Iraqi blogger takes dean to task for his comments: http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_01_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#107531043172272357 -- IRAQ THE MODEL Wednesday, January 28, 2004 Ambition that blinds. "You can say that it's great that Saddam is gone and I'm sure that a lot of Iraqis feel it is great that Saddam is gone. But a lot of them gave their lives. And their living standard is a whole lot worse now than it was before." What did Mr. Dean meant by this statement? I didn’t want to write about it from the beginning despite what I felt and the questions asked by some of the readers. I said, “this is an American affair and I might offend some of my American friends through expressing my opinion”. But the statement was too irritating and insulting and as I said before there’s no such thing as an internal affair anywhere in the world, not to mention the USA, the country in which the tiniest change in policy might well have a great impact elsewhere in the world. Anything that happens in America concerns everyone on this planet, and moreover as an Iraqi who his whole country’s future relies considerably on how the things go on in America I have additional reasons to care about such things. To summarize my response I was not surprised, but it added to my confusion about the justification of the position of some Americans regarding this issue. To have such approach from some Arabs and Muslims, it’s more than expected, still nauseating though. To have such an approach from some European countries is also (natural). But to come from Americans? Well, this is just more than I can understand. I’d like to (debate with) Mr. Dean and his supporters on few points. I’m not going to comment about the rightness of the statement with more than saying that only a (blind) man would believe it and only a man blinded by his ambitions would dare to say it, but when you say such words, don’t you mean in other words that the sacrifices made by the American soldiers are all in vain? And that these soldiers are not doing a service to the world, nor to Iraqis and not to America. In fact you are saying that since they didn’t do the world, America or us a favour then they’re only doing a favour to GWB and his administration. Don’t you agree that by saying those words you accuse the American soldiers of one of two charges each of which is worse than the other; You are saying that, either they are stupid enough to sacrifice their lives for the sake of GWB political future, or they are evil people who love fighting and killing and they are doing this only for money, in other words they’re no more than mercenaries. Saying that you only disagree with the way this issue is handled will also not change the fact that you are only harming your men and women on the battlefield. By statements like these you deny any honourable motives for the great job your people are doing here. How in your opinion will this affect the morale of your soldiers? Feeling that their people back at home don’t support them and that they’re abandoned to fight alone in the battlefield. And all of this for what? For staying in the white house for 4 or 8 years? Is it worth it? And this is not directed only to Mr. Dean, it’s for all the Americans who support such allegations without being aware of their consequences. What’s it that you fight so hard for, showing your soldiers as s occupiers and murderers, the soldiers who I had the honour of meeting many, and when talking to some of them, I didn’t see anything other than gentleness, honesty and good will and faith in what they’re doing. Your words and those of others were insults to the Americans, Iraqis and moreover to yourself, and I’m certain you don’t represent the number of Americans you fanaticise about. I’m sorry for being so rude, but I really tried hard to restrain myself from being more direct, and thus nearly as rude as you were. If I wanted to respond just as an Iraqi who is so offended by your words, my feelings wouldn’t have been expressed without using a language nastier than what I’ve committed myself to on writing on this blog. Please consider this for a moment, does winning the elections and getting rid of GWB and the republicans worth the damage you’re inflicting on your men and women’s morale? My heart goes with those brave people and the widows, orphans and mothers of the American soldiers who died while doing this great service for their country, ours and humanity. I can’t imagine what their response would be to such thoughtless words motivated with nothing more than selfish ambitions. -By Ali.
I notice he doesn't mention anywhere that half the population (women) may be having their rights to go to school, have a profession, and have basic rights taken away. Its still too early to tell if Iraqis are going to be better off or not. Before, they had personal freedoms well beyond anyone else in the Middle East, but a brutal lack of political freedoms. Now, half of them may lose virtually all their personal freedoms.
Being quite serious, that's one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen written by anyone with a passing knowledge of fundamental language. A) Soldiers are not politcal decision makers, nor should they be. They are responsible for carrying out the actions deemed necessary by the government. The government is accountable for those decisions, the soldiers for carrying them out, period. The government is answerable to the populace for those decisions, the soldiers are answerable to their superior officers for obeying orders. B) The last passage is even more idiotic, and directly suggests that no war should ever be questioned.
worse of than the dead innocent millions murdered by Saddam? I think it was rim who posted a long article yesterday in which the director of human rights watch suggested the Iraq war didn't meet the threshold for humanitarian intervention, yet the Kosovo war did. His rationale seemed to be that while Saddam killed millions, the pace of his murders had slowed at the moment of war, while in Kosovo the intervention was to halt an on-going slaughter. by this arguement, invading germany in 1944-5 wouldn't have met the threshold either, since most of the jews were already dead. just ridiculous. another argument i often see has to do with invading a "sovereign" country. doesn't a country lose, or at least minimize its sovereignty at some point? Mass graves, hundreds of thousand missing Iraqis, a population crushed by thirty-five years of Baathism, and some on the left would like to grant Iraq the same presupposition of sovereignty as, say, France? Lastly, two germaine quotes: "In a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made [Iraq] a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate," - David Kay "Criticising the conduct of US and British policy towards Iraq is legitimate, as is disquiet about the effectiveness of the two countries' intelligence operations. But impugning the honourable motives of those who sought to defend their countries, by dealing with a threat they believed they could not ignore, is not." - The Financial Times,
The Human Rights Watch guy was standing on some narrow ground on a few of his points, but the real issue he addressed is that the Iraqi War was not approached and not carried out as a humanitarian intervention and to try and justify it as such after the fact cheapens the idea, opens the idea to charges of baser motives, and potentially makes it harder to pursue legitimate humanitarian interventions in the future.
really? how so? i imagine the blogger in question doesn't feel "cheapened" by the rationale, but then, perhaps the opinions of Iraqis themselves are incidental to the debate?
This fellow may be better off, but there has been a report that many women will be worse off. Family's are more likely to be victims of crime post Saddam than with Saddam, and kidnapping in general has been on the rise. Remember that Dean didn't say that Iraqis will always be worse off, or that it would be better in the long run if Saddam was still there. In fact to claim that Iraqis are worse off for the present is certainly arguable, probably accurate, and in no way disrespecting of the job the soldiers do. It does call into question the planning of this war and the what the plans were for a post Saddam Iraq. Which, by the way, probably takes the safety of our troops into consideration far more than those did who planned for what would happen after Saddam. Remember these kinds of crimes weren't happening under Saddam. So to suggest that Iraqis might be currently worse off without Saddam would seem accurate. That truth may not sound good, but that doesn't make it less true. I don't believe that things will continue to even remain this way, and once the country is more stable, things like the kidnappings will decrease and Iraqis will be better off to be both free and safe. But for the time being things may be worse. I'll post an article from the CSM. I may have posted this before. I can't remember. http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0910/p05s02-woiq.html The Nissans wrote down a friend's telephone number - they didn't have their own - and pasted it on their front gate. When the kidnappers called two days later and said they had the boy, his father asked for proof. Rhandi's blue-and-white striped football jersey appeared on their doorstep that night. The kidnappers demanded $300,000, a startling sum even for families in this upper-middle-class neighborhood, home to many Iraqi Christians, like the Nissan family. After 11 days and many rounds of negotiations later, says Mrs. Nissan, the boy was returned in exchange for $20,000. "We're not wealthy, but people think it's a place where rich families live. It's one of those things: Even if you don't have the money, you borrow it from your relatives and the neighbors to get your son back," says Nissan, sitting in a sliver of shade in front of her house with a few of her neighbors, who watch the children at play in a way they never have before. "You can't even leave your house," nods Abdul Massih Salwa, who lives next door. "Crime in Baghdad was never like this." Lucrative business Finding reliable crime statistics here, where the US-led occupation authorities are still scrambling to get a new Iraqi police running effectively, is almost impossible. But anecdotal evidence, interviews, local Iraqi media stories, and a new report from Centurion, a British security firm, suggest that crime in the capital has soared - and that kidnapping and abductions have become particularly lucrative. Paul Bremer, the top US official in Iraq, acknowledged last week that crime was a formidable problem. "This is a big job, not the least because Saddam Hussein let something like 100,000 prisoners out of all of the prisons in this country before liberation...." Bremer told reporters. "Many of them are murderers. Many of them are conducting the kidnappings and carjackings that are happening." A new Iraqi police unit was set up in mid-July to deal with felonies like abductions and murders. So far, says Col. Raad Yaas, the head of the department, members of the task force arrested have three kidnapping gangs, including one, discovered last Thursday, with two abducted children. "The target doesn't have to be a rich family. They kidnap children randomly, just on the basis of how they dress," says Mr. Yaas. Indeed, fear of being targeted again - and low expectations of getting help from fledgling Iraqi institutions - keeps many families from turning to the police, who are absent from most neighborhoods anyway. Instead, they seek assistance from the only authority visible here - the US military, whose troops aren't trained to deal with crime. Upon Rhandi's return, most of the family fled to Dohuk, in northern Iraq, in the formerly Kurdish autonomous region, where crime never spiraled out of control the way it has done here. "Everyone is afraid to let their children outside," says Nissan, who has lived in Baghdad for the past half century. "This is the first time we've ever seen this happen. During Saddam's time, there was no such thing." Of course, Hussein's regime was famous for its own frightening abductions, usually of political opponents or other suspects who were picked up by state intelligence police. Many of those missing have turned up in mass graves. But the culture of fear under the Baathist regime, Iraqis say, kept random crime at a minimum - and meant that average women and children were rarely targets. At the Iman beauty salon, nestled between two other shops that served as makeover row before the war, owner Iman Ibrahim says business is nonexistent. On three different occasions since the fall of Hussein's regime, she says, armed men have burst into her salon and abducted a woman. When there is an occasional knock at the locked door, she peeks through the blinds before deciding to let anyone in. "This isn't normal. I want to sell the shop, but who will buy it?" she asks Maruf Mohammed, who waited for his sister at the salon because of the lack of security, says that his mother was almost abducted last month as they walked together on the street. "A van came by while we were on our way home, and they grabbed my mother's arm and tried to drag her inside," he says. Maruf says he held on to his mother even as one of the men in the van tried to drag her away - and eventually let go. Many crimes unreported The report released by Centurion, which is working in Iraq, says that overall security in Iraq is worsening, with kidnapping a particular problem. The report notes that kidnapping has often followed other conflicts in places like Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya, with opportunists looking for a quick way to make money. Several families who acknowledged being victims of kidnappings and abduction attempts declined to be interviewed during visits to their homes, fearing additional problems. Yanar Mohammed, head of the Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq, says that there has also been a sharp increase of abductions of women, but that many such crimes are not reported. "It's hard to get statistics and reports from the police. They have instructions not to give us information," says Ms. Mohammed, who returned to her native Iraq after eight years in Canada. "My understanding is that we are living in a postwar paradise, and the police don't want things to look bad for the Americans and the chaos caused after they came here." Gen. Hassan Ali, the chief of police in Baghdad, says that on the contrary, the security situation will improve as more Iraqis turn to the police for help. "I announced on television that people who are victims of these crimes must come and complain to the police, and they have started to come," he says. "I think the situation is getting better. Crimes are decreasing."
This has been posted before. The only place I could find this referenced last time was on Usenet in Limbaugh discussions.
If this is from the famous Baghdad blogger of Nightline fame why is it signed "Ali"? I thought the famous Baghdad Blogger signs off as "Pax Salaam". I opposed the invasion but have to agree that things are probably better for the Iraqis that Saddam isn't there. The problem for me is that while getting Saddam's boot off of Iraq is a good thing it certainly wasn't the main rational for going into Iraq and as history has shown the US has left in power and even supported Saddam before when that appeared to serve US interests. That is why, while yes it is good that Saddam is removed for this Admin to justify it on those grounds is so hollow when many in this Admin. left him in power before and did nothing when he actually was slaughtering 100's of 1000's of his own people and in the case of Rumsfeld even paid friendly diplomatic missions to Saddam while Saddam was using chemical weapons against the Iranians. Anyway from what we are finding out now and what should've been obvious from before is that Saddam's regime as of last year wasn't that solid and was very weak. Even David Kay has admitted as much. Saddam's fall from power probably could've been accomplished without a full scale invasion. To claim now that the good of the Iraqis justifies the invasion and whitewashes any misconceptions regarding Saddam's regime being a threat is about like saying that the justification for the Apollo missionswas to get teflon and Tang.
basso, when the Iraqi "elections" produce an Iraqi leader who is a fundimentalist Shiite cleric, will you still think Iraq is "better off"?
How democratic do you think that a Shiite cleric will be. Wouldn't electing someone like this be defeating the purpose?
That's a good question. I think Iraqis are probably better off that they have an opportunity to choose what type of government they want but from an American standpoint if they elect a fundamentlist Islamic government ala 1980 Iran, things will be worse off for us. This argument is somewhat a moot point because Rumsfeld is already on record as saying that an Islamic fundamentalist government, even one democratically elected, is unacceptable to the US. I'm reading there that the US occuppation will makes sure that doesn't happen.
I would hope that, with regard to the women's rights issue that some of you are treating as a done deal, the future Iraqi constitution will mirror the one just adopted in Afghanistan. Good editorial in the Arab News about the political situation in Iraq: Iraq Beginning to Become a Normal Society Amir Taheri, Arab News Staff http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=38816&d=30&m=1&y=2004 PARIS, 30 January 2004 — At a radio phone-in program the other day I was taken to task by some listeners for what they believed is Iraq’s “slide into chaos.” “You campaigned for the liberation of Iraq and now look what has happened!” This was followed by a “what has happened” list of events that included Shiites demonstrating, Kurds asking for autonomy, Sunnis sulking, and various political parties and groups tearing each other apart in the Iraqi media over the shape of the future constitution. The truth, however, is that, far from sliding into chaos or heading toward civil war, Iraq is beginning to become a normal society. And all normal societies face uncertainties just as do all normal human beings. One should welcome the gradual emergence of a normal political life in Iraq after nearly half a century of brutal despotism, including 35 years of exceptionally murderous Baathist rule. The central aim of the war in Iraq, at least as far as I am concerned, was to create conditions in which Shiites can demonstrate without being machine-gunned in the streets of Baghdad and Basra, while the Kurds are able to call for autonomy without being gassed by the thousands as they were in Halabja under Saddam. It is good that Grand Ayatollah Ali-Muhammad Sistani can issue fatwas, something he could not have done under Saddam Hussein. It is even better that those who disagree with the grand ayatollah could say so without being murdered by zealots. And why shouldn’t the Sunnis sulk if they feel that they may not get a fair deal in the new Iraq? And what is wrong with Kurds telling the world that they are a distinct people with their own languages, culture and even religious faiths, and must, therefore, be allowed to develop within the parameters of their identity? If anything, the Iraqi political fight is taking place with an unusual degree of courtesy in which the Marques of Queensbury’ rule applies, which is not the case even in some mature democracies. The new Iraq, as it is emerging, will be full of uncertainties. But that is precisely why the liberation war was justified. Under Saddam the Iraqis faced only the certainty of concentration camps and mass graves. The Iraqis are now free to debate all aspects of their individual and national life. The fact that different, often conflicting views are now expressed without fear should be seen as a positive achievement of the liberation. Democracy includes the freedom to demonstrate, especially against those in charge, and to “tear each other apart” in the media and town-hall political debates. It also includes the difficulty of reaching a consensus on major issues. Those who follow Iraqi politics would know that Iraq today is the only Arab country where all shades of opinion are now free to express themselves and to compete for influence and power in a free market of ideas. Even the Baathists, whose party was formally banned after the liberation, are beginning to group in a number of local clubs. What are the key issues of political debate in Iraq today? Here are some: • The Arab Sunnis want Iraq described as “part of the Arab nation.” This is opposed by the Kurds who say the constitution must describe Iraq as a “binational: Arab and Kurdish” state. The Shiites, some 60 percent of the population, reject both the Arab and the “binational” formulae. Instead, they wish to emphasize the concept of Iraqitude (Uruka). • The Kurds want Iraq to become a federal state so that they can enjoy autonomy in their provinces. This is opposed by Arab Sunnis and Shiites. • Some parties, both Sunni and Shiite, want Islam to be acknowledged as the religion of the state in the new constitution. • Some parties want Iraq to withdraw from OPEC, the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and, instead, seek some form of association with the European Union. • Several parties and personalities want a clause for peace and cooperation with all nations to be included in the constitution. They see this as a step toward an eventual recognition of Israel. • There are deep divisions on economic philosophy. • There are divisions on the electoral system. The Kurds and Sunni Arabs want proportional representations with measures that could prevent Shiites from using simple majority rules to impose their will. The Shiites want a first past-the-post system that could give them up to 70 percent of the seats in any future Parliament. Most of these issues have haunted Iraq since it was carved out of the Ottoman Empire and formed into a nation-state some seven decades ago. Successive Iraqi despots tried to keep a lid on these issues either by denying their existence or by stifling debate. This is what most Arab regimes, which share many of Iraq’s problems, have done for decades and continue to do today. If Iraq is to be transformed into a model for all Arabs it should take a different path right from the start. The US-led coalition that now controls Iraq could well revert to that despotic tradition by imposing an artificial consensus. The fact that the coalition has chosen not to do is to its credit. Real consensus is bound to be harder to achieve and Iraq is certain to experience a lively political debate, including mass demonstrations and a war of leaflets, until a compromise is reached on how to form a provisional government and how to handle the task of writing a new constitution. Most Iraqi political figures, acting out of habit, constantly turn to the coalition authorities with the demand that their own view be adopted and imposed by fiat. The coalition should resist the temptation to dictate terms. It should also refrain from making any partial alliances. Today, the entire Iraqi nation, in all its many different components, could be regarded, at least potentially, as a friend of the US and its allies. The US-led coalition should accept that the road ahead will be bumpy. But that is not necessarily bad news. For democracy is nothing but a journey on constantly bumpy roads.
Shouldn't the last option be severaly limited and qualified, as the US has made it plain will be Iraqi options on their own government? It's only acceptable when we dictate.
Yes they are. These are called resistance cells. Why there certainly are hopeful signs in Iraq your post point out why these sign may lead to problems. Sure it is good that the Iraqi's can publicly and peacefully express their views but as the the bombings of mosques and assasinations of religious and political leaders show there are many Iraqis who are far from happy with the current situation. At the sametime we still have more than 100K troops there trying to keep a lid on things. Who knows what will happen if our troops leave. As your post points out Iraq is an artificial construction of the post colonial world. If left to the Iraqis to run their own courses I doubt it will stay as one single stable country and an Iraq divided into Kurd, Sunni and Shi'ite states will cause more instability to the rest of the Mideast than united under Saddam. As for the democracy domino affect that is one of those things that sounds nice on paper to Americans but I'm not sure how much we would like having Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt governed by a democratic Muslim Brotherhood rather than the pro-West undemocratic leaders now.
Do you think they'd be better off with a dictator or choosing their own government? Depends on the constituency you're talking about. If women aren't allowed to vote, and then men "democratically" make the women subservient under Islamic law, the women were probably better off under the dictator. They didn't have political freedom, but at least they had personal freedoms and protections. Now, they may have neither. It all depends on what direction the council goes.
would you say that independent Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, etc, have made Europe less stable? setting aside for a moment the wars of the break-up of yugoslavia, if correcting all the artificial nations that grew out the end of the first world war, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Iraq, etc, is inherently a bad thing, why have we "allowed" it in the first two cases but must no oppose it in Iraqs? understand, I'm not advocating Iraq be broken up, and I understand Turkey, Iran, and Syria have very strong feelings about an independent Kurdistan, but isn't this something of a double standard? if the government were truly democratic, ie committed to honoring the voice of the people, it wouldn't matter whether it were muslim or not. the problem arises when ostensibly democratic movements morph into just another form of tyranny, ala Iran.
