Special thanks, again, to Leila Fadel for taking time during her break to answer questions.
Again, to read more from Leila Fadel and her colleagues, visit her "Baghdad Observer" blog and Iraqi journalists' "Inside Iraq" blog
Please note that the views and opinions expressed by Ms. Fadel are not necessarily the views and opinions held by Bill Moyers or BILL MOYERS JOURNAL.
Apparently there are 3 or 4 wars going on all at once. My understanding is that the main conflict is between the Shia and the Sunni, do you agree? The Maliki government is Shia and Muqtada al-Sadr is also Shia, so why are they fighting? You would think that they should be working together against their common enemy, the Sunni. I know al-Sadr wants the American troops out now, does he have any other differences with Maliki?
Who is the leader of the Sunnis in Iraq? I never hear about their leaders. Why?
Posted by: Don D. Davis
Thank you for the question. I actually think the biggest conflict right now is an intra-Shiite battle for power. Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is a Shiite prime minister from the Dawa Party and he is closely allied with another Shiite party that was fostered in Iran called the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. The government began an offensive in Basra that many believe is connected to the provincial elections in the south of Iraq. A provincial powers law passed through the presidency council in Baghdad days before the offensive by Maliki began in the south. Many believe it was a preemptive strike against the party to weaken their popularity and power prior to the elections. While the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq is the most powerful political party in Iraq, with the vice president posting and most of the governor postings in the south, they are not as popular as the Sadr movement. By undercutting the Sadr movement prior to the elections in October they don’t risk losing their power.
Many Sunni politicians feel more confident in Maliki now that he has taken on the Shiite militia known for assassinations of Sunnis. Sunnis do not have one leader in Iraq and generally feel that Sunnis who are in the government do not represent them.
I teach high school government. A young lady in my class responded to a criticism of the war by stating, "Sure it's hell, but they are a lot better off than with Saddam. I pretty sure that most Iraqis would prefer this to how it was before we took him out."
How does one respond to this?
Posted by: Eric
A lot of Iraqis are just very tired. Unfortunately five years into the war many look back to Saddam’s time as hell, but a preferable evil to the current situation. Some say they would rather return to Saddam’s time, an evil they understood, where they could at least push their daughter down the street in a stroller with no fear or go out with their family at night. Of course others think the price is worth the pain they have suffered through. Saddam murdered thousands of people.
My question is, you mentioned when hiring local people you ask them if they are Shia or Sunni which is understandable and necessary. How do the locals, particularly the insurgents, identify individuals as Shia or Sunni? How do they know who to attack in a mixed neighborhood? How do the American soldiers differentiate? Thank you.
Posted by: R. Palmer
There is no physical distinction between a Sunni or Shiite Arab. Sunni and Shiites are both Muslims from different sects. But in the current climate there are certain ways to tell the difference. Most Shiite men where silver rings with stones engraved with prayers or the names of the family of the prophet Mohammed. You can also tell by accents, most Shiites are originally from the south of Iraq and say things a little bit differently. Often Shiites will identify themselves by using certain words like, “Mowlai,” my master, or referring to the revered Shiite figure Hussein, the grandson of the prophet.
The country is generally divided by sect and ethnicity and you can usually tell a Sunni or Shiite from one another by their tribe or hometown. For example most people from the Dulaim tribe are Sunni. If a person is from the western Anbar province they are most likely Sunni, if they are from Najaf they are most likely Shiite. In Baghdad the capital has generally segregated into Shiite or Sunni enclaves and you can tell a person’s sect from their neighborhood. Most Iraqis carry their real ID as well as a fake ID that identifies them with a name and tribe more typical of the other sect. This way they can show the appropriate ID in the appropriate neighborhood.
Leila indicated Iran felt it might be able to handle the security vacuum were the U.S. to leave Iraq. Would Iraqi's accept Iran stepping in? Would they see them as a foreign occupying force? Or would Iraqi's be more willing to accept Iran's role as 'peace-keepers' in Iraq? I would love to see the U.N. and State Dept. and Iran work out a peace agreement like this if there was any possibility of success.
Posted by: Eric Likness
Iraqis are generally hostile towards foreign influence inside Iraq. Most Iraqis hate how much influence Iran has inside Iraq and would resent Iran stepping into the U.S. shoes. They see their government as both a puppet of the United States and Iran. One Iraqi official told me that Iraq was like a home with no fence and anybody could come in.
I think Iraqis would be more receptive to a neutral force that is not the U.S. or Iran to step in as peacekeepers. They believe that Iran has its own motives to stay inside Iraq and those motives do not mesh with their own interests of a strong, stable government.
My question is this. The Sunni and Shia have had this long running religious dispute which often times turns deadly. Have there been times and ways when they have been able to get along and not try to subjugate each other? What were the essential elements for them to live in peace?
Posted by: Blair Fridgen
Prior to 2003 Shiites and Sunnis did generally get along. Most families and tribes in Iraq are intermarried. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni and he killed thousands of Shiites and Kurds but he also killed and arrested Sunnis who went against his rule. The Sunni ruler was secular and killed anyone who threatened his rule and under his leadership talk of being Shiite or Sunni was forbidden. Since the U.S. invasion the split between the sects widened. Sunni insurgent groups who wanted to resist the U.S. occupation attacked Shiites as collaborators. Later in the war Shiites began to take revenge against Sunnis for those attacks. The attacks and the revenge are a cycle that keeps the fighting going. I think for people to get along they need a stable and accepted government, they need to feel that their government speaks for them and they are being heard. Right now they don’t have that.
Can you talk a bit about how how the extent to which Americans--reporters, military--have any facility with Arabic and how that affects both the reporting and the fighting?
Posted by: Noel Morgan
Recently more reporters and U.S. military and state department officials speak Arabic. It’s not many, but in the last year there has been a small increase over the past.
Currently at least four members of the western press corps speak Arabic and the U.S. ambassador and his spokeswoman both speak Arabic. Being able to speak the language is beneficial in so many ways. Cutting out the middle man in a conversation creates trust and a direct relationship that is hard to foster when you have to speak through a translator. I ran into a soldier in Sadr City who works in the civil affairs office and speaks Arabic. Because of his language officials in Sadr City who are generally suspicious of Americans he fostered relationships with a series of local officials. Very soon he will be leaving and the men who trusted him enough to speak to him and feed him tips said they only trust him and will not speak to anyone else.
As a reporter I speak conversational Arabic and can listen to the background noise of Iraq. I can sit in a funeral, a grocery store or a salon and just listen to people, I can read signs on the streets. All of this helps give me a more complete picture of what is happening in Iraq.
Ms. Fadel, have you had any opportunities to talk directly with any of the groups who are (or were) fighting against the US occupation? I would like to see footage (with translation) of what the resistance fighters believe: all points of perspective, please.
I can't remember ever hearing any interview of these people, either from the mainstream media or the progressive media. Is it too dangerous? There always are intermediaries who can act as go-betweens. Why do we not get to see and hear them directly?
Robert May
Hillsboro, Oregon
Posted by: Robert May
My organization has interviewed both Sunni and Shiite militants to get their perspective on why they fight the United States. In the last year our focus has been on the Shiite Mahdi Army. The Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr, does not want Iraq to be an occupied nation and does not believe that the Iraqi government is a legitimate government with a foreign force still in Iraq. They’re goal is to ultimately push the United States military out of Iraqi land.
With Sunni groups such as the Islamic Army and 1920 Revolution Brigade, both of which now have many members inside the U.S.-backed Sunni militias, they feel the same way. Many of the members of these groups lost their government and military jobs when Baathists, members of Saddam’s party, were purged from the government. In turn many decided to fight and they allied themselves with Al Qaida in Iraq. They wanted the United States out and to restore power to the Sunnis. In the past nine months to a year the United States has negotiated with many of the Iraqi Sunni insurgent groups and brought some of their members into these militias known as Awakening groups or Sons of Iraq. It is a risky policy but U.S. officials say they needed to take risks to make progress.
On April 3rd, 2008, Bill Moyers accepted the 
