Opinio Juris

I have been particularly interested in Haider Hamoudi's observations in his book on cultural differences within Iraq. In two contratsing examples, Haider describes his visit to Basra in Southern Iraq and Suleymania in the North. Basra is predominantly Shi’a and Suleymania is in Kudish territory.

A couple of vignettes were striking. First, there was a guard in Basra asking Haider to prove he was Iraqi by reciting the Muslim profession of faith… specifically the Shi’a version. But what if you are a Sunni? (Or a Christian?)

That same day he was in a faculty meeting in the law school in Basra and the faculty discussed the possibility of starting a graduate level program there, which they noted would be especially useful for female students. One of the other USAID consultants explained that funding was questionable as the CPA may simply say such programs already exist in Baghdad and that the female students could study there. The response was interesting:

Howls of protest interrupted him. A more conservative professor, Ali, said, “Our women aren’t going to Baghdad unaccompanied!”

“Not everyone has a relative in Baghdad,” another added. ‘What about the ones who don’t?”

“And there are cultural and social norms they have to respect,” chimed in a third…

What strikes me about these, and other observations in other parts of the book, is the description of the different communities in Iraq and how these differences affect day-to-day life. Of course we hear about the sectarian conflicts often from the punditocracy, but it is often couched in sensationalistic “they’re all killing each other” terms.

My question to Haider is this: how deep are the commonalities as opposed to the differences? Some U.S. observers argue that it took (and will take) an authoritarian regime to hold Iraq together. (This is essentially the "it took a Tito to keep Yugoslavia together" argument.) Based on your time there, what are your thoughts on whether Iraq is primarily a cohesive community (with some violent sectarian elements that are fighting each other) or three (or more) communities that really are separate? If the latter, how effective are the efforts to knit them together? And what do you think of this talk by some foriegn policy commentators of the near-inevitability of a soft partition, if not a hard break-up?

Foreign Affairs Magazine Online has just posted a review essay by Curtis Bradley of Benjamin Wittes' new book, Law and the Long War. Bradley writes:

In an important new book, Law and the Long War, Benjamin Wittes, a fellow and the research director in public law at the Brookings Institution, critiques what he calls the "legal architecture" of the war on terror. He finds fault with many players: with the Bush administration, for its "consistent — sometimes mindless" fixation on executive power and its repeated unwillingness to seek support from Congress; with Congress, for not asserting itself; with the administration's critics, for attempting to deny the White House the flexibility it legitimately needs to fight the war on terror; and with the Supreme Court, for using ongoing legal disputes "to carve itself a seat at the table in foreign and military policy matters over which it has [had], for good reasons, a historically limited role." Wittes' purpose, he explains, is to "shake somewhat the certainty" of both the executive-power enthusiasts and the administration's critics alike. He also seeks to move the debate beyond formal arguments about what is and what is not allowed under existing law toward consideration of a new legal regime that would provide the government with needed flexibility while protecting individual liberties.

I am sure that this is an essay--and a book--that will interest many Opinio Juris readers. So check out the essay (if not the book) and start thinking-up some comments as Ben Wittes and others will be joining us next month for an Opinio Juris symposium on his book.

We are pleased to welcome guest blogger Professor Haider Ala Hamoudi of the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Professor Hamoudi is a prolific scholar on Islamic and comparative law and also has a blog, Islamic Law in Our Times.

Professor Hamoudi has also recently published Howling in Mesopotamia: an Iraqi-American Memoir, described on Amazon.com as

… a groundbreaking insider's story about America's war in Iraq. His unique perspective and fresh insight into the conflict that has divided our country were informed by living with relatives in an average residential neighborhood in Baghdad during the war. Many of his relatives were intimately involved in the unfolding political process, such as his uncle, who became chair of the Iraqi Constitutional Committee, and his cousin, Ahmed Chalabi, one of the most prominent Iraqi exiles to return after the fall of the previous regime.

Hamoudi saw firsthand the frustrations and fears that plagued Iraqi civilians during a crucial period of the war. As an American in Iraq working on a USAID-funded contract, he also interacted with American administrators regularly, and was able to see the developing situation from their point of view as well. Howling in Mesopotamia is a critical look at what went wrong in Iraq from a person who was there. Hamoudi's gripping memoir will shed light on the events, mistakes, and misunderstandings.

We look forward to Professor Hamoudi joining us this week for a conversation about his book, the fate of Iraq, Islamic law, and other related issues.