The US, UN & Iraq III

Don't tell me ....... you've got a video ....

Inversertion is a great word. People will nod and pretend they understand. Yes, yes, thank you for complimenting Our Glorious Leader, Liberal Comrade! Yes, yes, Bush is very good at inversertion! So glad you like him too! (Sound of clicking heels!)

I thought I was scoring on perc .... whoa .... flashback

You were, of course, Gel -- but I thought it appropriate to extend the concept to his heroes, and beyond...

Hero Sandwiches

PDid, The point about keeping us ignorant of the temperature in Iraq is rather glaring, because before the war started, most news report were telling us the difficulty of engaging a war during the summer months. Those news have suddenly disappeared. c.i.

Ge said:

"inversertion"

LOL, LOL, LOL

The way it is ..... who is to blame ......

Baghdad Burning

... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...
Saturday, August 23, 2003

We've Only Just Begun...
Females can no longer leave their homes alone. Each time I go out, E. and either a father, uncle or cousin has to accompany me. It feels like we've gone back 50 years ever since the beginning of the occupation. A woman, or girl, out alone, risks anything from insults to abduction. An outing has to be arranged at least an hour beforehand. I state that I need to buy something or have to visit someone. Two males have to be procured (preferably large) and 'safety arrangements' must be made in this total state of lawlessness. And always the question: "But do you have to go out and buy it? Can't I get it for you?" No you can't, because the kilo of eggplant I absolutely have to select with my own hands is just an excuse to see the light of day and walk down a street. The situation is incredibly frustrating to females who work or go to college.

Before the war, around 50% of the college students were females, and over 50% of the working force was composed of women. Not so anymore. We are seeing an increase of fundamentalism in Iraq which is terrifying.

For example, before the war, I would estimate (roughly) that about 55% of females in Baghdad wore a hijab- or headscarf. Hijabs do not signify fundamentalism. That is far from the case- although I, myself, don't wear one, I have family and friends who do. The point is that, before, it didn't really matter. It was *my* business whether I wore one or not- not the business of some fundamentalist on the street.

For those who don't know (and I have discovered they are many more than I thought), a hijab only covers the hair and neck. The whole face shows and some women even wear it Grace Kelley style with a few locks of hair coming out of the front. A ?'burqa' on the other hand, like the ones worn in Afghanistan, covers the whole head- hair, face and all.

I am female and Muslim. Before the occupation, I more or less dressed the way I wanted to. I lived in jeans and cotton pants and comfortable shirts. Now, I don't dare leave the house in pants. A long skirt and loose shirt (preferably with long sleeves) has become necessary. A girl wearing jeans risks being attacked, abducted or insulted by fundamentalists who have been… liberated!

Fathers and mothers are keeping their daughters stashed safe at home. That's why you see so few females in the streets (especially after 4 pm). Others are making their daughters, wives and sisters wear a hijab. Not to oppress them, but to protect them.

I lost my job for a similar reason. I'll explain the whole depressing affair in another post. Girls are being made to quit college and school. My 14-year-old cousin (a straight-A student) is going to have to repeat the year because her parents decided to keep her home ever since the occupation. Why? Because the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq overtook an office next to her school and opened up a special ?'bureau'.

Men in black turbans (M.I.B.T.s as opposed to M.I.B.s) and dubious, shady figures dressed in black, head to foot, stand around the gates of the bureau in clusters, scanning the girls and teachers entering the secondary school. The dark, frowning figures stand ogling, leering and sometimes jeering at the ones not wearing a hijab or whose skirts aren't long enough. In some areas, girls risk being attacked with acid if their clothes aren't ?'proper'.

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI- but I prefer ?'SCAREY') was established in 1982 in Tehran. Its main goal is to import the concept of the "Islamic Revolution" from Iran to Iraq. In other words, they believe that Iraq should be a theocracy led by Shi'a Mullahs. Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, the deputy leader of SCIRI, is a part of the nine-member rotating presidency and will soon have a go at ruling Iraq.

The SCIRI would like to give the impression that they have the full support of all Shi'a Muslims in Iraq. The truth is that many Shi'a Muslims are terrified of them and of the consequences of having them as a ruling power. Al-Hakim was responsible for torturing and executing Iraqi POWs in Iran all through the Iran-Iraq war and after. Should SCIRI govern Iraq, I imagine the first step would be to open the borders with Iran and unite the two countries. Bush can then stop referring to the two countries as a part of his infamous ?'Axis of Evil' and can just begin calling us the ?'Big Lump of Evil and Bad North Korea' (which seems more in accord with his limited linguistic abilities).

Ever since entering Iraq, Al-Hakim has been blackmailing the CPA in Baghdad with his ?'major Shi'a following'. He entered Iraq escorted by ?'Jaysh Badir' or ?'Badir's Army'. This ?'army' is composed of thousands of Iraqi extremists led by Iranian extremists and trained in Iran. All through the war, they were lurking on the border, waiting for a chance to slip inside. In Baghdad, and the south, they have been a source of terror and anxiety to Sunnis, Shi'a and Christians alike. They, and some of their followers, were responsible for a large portion of the looting and the burning (you'd think they were going to get reconstruction contracts…). They were also responsible for hundreds of religious and political abductions and assassinations.

The whole situation is alarming beyond any description I can give. Christians have become the victims of extremism also. Some of them are being threatened, others are being attacked. A few wannabe Mullahs came out with a ?'fatwa', or decree, in June that declared all females should wear the hijab and if they didn't, they could be subject to ?'punishment'. Another group claiming to be a part of the ?'Hawza Al Ilmia' decreed that not a single girl over the age of 14 could remain unmarried- even if it meant that some members of the Hawza would have to have two, three or four wives. This decree included females of other religions. In the south, female UN and Red Cross aides received death threats if they didn't wear the hijab. This isn't done in the name of God- it's done in the name of power. It tells people- the world- that "Look- we have power, we have influence."

Liquor stores are being attacked and bombed. The owner usually gets a ?'threat' in the form of a fatwa claiming that if they didn't shut down the store permanently, there would be consequences. The consequences are usually either a fire, or a bomb. Similar threats have been made to hair-dressers in some areas in Baghdad. It's frightening and appalling, but true.

Don't blame it on Islam. Every religion has its extremists. In times of chaos and disorder, those extremists flourish. Iraq is full of moderate Muslims who simply believe in ?'live and let live'. We get along with each other- Sunnis and Shi'a, Muslims and Christians and Jews and Sabi'a. We intermarry, we mix and mingle, we live. We build our churches and mosques in the same areas, our children go to the same schools… it was never an issue.

Someone asked me if, through elections, the Iraqi people might vote for an Islamic state. Six months ago, I would have firmly said, "No." Now, I'm not so sure. There's been an overwhelming return to fundamentalism. People are turning to religion for several reasons.

The first and most prominent reason is fear. Fear of war, fear of death and fear of a fate worse than death (and yes, there are fates worse than death). If I didn't have something to believe in during this past war, I know I would have lost my mind. If there hadn't been a God to pray to, to make promises to, to bargain with, to thank- I wouldn't have made it through.

Encroaching western values and beliefs have also played a prominent role in pushing Iraqis to embrace Islam. Just as there are ignorant people in the Western world (and there are plenty- I have the emails to prove it… don't make me embarrass you), there are ignorant people in the Middle East. In Muslims and Arabs, Westerners see suicide bombers, terrorists, ignorance and camels. In Americans, Brits, etc. some Iraqis see depravity, prostitution, ignorance, domination, junkies and ruthlessness. The best way people can find to protect themselves, and their loved ones, against this assumed threat is religion.

Finally, you have more direct reasons. 65% of all Iraqis are currently unemployed for one reason or another. There are people who have families to feed. When I say ?'families' I don't mean a wife and 2 kids… I mean around 16 or 17 people. Islamic parties supported by Iran, like Al-Daawa and SCIRI, are currently recruiting followers by offering ?'wages' to jobless men (an ex-soldier in the army, for example) in trade of ?'support'. This support could mean anything- vote when the elections come around, bomb a specific shop, ?'confiscate', abduct, hijack cars (only if you work for Al-Chalabi…).

So concerning the anxiety over terror and fundamentalism- I would like to quote the Carpenters- worry? "We've only just begun… we've only just begun…"


- posted by river @ 6:20 PM

Scary indeed, Ge. Only the moderates can make the pendulum swing back.

But conflict and anarchy on the scale that the US has imposed upon Iraq drive moderates into hiding. When survival is the overwhelming concern, there is no time for reason. I am continually amazed at how the administration ahs managed to accomplish the exact oposite of what its stated goals were. No one I know, no matter the extent of their familiarity with the situation in the ME, believed that this invasion would bring stability. How can we believe that our leaders really believed this, and that they were not actually looking to bring more chaos and war? And then the next question arises... why would they wish for this? What possible advantage can come from increaded instablity? Who let the psych patients out and put them in charge?

How much longer will people continue to support GWBush and his criminals? c.i.

Probably throught the next election, unfortunately. He seems to cater to the lowest common denominator. I think that this is an act. I think that he is actually quite calculating and shrewd. The other possibility is that he is a fool and a pawn. I don't really like either option.

There is no way to look at this other than to believe the mess was intended. I know many people George W. is really stupid, but (even if he were) not everyone in the administration is really stupid. Nor is America without resources or people who know how to plan. The only reasonable conclusion is that they're getting what they wished for.

There are people among the participants here who bridle and sharpen claws at the suggestion of "conspiracy." You can call it what you want. But you'd have to be awfully stupid not to wonder how and why the administration screwed things up. Or whether they did so intentionally.

Hobit -- you put your finger on the core issue: "But conflict and anarchy on the scale that the US has imposed upon Iraq drive moderates into hiding." The US didn't emerge from the invasion battered; there was no reason to be disorganized, no reason to expect it would be a walkover, no reason to expect that there wouldn't be post-invasion protest and conflict.

And you say: "...managed to accomplish the exact oposite of what its stated goals were" : When we review the statements and relevant actions of the admin from its campaign onward, you'd see that they state what they want us to think, they do the opposite and then repeat the original statement, expecting it to be believed. And then what happens? Many believe them! (Some members of A2K still believe them.) But now we know that many more are no longer believing them. As someone wrote this morning: Bush is on a roll.... and it's all downhill!

A follow-up to PDiddie's post:

Let them go ahead and do it. They've shot themselves in the foot so many times now, they only have one toe left.

Yeah, They gotta do that to pay for the tax breaks they gave the rich and famous.

Tartarin,
There are things in that quoted article from Ukiah article that I just don't believe. Buy there own uniforms? Work 24/7? Cut in allowances and other associated pay items? I don't think that Congress would stand for that. They wouldn't dare.

"you'd see that they state what they want us to think, they do the opposite and then repeat the original statement, expecting it to be believed."

On the surface, and with a cursory glance, that certainly appears to be the case in some instances - but not across the board. I am not trying to be an apologist for that crowd - they have committed impeachable sins, IMHO. War crimes? I don't know. I would have to think long and hard about that one.

But, short-term instability may not have been anticipated, but would be logical. Long-term instability - I doubt it. The moderates going into hiding? As soon as communication improves in Iraq, and the moderates realize that they are the majority, I can't see them willing to replace one form of tyrannical dictatorship for another, this one cloaked in clerical garb. Surely there is some knowledge of recent history as to what happens to a society when the clerics have ascended to position of supreme power - witness both Iran and Afghanistan. While I realize that access to truth and reality were severely curtailed during Saddam's tenure in power, I have to believe that there is a core moderate center that was, and is, aware.

And as to conspiracy, Occam's Razor suggests that we stay with the simplest possible explanation - that of lack of planning in the non-military arena, and pure incompetence. Did they know that the electricity infrastructure was in such bad shape? Could they have predicted sabotage of electrical and oil distribution lines? Not if we assume that such events might occur in the absence of organized Saddam-supporters resistance. Independents, venting their frustration against non-military targets in any and every way they can think of, with the aim of hurting American occupation even though they shoot themselves,
and their fellow Iraqis in the foot , is that foreseeable? I don't know, but obviously inadequate thought, and contingency planning, are quite obvious. Now.

Here's another article that supports the pay cut issue. http://timesargus.nybor.com/Story/70170.html
c.i.

Just gotta add this: this administration has cut back on veteran's benefits, and now has the gall to consider pay cuts for our military in Iraq. Why this ball with GW and his gang isn't going downhill faster is the big mystery. c.ii.

Well, as for buying their own uniforms, members of the US military are required to buy their own uniforms. In addition, if you are receiving seperate rations (BAS) or sperate quarters (BAQ), those payments stop when you are deployed, so the average soldier's family loses about $1000.00 per month off teh bat when he is deployed. The hazardous duty pay, etc... is suposed to help make up for this, but it usually doesn't.
As for congress "not standing for it," it was the Republican led congress that intorudced the time-limited legislation, and had no intention of extending it. The WH put up no resistance until the outcry began.
The average junior enlisted soldier lives well below the poverty level. The number of families I knew on active duty who were receiving food stamps was incredible. Joe Average private, who is around 18-20,and his bride, who is about the same age, and their (usually) two infants usually live off post in substandard apartment complexes, because on-post housing is scarce, or in bad repair. Usually both the servicemember and his spouse have little education beyond compulsory high school education,and the wife works a low paying job. There is little hope for her to advance, since she knows she is likely to move every two-four years. With cuts in benefits for dependents that originated in the Bush I administration, even minor illnesses of the wife or children can wreak havoc on the family's budget.
In additon, when the service member deploys, his pay is transferred from direct deposit to his bank account to a fund that goes to the theatre, where it is disbursed in cash, so he will be able to function whilst on deployment. If the service member hasn't set up allottments from his pay to ensure the majority goes to his account, or, if as usually happens, there is some screw-up in the financial branch, the wife is left unable to access the SM's paycheck.
If, as often happens, due to the mix up in pay the wife bounces a check or two, the SM is responsible,and will likely receive an Article 15 (non-jusidical punishment. ) and forfeit pay (usually one half to one full month's pay) and be reduced in rank, therefore also reducing pay.
As to the "work 24/7," it was often reinforced to us: "You are a soldier, 24 hours a day, seven days a week." Even in garrison (in the peacetime post-cold war 1990s) we often worked seven days/week, 16 hours a day, especially if we had recently had a change in command, or had an IG inspection coming. In GulfWar I, I worked straight through for three months straight at the refugee camp, with an average of three-four hours sleep caught in ten-fifteen minute cat naps. In Somalia the same schedule applied.
For all of its "support the troops" rehtoric, this administration has done more damage to the military as far as readiness and morale is concerend than any other exept for perhaps Bush I. I think that there is a lesson in there somewhere.