Introducing Civilisation To The Savages

The savages have assured that the Christian Right would approve of how they take care of their women, too.Also from today's NY TImes

But, never fear...the administration says the Iraqis are better off..and from a wierd John Wayne perspective, this does seem to fit their definition of "better off." BY gawd Dubya's put all them little ayy-rabs and their wimmin in their place!

Iraqi town revels in new freedom

Biyara, controlled by militant Islamists until the US-led war, is wary of news that such groups may be returning.

By Scott Peterson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BIYARA, IRAQ – The merchant shuddered when told that Islamic militants of Ansar Al Islam - the Al Qaeda-backed group dispersed by American bombs last March - may be returning to Iraq. "If they come to my orchard, I will shoot them myself!" vows Shaho Abdulkarim, a merchant-smuggler with a perfect moustache. Such a visceral reaction is common in this village on Iraq's northeastern border with Iran, where Ansar imposed Taliban-style rule for nearly two years.
"They are not around, they can't come back," Mr. Abdulkarim says, sitting on the carpeted floor of the blue-domed mosque of Biyara, which was scarred by US bombs. "Then we were poor and vulnerable. Now we have someone backing us."
Biyara and a string of border villages tucked among the folds of steep mountain valleys, once ruled by Islamists, are now under the control of Kurdish militiamen of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, the force that joined with US ground troops to oust Ansar last spring.
Washington accused Ansar of running a "poison" and explosives factory, and of forming a link between the Saddam Hussein regime and Al Qaeda. While evidence for such claims remains elusive, Kurds here voice nothing but praise for the US military's role in ending their nightmare of Ansar rule.
There are signs that such militants may be creeping back into Iraq, bolstered by other anti-US elements from throughout the Arab world set on attacking American troops. But the Biyara experience is one that few Iraqis are likely to tolerate again.
"What kind of life would you call this?" asks Sangar Mansour, a Biyara native who says he was forced to join Ansar in order to stay with his family.
"CDs were banned, music and songs were forbidden, picnics were banned, and you couldn't play backgammon in the tea shops," Mr. Mansour says. "We weren't allowed to wear shorts to play soccer, and whenever they called for prayers, guards visited each house with an adult. Those who failed to go, they beat him hard."
Uncompromising views
Iraqis here say they were shocked by the uncompromising views imposed by Ansar - a Wahhabi, and more radical Salafi, view shared mostly by the Taliban in Afghanistan, among some adherents from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the Persian Gulf, and by Al Qaeda.
"I know Islam, but they created very difficult choices for people," says Mansour, noting that he knew of 85 young men who lived for a time in hotels outside Biyara, to escape the restrictions. "This is totally unique. This behavior told us that they must be something else."



There are still signs of Ansar rule in this village of 450 families, or 2,000 people. Four houses perched among the green forests were completely flattened by US bombs, and reconstruction is under way. The mosque has been largely repaired, too, though the ceiling is pockmarked with shrapnel, and fresh blue paint covers the patches on the dome.
Inside the mosque, on the right of the pulpit, the word Allah, or God, was painted long ago. But the word Mohammad, the revered prophet of Islam that had been painted on the opposite side, was whitewashed by Ansar. It explained that not even Mohammad could approach God's goodness.
From the balcony pulpit a few feet above, the words of an Ansar mullah during a prayer session back then still resonate among mosque-goers: "We view the US as a small spider."
And in a further echo of Taliban attitudes - especially toward the ancient Buddha statues that were destroyed in the last year of Taliban rule in Afghanistan - Ansar militants disinterred the remains of several sheikhs buried at this mosque and moved them, resident say, so that they would not serve as a separate source of worship.
That decision provoked unrest on both sides of the border, prompting a cross-border visit by Iranian officials, to confirm that the bodies had not been destroyed.
Harsh courts
One Ansar leader, Abu Wael - who is believed to have been on Baghdad's intelligence payroll - ran an Islamic court in this mosque, residents say. Women were fined $40 for not wearing the correct head scarf, and "nobody dared to steal" - a crime that would lead to an amputated limb, Abdulkarim says. Early on, militants killed a teacher, an event that spread fear through the village.
"They sentenced one man who collaborated with the PUK to death, and we never saw his body again," he adds. "The family searched everywhere.... In this area, they are finished. None of their leaders is from here or has a base. They were strangers here, too."
Strangers imposing their will is what grated on many locals, even if they couldn't express their unease. Mansour says he and 10 others once sneaked half a mile away - and posted two guards - to share a single cigarette. Short-sleeve shirts and T-shirts were not allowed. Barbers and their razors were out of business.
Rallying crowds
"Crazy things" included public floggings. Loudspeakers would announce a punishment, and shops would be closed, Mansour says, to ensure the largest crowd. He watched as one man, who returned drunk from the city of Sulaymaniyah , was stripped down, given 70 lashes, and told afterward to "go wash and go to prayers."
Another incident he witnessed involved a young couple who courting. The boy was stripped, laid out on a blanket, and given 70 lashes.
As a former gunman for the Kurdistan Democratic Party, Mansour was told not to wear anything yellow - the KDP colors - and was later jailed for 15 days for using yellow prayer beads.
"I had no choice - I had to join them or leave the area. I couldn't leave my family," Mansour says. Today, beer is offered for sale with kebabs, and the stifling cloud has lifted for most Kurds here.
A hard line for all
But the hard line was not limited to Biyara residents. Abdulkarim says his wife once visited a house owned by an Ansar family, and found a woman with 13 children - and nothing whatsoever inside. She sent some cash and food to help them out.
When she asked why they lived such Spartan lives, the woman replied: "In the second life, God will reward us."
"It was obvious, even to a blind person, that these people were Al Qaeda. They referred to bin Laden as 'Sheikh' Osama," says Abdulkarim. "The people were powerless and defenseless. We couldn't do anything. Without the coalition forces, who could have rooted them out?"

I think, this different approach is worth reading, although I don't post the article completely but only give the link from "Foreign Affairs":

Taking Arabs Seriously

Danke, Walter.

Commentary > John Hughes
from the September 17, 2003 edition

What do Iraqis want? And when can they get it?

By John Hughes

SALT LAKE CITY – Two fairly significant questions must be answered before the US can emerge in good order from the postwar turmoil of Iraq.
What do the Iraqis want in the way of government after Saddam Hussein? And when can they get it?
The first question has, until now, been tough to answer in a nation living in terror of Hussein and traditionally "reelecting" him with a 100 percent majority.

Since Hussein's toppling, uncertain security has hindered polling, but the American Enterprise magazine, working with Zogby International, has just completed a poll in four disparate cities - Basra, Mosel, Kirkuk, and Ramadi - that sheds light on the current state of thought. The poll was conducted in August, with a sample of 600 respondents, and a plus or minus degree of accuracy of 4.1 percent.

The magazine's editor, Karl Zinsmeister, who occupies a chair at the American Enterprise Institute, spent a month as an "embedded" journalist with the 82nd Airborne during the campaign to liberate Iraq. He says the results of the poll show that the Iraqi public "is more sensible, stable, and moderate than commonly portrayed, and is not so fanatical, seething, or disgusted with the United States after all."

Despite this cheerful conclusion, it doesn't necessarily translate into confidence in the US reconstruction program for Iraq. Actually, 50 percent of those polled thought America would do more to hurt than help Iraq over the next five years, versus 36 percent who thought America would help. Women were particularly wary of the US.

But, Mr. Zinsmeister says, offered five models to choose from (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Egypt, Syria, or the US), 37 percent of Iraqis polled said the US was the country they'd most like their new government to be modeled on. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28 percent.

For a war-torn country, optimism was quite high. Seven out of 10 said they expected their country and personal lives to be better five years from now. Half said democracy was Western and would not work in Iraq, 4 out of 10 said it would, 1 out of 10 were not sure. Sunnis were more negative about democracy, Shiites more positive.

Women were significantly more upbeat about democracy than men.

As for an Islamic government, 60 percent said "No," only 33 percent "Yes."

Some 57 percent of Iraqis with an opinion had an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, 41 percent of those were "very unfavorable."And as for a Baath revival, 74 percent of those asked said that Baath Party leaders should be punished for past crimes.

Two-thirds of those polled urged that US and British troops should remain for at least another year.

Nobody suggests that the task of bringing democratic government to Iraq is easy. But if these poll results are representative, it is far from hopeless.

Which brings us to the second question of significance: When can Iraqis expect to see a transition from military occupation to an Iraqi civilian rule with credibility?

One way or another, it looks as though that is going to occur faster than was thought in the first days after the war ended. At weekend meetings in Geneva of the five permanent UN Security Council members, France demanded sovereignty for the interim Iraqi Governing Council in a month, to be followed by conclusion of a new constitution by year's end and elections in the spring. Even some members of the Iraqi Governing Council consider that timetable unrealistic. It is also opposed by the US. There is also sharp disagreement between the US and France over whether the transition should be overseen by the Americans or the UN.

But with the expense and burden of Iraq's postwar economic and political reconstruction for the US becoming daily more evident, and the specter of all this being a negative during President Bush's campaign for reelection next year, the argument for an earlier, rather than later, transition to Iraqi governance is gaining traction.

What is a realistic time frame? Can it be achieved without the surrender of US control of the process?

For the Bush administration this is not merely a matter of face. Given the American cost in lives and money of ridding Iraq of Hussein, it is reasonable for the US to be assured that the new regime will be democratically inclined, and not return Iraq to Baathist terror or Islamic extremism that would provide a sanctuary for Al Qaeda.

I'm sure the Iraqis wqould like to be able to walk down their streets without fear, to be able to have power and water that was reliable, and to have the annoying camoflaged people out of their lives.

Au 1929- I hope that Professor Hobitbob read your post, AU 1929. It was quite informative, thank you.

It was different that the left wing pieces from the "Nation" and the "Village Voice" which would have you believe that the entire country is aflame and thousands of Iraqis are being murdered each day.

By this time, most Americans know that Iraq covers as much territory as California.

Fewer are aware that the majority of problems with regard to terrorism within the country come from a relatively small area near Baghdad- The triangle, it is called. This area is the home of many who were Saddam loyalists who are now not on top any more.
Those who would be shocked that they are waging guerilla warfare, with the help of Muslim fanatics who are coming across the borders of Iran and Syria, are most naive.

The large part of Iraq is peaceful. If oil is not flowing as fast as it should, it is not because of sloth on the part of the USA and the British but rather because of sabotage by the forces allied with Saddam who do not want to see anti-Saddamites eventually gain power.

Electricity?

Experts say it is not possible to bring a system which has been neglected for years; a system which is being vandalized and attacked by Saddamites, up to speed so fast.

How long has the US been there- Four Years- that's not enough time to straighten everything out.

I AM SORRY- MY ERROR. It should be FOUR MONTHS NOT FOUR YEARS.

Mr. Walter Hinteler gives us an excellent link to a nice article from Foreign Affairs.

I read it carefully.

The writer tells us that the problem is basically that the US Administration has made assumptions, among them being that Arabs respect Power and are impatient with Reason and

that Arab anger represents envy of the successful( the USA) by the weak and failed.

Alas, the writer of the article gives us not a shred of evidence that those assumptions really exist and how they are demostrated.

The writer ends his essay in a most unsatisfying way giving no more of a solution than a plea for dialogue.

Au 1929's post on Zinmeister's findings that the Iraqis are much more optomistic about the future than many US news sources would have you believe( optomism is not a good news story) is much more informative than The Taking Arabs Seriously article which was laden with generalizations and few facts.

Au1929's post on the new freedom in Iraqi towns was much more specific. Thank you- Au1929


I am amazed that some posters do not recognize that in any confrontation, even those treated as well as possible, will complain.

In the ghettoes of the inner city, despite the best efforts of the police, the residents will continually complain about the lack of police protection and, conversley( unbelieveably) the brutality of the police force.

The Iraqis have learned what the residents of our inner cities have known for a long time.

Complain about mis-treatment, complain about prejudice, complain about lack of service, they will break their backs to help you.

Some might believe it is all propaganda, were it not for the pictures?

Do you mean the pictures of the Kurds gassed by Saddam, Mr. Webb?

Yes, they were horrible, weren't they.

Never forget at the time of the gassing there was a full-scale war between Iran and Iraq. (no excuse for killing your own people) But the US only condemned the attack in 1998 (ten years after the attack) and starts a war for it 15 years later. Speaking of rapid response. The people of Congo still have hope then? Lets say in 2025?

And guess who helped to keep the war machine going? Guess who delivered the weapons to allow the killing of millions, both in the Middle East and Latin America (Iran-Contra)? After the US and Soviet Union agreed to halt arms supplies, the US still offered secret arms deals.

Wow, frolic, Really? Why don't you offer your services to John Dean so that he can give your expose to the American Public.

Do you really have the evidence? May we see it please?

I wonder why people like Dean and Kerry don't have it yet. Maybe you are just smarter than they are, right?

And why is the attack on Halabja such in issue in 2003 and not in 1988?

Why is Iraq attacked for gassing 5000 people and Turkey bribed while they killed over 50.000 Kurds. It makes no sense to me.


I'm glad you brought up the word 'evidence'. Seems like a word many Hawks try to forget.