CFR thinking on war between the sects
Source Jim Devine
Date 07/03/06/19:16

March 4, 2007/New York TIMES MAGAZINE

Choosing a Sect

As the Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq polarizes Muslims across the
globe, the United States finds itself in the odd position of seeming
to favor a Shiite government in Iraq and Sunni leaders everywhere
else. As a result, there has been a lot of loose talk in policy
circles recently about how the United States should finally choose
sides. After all, the rift between the two denominations is almost as
old as Islam itself — and so is unlikely to close soon. What began
more than 1,300 years ago as an argument over whether the Prophet
Muhammad should be succeeded by his cousin Ali or by an unrelated
companion became a bloody civil war, then hardened over time into a
theological split. As another civil war worsens in Iraq, the argument
goes, America should pick a winner and back it to the hilt.

But who, exactly, is our natural ally in this historic conflict?
Pro-Sunni analysts, sometimes reflecting the traditional realist (and
Arabist) perspective of the foreign-policy establishment, tend to see
a radical Shiite Iran and its subsidiary, Lebanese Hezbollah, as the
most pressing threat to America's global interests. In their view,
America's traditional policy — backing friendly Sunni powers like
Saudi Arabia and Egypt — is the best way to contain Iran. Sunnis make
up as much as 90 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. Our
support for the Iranian-backed Shiite parties who run the government
in Iraq hasn't exactly worked out so far. If we support Iraq's Shiites
even when some are engaging in retaliatory massacres of Iraqi Sunnis,
we risk alienating our traditional oil-producing Sunni allies while
naïvely spilling American blood to serve the Iranians.

Those who support the party of Ali (as the Shiites were once known)
tend to emphasize ideas and culture rather than geostrategy. Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini may have led Shiism down the garden path of
anti-Americanism, they allow, but at its core, Shiite thought is
extremely fertile and creative, open to synthesis with the ideals of
liberal democracy. The mullahs in Qom study Western philosophy from
Plato to Habermas, and important reformist intellectuals within Iran
have been challenging Khomeinist orthodoxy using the cosmopolitan
tools of modern and postmodern thought. Contemporary Iran, the most
important Shiite base today, is still shaped by an ancient Persian
civilization that predates Islam. Meanwhile, Sunni Islam is in a sorry
state, dominated by a purist and anti-intellectual fundamentalism that
has been bankrolled by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia. Lest it be forgotten,
Osama bin Laden is a Sunni who condemns Shiite and American infidels
in the same breath.

Yet both of these all-or-nothing approaches miss the reality of the
Sunni-Shiite relationship — over the centuries and today. For most of
Islamic history, the denominations have lived side by side in relative
peace and harmony. Whole states have moved back and forth from one
column to the other. Egypt's ruling dynasty belonged to the Ismaili
branch of Shiism for a couple of centuries in the Middle Ages, and
modern Egyptians still celebrate Ashura and other vestigially Shiite
holidays. According to scholarly consensus, the southern tribes of
Iraq became Shiite only in the 19th century, the better to strengthen
economic ties with the predominantly Shiite pilgrimage sites of Najaf
and Karbala. Some large Iraqi tribes still include both Shiite and
Sunni clans, a continuing legacy of that nonviolent shift.

Even Sunni and Shiite belief structures have influenced each other
more than is often recognized. In the Middle Ages, the great Islamic
philosophers were mostly Sunnis, and the Shiites learned from them.
More recently, the aspirations of Sunni Islamists have been shaped by
Khomeini's novel version of Shiite political ideology.

This is not to say that the relationship has been trouble-free. In
many Sunni-ruled states, Shiites have long been treated as an
underclass. Violence has periodically flared up, as in Pakistan, where
low-level sectarian attacks have been taking place for two decades.
Nevertheless the last major ideological fighting between Sunnis and
Shiites took place more than two centuries ago, even before the
American Revolution, during the formation of the first Saudi state.
Real theological disagreements mean that radicals on both sides can
always find reasons to call their opponents heretics; but historically
speaking, such a tactic has been rare.

That means it is a mistake to find that we must support one side in
the latest iteration of the Sunni-Shiite conflict. The tendencies that
make each denomination distinct are not unequivocally good or bad for
the United States. Take the outsize influence of the Shiite clerics:
Ayatollah Khomeini gave the world the theory of the Supreme Leader and
a distinctive Islamic anti-Americanism; but in Iraq, Ayatollah Ali
al-Sistani has given us a theory of clerical restraint and a policy of
building democracy. The same flexibility is characteristic of Sunni
salafis, whose emphasis on the Protestant-style individual reading of
the Koran may favor either democratic reform or bin Ladenism. It all
depends on who is doing the interpreting.

For the United States to defuse anti-American Islamism, it must be
willing to embrace moderates and democrats of all stripes, Sunni or
Shiite. From a strategic standpoint, it would also be an error to
communicate to Muslims worldwide that the United States supports
either Sunnis or Shiites as such. This would undercut the core realist
principle that a country's allies are those who act in its interests,
not those whom it prefers on the basis of race or creed. In this
sense, realism is essentially anti-discriminatory — if not

So choosing our friends on a case-by-case basis is both morally better
and practically wiser. No matter what happens in Iraq, neither Shi'ism
nor Sunnism is going to disappear. Just because some Muslims are
willing to fight on the basis of who is Sunni and who Shiite doesn't
mean we have to.

Noah Feldman, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is a
contributing writer for the magazine.

[View the list]

InternetBoard v1.0
Copyright (c) 1998, Joongpil Cho