« Why Americans Hate the Media—Now With Quantitatve Backing! | Main | More Deep Finance »

August 17, 2007

What We've Accomplished

by Stephen of the Thinkery

Behold what we have wrought:

The women are too afraid and ashamed to show their faces or have their real names used. They have been driven to sell their bodies to put food on the table for their children -- for as little as $8 a day.

"People shouldn't criticize women, or talk badly about them," says 37-year-old Suha as she adjusts the light colored scarf she wears these days to avoid extremists who insist women cover themselves. "They all say we have lost our way, but they never ask why we had to take this path."

Suha has three children.  She's married; her husband thinks that she cleans houses.

"I don't have money to take my kid to the doctor. I have to do anything that I can to preserve my child, because I am a mother," she says, explaining why she prostitutes herself.

Anger and frustration rise in her voice as she speaks.

   "No matter what else I may be, no matter how off the path I may be, I am a mother!"

Karima, another woman forced into prostitution to feed her family, has five children. Her oldest son is old enough to work, but she doesn't allow it because of how dangerous Iraq is. Another woman lives with her three children in just one room. She hosts her "clients" in that room, with each child in a different corner, facing the wall.

The cost of living in Iraq has risen. The nation's infrastructure is of course horribly damaged. Women who once could drive cars, travel freely outside their homes and hold legitimate jobs now are denied drivers' licenses, must cover themselves with scarves or burkas, cannot travel anywhere without a man's permission, and are denied many of the jobs that were once open to them. Women in today's Iraq don't go to school even if there happens to be a school nearby that hasn't had its fresh coat of paint bombed and burned off.

As is always the case, the same fanatics who deny women a place in society because of "religion" are the ones who ensure that they can earn money as prostitutes, indeed are much happier with prostitution being the main way that a woman can make money independently of a man, because it allows them to indulge their own dark desires while maintaining their own auras of purity and piety in their public facade.

This is the American legacy in Iraq. There is no functioning democracy. The few freedoms enjoyed by Iraq's citizens under Saddam are functionally gone even as pieces of paper proclaim their existence, even as American rhetoric claims the presence of far more. The Iraqi people simply are not better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein.

Nor are we, with North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons due in large part to the Bush administration's indifference, Osama still free due completely to the Bush Administration's indifference, the strong possibility that Iran is developing nuclear weapons to counter the threat they see in the USA due to the Bush Administration's provocation, and Iraq as the most effective propaganda tool and training ground for terroristic organizations the world has ever seen.

People of course argue that if the USA were to withdraw its forces - and, one would hope, its thumb from on top of the Iraqi government - things there would become far worse. That may be, but the point is that we simply don't know for sure. What we can know definitely is that continuing to do what we have been doing, only more of it, will ensure the exact same results we have been getting, only more of them.

The Iraqi women and children - always the most vulnerable in war - are living in Hell. The more bombs we drop, the more people we kill, the more instability we instigate and allow to fester throughout that country, the worse it will get for them. It's time to get out. It's time to stop this insanity, this monument to foolishness, this disaster of American arrogance and ignorance.

August 17, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

And what of the children? Imagine how much they must hate the forces they rightly believe are responsible for turning their mothers into prostitutes. Think of the guilt they must feel, knowing their mothers are doing this so they can eat. Hatred, anger, guilt...great way to win hearts and minds, BushCo.

I'm glad you posted about this, Stephen, but I have to say I found it so heartbreaking and depressing, I could barely finish reading it.

Congress must defund this catastrophe right now and focus on providing humanitarian aid to those we've reduced to living this way. I don't see how we can even begin to atone for the past, but we can certainly still change direction, and we need to do so immediately.

Posted by: litbrit | Aug 17, 2007 12:07:35 PM

People of course argue that if the USA were to withdraw its forces - and, one would hope, its thumb from on top of the Iraqi government - things there would become far worse. That may be, but the point is that we simply don't know for sure. What we can know definitely is that continuing to do what we have been doing, only more of it, will ensure the exact same results we have been getting, only more of them.

We may not know for certain what would happen, just as we didn't know for certain what would happen when we invaded. But just as we were morally bound to judge based on the most likely outcomes and real risks then (which were completely unacceptable), we have the obligation to judge by the most likely outcomes and risks now. We have very good reasons to think withdrawing would make things far worse, quite possibly orders of magnitude worse.

There is an overwhelming, natural urge to turn away from the evil we've done by just getting out and hoping it will get better, but we can't, not responsibly. We have obligations to the women and children, and men, that we will colossally fail in, according to what we can foresee, if we leave.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 17, 2007 12:24:17 PM

just as we didn't know for certain what would happen when we invaded.

This is pure BS. Plenty of people were on the record saying that occupation of Iraq would be an outright disaster - enough that we should have taken the safe route and not invaded.

The fact that, as Jon Stewart recently pointed out, one of these people was war-booster VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY makes our prosecution of the Iraq War even more heinous.

There is no way to "fix" Iraq - not if we stay and not if we leave. It is no longer fixable by outside elements. The only people who can "fix" Iraq are the Iraqis - and the "fix" is probably going to be brutal, ugly, nasty and not something any of us want to have to think about. But it's going to have to be their fix. We cannot fix it - no matter how much "white man's burden" guilt we want to shovel out to justify our occupation.

The best we can do is pull out and start setting aside billions of dollars a year for war reparations once the Iraqis get things "fixed" and there's someone to pay it to. That may, in fact, be about all we can do at this point.

Posted by: NonyNony | Aug 17, 2007 12:52:21 PM

We have very good reasons to think withdrawing would make things far worse, quite possibly orders of magnitude worse.

And what ARE those "good reasons"? I've never seen anyone make a coherent argument that would explain WHY things would get "orders of magnitude worse". What we are apparently doing in Iraq is killing "insurgents" in the hopes that if you kill enough of them there will be no more, with no awareness that the more native people an occupying power kills the more likely that other native people will become insurgents and the occupier will never be able to kill enough people to "help" the rest.

What Iraq needs now is a better economy, more electricity, more clean water, more economic aid. We haven't been able to give them any of this, and in fact have simply worsened the situation with each passing year that we are there.

What we owe Iraq is compassionate help and restitution. More troops aren't the answer. Nor is providing hundreds of thousands of additional guns, which we have also done. Do you believe that we have any moral responsibility toward creating a better Iraq than the one that we have created these past years, or does our "moral responsibility" end with inflicting more troops and more weapons, on them, despite their desire to have us leave, and despite our falsely professed desire to promote democracy in Iraq?

In other words, if the majority of the Iraqis don't want us there, then our most genuine support for democracy would be to accede to their wishes and leave. And then provide whatever humanitarian and economic aid they need to rebuild the country we shattered. That's moral responsibility.

Posted by: zed | Aug 17, 2007 1:11:41 PM

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Posted by: Dave Justus | Aug 17, 2007 1:28:52 PM

NN, again, we didn't know *for certain* what would happen when we invaded, but the risks were clearly unacceptable. Just as there were plenty on record then, there are plenty of people on record now saying that withdrawal will make things far worse. That doesn't imply we know for certain what will happen.

No one is claiming that we can fix Iraq; everyone agrees that the Iraqis are the only ones who can fix Iraq. It doesn't follow that we should leave them with no effective security. We may not want to think about what will happen if we leave, but we have to think about it.

I've never seen anyone make a coherent argument that would explain WHY things would get "orders of magnitude worse".

Zed, I'm not surprised. I've pointed this out in dozens of threads here over the last year, but until recently liberals have been very reluctant to deal with the realities in Iraq, and even now the trend to acknowledge the realities is still very limited. The civil war is low-intensity now in comparison to what it very likely would be, and that's largely because any major militia that went full out in an assault on its domestic enemies would immediately face the US military, something they know they won't win at. They have to operate secretly, when Americans aren't around, in relatively small numbers in short operations. How would they operate without those constraints? The US is also the most effective security force in deterring al Qaeda-type terrorism, though our success is obviously limited. Still, how much more freely could the terrorists act without that deterrent?

I agree that killing insurgents leads to revenge motives directed against us. It doesn't follow that we should just let the insurgents act at will.

How do you propose to better the economy and services in Iraq with no effective security? It's impossible. Power plants, power lines, water treatment facilities, markets, etc. are prime targets for the violence. We definitely have a responsibility to help Iraq with reparations and economic aid, but we can't do that effectively without security.

According to the most recent polling I've seen, and this has been true since the invasion, the vast majority of Iraqis want us to leave "soon" but a majority still says not "now." And keep in mind that some who do want us to leave now want to fill the vacuum with violence against their domestic foes, to kill them and drive them out by force. We shouldn't respect that wish.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 17, 2007 1:51:31 PM

As soon as the de facto partition of Iraq is reasonably complete, the U.S. should leave. Trying to put the pieces back together again is not something a foreign occupation is capable of doing, nor should it. Baghdad itself will be the last place to be divided and it will be a terrible thing, but when the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein it didn't simply oust a dictator it precipitated a revolution by the Shia majority that was eminently foreseeable, but deliberately ignored by President Bush in his quest for the military victory he wanted to show that he could beat his daddy. His hubris however led to his nemesis in the form of a failed Iraqi state that will be forever his real legacy and the legacy of the Republican Party's folly.

Posted by: al-Anon | Aug 17, 2007 2:00:04 PM

We definitely have a responsibility to help Iraq with reparations and economic aid, but we can't do that effectively without security.

You won't have security until the civil war in Iraq is settled when the partition is complete. I agree that the U.S. should stay to keep the worst from happening while that process plays itself out. But trying to keep Iraq together as a nation is futile, and indeed counterproductive with respect to the goal of achieving any kind of peace there.

Posted by: al-Anon | Aug 17, 2007 2:05:53 PM

Sanpete,
Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. But I think the US has lost the right to judge if it should stay or go. America has lost the moral authority to be the decider on this matter. This authority should go to the Iraqis themselves (referendum?) or if that proves impossible the place where all the worlds unsolvable messes go - the UN. The American people have lost the right to have a say in this. Mind you, the American leadership will never show the necessary humility to do this.
Pity.

Posted by: Northern Observer | Aug 17, 2007 2:34:58 PM

Things are going badly now, are getting worse, and have continued to do so for a while. Therefore, we should keep doing more of the same.

In this case, that means leaving an occupying army almost everyone hates in place even though what they do isn't the most important factor, because if they leave, things might get really ugly.

Posted by: Cyrus | Aug 17, 2007 2:37:49 PM

Shorter Thinkery: "Sure, Saddam may have shredded a few people now and again, but..."

There are certainly good arguments to be made, but this isn't one of them.

Posted by: TLB | Aug 17, 2007 2:45:06 PM

NO, it's fine with me if you can find a better way to decide what we should do, but in the mean time we do have the responsibility we have. I'm not sure a referendum is a good idea where the balance can be tipped by forces wishing to crush the other side. There need to be protections for the minorities. I'd love to see the UN just take over security in Iraq so we could leave, but the UN isn't able--other nations don;t want to send security forces into a war. Eventually Iraq has to provide its own security.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 17, 2007 3:22:41 PM

TLB, that is patently unfair. I recently sat in on a live interview at Firedoglake with an Iraqi doctor who runs an orphanage and shelter for wounded and displaced children in that country. She was furious, as one would expect. She reported nationwide power outages on a regular basis, and that was in provinces that had power in the first place. She regularly cares for children who've lost limbs along with parents; she has held more dying children and signed more death certificates than you or I have had hot dinners. When asked about life "before", she said, with no small amount of bitterness, that while Saddam was a fearsome and brutal man, he really didn't care if you were Sunni or Shia--he only cared if you were loyal to him. Those doctors generally stayed out of his way, and they were able to run excellent hospitals, have running water and electricity, and generally live with infinitely more security and stability than everyone in the country does now, thanks to the US.

The thing is, engaging in nation-building was not a good idea. Especially since the first act of said nation-building was to begin flattening it and totally disabling its infrastructure.

If the next president feels that nation-building urge, here's hoping he or she turns it toward this country, which, last time I checked, had a whole lot of trouble going on.

Posted by: litbrit | Aug 17, 2007 3:23:42 PM

I've pointed this out in dozens of threads here over the last year, but until recently liberals have been very reluctant to deal with the realities in Iraq, and even now the trend to acknowledge the realities is still very limited.

The liberals, huh? And the conservatives have had an absolute death grip on reality in Iraq, eh?
Here's some reality for the "stay and finish our obligation" crowd - the US military occupation of Iraq is NOT INDEFINITELY SUSTAINABLE. At some point, some (Colin Powell for one) say next spring, the US will have no choice but to pull back. The troop rotations, the equipment, and the money will be exhausted. It's going to end one way or another. We need to plan now for what this pull out is going to be like. High and mighty talk about our responsiblity to the Iraqi people is very self satisfying, but the reality is that the military simply can not last that long.

Posted by: chowchowchow | Aug 17, 2007 4:17:14 PM

We must continue the struggle for freedom in the face of islamofacism in Iraq. It is our moral duty.*

* as long as someone else does the fighting and my taxes are not higher

Posted by: gopatriot | Aug 17, 2007 5:21:57 PM

And the conservatives have had an absolute death grip on reality in Iraq, eh?

Not at all, but more conservatives have been interested in the prospect of things getting worse in Iraq if we leave because they're so worried about "defeat." I agree that the Surge will probably have to end or at least be cut back some in the spring. That's not the same as getting out of Iraq, of course. It means troop numbers gradually going back down closer to what they were before the Surge.

It's interesting that talk about the need to stay is "high and mighty," while the equally moralistic talk about the need to leave is ... well, what?

We should raise taxes.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 17, 2007 5:32:00 PM

Valid arguments include whether Bush's "invade the world" (h/t Sailer) policies are right or wrong, and whether the invasion was incredibly poorly planned or not (I've pointed out the "not" more than a few times), and whether we should have gotten more international cover. And, it's certainly true that things seem to be worse in a trains-running-on-time fashion. But, this post crosses the line into arguing that Saddam should have been left in place because he kept the trains running on time.

Posted by: TLB | Aug 17, 2007 6:03:25 PM

Justifying the occupation of Iraq in three easy steps:

1. Say that whichever horrible consequence is inevitable if we leave Iraq.

2. Pay no attention as the horrible consequence occurs as a direct result of our occupation of Iraq.

3. Repeat from step one.

Posted by: Dawn | Aug 17, 2007 6:22:28 PM

we have destroyed and traumatized that country and its people for all future generations.
evil acts.


...there is a quote by arthur waskow, from the remarkable book on forgiving your enemy, called "the sunflower", by simon wiesenthal.
this quote reminds me of what we have accomplished in iraq...

"you are a teacher of what is now possible. from you i learn that the h-bombs can devour the world, that every single one of them is an instant portable Auschwitz waiting for its blaze to be turned on. from you i learn that sadism can be technologized and mass-produced. from you i learn that the careless use of new technology can poison earth's air and soil and water, can murder many species, even when there is no hatred-
from you i learn what the mass media can do to the child of loving, gentle parents.
from you i learn the raw, ravaging Power - one aspect of G-d - that has come roaring into the world into human hands."
...an excerpt from arthur waskow

we will also have to live with the consequences of our actions.

Posted by: jacqueline | Aug 17, 2007 6:55:52 PM

Dawn, if you've been paying attention you know that the horrible consequences predicted are in fact not coming about right now, not on the same scale. That's the whole point.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 17, 2007 7:16:22 PM

As nearly as I can tell, any plan to stay in Iraq and somehow fix things require that a statement about like this be effective:

We're very sorry that we murdered some of your family, forced others to flee, ruined your homes, destroyed your jobs, tortured some people you know in cases of mistaken identity or just plain carelessness, and reduced your society to warlord anarchy. We promised ourselves that we would impeach any of the responsible people, or have war crime trials, or even investigate to find out the details of what happened high up on the chain of command, and we've committed ourselves to staying right here with a force and focus that our own best internal advice guarantees can't settle the civil unrest we unleashed. But despite all that, now we mean good things, and we want you to trust us to do all the things we haven't, with pretty much all of the same people involved and without any major organizational changes or internal discipline.

Yeah, that's gonna work.

Posted by: Bruce Baugh | Aug 17, 2007 7:38:25 PM

Er, "promised ourselves that we would not impeach", that is, I meant to type.

Posted by: Bruce Baugh | Aug 17, 2007 7:39:58 PM

It's one thing to do it for fun - this is another thing entirely.

Posted by: Adam Piontek | Aug 17, 2007 8:48:12 PM

As nearly as I can tell, any plan to stay in Iraq and somehow fix things require that a statement about like this be effective

Huh? As I said, liberals have had a hard time focussing on the realities of Iraq.

Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 17, 2007 8:53:31 PM

Sanpete, read that article again and then talk about "focusing on the realities of Iraq." THAT is what we have driven them to, via our hubris, our stupidity, our lack of planning, our blind refusal to plan for the future.

The Iraqis are responsible for their actions, but by god we should be held responsible for our incompetence.

Posted by: tzs | Aug 17, 2007 9:12:07 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.