"There were pieces of flesh all over the place."

Life in Iraq.

Iraq: an honest assessment

Tom Freeman has a series of posts about Iraq which - regardless of whether you supported or opposed the invasion - are worth reading.

Forgiveness can only go so far

From the Daily Telegraph:

Norman Kember, the freed Iraq hostage, and two other men held with him have announced today that they "unconditionally" forgave their captors and wished them no "retribution".

Up to a point, I think that’s a fairly healthy attitude to have. In those circumstances bitterness and anger, while understandable, are a bane to the victims only. By “forgiving” their kidnappers these people are now in a position to move on and focus on the more important aspects of their life.

(It would be churlish of me not to point out that this act of forgiveness is most likely motivated by their religion – such compassion is - sadly, all too rarely - one of the upshots of religious belief, though not limited to it.)

However, I disagree with their stance here:

In a joint statement, made after police asked them to give evidence, the campaigners said: "We unconditionally forgive our captors for abducting and holding us. We have no desire to punish them. Punishment can never restore what was taken from us.

Forgiven or not, the people who kidnapped and threatened to kill them are clearly a threat to others, and the Iraqi justice system would be seriously amiss if it decided to simply release them back onto the streets. I don’t agree with the death penalty, but they should certainly be locked away for the protection of others.

The future of Iraq

Andrew Sullivan points towards this article (by Mike Allen) on the recommendations of the Baker Commission Report on Iraq:

The White House has said the President will consider the report's recomendations along with an administration review and advice from Congress, and has promised significant changes in strategy. They're needed, according to Baker. "If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences will be severe," the report continues. "A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq's government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread while Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expend its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could be become more polarized."

Perhaps the most controversial passage envisions a rapid drawdown of U.S. troops. "The primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq should evolve to one of supporting the Iraqi army, which would take over primary responsibility for combat operations," the report says. "By the first quarter of 2008, subject to unexpected developments in the security situation on the ground, all combat bridges not necessary for force protection could be out of Iraq."

More on Saddam

It seems a little telling that the voices who complained about the timing of the Lancet report on the Iraqi deathcount have been fairly muted about the decision to announce the execution of Saddam Hussein so close to the US Mid-Term Elections. (The Times has a cartoon of the judge about to announce the verdict when Bush pops up, noose in hand, stating: "I'm George W. Bush and I approve this message").

The trial of Saddam Hussein was supposed to mark a fresh beginning for Iraq, a symbol ogf justice to help usher in a new era of democracy. Instead, it's seemed little better than the show trials held under the rule of the former dictator: the verdict decided on Day 1, followed by a pantomine of a trial for the cameras.

Iraqi blogger Riverbend is particularly scathing of the whole sorry mess:

When All Else Fails...
… Execute the dictator. It’s that simple. When American troops are being killed by the dozen, when the country you are occupying is threatening to break up into smaller countries, when you have militias and death squads roaming the streets and you’ve put a group of Mullahs in power- execute the dictator.

Everyone expected this verdict from the very first day of the trial. There was a brief interlude when, with the first judge, it was thought that it might actually be a coherent trial where Iraqis could hear explanations and see what happened. That was soon over with the prosecution’s first false witness. Events that followed were so ridiculous; it’s difficult to believe them even now.

The sound would suddenly disappear when the defense or one of the defendants got up to speak. We would hear the witnesses but no one could see them- hidden behind a curtain, their voices were changed. People who were supposed to have been dead in the Dujail incident were found to be very alive.

Judge after judge was brought in because the ones in court were seen as too fair. They didn’t instantly condemn the defendants (even if only for the sake of the media). The piece de resistance was the final judge they brought in. His reputation vies only that of Chalabi- a well-known thief and murderer who ran away to Iran to escape not political condemnation, but his father’s wrath after he stole from the restaurant his father ran.

So we all knew the outcome upfront (Maliki was on television 24 hours before the verdict telling people not to ‘rejoice too much’). I think what surprises me right now is the utter stupidity of the current Iraqi government. The timing is ridiculous- immediately before the congressional elections? How very convenient for Bush. Iraq, today, is at its very worst since the invasion and the beginning occupation. April 2003 is looking like a honeymoon month today. Is it really the time to execute Saddam?

A number of groups have rushed to condemn it as well.

Saddam's verdict: a poor precedent?

Yay! I have my Internet connection back to normal. And, my new DVD-recorder (with 160gb HDD) is on its way.

Life is good.

Well, probably not so good for Saddam Hussein and the two others sentenced to death (by hanging) in Iraq, assuming they aren't so delusional as to not realise/believe what's going on. I imagine the verdict has put a slight crimp in their day.

As I'm against capital punishment, I'd obviously far prefer to see the former dictator rot in some god-forsaken cell for the rest of his life (preferably as a democratic Iraq forms around him - though I'm afraid that might be too much to hope for). Allowing the state to execute people (for whatever reason), effectively handing the government and courts the power of life or death over their citizens, is giving it just too much power for my liking.

It's always struck me as more than a little ironic that the country which is probably most sympathetic to the idea of a minimalist state is also most comfortable with state executions.

A Lament for Iraq?

The Iraqi Constitution has been passed, with a 78% approval rate (out of the 63% of those who voted). To be honest, my feelings are mixed over this. On the one hand I agree with Iraqis like Salam Pax that anything that helps Iraq become more stable is to be welcomed. In his blog ‘Shut Up You Fat Whiner’ Pax states that he’s being an “optimistic idiot”, supporting the Constitution because it’s a possible step away from the violence in the country at the moment. First you worry about getting a stable government established, then you begin to worry about making it democratic.

How effective this new constitution will be is open to question though. Firstly, a number of Sunni groups agreed to back it only on the condition that certain points could be renegotiated at a later date. These were points over which no agreement could be reached during the initial negotiations, and little has changed since then.

Secondly, a number of Sunni provinces overwhelmingly rejected the constitution. Those who voted ‘No’ are unlikely to suddenly throw their support behind it now, which means that the insurgency is unlikely to be affected by all this. Opposition to the new constitution could even end up fuelling it as some Sunnis could see their views being ignored by the political process.

The atmosphere under which the vote was cast also indicates problems ahead. The south of the country is known to be dominated by Shia Militias who were pushing for a ‘Yes’ vote. It’s from these areas that the allegations of fraud are rife, allegations that will no doubt undermine the legitimacy of the process to those who voted against it.

Also of concern is the constitution itself, which could serve to undermine human rights by insisting on Islam as source of law. Iraq has always been one of the few countries to resist Sharia law in the Middle East, it’s adoption will be a huge step backwards.

While a stable but undemocratic Iraq is arguably preferable to civil war, it’s clear that this new constitution is only a slight step forward. Rather than representing the establishment of a democratic Iraq it will likely have three consequences. The Sunni will feel ignored by the political system. The Shia groups will push for a theocracy allied with Iran, and the Kurds will continue their push for an independent homeland. None of these developments bode well for the region as a whole, with the image of Iraq as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East fading fast.

But that no longer seems to be the goal. With US casualties hitting 2,000, the aim of establishing democracy has been replaced with establishing enough stability for coalition troops to pull-out and leave Iraq to deal with it’s own problems. For those who believe in democracy this is a severe blow. To those who view this purely in terms of pro-war or anti-war, it’s a win for neither side.

The US and Iraq

one of the most stubbornly ingrained characteristics of American democracy has been its inability to accept and experience military involvement without becoming seriously disoriented by it and without permitting it to distort judgment on other questions of policy..."

- George F. Kennan
(Two Hundred Years of American Policy: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917-1976 - 'Foreign Affairs')

Iraqi Vote Fraud

There are a number of reports that 'irregularities' in the voting for the new Iraqi Constitution last Saturday will delay the count. While problems are understandable given the circumstances under which the vote took place, these reports can only add to the tension in Iraq.

If, as it looks like it will, the vote approves the constitution, its opponents will be able to point to these allegations in order to undermine its legitimacy. Even the complaints about voting in the 2000 US Presidential Election haven't been shaken off yet, so just think how damaging they could be somewhere as unstable as Iraq.

First steps to freedom?

The Iraqis are voting on their constitution today. So far it looks like the level of violence is low, which is something to be thankful for.

As a reader of blogs like Salem Pax's, I don't have many illusions about this process. It won't do much to stem the insurgency, and the endorsement of Islamic law is worrying.

If the vote were tomorrow I would vote YES and hope that the next elected National Assembly won’t have as much of a religious majority as the current one. I have opted for the ‘optimistic idiot’ option again; I know I will be disappointed."

Strange to think that my own country is involved in such debacle. But then, if we can't get democracy sorted out at home is it any wonder we mess it up in another country?