The administration sent Cheney and Rumsfeld out this weekend to assure the world that there is little risk of a 'theocratic Iraq' emerging from last month's elecitons. (c.f. NYT, Wapo)
Juan Cole rightly points out that this depends on what one means by a 'theocratic' Iraq. While it is unlikely that clerics will hold posts in the government, it's hard to imagine that the clerics that control the UIA will accept anything less than the complete replacement of secular civil law with Sharia. Wouldn't this qualify as theocratic?
By Cheney and Rumsfeld's definition, neither Saudi Arabia or Sudan are theocratic. Do they really think this? Or is this yet another example of the administration shooting the fence and then painting a bull's-eye around the hole?
of course it'll be a theocratic society. our tyrannical despot might have forced us to rid them of a tyrannical despot (although they'd not requested said regime change), but he'll never change their basic cultural, mental and emotional constructs.
Posted by: Toni | February 08, 2005 at 12:20