More Active Posts
Front Page
Iraq: Blatant democracy
 |
 9 Comments |
“News coverage of the Iraqi parliament has at best been in caricatures,” my editor Mindy Belz told me yesterday, “portraying lawmakers as tribalists who take extended vacations.” Most stories, she pointed out, ignore the fact that for three years, while Iraq has been consumed by sectarian fighting, a parliament of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds has survived, and given its recent work, shows signs it can thrive.
All this is occurring in the Middle East where naysayers say democracy cannot take hold. One member of Iraq’s parliament told Mindy there’s “more than a long way to go.” Still, Mindy notes, if you look at the record, “it’s inaccurate to say that the Iraqi government isn’t functioning.”
In her column, “Blatant Democracy,” Mindy looks at developments in the Iraqi government that should have earned fat American headlines (they didn’t) and had American feminists cheering (they’re not.)
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
One more diversion
That’s good news to hear. Too bad we don’t hear about it more. Of course, good news never sells as well as bad news.
Partly that’s because people are always attracted to scenes of accidents, fires, and other disasters. But also it has to do with the nature of good and evil. It only takes a single verified incident of corruption to stain someone’s character. A good reputation, on the other hand, depends on continued evidence of good character year after year. It simply doesn’t lend itself to a news “scoop.”
Just the tiniest bit of research paints an entirely different picture:
How the US Erase Women’s Rights in Iraq
by Ghali Hassan
October 7, 2005
Prior to the arrival of U.S. forces, Iraqi women were free to go wherever they wish and wear whatever they like. The 1970 Iraqi constitution, gave Iraqi women equity and liberty unmatched in the Muslim World. Since the U.S. invasion, Iraqi women’s rights have fallen to the lowest level in Iraq’s history. Under the new U.S.-crafted constitution, which will be put to referendum on the 15 October while the bloodbath mounts each day, women’s rights will be oppressed and the role of women in Iraqi society will be curtailed and relegated to the caring for “children and the elderly”.
Immediately after the invasion, the U.S. embarked on cultivating friendships with religious groups and clerics. The aim was the complete destruction of nationalist movements, including women’s rights movements, and replacing them with expatriate religious fanatics and criminals piggybacked from Iran, the U.S. and Britain. In the mean time the U.S. moved to liquidate any Iraqi opposition or dissent to the Occupation.
The creation of paramilitary death squads – from the SCIRI and Al- Da’wa militias – tied to the current puppet government and Iran have been terrorising Iraq’s secular communities and assassinating large number of prominent Iraqi politicians and professionals (see Robert Dreyfuss - Death Squads and Diplomacy). By using one group against the other, the US is dancing to the ongoing violence and the prospect of civil strife, while its corporations are siphoning off Iraqi resources and assets.
During his stint in Baghdad as the U.S. Proconsul, L. Paul Bremer often appeared with pro-Occupation women groups to foster the myth that the U.S is “liberating Muslim women”, while at the same time signing laws that were detrimental to women’s rights. Like George Bush and Tony Blair, Paul Bremer is no feminist, but he used feminism’s rhetoric to enforce Western imperialism. “Whether in the hands of patriarchal men or feminists, the idea of feminism essentially functioned to morally justify the attack[s] on native societies and to support the notion of comprehensive superiority of Europe [and America]”, wrote Leila Ahmad, professor of women’s studies and an expert on gender at Harvard University. Hence, feminism serves as the “handmaid of colonialism”, added Ahmed.
Since March 2003, Iraqi women have been brutally attacked, kidnapped and intimidated from participating in Iraqi society. The generation-old equality and liberty laws have been, replaced by Middle Ages laws that strip women of their rights and put them in the same oppressive life as women in Afghanistan, the nation which the U.S. invaded to “liberate” its oppressed women. The 1970 Iraqi constitution is not only the most progressive constitution in the Muslim World, but also the most equal. Iraqis were mentioned only as “citizens”, and Iraqi women’s rights were specifically protected.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/26/pysk.mohammed/index.html
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/04/iraq-womens-rights-better-under-saddam.php
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10543975
Oh Oh, not only has the military and political success of the surge become obvious, Mindy reports that that there are signs of real political progress in Iraq. This is bad news for the Bush haters, the anti-war folk, and the isolationists. Of course they can always hope that this depressingly good situation turns around and grim news will once again issue forth from Iraq to comfort them.
Undoubtedly, Mindy is simply making some Rovian talking points.
Our local paper in Killeen/Ft Hood said that the war will soon begin costing $12 Billion/month?
And due to the high world price for oil, the Iraqi govt has a BUDGET SURPLUS.
We really do need to make plans to take off the training wheels and let them peddle on their own. With the surpluses projected to mount up.. who will siphon off that money to a Swiss account?
We should at least have the Iraqi govt pick up part of the tab for BLACKWATER. That, or have them fund Iraq campaign veteran’s long term care.
“Of course, good news never sells as well as bad news.”
In addition, good news that doesn’t support a liberal media’s agenda doesn’t “sell” either, for some strange reason.
The page didn’t load but as RDead points out feminists shouldn’t celebrate. And as Sawgunner points out, if the news is good then the US should slowly withdraw similar to the way the UK withdrew from Basra.
#3: Oh Oh, not only has the military and political success of the surge become obvious, Mindy reports that that there are signs of real political progress in Iraq.
Oh oh, someones been imbibing from the land of milk and cookies.
You know, I keep asking, what IS success is Iraq? What to we expect to accomplish? How is what we want and what they want the same or different?
The Bush lovers say, “Let’s win the war”, but when asked what that means, they don’t know.
Bad news, Peter? I’d be thrilled to see solid evidence of real progress. WORLD’s cheerleading doesn’t count.
But speaking of hopeful propaganda, now that a comprehensive study of all documents captured in Baghdad reveals no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, did WORLD ever retract that cover story from a couple years back asserting a furtive partnership between the two supported by secret documents?
JJF, the matter of alQuaeda in Iraq prior to the war is a highly debated issue as the following from a Weekly Standard piece shows:
That lack of interest is not new. As the anonymous intelligence analyst told the Senate Intelligence Committee: “I don’t think we were really focused on the CT [counterterrorism] side, because we weren’t concerned about the IIS going out and pro-actively conducting terrorist attacks.” That the intelligence community did not pay particular attention to Saddam Hussein’s terrorist aspirations created a sizable blind spot.
Why wouldn’t Saddam Hussein conduct terrorist attacks against U.S. interests? The United States regularly bombed targets in Iraq–at times almost daily–in support of the no-fly zones. We conducted more significant attacks in January and June 1993, and again in 1996 and 1998. The CIA attempted to foment a coup in 1996. The U.N. sanctions sought to deprive Saddam of the resources he needed to sustain a robust military. The weapons inspections occupied his top officials and hundreds of intelligence officers. From 1998 forward, after the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, the official policy of the United States was to end his regime. With that policy came support of Iraqi opposition groups who existed to remove him from power. For Saddam, then, the Gulf war never ended. He routinely accused the United States of “terrorism” and “genocide.” The state-run Iraqi media threatened to exact revenge for more than a decade.
Further, Saddam had proven his willingness to use asymmetric means of retaliation time and again. He attempted to use his own intelligence service and terrorist surrogates against the United States during the first Gulf war. He assisted a fugitive from the 1993 World Trade Center attacks. He attempted to assassinate George H.W. Bush. He sought to blow up the U.S. government’s Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty headquarters. He openly supported terrorist activity in the region. “From 1996 to 2003,” according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, “the IIS focused its terrorist activities on western interests, particularly against the U.S. and Israel.”
We know that in the context of a decade-long confrontation with the United States, Saddam reached out to al Qaeda on numerous occasions. We know that the leadership of al Qaeda reciprocated, requesting assistance in its endeavors. We know that reports of meetings, offers of safe haven, and collaboration persisted.
The NPR piece is interesting, though hardly dispositive.