December 20, 2003
Dare one imagine a freer world?
by Jeremy"Which do you want first," president Bush might well have said, "the good news or the bad news?" One doesn't like to hear the words 'Libya' and 'nuclear weapons' uttered in the same sentence by an American president, even if the next bit that follows is very reassuring.
Clearly it's too early to know what's really going to happen in Libya, but right now I'm feeling that this is another clue that some sort of wall has been broken down. The capture of Saddam was the final nail in the coffin. The corpse? American client-state imperialism. Half the planet may claim to fear and loath us, but the truth is that at the moment they can trust us, and that is something entirely new in many parts of the world. You may accuse Bush of bad diplomacy, but his follow-through in Iraq speaks volumes. When the United States says it will topple a fascist dictator, it will do so. When that crazy American president says the country will stick it through: it does, despite the tragic loss of American soldiers. I think this war in Iraq has been the "holy shit" moment for the Arab and Muslim world, a part of the human populace that has gotten used to being kicked back and forth between the cold war super powers and their own despotic rulers. This is the first time that a world super power can be expected to do what it says it's going to do and it is currently saying it will not tolerate terrorism and tyrannical rule in the Arab and Muslim world. This is scary news for those would once have joined a cold war America's stable of S.O.B.'s and empowering news for those people in this part of the world who had long since given up imagining a doorway through which they might enter the "first" world.
I may be having a day of dingbat optimism, but I strongly visualize some very good things coming out of the destruction of the too, too twentieth century horror that was Saddam. And if it took the threat of a tongue depressor and a flashlight to scare Gaddafi straight, then I dare say the ends justify the means. Let's hope this latest sign of hope is for real.
-Jeremy
Insular thinking, and very damaging too. Typical, I am afraid, of the Madelaine Albright world view, which deems the loss of innocent lives as neccesary in the solitary pursuit of american interests.
And wrong on the second count too - half the planet may loathe americans, as you so correctly observe, but it would be illogical then to state that they "trust" you.
Thats the problem with the logic you put forth.
It confounds the truth.
Sorry - but I am afraid there is very little good that can be attributed to your government, and the people who excercised their so called democratic right and voted them in.
america today? Not the "good guys" you want us to believe you are. Quite the contrary, in fact. Your history of brutality and repression speaks for itself, louder than you can to convince us otherwise.
Posted by: omar yusaf at December 20, 2003 03:19 AM
Hey, Omar. This guy seems pretty convinced.
Posted by: Bernard at December 20, 2003 10:05 AM
Based on her comments this week, Albright has a recurring case of foot-in-mouth disease. My guess is that the reference to her in the first post is based on her comments that the sanctions against Iraq (U.N. sanctions, as in every thing they touch ...) were worthwhile in spite of the number of people dead as a result. But this isn't about Albright. She doesn't have a position in the government anymore, and she doesn't represent anyone but a rather odd group that is now embracing the sanctions they once denounced.
The US leaving Iraq in 1991 and imposing sanctions was a mistake. Hindsight has shown this to be true, though some knew it at the time. I am very confident that getting Libya to disarm and cooperate in the war on terror is a great thing. At the very least it's a reason for optimism.
History offers very few good days, and to get another one within less than a week is worth noting, and celebrating.
Posted by: Peter G at December 20, 2003 10:15 AM
Before you get too carried away in bragging about following through and not tolerating tyranny, perhaps you should look at the systematic exclusion of women from the "new" Iraq.
Posted by: Swopa at December 20, 2003 05:49 PM
Swopa,
Of course Iraqi women shouldn?t be excluded from their new fledgling government, but first of all, that new government has not fully formed yet and so all of this is certainly not yet set in stone. And maybe it?s just me but I think the fact that women are now being excluded from state-run raperooms, torture chambers, shredders and mass graves far outweighs the fact that Iraq isn?t, and never will be, utopia 8 months after one of the world?s most brutal, and long running, fascist regimes fell. Women are still being excluded here too, remember, and in most places on Earth. But for me, as a woman, I?d take the exclusion (of most) of those places any day over Sadaam?s particular brand of inclusion, thank you very much. Exclusion I can work with, death I can?t.
If you were okay with Sadaam remaining in power at a time when a woman?s essential right to live always hung in the balance, there?s no way you can convince me you?re now sincere about actually helping Iraqi women (unless of course you actually do something constructive to help them). This is just another attempt to deflect attention away from the obvious gains all Iraqis now have, gains made compliments of the coalition, not the ?peace? movement.
Posted by: Cara at December 20, 2003 11:36 PM
Is it a grossly foreshortened view of history, or totally unrealistic demands on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, that demands immediate conformity to our norms as respects women's rights? How long were women under couverture, without suffrage, let alone legal equality and representation? The councils and laws must point the way, and the fight for rights and recognition must be unwavering, but let's not forget that we are asking societies/cultures in large part tribal, and with contrary religious doctrine, do do in a generation what took us centuries (and we're not there yet).
Posted by: Alene Berk at December 21, 2003 08:30 PM
If you were okay with Sadaam remaining in power...
I was about as "okay with Saddam remaining in power" as you are with the thousands of rapes, carjackings, and murders that have taken place since April because the U.S. decided to invade with less than half the forces needed to provide postwar security (ignoring the advice of its own Army chief of staff, as well as numerous outside experts).
There's plenty of room for unwarranted moral grandstanding both ways, if that's the route you want to go.
Posted by: Swopa at December 21, 2003 10:12 PM
To clarify for Alene, I'll point out that the problem isn't failing to bring Iraq forward in terms of women's rights -- it's that the country is taking an enormous step backwards, and the U.S. is simply letting it happen.
But don't take my word for it, ask Riverbend.
Posted by: Swopa at December 21, 2003 10:24 PM
Swopa, are you seriously saying that things now in Iraq are equivalent to when Sadaam was in power?
Deflect away..
Posted by: Cara at December 21, 2003 11:35 PM
You seem to be the one doing the deflecting, Cara -- specifically, using Saddam's name as a shield to avoid discussing any unpleasant aspects of the occupation.
Which is a shame, since what the U.S. is or isn't doing now may be what determines whether someone else is operating torture chambers and rape rooms in Iraq within a few years.
Posted by: Swopa at December 22, 2003 03:16 AM
Swopa: I have a strong feeling that your concerns have less to do with pure solidarity with the women of Iraq than with a desire to vindicate a view that the invasion and occupation have not had any redeeming impact as far as improving conditions in that country.
Neither Cara nor I dismiss the plight of women in Iraq or the need for the U.S. to take this issue seriously. But we both vehemently oppose the kind of argument that says, analogously, that fascism may be brutal but there are situations [the logic goes] in which it provides a salutory stability (as in, were the American slaves really helped by being freed, since arguably many of them suffered greater deprivation once they were thrown into racist America to sink or swim on their own. You could argue as well that a poor person in a capitalist country is better off in prison for life since they are guaranteed 3 hot meals, a place to sleep and health care, but I don't think many people in prison would agree. There are a lot of ways this kind of argument is used).
The tactic is unfortunate on two levels:
1) it obscures the larger picture and:
2) it does little to lend credibility to what may be a valid concern within that larger truth.
But don't take my word for it...these women seem to feel the invasion was a step forward. And this woman argues the point that women's rights need help in post war Iraq but is finding a responsive ear in Washington.
While there may new problems in now having to reconcile progress with the realities of religious, patriarchal culture in Iraq, I don't think the horror of that former regime was a safe alternative for anyone -- and to disregard the huge gain in freedom for the country as a whole is outrageously off the mark. Saddam dealt with cultural dissonance by exterminating hundreds of thousands of people whose views he found problematic: I'm, to say the least, glad that this will no longer be the path to "order" in Iraq.
Posted by: Jeremy at December 22, 2003 04:06 AM
And this woman argues the point that women's rights need help in post war Iraq but is finding a responsive ear in Washington.
If you take a closer look, you'll see that the same woman is the lead signer on the protest letter to Bremer that I cited. And the letter is apparently being promoted to the media through the group in your preceding link. Guess they're not as optimistic as they once were.
. . . You were saying something about tossing out evidence simply to support a preexisting point of view?
Posted by: Swopa at December 22, 2003 12:13 PM
Interestingly they haven't yet been shot in the back of the head, raped or dropped into shredders by the Governing Council. Go figure. They're advocating for progress within their own culture and they are lobbying Bremer for better security and representation. Why do you suppose they'd bother appealing to the imperialist dogs they've, as you claim, given up on? I guess they don't learn. You're right that I had not noticed Talabani's name in the article you linked to. But I think you're the one who needs to read more closely. For others here who are curious, here's a glimpse of where Talabani is coming from as of November 2003:
"Ms. Talabani remains optimistic about the future of the country. She says since being liberated, Kurds in northern Iraq have been able to build a civil society. Now she says her mission is to take that knowledge to the rest of Iraq, and -- as experience has taught her -- it can be done."
If you don't read that as a description of a liberated woman in a liberated country, then I don't think there is enough common ground for us to bother arguing anymore. In fact, I'm stepping off of this carnival ride. You may have the last word if you wish, but I've had enough.
Posted by: Jeremy at December 22, 2003 02:24 PM
Swopa,
If there?s one thing the Women for a Free Iraq didn?t change their minds about it?s going to back to the regime of Sadaam Hussein and regretting the support that they gave, and continue to give, for the war to remove the tyrant: "Saddam's capture was a definite victory for the cause of freedom in Iraq and we will always be grateful to American leadership for our liberation.? (from the letter you refer to)
Never ever have I said, or even thought, that it would be easy to transfer an entrenched 35 year old fascist regime, state instituted brutality of epic proportions, to a free democracy with equal rights for all quickly and painlessly. And never did I hear anyone else who supported this war ever claim that Iraq would be magically transformed into a pristine democracy the moment the coalition waved its magic wand.
But using this issue to imply that removing Sadaam has made things worse for Iraqis is simply dishonest at best. Ala Talabani, the first signature of this letter, enjoyed freedoms in the Kurdish areas while Sadaam was in power only because of the protection given to them by the U.S. no-fly zones. You are implying that women had more rights under Sadaam, in reality women had more rights who lived in the Kurdish areas that were protected by the U.S. no-fly zones for 13 years:
?Ala Talabani is a Kurdish activist who has seen a lot of change in the past 13 years in her homeland, which, even before the fall of Saddam Hussein, enjoyed relative freedom under the protection of the U.S. and British "no fly zone." Now, she -- as well as the rest of the delegation -- hopes to bring that kind freedom to the rest of Iraq.?
I?m behind her all the way. I hope her group is able to get as much as it can now when things, as I said before, are still not set in stone. In some ways, their letter asks for a lot though:
?This can be done in accordance with the Nov. 15 Agreement by adding a requirement that an equal proportion of men and women be selected to the provincial caucuses, and by requiring that the caucuses select an equal number of men and women to serve as delegates for the national assembly; and, further, by requiring that the national assembly ensure equal representation in the executive branch, high-level ministry appointments, and the judiciary.?
We, here in the U.S., don?t yet have that kind of equal representation in our democracy. But the activist tradition usually asks for way more than it really expects so that it comes away with more than it has now; small forward steps. I am fully behind her in this fight and am overjoyed to see that Iraqi women are now able to more fully join in the democratic fight for women?s equal rights world-wide, as evidenced by the fact of this letter itself.
Posted by: Cara at December 22, 2003 02:38 PM
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
