Free after 50 years of tyranny [Great re. Iraq ~ read past the beginning.]

Guardian - U.K. ^ | Oct. 5, 2003 | Julie Flint

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Comment

---

Free after 50 years of tyranny

We may have fought for the wrong reasons, but there is more good than bad in post-Saddam Iraq

Julie Flint
Sunday October 5, 2003
The Observer

Half a century ago, in a blistering denunciation of the Korean war, the British war correspondent Reginald Thompson wrote: 'It was clear that there was something profoundly disturbing about this campaign and something profoundly disturbing about its commander-in-chief.' Thompson's words could equally well apply to the US-led campaign in Iraq and its commander-in-chief: George W. Bush, head of a cabal that seeks to install a client regime in Iraq as a first step to bringing the region under American-Israeli control.

As last week's report by the Iraqi Survey Group makes clear, the stated rationale for the Anglo-American war - destruction of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction - was at best exaggerated and at worst plain wrong. There was a case for deposing Saddam, the Pol Pot of the Arab world, but it was not the case made by George Bush and Tony Blair. They could have pleaded Saddam's past use of WMD against his own people; the present threat, from his security services, to every Iraqi man, woman and child; the future threat from WMD, and biological weapons in particular, for, as the ISG report also makes clear, Saddam was concealing work on two BW agents and conducting new research into two others. But they didn't. Their unilateral war may make Iraq more safe, but the wider world less so. Disturbing, indeed.

But there is something disturbing, too, about the way that post-war Iraq has been portrayed. Visceral distrust of Bush/Blair has created a disregard both for fact and for the victims of Saddam. Arab commentators have had no shame in urging Iraqis, exhausted by three wars and more than a decade of sanctions, to launch a new war 'of liberation' against their liberators. Western commentators have luxuriated in the setbacks of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), as if wishing failure upon it - and by extension, the Iraqi people.

Disaster has been prophesied, self-servingly, at every turn: the war would be long (it wasn't, and most Iraqis had no direct experience of it); tens of thousands would die in the battle for Baghdad (they didn't); there would be a fully-fledged humanitarian disaster (there wasn't). Now, we are told, Iraqis fear the very real prospect of civil war. Not those I know. Not yet. Nor those polled in Baghdad last month by Gallup: 62 per cent thought getting rid of Saddam was worth the suffering they've endured; 67 per cent thought their lives will be better five years from now.

From the very beginning, the anti-war lobby has refused to listen to those Iraqis who supported war over continued tyranny. Banners saying 'Freedom for Iraq' were confiscated at anti-war rallies and photographs of Halabja, where Saddam gassed 5,000 Kurdish civilians, were seized. No voice was given to people such as Freshta Raper, who lost 21 relatives in Halabja and wanted to ask: 'How many of you have asked an Iraqi mother how she felt when forced to watch her son being executed? How many know that these mothers had to applaud as their sons died? What is more moral: freeing an oppressed, brutalised people from a vicious tyrant or allowing millions to continue suffering indefinitely?'

In the summer I spent more than a month in Iraq. What I found did not correspond to what was being reported - most crucially, that the liberators were already widely denounced as occupiers. As a rule, that simply wasn't true. In Baghdad, where US forces had permitted looting (although not as much as reported) and where security and services were virtually non-existent, attitudes towards the Americans were mixed. But even in Baghdad, even with Saddam and his sons still at large, the sense of relief at the toppling of the regime was palpable.

A university lecturer living above a bakery where colleagues were burned alive told me: 'I feel as if I have been born again. Iraq was a prison above ground and a mass grave beneath it.'

Outside Baghdad, in the Shia south, the mood was overwhelmingly upbeat. In Basra, ordinary people gave the thumbs-up at the mere sight of a Brit. In Najaf, a waiter blew kisses.

The occupying forces admittedly got off to a wretched start. In stressing stability, the first US administrator, General Jay Garner, opened the doors of the new Iraq to discredited servants of the old Iraq. His successor, Paul Bremer, went to the opposite extreme, disbanding the entire Iraqi army and in so doing making enemies of half a million serving and retired officers and NCOs.

But Bremer has belatedly accepted the need for greater reliance on Iraqis in the field of security - more than 55,000 are now enrolled in law-enforcement services - and has set about transforming a bankrupt economy burdened with a Stalinist industrial structure and three decades of mismanagement.

He has yet to announce a timetable for restoring sovereignty to Iraqis. But he has ushered in an Iraqi governing council that embraces a range of opinion unequalled in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and an Iraqi cabinet that is not without virtue. 'These are people who have been to Harvard, Oxford and MIT... educated people!' says an Iraqi archaeologist who opposed the war. 'Some of Saddam's Ministers hadn't got beyond primary school.' All Iraqi cities and 85 per cent of towns have fully functioning municipalities. The nine district councils of Baghdad that form the city council meet regularly and appear to work harmoniously.

'The degree of transparency and cooperation in the work of the council is impressive,' says Rend Rahim Francke of the Iraq Foundation, a non-governmental organisation working for democracy and human rights. 'Self-government, long advocated for Iraq, appears to be working well when put into practice.'

For the first time in almost half a century, Iraq has no executions, no political prisoners, no torture and almost no limits on freedom of expression. Having a satellite receiver no longer means imprisonment or even death. There are almost 200 newspapers and magazines that require no police permit and suffer no censorship, and more than 70 political parties and dozens of NGOs. Old professional associations have held elections and new associations have sprung up. People can demonstrate freely - and do.

Unemployment is still a huge problem, but more people have jobs and salaries have risen both for qualified people seeking work in the private sector and for civil servants. Shops are overflowing with imported goods. Food prices are lower thanin Saddam's last years. In Baghdad, the electricity is on more often than off. (In Lebanon, that took years to achieve.) More Iraqi policemen are on the streets, directing traffic, guarding buildings and enforcing the law. Approximately 85 per cent of primary and secondary schools have reopened. Outside Baghdad, security and services are better and crime is lower.

Western reporters detail, quite properly, the misdeeds, the crimes even, of the occupying forces. But this is only part of the story. 'The behaviour of US occupation troops has indeed at times been unacceptable, but on many more occasions it has been innocuous,' says Mustafa Alrawi, managing editor of English-language weekly Iraq Today. One line being peddled today is that there is growing popular support for a war of resistance against the CPA and Iraqis working with it. The number of violent deaths is unacceptable - among Americans and Iraqis alike - but this doesn't mean that there is a popular Iraqi resistance.

Iraq is not Vietnam. At the root of the current instability are the very people most Iraqis reject - the remnants of Saddam's Baath party, and extremists flooding in from neighbouring countries in hope of establishing religious rule. They, not the liberators/occupiers, are the real threat to peace in Iraq and stability in the wider region today.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

 Thanks, Tonkin!

[Support Free Republic]

There's A Better Way To Beat The Media Clymers (And You Don't Have To Skate)!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

A university lecturer living above a bakery where colleagues were burned alive told me: 'I feel as if I have been born again. Iraq was a prison above ground and a mass grave beneath it.'

...For the first time in almost half a century, Iraq has no executions, no political prisoners, no torture and almost no limits on freedom of expression.

Brit journalist standing up for most of the truth, in enemy press territory.

Iraqis are FREE thanks to the US military, Coalition allies, Pres. Bush and Tony Blair, ping!

If you want on or off my Pro-Coalition ping list, please Freepmail me. Warning: it is a high volume ping list on good days. (Most days are good days).

[Alamo-Girl]

Bump!

[okie01]

"There was a case for deposing Saddam, the Pol Pot of the Arab world, but it was not the case made by George Bush and Tony Blair. They could have pleaded Saddam's past use of WMD against his own people; the present threat, from his security services, to every Iraqi man, woman and child; the future threat from WMD, and biological weapons in particular, for, as the ISG report also makes clear, Saddam was concealing work on two BW agents and conducting new research into two others. But they didn't. Their unilateral war may make Iraq more safe, but the wider world less so. Disturbing, indeed."

It's obvious that Julie Flint wasn't paying attention. Or is willfully misconstruing everything that Bush and Blair said on the subject.

Nonetheless, as you point out, once you get past the obligatory liberal boilerplate, Ms. Flint seems suitably appreciative of the truth in Iraq. And, unlike her colleagues, is actually prepared to report it.

Perhaps, if you could just drape the first two paragraphs in black crepe...

[elbucko]

Iraq is not Vietnam.

No it's not. Had it been, Bush would not have invaded. Bush was willing to sacrifice his second presidential term with the decision to invade Iraq. LBJ, OTOH, did not want loosing So. Vietnam to the communists to insure his defeat for a second term in 1968.

No, Iraq is not Vietnam. Not by a long shot.

[WOSG]

It's obvious that Julie Flint wasn't paying attention. Or is willfully misconstruing everything that Bush and Blair said on the subject."

Dittos on that!!!

How many times have we heard the Democrats and the left whine "Bush didnt do X" or "Bush doesnt have a plan" ... when in fact he has a plan, he has said those things, the left just needs to listen:


"The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

[cake_crumb]

"They could have pleaded Saddam's past use of WMD against his own people; the present threat, from his security services, to every Iraqi man, woman and child; the future threat from WMD, and biological weapons in particular, for, as the ISG report also makes clear, Saddam was concealing work on two BW agents and conducting new research into two others."

Yes, they did make the case just like that, multiple times. Particularly President Bush. If you read the transcripts of his words or listen to the cached clips of his speeches rather than listen to media propaganda, that is EXACTLY the case he made. The Kay report in NO WAY shows that claims of Saddam's WMD program were either exaggerated OR wrong.

You're right though RC...it was hard to get past the beginning, but the rest of the story was well worth reading. I stuck with it because you posted it so it had to get better ;- )

[cake_crumb]

I'm still trying to figure out how ANYONE can seriously believe that "their" (implying more than one, just Bush/Blair=two countries, and 19 were involved in the coalition) is "unilateral". Unilateral means just one alone. Iraq was not "unilateral" or even "bilateral": it's multilateral.

I guess the author was trying to prove she is "fair and balanced" by throwing in the goofy statements she made, because her assessment of post-war Iraq is intelligent enough that she can't have done the rest out of stupidity. At least, I hope not.

[blackie]

Iraqis are FREE thanks to the US military, Coalition allies, Pres. Bush and Tony Blair ~ Bump!

[blackie]

The evidence is there ~ Too bad the pro-Saddam democrats and their lackeys in the media as so brain dead!

[blackie]

Are so ~ not, as so. *sigh*

[okie01]

"I guess the author was trying to prove she is "fair and balanced" by throwing in the goofy statements she made, because her assessment of post-war Iraq is intelligent enough that she can't have done the rest out of stupidity."

Perhaps the first two paragraphs were simply the price of getting published in the Guardian/Observer.

What's a little ritual Bush-and-Blair-bashing, if you think of it as a bribe...

[Ditter]

I have been e-mailing stories like this to my friends & family. I have gotten many 'thank yous' from them because they have not read these things in their local papers. Several have said they had become despondent at the steady stream of bad news. Some said they did not have the time to search things like this out. Everyone should consider spreading this good news from Iraq.

[claudiustg]

"Half a century ago, in a blistering denunciation of the Korean war, the British war correspondent Reginald Thompson wrote: 'It was clear that there was something profoundly disturbing about this campaign and something profoundly disturbing about its commander-in-chief."

Yeah, that they were profoundly anti-Communist! The leftist putz heads never change! They're like gravity, always pulling everything down.

[MonroeDNA]

I guess I've been around here for about 6 years or so now. Time sure flies!

When Jim Robinson started this site, it was because he was fed up with the liberal media, and how they would not let people worldwide know about the corruption of the Clinton Administration. A few of us, equally concerned, (with great luck) found it fast.

In the early days, FR was a day-to-day operation, always on the brink of bankruptcy. Jim kept on, and we chipped in when it became too much. We knew how important this site was, and is. Sometimes, it came down to the wire, and we wrote checks, and sent them in, as best we could.

Look at it now. We all get our best information from this site. It is huge, with thousands of posters, and millions of readers. Yet Jim still keeps it alive because of his conviction, and he is absolutely NOT making a profit on it. He just believes. As do we.

BTW, did you know that the founder of this site is in a wheelchair (sorry Jim; I know you think it doesn't make a r*ts a$$ difference. Hey, some folks out there need to come down a peg, like I have.).

Think of it! In the darkest days of the Clinton Administration, there was a lone internet site where people with integrity, brains, and sheer gumption could discuss the dangers faced by the US. Not on CNN, for sure.

Earthmovers like Drudge, Ann Coulter, Rush, WFBuckley, his brother, Savage, Buchanan, both houses of Congress (many) check in to see what we think.

The opposition checks it out, too. Like the NY times staff, CNN, AFL-CIO, China, etc. Trust me, they all come here to read. Even YOUR post. You know by now how they are whining about Rush? We're next, as soon as they figure out how they can trash this site without it getting a million hits.

I've been broke; I've been not broke. I've slept in my car. I know how it feels to be squeezed tight with bills. Folks with giant bills: You're not alone, and you have friends here. :)

If you love this site as much as I do, please, please sign up for automatic payment of just $3 per month. Don't be embarrassed if you think this is too little. It absolutely is not. You $3 a month folks are our grassroots movement heroes. Be proud. Become one of the thousand points of light here, and you will so feel proud every month. We'll thank you for it, and are so glad to have you on board.

I know things are rough out there. But you are tough, and a member of the greatest grassroots freedom movement in 100 years. Together we are making history, and will change the world, as we already have. The best is yet to come.

Most countries out there would consider this website illegal. They hate us, for our freedom. Their systems cannot stand, in the face of Freedom. The people there read us when they can, when they are “allowed” to, and are not being tortured. They flock to us, America, because they want to be free. Help us help them.

Would you please, please consider signing up for just $3 a month? Please? That’s all it takes, really, believe it or not. You will make a world of difference, to, well, the world. Be proud, Americans, and please help out!

[cake_crumb]

"Perhaps the first two paragraphs were simply the price of getting published in the Guardian/Observer."

That occurred to me. HEY, speaking of bribes, maybe the NY Slimes will pick it up too! Nah...probably not.

[VOA]

We may have fought for the wrong reasons, but there is more good than bad in post-Saddam Iraq

Even if that is the honest sentiment for our brave U.K. and Australian allies,
I think this actually applies:

We fought for our reasons, but PROVIDENCE supplied the actual, final reasons.
As in how the Union went to war to preserve the Union, then found a higher
calling in liberating human beings.
just my fallible opinion...

[Valin]

Bump

[Valin]

Sometimes it seems that we've gone from not enough info, to too much info. Talk about an embarassment of riches. There are days when I spend my whole time just reading the articles for the few pinglists I'm on.

OH the strain..a lesser man would collapse under the stress.
$3.00 a month...that's nothing.