In the Red Zone

EMANCIPATION DAY

Tonight, many of us will celebrate in the time-honored tradition of high spirits and good-fellowship, the arrival of 2005.  One hundred and forty-two years ago this night, people across the continent also welcomed the passing of the old into the new--many of them with a joy they had not believed possible.  These were people of African descent, and they knew that, at the stroke of midnight 1863, Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation took effect, technically freeing millions of men and women enslaved by the Confederate States of America.

One month from today, the Iraqi people will--insha'allah--vote in the first free elections ever held in that nation's tortured history.  As with the Emancipation Proclamation, however, "free" is a relative term.  How "free" elections can be in a country where foreign troops must guard voters against paramilitary gunmen who seek to murder democracy is open to debate.  We might, though, exercise some self-restraint and allow some Iraqis a say in this matter.  As the renown trio of bloggers at Iraq the Model expressed in a December 29th post entitled "God Bless All the Lists,"

Iraqis' response to terror was so clear; after the terrorists, or the so-called insurgents, threatened to slaughter anyone who participates in the elections, 7,200 Iraqis rushed to announce their candidacy.  YES, 7,200 Iraqis represented more than 200 different political parties--and I believe this makes the image clearer for the viewer.

Will the Iraqi elections be "free?"  Possibly not by the standards of Jimmy Carter or U.N. officials; certainly not the lights of the anti-war camp who, unthreatened by fascist paramilitaries, reactionary psychopaths and random acts of unspeakable violence, make a fetish of their own moral purity.  But we, who support this war, should not allow they, who do not, let the perfect defeat the good.  What will happen in Iraq on January 30 will not be ideal.  It will not be neat or completely satisfactory.  But after the horrors the Iraqi people have suffered, and continue to endure, it will be good.  Perhaps, like the Emancipation Proclamation, it will be miraculous.

We might further pause to consider what happened nearly 150 years ago.  How, culminating decades of mounting tension, the rebel shelling of Fort Sumter precipitated a war that nearly destroyed the United States, yet led, with the Union's victory, to the 14th Amendment and the legal--if not practical--abolishment of slavery.  We might reflect, as well, on the difficult period of the Reconstruction.   Then, as now, a "foreign" army "occupied" a defeated nation; then, as now, hooded paramilitaries called the Ku Klux Klan "resisted" the occupiers and sought to terrorize people back into slavery; then, as now, the process of freedom met numerous setbacks and failures--and to many, the process is not yet complete.  We might also ponder the fact, contra the arguments of the anti-war camp, democracy can--and has been--imposed on a recalcitrant population at the point of a gun.

The liberation and reconstruction of Iraq is part of a larger conflict against Islamofascism.  Just as, say, the Union drive across Tennessee contributed to the demise of slavery, so too victory in Iraq will help roll back the tide of tribal and religious oppression that has gripped the Middle East (often, unfortunately, with our blessing and assistance.)  This is another way of saying that at the base of this war lie fundamental concepts of freedom and dignity.  Or, to put it more simply, the battle for Iraq's future is a matter of human rights.  It is a moral, as much as a military, conflict.

To discredit America's commitment to Iraq, many leftists liken it to Vietnam, knowing full well the chilling effect memories of the Southeast Asian "quagmire" have on public opinion.  We should contest their rhetoric with analogies to the Civil War, whose no less chilling memories find noble meaning in the moral imperative of the conflict.  The war--never wholly popular in the North--may not have started for the purpose of freeing enslaved peoples, but, guided by Lincoln's vision and eloquence, that's how it ended.

September 11 was our Fort Sumter.  After years of increasingly bold assaults from Islamofascists, that attack drew us into a confusing and uncertain war for issues that only gradually have become clear.  (How many people before 9-11 knew about Wahhabism?  Or truly cared about the despotism of Saddam Hussein?  Or concerned themselves with the status of women in the Middle East?)  Now, we find ourselves engaged, like the North, in a war to drag a large segment of the human race into the modern world.  Refusing to recognize the necessity of this endeavor, our "peace" activist friends posit objections based on Saddam's supposed inability to threaten the U.S., the lack of WMDs, worldwide castigation of the war and the additional suffering it inflicts on the Iraqi people.  All reasonable, valid and in many ways true.  But like the reasonable, valid and truthful arguments leveled against the Civil War--"Lincoln's War"--they fall short as criteria with which to judge the moral necessity of the conflict:  to free enslaved human beings.

December 31, 1862 also witnessed the battle of Stone River, or Murfreesboro.  Fought in western Tennessee, the battle cost 12,906 Union and 11,739 Confederate casualties, the eighth most bloody battle of the Civil War.  But with that victory, the North secured most of Tennessee and moved a step closer--despite future reversals--to defeating the Confederacy.  Most importantly, the Union lives spent in that battle joined with the sacrifice of thousands of others during the course of the war to make New Year's Day, 1863--Emancipation Day--an event whose promise was long delayed, but certain to arrive.  As Martin Luther King declared a century later, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

A month from now, we will witness that arc and see where it will bend.  We can only pray the the Iraqi people rise to the occasion, and meet its call.  It is not a sure thing.  Although the freedom train eventually reaches the station, the passage is difficult and the schedule unclear--and many wait their lives in vain.  Federal troops may not have given a hardtack biscuit for Confederate slaves, but their sacrifices led to the freedom of those African men and women.  From the ashes of the World Trade Center to dusty palm groves of the Sunni Triangle to places yet to come, Americans--soldiers and civilians alike--are making the same sacrifice for the same cause of freedom.  And, God willing, we shall prevail.

Best wishes to everyone for a safe and prosperous New Year. 

TRIBAL ISLAM WATCH III

Fodder of the Bride

We've all heard of the abominable practice of FGM, or female genital mutilation, but yesterday's Wall Street Journal acquainted us with an additional  horror inflicted upon women in Arab countries:  gavage.  Not the force-feeding of geese, but the intentional fattening of teen-age girls--particularly in the African country of Mauritania--in order to heighten their appeal as prospective brides.  The Journal's Gautam Naik reports the childhood experience of one Mauritanian woman.

When she was 8, her mother began to force-feed her.  [She] was required to consume a gallon of milk and porridge for lunch.  She was awoken at midnight and given several more pints of milk followed by a pre-breakfast feeding at 6 a.m.

If she threw up, her mother forced her to eat the vomit.  Stretch marks appeared on her body and the skin on her upper arm and her thighs tore under the pressure.  If she balked at the feedings, her mother would squeeze her toes between two wooden sticks until the pain was unbearable.

According to the Journal, Mauritania is--blessedly--the only country where gavage is systematically applied. (So-called "fattening huts," where women beef up before marriage are common in certain African tribal cultures in places like Nigeria)  As the paper explains,

In a land that suffers from a constant shortage of food, plump women are assumed to both wealthy and more likely to bear children.

A 2001 survey of 7,000 adult women carried out by the Mauritanian government (which also countences slavery, we should note) indicated that some 22 percent had been force-fed when young; 15 percent said that their "skin split as a result of over-eating;" 20 percent had their toes or fingers broken to make them eat. 

Oh, and in case you're wondering, "most men in Mauritania are slim," the Journal observes.

Interestingly, the paper quotes a 19 year-old Mauritanian law student who is "slender by Western standards."  Her dieting secret?

exposure to Western TV show and magazines convinced her it's healthier to maintain a middling weight.

Television, it seems, is good for something.

Divorce, Egyptian style

From the Cairo newspaper Al-Ahram we learn that a new Human Rights Watch (HRW) report indicates that women suffer great inequalities under Egypt's divorce laws.  According to Al-Ahram writer Gihan Shahine, the report notes that Egyptian males enjoy

unilateral and unconditional right to divorce.  They do not even need to enter a courtroom in order to end their marriages.

Women, conversely, must either prove harm (supported by witnesses), or forfeit their financial rights in a kuhl, or "no-fault divorce."   Worse, they must take their case to court, navigating a generally hopeless course through complicated procedures and evidentiary requirements that the HRW report calls "inherently discriminatory."  As a result, the reports concludes, women

either remain in an unwanted marriage and possibly endure physical and psychological abuse, or beg their husbands to divorce them, giving up everything they own and cherish in return.

A woman who leaves her husband and files for divorce can find herself the subject of legal harassment from her spouse, in addition to being denied access to government assistance because she is still married.  Even after divorce, the Egyptian government often fails to enforce court rulings on alimony and child support.

One root of the problem is the co-existence of secular statutes and Islamic law called shari'a--which is other way of saying that Egyptian women suffer the lack of  separation between mosque and state.  The Egyptian constitution, for example, contains provisions for gender equality, and the government has signed international treaties observing equal rights.  By the same token, however, Article 60 of the  criminal code states

The provisions of the penal code shall not apply to any deed committed in good faith, pursuant to a right determined by virtue of the shari'a.

Translation:  in certain cases, if you've done something "in good faith" following Islamic law, it's not a crime.  And what are those certain cases where Allah gives you a "Get out of jail free" card?  An Egyptian member of the HRW teams tells Shahine

The government has been very selective in terms of where it requires shari'a to be the root of the law and where it doesn't.  This is, of course, a problem, because most of the places where the government requires shari'a...are those where women bear the main brunt of the effect.

Are we surprised? 

Article 60, the HRW contends, is "used to justify domestic violence," and creates a situation where Egyptian law actually sanctions  the "'disciplining' of 'disobedient' women."  (In case you're concerned about what kind of physical punishment shari'a allows, you'll be relieved to know that it cannot be 1) severe; 2) directed at a woman's face; and 3) aimed at a "fatal blow area.")  As the report quotes one male Cairo poltician, "A man has the right in shari'a to discipline his wife."

Unfortunately, If statistics are any measure, the politician's wife probably agrees.  Noting a 1995 government survey, the HRW comments, "violence is so normalized in Egyptian society" that

nearly 86 percent of the women surveyed thought that husbands were justified in beating their wives under certain circumstances. On average, 70 percent of the women surveyed between the ages of 15 to 49 felt that husbands were justified in beating wives who refused sex. An estimated 70 percent of women between the ages of 20 and 29 surveyed by the National Population Center said that violence was justified if a woman “talked back” to their husbands; 65 percent said a beating was justified for talking to another man; 42 percent for spending too much money; 26 percent for burning dinner; and 50 percent for neglecting the children.

Many women whom HRW interviewed "endorsed domestic violence as a legitimate form of punishment for disobedience."  Perhaps it's time we dust off the old Marxist notion of "false consciousness?"

Finally, the fact that America-based HRW would have the audacity to propose alternatives to Islamic law has enraged many Egyptians--especially since the group recently released a report on, Allah preserve us, homosexuality in Egypt.  According to Shahine, critics have accused HRW of having a "hidden agenda" linked to "U.S. social reform plans for the Middle East (if only; HRW denies this).  Not only that, but many conservative Muslims have denounced the report as--one guess--"anti-Islamic."

Are we surprised?

More:  Jamie Glazov at Frontpage Magazine tackles the volatile issue of feminism and Islam.  Check it out here.

PILGRIMS' PROGRESS

Blocked by tour buses disgorging streams of passengers, cars approaching the Al-Askari mosque in Samarra slowed to a halt. Normally unflappable in even the worst traffic, my driver Dhia slapped the dashboard. "What they couldn't do with soldiers in the war, they're doing with religious pilgrims!" he snarled.

"They" were Iranians. One of the untold stories about Iraq are the Shia pilgrims that have poured into the country since its liberation, eager to visit sites sacred to their faith. U.S. officials have long worried that this flood of devotionalists--up to 3,000 a day, by some estimates--provided perfect cover for criminals, terrorists and Iranian agents. This Persian influx has alarmed other countries, as well: in a recent Washington Post interview, Jordan's King Abdullah warned that "one million" Iranians had crossed into Iraq. Perhaps, in part, to allay these fears, on December 22, Iran closed the border, citing "security threats" to pilgrims entering the country. But it doesn't matter now: the armies of Shia faithful have already transformed Iraqi into something no one, a few years ago, could have expected.

During my time in Iraq this year, for example, I watched my Baghdad hotel segregate its bar with an interior wall so not to offend Iranian diners, for whom alcohol is forbidden. Other hotels and restaurants created alcohol sections, or ceased to serve booze altogether. Many hotels simply turned themselves into Iranian-only establishments. (Interestingly, these hotels were generally the safest from terrorist attacks, since Americans and foreigner workers did not congregate there.)

Beyond Baghdad, changes were even starker. Along with tour buses, a common sight in Najaf and Karbala were dozens of guides holding small flags and speaking through portable loudspeakers as they shepherded their charges toward various mosques and shrines. Instead of the all-black abiyas favored by Iraqi women, you saw blue or purple chadors--often decorated with white polka-dot or flower patterns--worn by Iranians. Religious knick-knack sellers addressed you first in Farsi and initially offered change in Iranian rials. At the religious festival of Ashura in Karbala last March, I was surprised to discover that Iranians comprised most of the millions of pilgrims flooding the city.

Sometimes, this invasion worked to my benefit. People assumed I was Iranian--good for disguising an American identity. Once, when buying fruit in Karbala, the grocer treated me rudely--and I spoke to him in English. "Amrikiyya?" he smiled, eyes widening. Evidently, the only people less popular than Yanks were Iranians. And no wonder: along with the normal complaints about tourists, Iraqis grumbled about wealthy Persians buying property in Karbala and Najaf and driving up rents. Hotel rates had tripled.

For the Shia, Iraq is the veritable Holy Land. Six of their twelve holy Imams are buried there. Their third most sacred site (behind Mecca and the Dome of the Rock) is the Tomb of Ali in Najaf (the site, as we recall, of fighting between U.S. Marines and al-Mahdi militiamen loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr.) Situated outside the city is the Valley of Peace--an enormous cemetery comprising millions of graves, including Abraham's and Isaac's; people interred in this necropolis, many Shia maintain, enjoy an express pass to Paradise. For its part, Karbala is the resting place of Ali's son, Hussain, and the site of the 7th century battle that split the Sunni and Shia branches of Islam.

Pilgrimage is big business. Indeed, some Iraqi's believe that al-Sadr twice seized Najaf this year in part to control the lucrative trade in religious tourism, including the so-called "corpse traffic" into the Valley of Peace. By the same token, though, Sadr's disruption of these enterprises weakened his support amongst Najaf's merchants, leading him to withdraw from the city.

Then there are, as always, the Iranians. Because Saddam ruthlessly suppressed Shiism, the sect's theological center became the north-central Iranian city of Qom. Nowadays, however, Najaf is reasserting itself as the traditional focus of religious learning, as well as a more important pilgrim site. Qom's diminishing status may have incited one of the most spectacular assassinations in Iraq. In August, 2003, a massive car bomb in Najaf killed Ayatollah al Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Many Iraqis whisper that Sadr was "contracted" by his Iranian paymasters to whack Hakim, in large part because SCIRI was running an illegal pilgrim trade--$50 a head--and cutting into the flow of money to Qom. (It's typical of many Iraqis to speak of their spiritual leaders as if they were Mafioso.)

Once it resumes, will this this cross-border traffic absorb Iraq into a pan-Shia confederation, as King Abdullah fears? I doubt it. Too many differences between the nations exist: Iraqis are Arabs, Iranians are Persian. Iraqis are not religious fanatics, nor foolish enough to relinquish their government to Iranian mullahs--especially when they see what Khomeini-style leadership has brought to Iran. Lastly, there's Iraqi pride: "Throughout our history," a journalist once told me, "our people have exported religious doctrines. We do not import them."

Chances are, even with the pilgrim trade and Iranian trouble-making, Shia-run Iraq will remain its own player, anchored in the clerical "Quietism" championed by Ayatollah Sistani, in addition to the traditions of its Mesopotamian past. Still, in the not-too-distant future, when Western tourists return to the Land Between the Rivers, it might behoove them to learn not only Arabic, but a little Farsi, too.

IN OSAMA'S FACE

Don't it just make you yearn for the good old days?  Now, lest you think you've linked to James Lileks by mistake, I thought I'd make a point by posting these images of Cap punchin' Adolph's schnozzola (interestingly enough, this comic book came out in February 1941--10 months before Pearl Harbor) and Bugs doing a short-arm inspection of Hermann Goering.  Given that an older generation had no trouble lampooning their fascist enemies, we have to ask ourselves, Where are the similar yucks today? 

Surely you'd think that people who plot terrorist attacks in caves, declare anyone who votes in Iraq's elections to be an "infidel", force women to walk around in polyester bags and chain the imaginations of millions to a code of law and behavior already out of date 10 centuries ago are ripe for ridicule and satire. Yeah, you'd think. But except for Team America, you'd be wrong.

Here's the Koran on the proper Islamic attitude toward those giving the religion a tickle in the ribs:

If you question them, they will say:  "We were only jesting and making merry."  Say:  "Would you mock God, His revelations, and His apostle?  Make no excuses.  You have renounced the faith after embracing it. " (9:65-66)

Whoops.  Since the penalty for leaving the faith--apostasy--is death, no wonder Muslim humor doesn't quite have 'em rolling in the aisles on the Hajj.

Actually, Islamic lore contains a warm tradition of tweaking the religion's collective beard.  Here's one hilarious example.  Seems that fun-loving 7th-century tribal leader and poet Abu Shadier once "satirized" Islam with this side-splitting bit of verse directed at various Muslim bigwigs: 

My spear shall play havoc with the regiments of Khalid, and I trust thereafter to crush Abu Bakr and Umar.

The laughter had barely died down when Abu Shadier was captured and brought in chains to Medina, whereupon the madcap Muslim repented and was spared an agonizing death and eternal damnation.  Allah knows best!

In the inimitable tradition of Abu Shadier are today's folks at the Muslim Youth Web, who assure us that "Humor and joking is permitted in Islam. However it must be done in a good, clean manner."  To show us just how darn funny the Prophet could be, the website directs us to this uproarious anecdote narrated by none other than Islam's "It" gal and Mohammad's favorite child-wife, Aisha:

Some young men from the Quraysh visited Aisha as she was in Mina and they (the audience) were laughing. She said: What makes you laugh? They said: Such and such person stumbled against the rope of the tent and he was about to break his neck or lose his eyes. She said: Don't laugh for I heard Allah's Apostle (peace be upon him) saying: If a Muslim runs a thorn or (gets into trouble) more severe than this, there is assured for him (a higher) rank and his sins are obliterated. [Sahih Muslim, #6237]

(In truth, there is at least one pretty funny site dedicated to satirizing Islam--Islamic Humor Unhinged.  Still, scroll down and read the disclaimer.  While we're at it, does anyone else have sites we could check out?)

As for non-Muslims, our multi-culti mullahs have become so humorless they make Ayatollah Sistani look like Jon Stewart on Comedy Central.  The problem, of course, is that Islamofascism combines two sacred cows (to mix faiths):  religion and ethnicity.  Oh, yeah, and since Osama is probably dragging around a dialysis machine from cave to cave, he's also disabled.  And homeless, too...?

Still, when you have "analysts" like Michael Scheuer, a.k.a. "Anonymous" describing the lanky mass-murderer as a

genuinely pious Muslim; a devoted family man...and an individual of conviction, intellectual honesty, compassion, humility, and physical bravery

it's no wonder we're not seeing too many metaphorical whoopie-cushions slipped under the Saudi's robes  ("Oh, Osama--not in the cave, for Allah's sake!").  We can only look with envy on the World War II generation and such classics as Disney's "Der Fuehrer's Face," to which Sean Fitzpatrick at Logomachon kindly links us. 

As I've written before--and Team America's Trey Parker and Matt Stone clearly understand--laughter is an essential weapon in our war against Islamofascism.  But more than that:  these imams and clerics and sheiks with their grim, self-important puritanism, medieval shari'a code, and bizarre conspiracy theories--Lo! By Aisha's camel!--they are just so damn funny...

UPDATE:  Perhaps this is one reason why we're not lampooning Islamic pretentiousness--and this doesn't come from politically-correct Canada or Berkeley, but Australia.  (Thanks to Cella's Review.)

UPDATE II:  Seems there are humorous Islamic websites out there, at least in a manner of speaking.  Check out Sean Fitzpatrick's comments to this post for a small list.  Meanwhile, an imam, a camel and a halal butcher walk into a bar...

VOICES FROM IRAQ

Recently I received an e-mail from Khalid, a journalist I met in Basra, where he was an up-and-coming reporter for one of the city's largest newspaper.  At the time, he was a very pro-American young man, who, like many Iraqis, felt anxious--but excited--about the future of post-Saddam Iraq.  His correspondence, therefore, came as an unpleasant surprise  I wish I could offer better news, but if I'm going to invite my friends to contribute on this blog, I must present their comments as they write them, negative assessments and all. 

After chastising me for not writing him sooner, Khalid adds,

Steven, I felt exhausted all the time from the stress we suffered.  Sometimes, it seemed we needed a priest to not only to tell about our sins, but how others hurt us and we could never ward off that hurt.

You can't imagine what the situation is like now in Iraq.  The situation is horrible, nebulous, with many clouds on the horizon.  Do you remember when you asked me about the future?  My answer was that things looked very good!  Now, I have to have the courage to say I was totally wrong.  I am very sorry to say that.

There are things that are sometimes lost "in translation"--but Iraq has been lost in occupation.  It is such a bitter irony.  Our country is run by Mafias.  The leaders and parties we know are hauling everything away for their own gain.

Steven, Basra looks like a town in the American West, where gangsters and killers become the only authority and anyone who tries to discover their crimes will be shut-down and presented as a criminal and an outlaw!. 

It is like this:  the gangsters control the government and steal money through many different ways, but most particularly through fictitious contracts.  Their militias wear the uniform of the Iraqi National Guard.  They are loyal only to their party chieftains.

Finally, I could not take it any longer and quit my journalism job.  I'm no longer "on the ground" in Iraq.  I now live in Saudi Arabia and don't know when or if I will return to Basra.

Last spring, my friend Nour and I sat down in Basra's Hamdan Restaurant with Khalid and two other corresondents from his newspaper, where they told me about the difficult problems of carrying out "true" journalism in their country.  Under the passive noses of the British, they complained, criminal gangs had taken control of Iraq's second largest city, earning money through extortion, fuel smuggling and liquor and drug dealing.  Moreover, favoritism, bribery and graft--particularly through the use of phony contracting--was rampant. 

"We can't do our jobs as journalists," one complained.  "If we push too hard on certain issues, we can get in trouble.  Or worse, we can get killed."   When I asked what these "certain issues" were and with whom, he shook his head.  "I'd rather not say."  I didn't press him on the issue, for such was the climate of fear in Basra that to even suggest the existence of problem could result in a gangland-style warrant of execution.

IRAQ, DISCONNECTED

Khalid's story is not the only bad tidings originating from the Land of Ur this Yuletide season.  On December 22, Contrack International announced it was terminating a $325 million agreement it had reached with the U.S. to repair Iraq's roads, bridges, railways and ports.  According to military officials, the Arlington, Virginia-based firm based its decision, in part, on security problems.  As a officer with the Iraq Project and Contracting Office told the WaPo:

The security environment is such that the insurgents threaten the workforce. They are pretty good at leaving death threats on the homes of workers' doors .

In October, paramilitaries attacked Contrack's Baghdad headquarters.  Earlier this year, they kidnapped a Turkish driver employed by the firm, shot him five times in the head, then dumped him beside a Contrack construction site.  Pinned to the man's chest was a sign reading "Collaborator."  (Ted Rall, take note.)

Contrack is the first major U.S. firm to pull out of Iraq.  But don't worry about it's prospects.  On December 26, the company reportedly won a $64 million deal with the U.S. military to build bridges in Afghanistan.

More gloomy news came on December 23 when Iraqna, which provides Baghdad's mobile phone service, announced it was thinking of withdrawing from Iraq as well.  According to the FT, Naguib Sawiris, the chairman of Egypt's Orascom Telecom --and a man estimated to be worth $800 million--declared "I'm not into the business of putting the lives of my people in danger."  It's interesting to note that Orascom owns forty-five percent of Contrack International.

Safety for his employees may not be the only reason Sawiris is threatening to pull out of Iraq.  Relations between Orascom, the U.S. and the Iraqi Interim Government have steadily deteriorated.  One issue has been Orascom's spotty service in Baghdad--a problem Sawiris blames on the American army's use of jamming equipment to hamper the ability of cellphones to detonate IEDs. 

Then, on December 17, Iraqi security forces raided Orascom's Baghdad headquarters, seizing equipment, records and two Egyptian employees accused of aiding the paramilitaries.  Although the men were released two days later, their detention added fuel to the suspicion that Orascom workers have provided the Islamofascists with communications information.  These allegations have dogged Orascom ever since the press revealed last year that the man with a controlling interest in the firm--London-based Iraqi tycoon Nadhmi Auchi--made a fortune selling arms to Saddam and enjoyed close contacts with the regime.  (Incidentally, Auchi is a major investor in BNP Paribas, the French bank which administered proceeds from the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food program.) 

On December 22, Sawiris further charged that the U.S. and the Iraqis were carrying out a campaign to harass its workers and impede its service on behalf of a competitor--believed to be Kuwait-based Atheer Telecommunications--and a "political figure around whom a lot of controversy has been raised in Iraq" who has heavy investments in the company.  Sawiris would not, however, elaborate on this politician's identity.

I remember last spring, when Iraqna first began erecting its jazzy purple logo across Baghdad, it seemed as if a new kind of flower was blooming around the city.  Advertising is generally synonomous with visual clutter in the U.S., but Iraqna's signs seemed to herald new growth and hope for the Iraqis.  Better yet, the company began hiring local people:  at least one of my friends in the country is--was?--counting on Iraqna to provide her with the economic means to escape the oppressive sexism of her society.  (Foes of globalization, take note.)

But now, where do these developments leave the Iraqi people?  Baghdad blogger Zeyad at Healing Iraq gives an idea with his Christmas Day post.  Along with describing the unusually cold weather and lack of electricity and fuel for heaters (I was in Baghdad during last winter, and can assure you, without heat, life is even more uncomfortable) Zeyad notes that the land lines in his neighborhood go on and off--and not even bribes can coax repairman out to fix them. 

As for mobile phones, "Horrible doesn't even start to describe it."  He notes, however, that while Orascom's service has been bad, the "Atheer network in southern Iraq is more reliable."  The real problem, of course, is that without phone communcation Iraqis can't contact one another in case of emergency, or simply check on the safety of friends and loved ones after a terrorist attack.  Zeyad relates an incident when he was held up at an American checkpoint for hours and couldn't get through on his phone to inform his family.  "When I returned home," he writes, "I found them crazy with fright." 

And this is what this war comes down to, isn't it?  The plutocrats wrangle over turf and profits, the Islamofascists continue to wreak havoc on the country's infrastructure, while Iraqis shiver in the cold and dark, wondering about the fate of their loved ones, unable to make even a phone call to assure themselves that, this day at least, catastrophe has not befallen them.

LIBERTY BONDS

A late-night post on this, the eve of our second wartime Christmas.  After the buying and the decorating of the tree, the flurry of shopping and wrapping of presents, the eggnog and cards and parties, Warrior Woman and I found time to sit by the glow of a candle-lit creche and reflect on the passing year. And while my wife prefers medieval Christmas music, I go for the Bing Crosby/Frank Sinatra style of holiday cheer; so it was this night that the voices of the early Kings of Pop filled our Manhattan apartment. 

One particular CD featured a 1942 recording of Crosby singing "White Christmas" on his radio program. After the final note of Irving Berlin's classic tune, he closes out the show by urging his listeners to remember that

the greatest gift we can give to our soldiers are War Bonds.  They're fighting for the day when Christmas dawns in a world of peace--so let's let them know we're behind them with everything we've got.

It's not the only recording I have like that--another has Der Bingle opening a version of "Silent Night" by telling the listening troops, Next year, pray God, all of you will be singing this at your own fireplaces, around your own trees.  At the end of the song, we hear ringing bells, and Bob Hope comes on. Hear that? he asks.

The bells of Christmas ring out clear and free around the world to you.  Listen to them. Their message is coming from the hearts of 132 million grateful Americans, peace on earth, good will to men--and Merry Christmas to all of you.

Different time, different war, different celebrities.  Still, there's not much one can add to those sentiments.  Despite sixty years and twice the population, what Bing and Bob said to the troops fighting across the globe holds true today, for soldiers ranging from Kabul to Baghdad and beyond.  The bells of Christmas are indeed ringing for these men and women, and a message is coming from the hearts of the American people.  Merry Christmas, God bless, stay safe, come home.

MEMO FROM MALIBU

Although its efforts have proven maladroit in the past, the United States is determined to provide Iraqis with entertaining "alternative" media to counter the effects of Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia.  What follows is a State Department memo, given to this site by an anonymous source, detailing America's latest effort.  WARNING:  this is highly confidential, so those of you who cannot be trusted with state secrets, keep on scrolling.

Barry--

Hope you and the family are okay, and you're doing well after the gall bladder thing.

Just wanted to shoot the team at PDPA [Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs - ed.] an update on Operation Infinite Ratings.  We finally got a favorable ruling from Sheikh Raq-n Raul at the Brentwood Mosque--something about TV sitcoms being permissable as long as they remain "Islamically instructive," which Legal tells me should cover our tuchuses with any fatwa difficulties.

The Pentagon has green-lighted the first series, and the gang in Creative couldn't be more excited.  It's called "My Son the Shia," and the basic premise is this:  Abu Dulaimy, head imam at an ultra-orthodox Wahhabi mosque in Falluja, sends his son Ahmed off to engineering school in Basra, and after two years, Ahmed comes back home with Layla--his beautiful, but ditzy wife.  Problem is, Layla is Shia--and Ahmed has converted in order to marry her, driving Abu crazy!  Think "All in the Family" with Muslims.

In the pilot episode, it's just before Ramadan, and Layla hopes to impress her new in-laws by cooking her sure-fire mazgouf recipe, only she forgets that the Shia start the holiday later than the Sunnis.  Hilarity ensues as old Abu and his four wives try to maintain their fast, while trying to keep the city's religious police from dynamiting their house.  Marketing tested this with Shia viewers in Detroit and the approval rating was off the charts!

In future episodes, Ahmed gets so angry at Abu for telling his Wahhabi congregation that Shiism is a Jewish plot to undermine Islam that he tells the local American commander about the RPG stash hidden under the mosque.  Another has Layla baking cookies to celebrate Mohammad's birthday--Creative tells me the scene where she gets chased down the street by an angry mob threatening to stone her to death is a classic!

Over time we'll introduce characters like Abu's freeloading Bedouin relatives;  Sa'ad, the village drunk--who gets 80 lashes in the town square whenever he goes on a bender--and Abdul and his local insurgents:  think Sgt. Bilko and the gang in stocking masks.  We're also going to break out an American character--Major Bart Reynolds, a bumbling Psy-Ops officer who tries to "get down" with the locals, but speaks only classical Arabic and regularly gets his equipment stolen by Abdul's cut-ups.  (The Pentagon is going out on a limb for us on this one, but Marketing tells me the Iraqis will eat it up.)

You probably heard about the snafus.  True, we had to move production from Baghdad to Burbank after someone e-mailed the production crew an anonymous warning--something about the "gates of Hell" and "endless geysers of blood."  That means SAG headaches and union costs up the wazoo.  Anyway, we're hoping to sign Eddie Olmos for Abu Dulaimy and Whoopi's committed to 15 weeks to play one of his wives.  We're thinking Ashley Simpson for Layla and that guy from American Idol, whatzisname--Clay Aiken--for Ahmed (I know, I know, but make-up can do wonders).

I can't say we haven't had disappointments. Ayatollah Sistani's people have DEFINITELY ruled out a guest appearance for next month's shooting; too busy with the upcoming elections.  Too bad, because we need a fill-in for Layla's father.  Anyone know what Omar Sharif is doing these days?

Also, we got orders from Rumsfeld's boys to scratch the episode where Ahmed and Layla take a trip near the Syrian border and accidentally uncover a buried Electromagnetic Isotope Separator and 150 al-Hussein missiles armed with Botulinum toxin and Bacillus anthracis spores.  Something about an on-going investigation.

We being rolling next week and hope to debut just before Ashura.  When does the festival start again?  I can never figure out that damn lunar calendar.

Hope to see you soon.  Malibu is great this time of year and the wife and kids all miss you.  We'll do lunch.

Happy holidays,

Sid

WHEN SUNNIS GET BLUE

Whistlin' Dixie

Like most newspapers, the New York Times'  editorials embody the "something must be done" school of analysis.  That is, they urge immediate action on some issue, in an Olympian tone that suggests the tragedy certain to befall if their views are ignored.  By the same token, these 10-point equivalents of an ancient Greek chorus rarely posit constructive advice, offering instead conventionalities and impractical prescriptions that only the dimmest politican has not already considered and either rejected or employed. 

Case in point is yesterday's lead editorial "Grim Realities in Iraq."  Its basic point to the Bush Administration was Don't alienate the Sunnis or you will put the elections at risk.  Now, given that young Sunni men are executing election workers in downtown Baghdad, this is pretty obvious stuff, hardly along the lines of say, advising the White House to drape Laura Bush in hejab in order to win Muslim hearts and minds.  (That day may not be far off, however.)  "There may be time for Washington to try to salvage the election," the Gray Lady rumbles, "but that would require paying much more serious attention to legitimate Sunni grievances and showing an openness to postponing the election for several months."

With voting set five weeks from now, even 43rd Street knows the election train has left the station, with the once-oppressed Kurds and Shia at the throttle.  What's most interesting is the editorials' advice for Bush to attend to "legitimate Sunni grievances."  These, argues the Times, originate in the dismissal of the old Sunni-dominated army, the exclusion of "former" Baathists from government posts and the dearth of "Sunni nationalist politicians" in the interim government.  Lastly, of course, there is the damage the American "counter-insurgency" operations have wreaked on "densely populated towns like Falluja."

This analysis chills me. To understand the implications of the Times' position, imagine this editorial appearing during the Reconstruction of the post-bellum South.  Matters aren't going well:  confusion and uncertainty reigns; democracy seems hanging by a slender thread; masked "guerillas"--the Ku Klux Klan--are terrorizing the population in hopes of re-establishing the fallen Confederacy. What's the advice of the Times, and others with similar views?  Pay more attention to the "grievances" of deposed plantation owners, slave-traders and ex-Southern officers.  Put more pro-slavery leaders in the state legislatures.  Make amends somehow for the damage done to Atlanta, Vicksburg, Nashville.  And, most important, consider telling the millions of blacks that we wish to delay the process of your emancipation so as not to alienate the people who once kept you in bondage.  (The fact that last turn of events actually did occur only highlights the wrongheadness of the editorial.)

Lincoln urged the North to be "magnaminous in victory"--and for the Kurd-Shia-American alliance to grind the Sunni into the mud of defeat is indeed a prescription for catastrophe.  Like most Southerners, who did not own slaves, most Sunnis were not Shia-and-Kurd oppressing Baathists, and the vast majority today wish to see a terrorist-free democracy take hold in the country. 

But delaying elections in order to placate Sunni grievances is another road to disaster, one that also risks creating incentives for the Sunnis to remain a perpetually alienated minority in western Iraq.  Besides, as I noted in the excerpts of ITRZ which recently appeared on the National Review Online, the root of their "grievances" lay beyond the reach of political remedies, involving factors such as tribal honor, abhorrence of shame and an adolescent resentment that seeks to insure the destruction of Iraq itself, rather than see it emerge from Sunni/Baathist domination. 

Recently, Jawad Hashim, a former advisor to Saddam Hussein during the 1970s, told me he remembered the dictator telling him, "If my regime goes down, I will make sure that not a stone of Iraq remains after me."  This mindset is shared by his "guerrilla" followers, the radical imams and drugged-up assassins promulgating their ideology of death.  No appeasement, no addressing "legitimate grievances" beyond the scope of upcoming elections, no placating the resentment of the Sunni terrorists will stop their violence.  At most, it will only delay the arrival of emancipation and justice for all Iraqis.

Allawi to Introduce Myself

With this in mind, it's interesting to watch interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's campaign strategy.  In a recent op-ed, the invaluable Amir Taheri argues that Iraqi attitudes toward Iran have divided the country's political elite into two camps.  One, dominated by the Shia, is attempting to walk a fine line between Tehran and Washington, realizing that once U.S. attention toward Iraq wanes, Iran will exert the greatest effect on Iraqi interests.  Advocates of the other camp see

Iran as Iraq's strategic enemy and hope to counter it with a discourse of pan-Arab nationalism. They deem the United States a tactical ally in helping Iraq rebuild a state, an army and a security service, leaving in place not a democracy but a "lite" version of Arab authoritarian rule.

Allawi falls into this group.  Recenlty, he announced that in November he'd held "a lot of" meetings in Jordan with leaders of the paramilitary gunmen seeking to topple his government.  He'd also held sit-downs with tribal leaders and other Sunni panjandrums in hopes of coaxing their votes for his slate.  He evidently aims to appeal to the Sunnis yearning for a "Saddam-lite" (indeed, many times in the Sunni Triangle, people told me they'd like to see a "new Saddam, only more democratic").  As the New York Times' John Burns noted on December 21, Allawi seeks

to portray himself as an indispensable strong man and a secular antidote to the influence of religious parties...

Allawi is further arguing that

as a former member of the governing Baath Party of Saddam Hussein, he [is] best equppied to defeat the insurgency and to entice its members to work for democracy in Iraq.

In his Jordan meetings with "insurgent" leaders, Burns continues, Allawi

had spoken to them as a former Baathist and a conspirator in the 1968 coup that brought the party, and eventually Mr. Hussein to power.

Indeed, to cement his nationalistic credientials, the Financial Times notes, Allawi has repeated criticisms of the U.S. for driving out "low-ranking" Baathists from power and for disbanding the Sunni-led army.  Lest we suspect the Primine Minister of crypto-fascist leanings, he evidently told reporter Burns that "Baathism is dead, it's finished, it's something like the ex-Soviet bloc."

Interestingly, Allawi is Shia, but he's part of a joint Shia-Sunni slate of candidates that might pose the most serious opposition to the Shia's United Iraqi Alliance slate.  Turning up the heat on Shia candidates, Sunni leaders have suggested that the recent blasts in Najaf and Karbala were carried out by Iranian agents who are using the Shia religious leaders as stalking horses for their own ambitions in Iraq.  (However, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, revealed on Iranian TV that the bombings were actually the work of the U.S. and Israel as a "plot aimed at distracting Iraqis so they miss the election.)

Whatever Allawi's strategy might be, Iraq owes this man a huge debt of gratitude for remaining at the helm of the country during this period of instability and violence.  Personally, I favor the United Iraqi Alliance, because of my interactions with the Shia in Iraq, but also because their victory will bring the kind of justice that America denied blacks after the Civil War.  It's fascinating to note that in their comments--which parallel in many ways those of Allawi and his "nationalist" camp--the brahmins of the New York Times apparently do not agree.

THE REAL DEAL

I’ve been on the radio a lot lately publicizing ITRZ.  Many of the interviews exhibit a similar echt-American format:  rock music leading out of a station break, a keyed-up (usually male) announcer introducing the book and its author—then usually ten to thirty minutes of quick questions and short, hopefully pithy answers.  The interaction between host and guest is theatrical, stagy, less a conversation than a performance intended to hold the attention of listeners in their kitchens, offices, cars. 

One interview, however, was different.  After rapid-fire questions in a rich baritone, the host of a Midwestern radio station ended the segment in a minor key.  “Steven, I want to ask you something personal,” he said in a subdued tone.  “My son is serving in Iraq and he's stationed in Mosul.  Can you tell me anything about that place?”

Suddenly the dynamic of our conversation changed.  The host was no longer a morning drive-time personality easing his audience through the daily commute, but a concerned father worried about his son in a combat zone.  In that moment, we seemed to cease being on the radio, but rather holding a private discussion.  Equally subdued, I had to tell him that, unfortunately, I never made it to Mosul during my travels through Iraq and thus couldn't provide him with any information.  He thanked me, the technician podded up the rock and roll, the station break came and I was off the air. 

I thought of that interview yesterday as news of U.S. personnel killed in a mess hall in Mosul came over the wires.  I hope for the host’s sake that his son did not number among the casualties. But there are 22 families today who did not have such luck, and hundreds of additional ripples of tragedy are unsettling the surface of wartime America.

Two days after my discussion with the radio host, I found myself interviewing a lawyer for a magazine story about a topic unrelated to Iraq.  As we wrapped up our phone conversation, he mentioned that his son had volunteered for the conflict and was about to ship out.  Soon after that, I began receiving e-mails from people responding to ITRZ or this blog, telling me about their children or spouses who are in Iraq.  Like the radio host and the lawyer, the attitude of these correspondents was identical:  a mixture of patriotic pride, familial concern and unspoken prayer. 

For me, the moment of recognition came a few days ago when I received an e-mail from a woman that included a photograph of her son stationed in Iraq.  To my wife I said, “You know, it’s finally occurred to me:  this is the real deal.  This is war.”  By that I meant, Iraq is not the relatively quick campaign in Afghanistan, the painless (for us) assault on Serbia, the casualty-light liberation of Kuwait.  I would say this is more like Vietnam, but as I remember that conflict, those who were not soldiers either protested U.S. involvement or tried to forget the war even existed.   

No, rather I think of World War II.  Of course, the country mobilized far more citizens then, at a greater cost in blood and treasure.  Today, however, we see thousands of National Guardsmen whom the conflict has plucked from daily life and hurled into a combat zone, leaving behind holes in the social and emotional fabric of American communities.  If only for this reason we cannot, like Vietnam, ignore or forget our soldiers; their safety worries us each time we turn on the news. And the large number of families affected by the conflict reminds us that GIs are not anonymous figures on TV screens or abstract numbers on a casualty list, but sons and daughters and spouses taken from the heart of our nation to obscure and dangerous battlefields. 

I wonder if a Northerner during the Civil War might not also have recognized this moment.  Then, too, sons and fathers went to war in far-off places (most had never left their farms) to fight for a cause that was at once inspiring, ill understood, controversial and, at times, seemingly not worth the cost.  Then, too, strange names like Gettysburg, Antietam and Chickamauga became as familiar as Baghdad, Falluja, Mosul are today.  Then, too, in thousands of homes, people found their prayers had been answered with relief and joy, or sorrow and loss.

This Christmas season, as holiday lights blaze from the eaves and doorways of American houses, they are joined by smaller, more somber lights in darkened windows, burning for men and women who will not return from Iraq.  Relative to other wars, there are not many of these memorials, and God willing, may it remain so. But this should not diminish the enormity of events.  America is engaged in a struggle whose goals are uncertain, even as its demands increase upon communities large and small.  For each family from whose windows the candles shine, payment has been high.  Whether we agree with this conflict or not, let us remember, and thank these people, for their sacrifice.  For them--for us--this is war.  This is the real deal.