American forces in Iraq are prepared to treat religious leader al-Sadr like they treated Saddam Hussein - capture or kill him. The problem with this is that while Hussein may have been a criminal, al-Sadr is a religious icon to many throughout Iraq. These two types of leaders can be treated the same, but should they be? History indicates that doing so only leads to more problems later on.

David Neiwert quotes an article from Jean Rosenfeld, "a religious-studies researcher at UCLA who specializes in analyzing extremist religious movements and the way religion can inspire violence":

I have written and spoken many times about how a religiously motivated critical incident, or standoff, differs qualitatively and markedly from a criminally-motivated hostage standoff. The latter is the model for defusing critical incidents among law enforcement and CT specialists. They remain uninformed and skeptical about these important differences to this day.

What is not known about Waco is that the final assault plan was amended on the ground by the tactical field commanders on the very day of the assault. ... That alteration was identical to the gassing and demolition plan that two Delta Force advisors seconded to the Justice Dept. in a principals meeting of April 14. Those two advisors supported the rejected plan that was later implemented "hypothetically" in order to conform to the letter of Posse Comitatus law. ... Those two Delta Force officers were Peter J. Schoomaker and "Jerry" Boykin, now both top officials in the US Army in charge of military planning for the war on terrorism.

I believe that the hard tactical approach being contemplated in an-Najaf, if negotiations now under way do not result in al-Sadr's surrender -- is the same approach contemplated and executed at Waco. Capturing or killing al-Sadr will not neutralize what he is regarded as symbolizing to Shiites angry at "occupiers" in Iraq or in Israel. It will only amplify it. ... I believe Senor's approach is similar to the tactical one taken at Waco against another "messiah." It resulted in many deaths and a legacy that led us to the "commemoration" atrocity in Oklahoma City.

Religion is a difficult and complex subject - and it is ignored only at one's peril. Rosenfeld argues that the people leading the war on terrorism are only ignorant of religion, but they actually ignore the influence of religion even when it is in their best interest to act otherwise. They apparently have a history of ignoring religion in ways that lead to greater death and destruction than is necessary. How do people like this get promoted - is it really the case that our military had no one better to be put in charge? That's truly pathetic.

Read More:

• Recent Books on Islam
• Islam
• War on Terrorism
• Religion in Iraq
• Religion 101
• Books on Religion and Religious Beliefs