signing a, In Mecca Saudi Arabia, covenant to interdict spilling of Iraqi blood. The Muslim Congress Organization hosted this event. Chairman of the MCO, Ikmal Aldien Auglu said, ‘the covenant which was signed interdicts killing, evicting, mocking, attacking houses of prayer of Muslims and non Muslims, the covenant also calls for crushing the rift between Sunni and Shiite and brings attention to the dangers of committing crimes in the name of religion or religious sect. The covenant also calls for national and religious unity and its preservation from those who wish to divide Iraqis. The covenant also declare all crimes committed in the name of religion in Iraq as a sin forbidden by God. The covalent condemns disgracing of Shiite or Sunnis and condemns the two sects denunciating each other. Auglu added, ‘the covenant also calls upon the Iraqi government to release all those who are innocent and give the accused just and speedy trials with swift punishments if guilt, that they serve as a deterrent to the rest. The covenant affirms the importance of Sunnis and Shiite to stand together for the sovereignty of Iraq and unity of its soil, and to end its occupation and work towards building Iraq’s economy infrastructure military and political structure’.

Amongst the dignitaries attending the signing of this covenant, is president of the Sunni Accord Ahmed Abdulghafoor Alsameraai and president of the Shiite Accord Adnan Alhaideri and Sheik Mohamed Mahmood Alsumed member of ‘Muslim Scholars Association’ (Sunni organization) and Sheik Sader Aldien Kubanchi member of ‘Supreme Council of Islamic Revelation in Iraq’ SCIRI (Shiite organization). It was noted that a representative of Alsistani and Muqtada Alsadar did not attend. However, they did send their endorsements of the covenant and its contents.

4 comments:

Rick Ballard said...

It actually might make a difference. Omar at Iraq the Model sees it as I do. This is a hunting license for Sadrists and al Queada. The al Queada part is no surprise, they've been off the reservation for some time. The Sadrist part is slightly surprising.

I note that spilling American blood isn't mentioned. After the election it's my sincere hope that the American military will move to the sidelines for a bit and watch rather than participate. I've bet on a major bloodletting being necessary to settle things down in Iraq since we invaded. I haven't changed my mind at all - islam "resolves" problems through bloodshed, it always has and it hasn't "changed". Democracy's only chance in Iraq will come after the blood feuds are settled.

terrye said...

Sometimes I think the war was too easy. By that I mean that scrores were not setle, anger was not spent. Since then it has been like trying to babyist a nest of vipers.

I do think thye are going after our soldiers for political purposes and that really pisses me off.

Note too that there is a reference to an end to the occupation. I think that it is dawning on some Iraqis that the best and easiest way to get rid of the US presence is to make it unnecessary.

Luther McLeod said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Barry Dauphin said...

In may respects it is a sad commentary on the circumstances and with the left-liberal short term mindset that if we had simply kept kicking ass for a year or so after toppling Saddam, we would be in better shape now. We would have killed more people in the earlier stages, instilled a great deal of fear, and have been perceived as ruthless and cruel, but there would be order now. However, in the long run, we would have been seen as simply an awesome power and would not be in a position to help Iraqis understand that they can govern themselves without a strongman. As imperfect as representative democracy is, the bargaining and compromises that accompany it ultimately produce better governance in the long term and more stability and greater prosperity to its inhabitants. In the short term it is a bitch, however. Moreover, those who choose the path I earlier suggested actually find it hard if not impossible to forsake the temptations of power at the proper time.

There never seems to be a good time to relinquish power and let the other guy have a run at things. It would always seems best to maintain power. It does not show up now, but Bush has actually let the Iraqis have power while he takes the blame. I hope he succeeds. I think it is to his credit, and I hope history judges likewise.