Wijdan al-Khuzai was a courageous woman. Today’s New York Times featured an article (requires simple registration) on her campaign for a seat in the Iraqi national assembly as a champion of the rights of women. She paid for her decency with her life. In a country that has known so much war, oppression, and sheer violence, she stood up for a decent and normal society. Her sister Nada Khuzai told the Times reporter, “My sister figured that if she didn’t do it, then no one would.” That’s the kind of person denounced by allegedly “antiwar” writers at antiwar.com and lewrockwell.com. No doubt, for some people she was a “traitor” and a “quisling” for standing as a candidate for the national assembly (in the words of Justin Raimondo), or like Viktor Yushchenko, newly elected president of Ukraine, a “neocon/CIA stooge” (in the words of Tom DiLorenzo). To me she is a heroine and an inspiration.
Reading the moving story of her life and terrible death by torture reminded me of a presentation I attended by the current Iraqi Minister for Women’s Affairs, Narmin Othman, in which she described her years of struggle against Saddam’s regime and now against jihadi and Ba’athist terrorists. When asked about negotiations with the jihadist beheaders, she said (with some difficulty, in clear but halting English that I have reconstructed from memory) that “With such people you cannot negotiate. The people who cut off the heads, they are……evil. They are the men who see a beautiful flower and can only cut it. We must fight them for our country.”
If I believed in God, I would ask him/her/it to smile on the soul of Wijdan al-Khuzai and to protect and preserve Narmin Othman and others like her who are bravely trying to create a society of freedom, justice, and decency in the midst of chaos and violence. Let us hope that the elections bring some stability to Iraq and some legitimacy to a government that can fight and defeat the terrorists.
Note: Perhaps some will be disturbed that Iraq has a Ministry for Women’s Affairs, something that would be objectionable in the U.S.; Iraq, however, is rather different from the U.S. Having such a ministry in Iraq means having a voice and authority to champion the rights of women in a country with many many who would subjugate them in quite brutal ways. Iraq is not California and having a Ministry of Women’s Affairs is rather like having a Freedmen’s Bureau after the liberation of the slaves in the U.S., a necessary and proper step toward establishing legal equality for all.
I guess I missed the articles or blog entries on LRC and AWC that denounced her or other candidates. Could you provide links?
Since being appointed to the provisional governing council by the CPA is something quite different from standing for election, I expect that most people would treat such things differently. Your wording suggests that you claim Justin Raimondo has called those standing for election in Iraq either traitors or quislings. I don’t think that’s true, and I challenge you to provide a quote with link that substantiates your claim.
And, I have unsolicited rhetorical advice. To say “if I believed in God” completely saps the sincerity and logic of the rest of the sentence. Either feign faith and live with the contradiction, or leave it off — believers don’t take kindly to patronizing. In fact, no one does.
Oh, and referring to God as “him/her/it” is equally patronizing or downright stupid. It either implies that the theist to whom you write is not aware of the fact that God can’t have a sex, and that as a good atheist, you are helping him to realize this; or, it means that you are not aware of (the stupid part), or wish to flout (another patronizing part, since it implies that you know better than convention or your reader), the convention of rendering the gender of the pronoun for God as masculine.
Mr. Guillory seems not to have noticed the denunciation of the people who are working to defend candidates for the Iraqi national assembly — the Iraqi police and soldiers — as “quislings” and “traitors” by Justin Raimondo. Perhaps he thinks that Mrs. al-Khuzai would have been even safer without those quislings and traitors, or that Mrs. Othman would be safer without her police escort. If you denounce the security forces as traitors to their country, one would think a fortiori that the denunciation would apply even more strongly to those seeking elective office under a “puppet” government. Or has Mr. Raimondo withdrawn his despicable characterization of those Iraqis who join the police? (Answer: evidently not.)
As to Mr. Guillory’s unsolicited rhetorical advice, well, he’s evidently a very sensitive soul. Just to be sure, I took the trouble to ask several quite observant Christian friends whether my remarks were patronizing. They said quite the contrary, as I was recognizing the benevolence in prayer, without lying and indicating that I believed in its efficacy. I don’t feign beliefs; I’ll leave that to others. (And I’ll leave it to Mr. Guillory to froth about whether “God the Father” and “God the Son” have a sexual gender; I was merely indicating neutrality among a variety of different aproaches to the issue, in hope of not giving offense. I had not counted on Mr. Guillory’s extraordinary sensitivity.)
So, to return to the main point. A decent person would acknowledge the courage and decency of Wijdan al-Khuzai. That’s why I don’t expect it from some quarters.
Let me get this straight. Denouncing the agressive acts of some Iraqi police = denouncing those who have *not* been assigned Iraqi police forces (such as Mrs. al-Khuzai)? This makes no sense, and the leap that you label “a fortiori” just does not apply — the opposite is the case: if one accepts the premise of a puppet government, then non-CPA-appointed opposition candidates would, by logic, be less worthy of denouncement, not more.
On style/rhetoric, we don’t agree.
Lastly, you say “to return to the main point” but make two points. Which is your main point? Is it that Wijdan al-Khuzai was courageous and is deserving of praise, or is it that Justin Raimondo is a heartless evil man that wouldn’t acknowledge such?
Mr. Guillory is splitting hairs, and very, very fine ones, at that. If you want to go from A (say, U.S. military occupation and administration) to D (say, a stable Iraqi government and withdrawal of U.S. troops), and if B (improved Iraqi security) and C (secure elections, which depend on B) are necessary steps toward D, then anyone who denounces B or C is ipso facto denouncing D. Raimondo has denounced B. Others have been outspoken in denouncing C (on ground of unfairness, since not all the candidate’s names are published, for reasons that Mrs. al-Khuzai’s murder make clear). The conclusion is pretty clear. They are opposed to the process that would be best suited (and most likely) to lead to U.S. withdrawal. He who wills the end, wills the means. And he who wills not the means, wills not the end.
Regarding “the main point,” it is that we should honor the courage of Mrs. al-Khuzai and others like her. Any decent person should, as they also should recognize the courage and forthrightness of Viktor Yushchenko and the thousands who made possible the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. That I don’t expect acknowledgement of such bravery and decency from some quarters is a sign of the character of the people in those quarters. Is that one point, or two? Or one-and-a-half? Who cares?
Mr. Guillory posted the following statement at lewrockwell.com (http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007117.html ):
—-
From this interchange with Tom Palmer, his revealed opinion is that the path to withdrawal of US troops is through the establishment of a democracy, and that nothing less than success in setting up a stable ruling power in Iraq will justify a withdrawal.
This brings to mind one of the many political discussions I had with Iraqi colleagues in late 2003 (I was there for 6 months) centered on the question of when the US military should withdraw. The answers varied, but opinions centered on about 1 year after invasion, which is, by now, long past. When asked whether extenuating circumstances, such as unstable government or high level of terrorism, would change their mind, the answer was, across the board, an emphatic no.
Their reasoning was that the longer the US military stayed, the more lasting would be US control of the Iraqi government, and the lesser chance for eventual political independence. If my colleagues’ opinions were representative of Iraqi opinion at large, and their opinions have not changed, then holders of the Palmer doctrine of withdrawal have a choice: either we let the Iraqis have a skinny freedom or impose a fat paternalism.
——
It’s worth noting that I did not, in fact, write “nothing less than success in setting up a stable ruling power in Iraq will *justify* a withdrawal.” (emphasis added) What I wrote is substantially different, that nothing else will lead to that withdrawal. Mr. Guillory seems confused by terms such as “justification” and “necessary steps toward.” He also plays rather loose with the term “democracy,” suggesting that perhaps the commitment would be never ending, for Iraqis are unlikely to have as clean a “democracy” as, say, Switzerland, in the near future. Looking at the likely policy options that would be embraced by the U.S. authorities, it seems clear that trying to establish a government that enjoys the degree of political legitimacy (in the sociological, if not the moral/normative sense) that elections may bring is a necessary condition for U.S. withdrawal. Rooting for the failure of that process is rooting for extended U.S. military occupation and conflict.
Mr. Palmer,
It astounds me that fools such as yourself think that you can decide for the Iraqis what is good or bad for us.
Sulejman
Maybe we can let the Iraqis have a say in deciding what’s good for themselves. An election is one way to diminish the violence in social conflict. And since most Iraqis, by all available evidence, very much want to go to the polls to participate in the process without being blown up by terrorists or executed for promoting the rule of law, it seems that that’s what most Iraqis want, too. So if I say that, under the circumstances (that is, after a stupid, foolish, and unjustified decision to wage war), holding elections in Iraq to allow the Iraqi people to select their own rules is the best way forward, is that telling the Iraqis what is good or bad for them, or letting them decide what is good or bad for themselves, after which we can then pull our troops out? That doesn’t seem a very hard question.
P.S. You must be one of the few “Iraqis” who posts messages in Japanese on Japanese web sites. Your email address shows up in Google on only two Japanese language web sites. (http://www.google.com/search?tab=gw&q=SulejKana%40hotmail.com&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1& ) Odd.
TGP:”If you want to go from A (say, U.S. military occupation and administration) to D (say, a stable Iraqi government and withdrawal of U.S. troops), and if B (improved Iraqi security) and C (secure elections, which depend on B) are necessary steps toward D, then anyone who denounces B or C is ipso facto denouncing D. Raimondo has denounced B.”
Of course, you are making an assumption that B is ‘necessary’ which is where the source of disagreement between you and Mr. Raimondo lies. You’re entire stance is predicated on that premise. Ergo, everything you say after that can be interpreted as shrill [sic] opinion, not logic or reason, even though you are almost adept at its use. Your vociferous denunciation of those who disagree with said premise speaks volumes about your lack of conviction in it. But, then again, that’s just my opinion.
Ta,
It would be an interesting exercise for someone to show why B (improved Iraqi security) is not a condition for C (secure elections).
D (a stable Iraqi government and withdrawal of U.S. troops) would be the smarter point to attack, since it links together two items that could be separated: “a stable Iraqi government” and “withdrawal of U.S. troops”). One could withdraw the troops without a stable government, something that would very likely resemble a rout and that would leave in its wake civil war and mind numbingly high rates of civilian deaths. It could be done, but it’s not on the agenda.
That was a part of my initial argument. Even if you prefer a unilateral withdrawal with no concern whatsoever for the consequences, that simply is not going to happen. Issuing veiled (and not so veiled) calls for more attacks on Iraqi police and on U.S. troops will not in fact hasten such a withdrawal. What will hasten a withdrawal is the establishment of a stable Iraqi government. Mr. Guillory above confuses justification with prediction. Whether the establishment of an Iraqi government is a justification for withdrawal or not, I predict that the U.S. government is not going to tune in to antiwar.com and send the troops fleeing to the ports for immediate withdrawal. They will wait for a stable Iraqi government to emerge, one that could later be held accountable if al Qaeda training camps (for example) were to be set up in Iraq. If that is so (and I believe that it is quite simply an evasion of reality to deny that it’s so), then we should hope that the elections are able to generate a government with the legitimacy to combat the terrorist/insurgent forces.
That doesn’t sound like rocket science to me. Just common sense.