The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

[Little Raven]

I chronicled the recent sentiments of Dr. Raja Kuzai here. An Iraqi woman who was (and presumably still is) extremely supportive of the war and supportive of President Bush, she is bitterly disappointed by the new Iraqi constitution, which makes it clear that the status of women in Iraq is set for realignment that is, shall we say, more in touch with traditional regional views.



Particularly anal CivFanatics will remember another Iraqi woman and former Bush cheerleader, Safia Taleb al-Souhail, from her emotional appearance at the 2005 State of the Union address, where she tearfully embraced the mother of a fallen soldier and thanked the US for liberating her. For some reason, she is now singing the same tune as Dr. Raja.

"When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened -- we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It's a big disappointment."

Ok, so Iraqi women are going to get shafted. Is that really such a bad thing? Reuel Marc Gerecht says no.

MR. GERECHT: Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this. I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.

Andrew Sullivan disagrees.

But I do believe that the repression of women's social rights is integral to the pathologies that have bred Islamo-fascism. Sexual repression, misogynist theology, males treating women as property to be fought over or raped, honor killings: all these lead to cultures in which many frustrated young males turn to extreme religious faith or violence. Liberating Muslim women is critical to liberating the Middle East, which in turn is critical to protecting the West from more religious terror. We may not be able to achieve this all at once. But we can try where we can. Iraq is a rare case where we have real leverage for a short period of time. History will not forgive us if we pass this opportunity by.

What do you think? Should we feel bad about tossing Iraqi women back 30 years? Should we try and alter the course of the Iraqi assembly? Or accept the loss of social rights for women as a necessary step in the process of remaking Iraq as a model for the Middle East? Some combination? None of the above?

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I think that if the Iraqis can pull off any government that even smells democratic, it will be a miracle.

 

[Mark1031]

What do you think? Should we feel bad about tossing Iraqi women back 30 years? Should we try and alter the course of the Iraqi assembly? Or accept the loss of social rights for women as a necessary step in the process of remaking Iraq as a model for the Middle East? Some combination? None of the above?

We should issue permenent visas to any well educated secular Iraqi who wants out and leave over a 2 year period doing whatever we can to get a just and reasonable result and then hold impeachment hearings when Dems take over both houses of congress in '06 and then send the whole lot of the neo-cons to The Hague or Iraq to stand trial along side Saddam. Bad, but best that can be done at this point.

 

[IglooDame]

I think that if the Iraqis can pull off any government that even smells democratic, it will be a miracle.

Ditto. Frankly "Should we?" isn't the question in my mind, "Can we?" is the relevant question, and trying will put all our chips on the table - trying and failing will likely sink what little semblance of democratic institutions already exist there and push the country harder toward an eventual islamofascist state.

 

[Azadre]

So wait, Saddam's government was *gasp* better than the likely future? Oh well, I still think an Iraqi democracy will be successful.

 

[North King]

No, we should not accept a reduction in civil rights by saying "Well at least they're a democracy." If a democracy doesn't have rights for all people, then it doesn't deserve to be called a democracy, or anything resembling a democracy.

 

[Elrohir]

So wait, Saddam's government was *gasp* better than the likely future? Oh well, I still think an Iraqi democracy will be successful.

Uh yeah, getting raped in the streets was so much better than being made to wear a veil. You have such weird priorities.

I agree, women should be granted equal civil rights. But this is a section of the globe that has held women as practically possessions for literally thousands of years. I don't expect them to take the giant leap into the modern world all at once. As it is I think women have been greatly benefited by the regime change. They may not have all that they want, but it's better than getting kidnapped and taken to one of Saddam's rape rooms to be raped until your dead.

 

[cgannon64]

Initially, I want to disagree with Grehect, because our culture then was insitutionally sexist, and now it is not.

But we must remember that we are dealing with Middle Eastern culture, and not American culture, and the year 2005 for them is not necessarily different than the year 1900. Culturally, the Middle East is as institutionally sexist as America was 100 or 200 years ago, if not more. Did Iraq have equal rights for women under Saddam? Yes, in the small instance of women's property rights. But let's not forget that there were rape rooms, and neither women nor men had the actual right to vote - and are we even sure that women were granted the full use of their property rights? Were the courts in Saddam's dictatorship just and in accordance with the laws? But anyway, in a democracy, the majority will oppress the minority, and the only democratic way to avoid this is to convince the majority of its injustice. This will not happen overnight, but if you beleive in people's ability to recognize truth, it will happen.

Can we make it happen sooner? Not by forcing the Iraqis to change their constitution to what we want. They will resent that, and it will probably take down the Iraqi state, resulting in an Islamic (read: sexist) dictatorship. And without democracy, the truth won't have a chance to fight in an equal arena.

 

[Hakim]

I agree with cgannon and others. It's dangerous to try to force too much content on them, a working democracy is enough. Women's rights, environmental laws, labour laws and whatnot should be developed by themselves. Such laws will be more stable if they come from within than if imposed by others . They will come sooner or later.

 

[Keshik]

The fact that Iraqis are even able to debate their form of government is huge progress.

 

[Mise]

Initially, I want to disagree with Grehect, because our culture then was insitutionally sexist, and now it is not.

But we must remember that we are dealing with Middle Eastern culture, and not American culture, and the year 2005 for them is not necessarily different than the year 1900. Culturally, the Middle East is as institutionally sexist as America was 100 or 200 years ago, if not more. Did Iraq have equal rights for women under Saddam? Yes, in the small instance of women's property rights. But let's not forget that there were rape rooms, and neither women nor men had the actual right to vote - and are we even sure that women were granted the full use of their property rights? Were the courts in Saddam's dictatorship just and in accordance with the laws? But anyway, in a democracy, the majority will oppress the minority, and the only democratic way to avoid this is to convince the majority of its injustice. This will not happen overnight, but if you beleive in people's ability to recognize truth, it will happen.

Can we make it happen sooner? Not by forcing the Iraqis to change their constitution to what we want. They will resent that, and it will probably take down the Iraqi state, resulting in an Islamic (read: sexist) dictatorship. And without democracy, the truth won't have a chance to fight in an equal arena.

That might be a respectable line of reasoning if we didn't go into Iraq with the intention of SPREADING FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY. For some reason, now that we've got rid of Saddam, and intervened with force, it's now wrong to use force to spread our ideals of freedom and democracy?

Why can't people just admit that things need sorting out in Iraq, and that democracy doesn't work in a place that has no respect for freedom and civil liberties?

Uh yeah, getting raped in the streets was so much better than being made to wear a veil.

No it's not, and I have no idea why you brought that up... Am I supposed to support the war because you said RAPE!!!11oneomgpwnd? People like you trivialising atrocities by associating them with partisan politics make me sick.

 

[cgannon64]

That might be a respectable line of reasoning if we didn't go into Iraq with the intention of SPREADING FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY. For some reason, now that we've got rid of Saddam, and intervened with force, it's now wrong to use force to spread our ideals of freedom and democracy?

That we used some force to set up a democracy does not lead to the conclusion that we can use more force - or any amount of force - to run that democracy. We can take down a dictator and set up a democratic system. Should we enact laws? Should we install candidates? Should we ban parties? Should we force people to vote a certain way? All those things - including forcing a woman's rights clause into the constitution - would be anti-democratic and forceful. Eliminating Saddam Hussein was forceful, but not anti-democratic.

Why can't people just admit that things need sorting out in Iraq, and that democracy doesn't work in a place that has no respect for freedom and civil liberties?

I'll admit that it doesn't work well. But will you admit that a democratic government is a good means of bringing about this respect - and works far better than force?

 

[Mise]

We use force every day to prevent infringements of civil liberties; I don't see the difference in principle between the laws imposed by our government on us and those we impose on citizens in other countries.

I'll admit that it doesn't work well. But will you admit that a democratic government is a good means of bringing about this respect - and works far better than force?

No I disagree with that. The reason why people respect the right to free speech etc is because it's enshrined in the constitution.

 

[cgannon64]

Are you being serious? Our laws are enforced on people who have control over them. Because we do that, it follows that our laws can be enforced on people who do not have control over them, in other countries?

 

[Mise]

Because we do that, it follows that our laws can be enforced on people who do not have control over them, in other countries?

No it follows that in order for a secular western style democracy that respects civil liberties to be established in Iraq, a secular western style constitution that respects civil liberties must be established in Iraq.

 

[cgannon64]

How much control do you have over your government? How much control do you have over your constitution?

I have as much control over my government as is reasonable: Any more, and it would be unfair to other people; any less, and it would be unfair to me. (Well, I am speaking as if I am of voting age, which I am not, but you get the point.)

No it follows that in order for a secular western style democracy that respects civil liberties to be established in Iraq, a secular western style constitution that respects civil liberties must be established in Iraq.

The intention of the war - well, at least as far as the one 'democratic' reasoning for it goes - was not to establish a "secular western style democracy that respects civil liberties", it was to establish a democracy in the hopes that it becomes secular, Western style, and respectful of civil liberties.

Had we tried to install a democracy with all of those qualities, instead of just a democracy, Bush would be denounced even more than he is now as a savage monster with no respect for Arab culture.

(Of course, we are pushing the people to include clauses and write a Constitution that would set up a more secular democracy that is mores respectful of civil liberties - and we are trying to get them to beleive that doing so would be better and more stable. But we can't make them beleive that; we have to hope that they will see the rightness of our point of view. That is the assumption of democracy: That people are sane, and will eventually and ultimately choose the most sane government possible...)

 

[Mise]

I have as much control over my government as is reasonable: Any more, and it would be unfair to other people; any less, and it would be unfair to me. (Well, I am speaking as if I am of voting age, which I am not, but you get the point.)

Sorry those questions were irrelevent so I deleted it.

The intention of the war - well, at least as far as the one 'democratic' reasoning for it goes - was not to establish a "secular western style democracy that respects civil liberties", it was to establish a democracy in the hopes that it becomes secular, Western style, and respectful of civil liberties.

Had we tried to install a democracy with all of those qualities, instead of just a democracy, Bush would be denounced even more than he is now as a savage monster with no respect for Arab culture.

Actually, one of the more compelling arguements against the war was exactly this: Iraq would end up like every other middle-eastern nation (in the grip of Sharia Law), whereas it was fairly secular with little islamic influence in the law under Saddam. At the risk of sounding like a schoolkid, NER NER! I WAS RIGHT YOU WERE WRONG!

That is the assumption of democracy: That people are sane, and will eventually and ultimately choose the most sane government possible...)

You honestly believe that will happen in Iraq?

 

[Azadre]

Uh yeah, getting raped in the streets was so much better than being made to wear a veil. You have such weird priorities.

Raped in the streets? Were you there?

By the way, I am glad that Iraq will become a Democracy as opposed to Saddam.

 

[cgannon64]

Actually, one of the more compelling arguements against the war was exactly this: Iraq would end up like every other middle-eastern nation (in the grip of Sharia Law), whereas it was fairly secular with little islamic influence in the law under Saddam. At the risk of sounding like a schoolkid, NER NER! I WAS RIGHT YOU WERE WRONG!

At what cost did the fairly secular nation come? Was that worth all of Saddam's crimes?

You honestly believe that will happen in Iraq?

If it can happen in America, and in Europe, and in parts of Asia, and in parts of South America, why can't it happen in Iraq - even if it has to happen gradually?

 

[Mise]

At what cost did the fairly secular nation come? Was that worth all of Saddam's crimes?

If it can happen in America, and in Europe, and in parts of Asia, and in parts of South America, why can't it happen in Iraq - even if it has to happen gradually?

I don't want Saddam back, just to make that clear, I think it's far better that he's gone, but since we're using force to bring about change, I'd prefer the end result to be less painful than those processes in the West, Asia and SA. If we're going to force democracy on them, why not make it a GOOD democracy rather than a BAD one?