Iraqi Women’s Rights Falling by the Wayside

One of my former teachers was the director of the Br/iti\sh Sc\ho\ol of Archa\eol/ogy in I\raq throughout much of the 80s. I asked him in November of 2003 (which was the last time I saw him before he died) what he thought about the invasion. His feelings were mixed. On the one hand, he hated Saddam. On the other hand, it was starting to become clear even at that point that the invasion was tearing the Iraqi social fabric apart.

One of the first symptoms of this was the rapidly worsening plight of women. He couldn’t believe what was happening. He said, “In Saddam’s Iraq, a woman could walk through the middle of Baghdad in a mini-skirt at 1am, and no one would harm her or say a single word of harrassment.” The situation now, to say the least, has changed for the worse.

I would agree with you halfway in that the goal of Operation Iraqi Freedom was democracy, at least in rhetoric. At this point, the goal is stability. So when you say that the surge was conducted in the name of “democracy” I would have to disagree with you. Democracy is not a very good goal for Iraq right now. People are not free during civil wars. Stability has to be achieved in order to have any hope of achieving liberty in any Western sense of the word. Since I don’t believe this liberty is achievable any time soon, I think stability has to be the biggest concern.

Saddam’s biggest concern was stability. Apparently we were willing to upset a stable government for a democracy and now to bury human rights for stability. Since you don’t liberty is achievable Chris, do you think the invasion was a good idea or not? Is alright for us to suppress dissent to achieve stability but not for Saddam to do the same?

As a bit of criticism, you wrongly conflate the Shi’ites with the Sahwa movement, which is a Sunni phenomenon. Sahwa is more related to Wahhabiist movements, like the Saudi government. Shi’ite Islam actually has a more enlightened attitude toward women (relatively of course). For example, in Tehran, capital of a Shi’ite theocracy, women vote, drive cars, have no curfew, and walk the streets in tight jeans and high heels, albeit with a headscarf on as well. Shi’ite Islam takes a different tone toward women as a result of how they succession to the caliphate should have done, through the blood of Muhammed by his daughter Fatima.

Does anybody think that liberal democracy is even a long-term possibility in Iraq anymore?

The Iraqi society is so entrenched with hardcore Islamic law that it is foolish to think that they will voluntarily and peacefully accept Western ideas like toleration and women’s rights. They might be forced to accept those ideas under a dictator like Saddam.

It seems sick to say this, but Saddam was probably the best-case scenario for Iraq. A US occupation and puppet government ranks pretty close to the aboslute worst-case scenario.

Also, I think it is just a matter of time before a successor to Saddam comes to power. Maybe Sadr, maybe Malaki, maybe some other leader that we don’t know yet. But eventually, the people of Iraq will support a strong dictator who promises real stability after the US and the “democratic” government continue to utterly fail to deliver on that promise.

I think 10 years from now we will probably have a Saddam-like leader of Iraq. And when he finally does take control and crack down, it will be hailed as a great success. All that money and suffering and death to go back to square one. That’s if we’re lucky.

All of this, btw, was more or less foreseen since before the war started.

Can we get some rope here? I’m itching to hang a few certain elected officials and their lackeys.

Maliki gives the illusion of a central government, much like Ngo Dinh Diem or Nguyen Van Thieu did in South Vietnam during during the 1960s and 70s.

Maliki (and U.S. military) still doesn’t have Baghdad under control (Sadr City has erupted into violence, again).

Here’s a question: Who is better for “Iraq,” Maliki or Sadr, assuming relative autonomy is reserved for Kurds?

Sadr. He wouldn’t be seen as a US puppet (largely because he would not be under the control of the US) so he would have more legitimacy. He is much more openly religious, which appeals to the Iraqis. He also comes across as more willing to do what is necessary to really keep order.

Malaki is tainted by so many things. He is tainted by his relationship with the US, his failed administration, and the complete lack of security that continues under his leadership.

I don’t really like Sadr all that much, so I keep hoping that there is someone else in the country who could take up the nationalistic dictatot leader mantle. It would be good if there were someone as secular as Saddam was. Ah, the good ol’ days.

Kyle,
I have tried to make it clear that I don’t think the invasion was a good idea and that there is a distinction between going there and staying there after the mistake of going there.

This may have an interesting parallel to Turkish society, where secularism (and women’s rights) must be enforced by a somewhat autocratic state (or at least a democracy with a strongly-involved military). Like Iraq and some other areas of the world, it’s arguable that more democracy will lead to less rights for women. Which really sucks.

It also poses an interesting hypothetical–which do we value more: Democracy, or liberty? In some places they seem to go together and even compliment each other, whereas in others they can conflict.

Liberty is an end in and of itself; democracy is just a means to achieving other ends. If democracy isn’t taking a society to better places (tolerance, prosperity, human rights, etc.) then it is useless. There is nothing magical about simple majoritarianism if it becomes oppressive.

Now, I also believe that democracy is probably the least likely form of government to become corrupt and disfunctional, but that doesn’t make it a worthwhile end in and of itself.

Also, it is pretty obvious that most people value safety above all else. Safety, security, and stability will trump any idealistic notions of democracy or liberty for the people of Iraq, so the debate is just academic.

It seems that people often equate liberty to democracy, which isn’t the case. The worse case scenario in a democracy is the tyranny of the masses. This typically results in the loss of liberty for minority groups and those outside the mainstream political thought.

I think Americans, especially, see the two as commensurate, which is a false perception. Americans think that Democracy will bring about liberty — a non sequitor, because democracy can bring about the proscription of certain liberties, regardless of the ramifications or the consequences.

According to political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, the most liberty is enjoyed under the reign of a benevolent and absolute monarch, because he will ensure that no tyranny of the masses develops; he will ensure peace and stability throughout the land.

So, to answer the question, we value liberty and democracy equally, because we see them as part of a whole. A good illustration is this epithet: the A-rabs hate the liberty-loving peoples of western democracies.

All the while, under the guise of national security, civil liberties are truncated and violated in the name of the state.

“modern global capitalism” is “based on free trade, open markets, unregulated international investments”

Where do you get this idea?