Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Looting, killing and raping – by twisting their words they call it ‘empire’; and wherever they have created a wilderness, they call it ‘peace’.
Thus, Tacitus, the Republican, on the imperialism of his own age, questioning whether the Romans themselves had become the barbarians.
———-
I’ve written before, as have a number of other LP bloggers, about the appalling position of women in the “democratic” Iraq. The absurd justification of that war in the name of liberation and civil rights is now rarely heard, as attention shifts in the heart of the decaying Bush imperium to desparate attempts to maintain its perpetuity. In Australia, there’s now no debate at all, as the Liberals probably wouldn’t dare to mention their own foreign policy. No doubt it will be raised before the election, probably particularly when George W. Bush comes to Sydney Town in September. I have no doubt either that one of the issues raised then by feminists will be what’s happening in Iraq to women, despite the fact that some are blind to this concern. To that end, via Feministing, here’s a disturbing and depressing update from Katha Pollitt.
“The political climate in Iraq is such that anyone can carry out crimes against women,” Kurdish feminist and labor activist Houzan Mahmoud told me when I reached her by phone in London, where she serves as the UK representative of the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI). “You can come upon women’s bodies anywhere.” Far from promoting women’s rights and security, “the occupation has strengthened the tribes, political Islam and reactionary bourgeois parties–all of which are anti-woman.” The true extent of the violence may never be known. According to Yifat Susskind, author of Madre’s 2007 report Promising Democracy, Imposing Theocracy: Gender-Based Violence and the US War on Iraq, comprehensive statistics don’t exist: The Iraqi institutions responsible for collecting human rights data are complicit in human rights abuses, and besides, the United States has told the Ministry of Health not to publish figures on civilian fatalities.“I haven’t seen the United States offering any protection for women,” Mahmoud told me. Indeed, the United States is part of the problem. Think of Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, the 14-year-old girl raped and then murdered with her family by US soldiers in Mahmoudiya in March of last year. Think of the women imprisoned at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, sometimes only for being the wife or sister of a man US forces were looking for. Think of women terrorized by soldiers who break into their homes and hold them at gunpoint. Given the punishments meted out to “unchaste” women, victims are unlikely to report rapes committed by US or allied soldiers or Iraqi military or police forces–but if the case of Abeer was unique, this would be the first military occupation in the history of the world in which the invaders and their local sidekicks didn’t help themselves to girls and women.
Four years after the fall of Saddam, the country is a political and economic basket case. The US-engineered Constitution undermines secularism in favor of religious authority, while billions in US aid disappear into the pockets of contractors and bribe takers. One third of the population is poor; last year there were 300,000 widows in Baghdad alone; according to a new report from Save the Children, Iraq now boasts the world’s biggest fifteen-year increase in infant and child mortality. In 2005, 122,000 children under 5 died–that’s one in eight.
I asked Mahmoud if the American presence had achieved anything at all for women. “No,” she said. “I can’t honestly say it has.” Like other women’s groups there, OWFI now carries out its work in secret.
Wait a minute. I though the lefty feminists did not care about these issues. The hide of you Kim to post on the topic.
Seriously, it is all very sad.
I still prefer ‘desert’ for solitudinem, although the modern trend is to use ‘wilderness’, and I’m not sure that ‘by twisting’ quite covers the ablative.
Perhaps: ‘looting, killing, raping – they falsely call it ‘empire’, and where they make a desert, they call it peace’.
/pedant
And yes, very sad. One thing that has got no better, and doesn’t look like it will get better.
“September 11, 2001: Feminist Perspectives”
Eds. B.Winter and S.Hawthorn Pub. Spinifex Press Melb. 2002
I would recommend this book for those who wish to read a multitude of articles on a variety of topics around the title including several articles on women, Islam, feminism , Afghanistan, Iraq, war etc..
One of it’s themes is …”women’s voices were raised, publicly and massively across the world. But they were not listened to.” Intro xx
Thanks, SL, credit for that translation goes to Norman Davies, though, not me.
“Desert” might be more apt for the context!
The obvious counterpoint is that in lieu of Western intervention the Baathist regime would have eventually collapsed anyway and a civil war ensued. I bet my cotton booties that if this happened the staus of women in Iraq would’ve been no better than it is today.
It is also utterly foolish to think that the CoW has any power to alter the position of women in a patriachal Islamic society in the midst of a war.
And on the lefty black armband theme I’ve been hammering lately, I look forward to LP’s posts on the status of women in North Korea, Burma, Somalia and Sudan the near future.
Well once the WMD rationale collapsed, delivering a modern, secular, tolerant and inclusive ME beacon of light did become the next raison d’être du jour.
Well I’m off to wikipedia to enter that as a classic example of another definition of “concern troll”.
I note too Mel that you have never expressed any concern over how the Ainu have been treated. I take it then you’re in favour of a revival of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, you Nipponese racial supremacist supporter you.
The more I see of you online Mel, the more I think you stand for nothing except trying to stand on others in order to feel taller yourself.
must … resist … urge … to … argue … Tacitus’ … alleged … republicanism …
I was going to make that a bit more complicated, but it rather detracts from the point doesn’t, it?
Which Tacitus. Annals, Germania, something else?
From my readings, he almost went down the “noble savages” path in describing the Germans while criticizing the decadence and over-consumption in Rome.
Perhaps we need a modern equivalent of sumptuary laws?
p.s. Classicism creates leftiness again?
The quote is from the Agricola. It’s part of a speech he puts into the mouth of a Briton chief.
I find it astonishing that the Bone to pick thread has been highlighted in this article as something you might want to dredge up in your favour. Highlighting your cultural relativism, avoidance and disposition towards repeatedly attacking an honourable woman in the name of forging your own kind of feminism that assiduously works to exclude the majority of women from it.
If your feminism is the kind that labels Australian troops as being barbaric and interested in rape and pillage like the Roman imperialists then you are definitely not talking to the majority of Australian women, or to the mother’s of soldiers, and you are not supporting the Australian troops.
You say you are not a pacifist and that you support the action in Afghanistan but what is the difference between the policy there and in Iraq as actually carried out by the dishonourable criminals
Instead of looking at the reality you have argued in emotionally laden terms that seeks to criminalise all troops rather than critically assess the performance and shortcomings of the Australian troops who are putting their life on the line for democracy in a foreign country, and where only a miniscule proportion go outside of their orders to commit criminal acts. And when they do are sought out and punished.
The Janabi case is a beat up that does not withstand scrutiny.
Wake up and smell the coffee Kim
Some beat-up – it even fooled US law enforcement agencies.
I see the Last Superpower is borrowing talking points from George W. Bush. (Quelle surprise!)
STOP ATTACKING THE TROOPS!
The point of the quote, as should be obvious, is not to reflect on the behaviour of the troops (though that might make for an interesting post) but to refer to the situation generally in that shining example of “democracy”, Iraq.
Gummo where is that case about Janabi?
It is a case of the mentally ill snapping but the story is about how that personality disorder was picked up and the person involved was discharged before the rape and murder that he had committed had come to light. It is obviously a very strange and regrettable incident but that incident is conflated to behaviour as usual when clearly it is not.
Kim you are so slippery, fancy trying to get away with saying that quote is not a reflection on the behaviour of troops but a general reflection on democracy in Iraq what justifying rubbish.
BTW I’d rather be on the side of George Bush in this war than you guys being on the side of George Galloway. Ohh – what do you say to the Iraqi on Lateline last night clearly asking the PM and Rudd not to abandon them to the anti-democratic forces of fascism in their country? Go to hell and back and then back again?
I say stay out of our domestic politics, buddy.
He might be better occupied trying to stop the Iraqi Parliament passing a resolution calling for foreign troops to leave the country, if that’s what he believes.
Sorry, there are a lot of people who aren’t George Galloway who’d like to see the Iraq War end. A majority of people in the UK, this country and the US, for a start.
Priceless, coming from you, Odiously Yours.
Steven D (for Dale) Green was one of the US Soldiers accused in the Janabi case. Another, James P Barker, pleaded guilty to charges relating to his involvement in the case last November, according to this CTV report.
You’ve still got a little wiggle room though – although a Google search for “Abeer Qassim al-Janabi” turned up that report, she doesn’t seem to be mentioned by name there. Feel free to use that little omission to your best advantage, as you perceive it. It’s your credibility that’s going to go down the gurgler.
Or perhaps “informally yours” might consider having a read of the article to which the post links and discussing the issues it raised rather than repeating generalised Republican Iraq War talking points?
Geez I love it when the A Team goes in hard.
Kim even though you try to paint those of us who have supported the war in Iraq as blood sucking vampires you yourself support the liberation of Afghanistan by the exact same troops. You’re not a pacifist as you’ve pointed out previously, and I don’t know of anyone posting at LP who is. Yet you post pacifist sentiments that only cloud the issues involved in this stage.
Your original opposition to the war in Iraq is now irrelevant; the current enemies bomb people in exactly the same manner that you have always opposed and that led to your support for the war that was launched against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The enemies have no just cause for their abominable actions, and neither you nor anyone else posting at LP support them; but you ought to go further and oppose them because otherwise your anti-liberation sentiments result in a policy position that is
Of course people want the war to end, as our parent’s and grand-parent’s wanted ww2 to end, but we are not in this war to lose and despite all the doom and gloom in the media – the Iraqi people are defeating their enemies, and they are benefiting from the support of the coalition troops. When the Coalition does leave, Iraq will have become a massive force for region change and it’s not just Iraq that is at stake though that would be sufficient.
Once the free and fair elections in Iraq cleared up all the earlier nonsense about Vietnam or oil etc the moral high ground that people thought they had folded up under them. The elections proved that this war was the exact opposite policy that the U.S. and Australia had followed in Vietnam. The blatant U.S. imperialism in the Vietnam era saw a policy of preventing free and fair elections. Australian leftists, some involved at Lastsuperpower correctly wanted the defeat of our own troops. No leftist wants the enemy in Iraq to win. (Or won’t admit it if they do)
The key to understanding what policies progressives ought to be pursuing right now is to be found in doing what Gummo Trotsky has started to do by quoting a compiled list of the forces involved. But he fails to analyze that list and determine ‘who are our friends and who are our enemies’.
It is necessary to go through the list of the forces that are struggling for power and then take a side based on their policies and track record. It can and ought be done; we are not obliged to throw up our hands and make the demonstrably false claim that they are all as bad as each other, or that it is all too complicated.
The masses in Australia, Britain and the U.S. while currently not having a good grasp of the issues in this war, are not trying to justify their position for political (electoral) purposes. They don’t care about the troops out because they know the war will not end if western troops are withdrawn; they just want their troops out of harms way. So your formulation about them wanting the war to end is wrong. The masses following the line of their right-wing ruling class are just sick of the war.
IMV the masses are at the point where they hate the enemies that are blowing up Iraqi people day after day, as these enemies did on 9/11. That attack convinced you that war (in Afghanistan) was the correct reply. These current attacks deserve the same reply so numbers of people who attend ‘Peace rally’s’ etc are falling in the face of such repulsive enemy conduct.
You think that the people are champing at the bit to elect Rudd, on a troops-out-now policy; we shall see. The first in line for wanting to see our involvement in this war end are the forces who are bombing universities, market places etc and disrupting the democratic and economic processes in Iraq. The enemies are in favor of Rudd’s policy.
The representatives of the Iraqi masses that now constitute the Iraqi government are literally pleading (as we speak) with our political leaders to stay and continue to do the good work that they are doing despite all the risks. This post insults their efforts and spreads confusion. Telling them to stay out of our internal politics is ridiculous. The policy concerns the Iraqi people directly and these leaders are duty bound to let us know their views.
Gummo, IMV you can’t uphold the position that this is not about troop behaviour and still stress these kind of issues: but with regard to misbehaviour before the enemy – writers at Lastsuperpower have always stressed the need for this war to be fought under the international rules of engagement and for accountability measures being enforced against any criminal behaviour.
http://www.lastsuperpower.net/docs/al-torture1
I haven’t followed the Janabi case and I’ve found that further googling does support the link you originally made as being in relation to the Janabi case but it certainly was not obvious. But with all due respect to the girl’s remaining family this is largely irrelevant because the perpetrators were caught and punished and so we have to get back to the question of policy. Is there any suggestion by members at this site that the Janabi murders were a matter of carrying out orders? In actual fact this case harms the war effort and it is not in the interests of CoW countries and so why would they have ordered these kind of atrocities?
These actions harm the war effort as even the perpetrator admits! This behaviour goes against the interests of the ruling elite that sent the troops. They are also against the interests of the left that supports the liberation of the Iraqi People and this is so serious that shooting the offenders is in order. Is that strong enough action as far as you are concerned? Maybe his psychiatric disorder has mitigated against the imposition of the death sentence. It is certainly appropriate to respond to such behaviour with the strongest possible measures that sends a very clear message it won’t be tolerated.
Informally,
How is anything that you’ve just said on the Janabi case consistent with your earlier declaration that “The Janabi case is a beat up that does not withstand scrutiny?”
Gurgle, gurgle.
Informally Yours, I’ll repeat what I said. We all have a very good idea of your position on Iraq by now (which appears fairly unresponsive to the changing situation, but anyway). Rather than yet another very long screed about “the masses”, etc, would you kindly address yourself to the topic of the post?
Gummo how does anything you just wrote get Kim off the hook for posting emotionally laden generalisations about the behaviour of the troops and then denying it?
Re Janabi i have already indicated that my understanding of the case was flawed – i haven’t had time to trace back to a few months ago when i was reading something about the case that indicated the conclusion i reached that it was a beat up – however i intend to do so and if necessary will correct any mistaken perspectives there may have been on it.
BTW at the end of the second paragraph there is a sentence somehow cut off – it ought to have read… but you ought to go further and oppose them because otherwise your anti-liberation sentiments result in a policy position that is used by the enemy.
Last warning – please stay on topic.