Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been A Memeber Of...

One aspect of the Frontline piece done on the Iraq war last night has really stayed with me, and it comes in two parts, one which I already knew, and one which I didn't.

The first was that anyone who had been a memeber of the Ba'ath Party is hereafter excluded from taking part in the administration of the country, running for office, or holding rank, by American decree.

Now, before you start screaming mass graves, let me point out a few things;

These are not people who have been convicted, charged, or even necessarily accused on any kind of crime whatsoever. The entire qualification for being excluded from taking any significant part in the future of their own country is former political affiliation, period. People assosciated with crimes are being dealt with through legal processes. These are civilians. And we aren't talking about the hierarchy of Saddam's regime, we're talking about something in excess of 30, 000 people. Ruled out. By America.

That's the other thing...who do we suppose knows more about what Iraqis were and were not a part of Saddam's tyranny, us or the people who lived there? Are we afraid that the Iraqis are going to run out and elect their former captors? And if they do...isn't that 'freedom'?

But, moreover, one thing that amazes me about the Freedom we say we fought for Iraq to have is so much different than the freedom we want for ourselves. Didn't we go through the whole thing about judging people based on former political affiliation back in the 50's? Didn't we learn that, in a free country, people have the right to have whatever political views they want without being systematically punished for it? SO how can we tell a country we don't even understand what they can and can't do with their freedom? Is that freedom?

You can't have a theocracy, has to be our kind of government. And we'll get back to you on whether the guy you want to vote for is acceptable...'freedom'? I know that we have known this for a while, but I don't think we ever addressed it, as it slipped in amidst all the other stuff. How can that be termed a free society, when a foreign power tells them who they can and can't vote for, and what kind fo government they can and can't have?

But the second thing which came out in the Frontline piece is that this policy is accepted within the reconstruction of Iraq community as being far and away the number one thing which has slowed down that reconstruction. In fact the very reason that Paul Bremer was brought in to replace the originally appointed US adninistrator of Iraq, Jay Garner, was for using people who had been Ba'ath members in the past. garner says he used them because they were by far the most qualified people, and unless they were guilty of some crime, he assumed that thier qualifications were what you judged them on, not their former political affiliation....but, nope, you're out, Bremer's in, and Bremer is issuing decrees left and right.

This blows my mind...Your criteria for a job isn't based on how qualified you are, or whether there are qualified people to replace you, or whether you are assosicated with any crimes, but merely on what your political affiliation used to be? So much so that we will allow large segments of the country to go without water, electricity, medical care, etc. as well as other administrative practices. Since the war the country's unemplyment rate has exceeded 50%, and yet we aren't able to find people to do the jobs necessary for the country to function, and for us to, as we say we want, get out and leave iraq to the Iraqis. I submit that as long as we continue to define what Iraqis it can be left to, what those Iraqis can do with it, and not allow them the kind of freedom we say we want to give them, so long as we dictate the terms of their freedom, they won't be free, and we won't be leaving.

 

A) When is edit coming back?
B) How the hell did I make the same typo twice?

 

Again: these were not people assosciated with the crimes...those people are facing more than not being elected...thse are just party members. Being a memeber of a party is not equivalent withbeing guilty of their crimes: most Nazi party members were left completely alone after WWII...we don't hold them members of someone's party for, say, praticing genocide against the Natives, do we? We hold people accountable for their actions, not their politics. That is, or aside from the 50's, part of what we say freedom is.

And in that it's their country, shouldn't the people be " allowed" to vote for whoever they want?

 

Yes, but...we didn't fight the Japanese to liberate them. We fought them because they attacked us. We have said that we fought Iraq because of the threat they posed, nullified, and to liberate them. To combine the prerogative of the victor with the liberator seems slightly mutually exclusive, no? Liberation and placing restrictions are oxymoronic.

 

I suppose it is statistically inevitable, but never the less surprising.