In the Red Zone

FOX IN THE RED ZONE

Anyone interested in what I look and sound like--on camera, at least--might want to check out Fox News Live this Sunday at 2:30 EDT.

LEFT BEHIND

He's young, Shia and pro-American.  As profiled in a recent Wall  Street Journal article, Farqad Qizwini is a moderate, Thomas Jefferson-loving cleric who runs a radio station that broadcasts election information and a university for "humanistic studies" in central Iraq.  In short, he's everything America yearns to see arise from the ranks of Iraq's Shia leadership.  There's just one hitch:  he's against women's rights.

As the Journal notes, Qizwini opposes U.S. efforts to ensure more female participation in Iraq's new government, and once declared that women judges are "unacceptable under Islamic law."  He's not alone--most members of the Shia religious establishment reject Western-style notions of women's equality.  "Islam is specific on men's authority: man leads and women follow," Sheik Ahmed Darwash al-Kinani told me over tea one afternoon in Baghdad.  Ayatollah Sistani himself has decreed such unfeminist judgments--for example, forbidding women from shaking mens' hands, leaving home without male permission, or forming friendships with non-family-related men.  Even secular Shia profess "unprogressive" beliefs.  As an Oxford-educated academic in Basra informed me, "Man's task is to work in the outside world.  Woman's is to keep house and raise children to be good Muslim citizens."

As Iraq's Shia slowly assume power, Western observers are scrutinizing their leaders' comments about America, the role of religion in government and relations with Iran.  Missing from that analysis, however, is concern about Shia attitudes toward women.  Unlike their apparently moderate positions on political matters, their stance on gender equality remains rooted in shari'a, or Islamic law.  In Basra, Sheikh Aodha al-Obaydi, of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) told me, "We believe women's rights must follow shari'a."  It's for their own good, al Kinani emphasized:  "Under shari'a, women are treated like precious gems in a jewel box."

More like prisoners in a theocratic cage.  From the Western perspective, shari'a is thoroughly anti-feminist.  For instance, the code permits men polygamy, divorce by repudiation and the right to inherit twice as much as females; the Shia version even allows religiously-sanctioned adultery, or muta'a ("temporary marriages"), in which married Muslim men can enjoy the conjugal benefits of another woman in return for furnishing her with money or property.  (Most cultures have another name for this arrangement.)  Conversely, the same code denies women the ability to choose husbands, travel freely, or wear anything but cloaks to cover their bodies.  "Shari'a oppresses women, it is against human rights," Iraqi feminist firebrand Yanar Mohammad once told me.

How serious are Shia leaders about imposing shari'a?  Serious enough to have nearly accomplished it.  On December 29, 2003, the now-defunct Iraqi Governing Council passed Resolution 137, which would have replaced Iraq's relatively progressive 1959 "Family Law" regarding women with shari'a.  Fortunately. Paul Bremer refused to sign the measure, preventing its implementation.

But the story is not over. A major instigator behind Resolution 137 was SCIRI leader Abdul al-Hakim, who served at the time as the GC's chairman.  As I've noted before, SCIRI wields major influence in southern Iraq, where women are increasingly covering themselves, and conservatives frequently post signs with such exhortations as "Hejab is the most beautiful accessory for women."  Moreover, Hakim himself is the frontrunner to become Iraq's next prime minister after the January elections.  His postion on women's rights, the role of shari'a and whether he will agree to U.S. pressures to set aside 25 percent of Iraq's new parliament for women in ominously vague.

Many observers--such as myself--glean what little optimism we can about the upcoming elections mainly from Shia assurances of moderation.  These assurances, however, encourage us to perceive men like Qizwini, Sistani and Hakim as Western-style democrats.  They are not.  Especially when it comes to feminism, Shia leaders are products of their male-dominated religion   Modern democracy, however, transcends religion to include all men and women--something the West must stress to the January victors.

In the wake of the Civil War, the North found itself "occupying"--or reconstructing--the shattered Confederacy.  Weary of the cost, and eager to withdraw its troops, the Union ended its efforts to establish the rule of civil rights throughout the south with the so-called "Compromise of 1877."  Abandoned to white supremacy--a form of tribalism often supported from the pulpit--blacks had to struggle another century to achieve equality.  We must not repeat that mistake in Iraq.  Gender equality is the key to victory in the war against political Islam, from Baghdad to Jakarta to Riyadh.  In our rush to patch up a government and end the reconstruction of Iraq, we cannot abandon that nation's 16 million women, whose inferior status and second-class citizenship may worsen under the Shias' new "moderate" leadership.

Next:  shari'a in Canada--and what are those Islamic laws anyway?

Brief Blog Roundup

There are two generous reviews of ITRZ at Solomonia and Enter Stage Right.

Amy Ridenour comments on Jeff Harrell's interview.

The excerpt from ITRZ that appeared on National Review Online has been making the rounds (Little Green Footballs, Ed Driscoll, Logomachon).

ITRZ is on the current reading list at King of Fools.

The book has been mentioned on a number of blogs, and further roundups (and some reciprocal links) are forthcoming.

Join the ITRZ email list

Readers who would like to receive notices of publications and major media appearances by Steven Vincent may sign up for the ITRZ email list here. We will not share email addresses with anyone for any reason.

TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT IV

No pretext

Sometime this fall, I realized John Kerry was in trouble when I heard an NPR  report about a pro-Bush rally somewhere in the midwest.  During the course of the rally, Kerry supporters began shouting at the crowd, causing the Republicans to chant--not "FOUR MORE YEARS" or "GEORGE W. BUSH," like you might expect--but "USA!  USA!  USA!"  I tried to imagine the situation reversed:  would Democrats at a Kerry rally attempt to drown out hecklers by booming "USA!  USA!"?  The idea seemed oddly ridiculous--like a Belgian street-gang--and therein lay the problem.  Bush supporters felt comfortable identifying their man with a gut-level sense of America; Kerry people did not.  (Remember "nuance?")  This, in turn, energized Republicans to claim the patriotic high-ground and frame the campaign so that, in their own minds, an attack on Bush was an attack on America itself.  In warfare, politics and rhetoric, such esprit and belief in the cause means the difference between victory and defeat.

I thought of this incident yesterday as I read Thomas Friedman's column in the New York Times.  As usual succinct, informal and dead-on the money, Friedman laid out the importance of Iraq's January elections.  The current war, he wrote, pits

Sunni and Islamic militants against the U.S. and its Iraqi allies, many of whom do not seem comfortable fighting with, and seemingly for, the U.S.  America cannot win that war...That is a civil war in which the murderous insurgents appear to be on the side of ending the U.S. "occupation of Iraq" and the U.S. and its allies appear to be about sustaining that occupation.

Rather, Friedman continues, we want a situation where the terms of engagement are more favorable to us--in short, a war that ranges

a democratically elected Iraqi government against the Baathist and Islamist militants.  It needs to be clear that these so-called insurgents are not fighting to liberate Iraq from America, but rather to reassert the tyranny of a Sunni-Baathist minority over the majority there.  The insurgents are clearly desperate that they not be cast as fighting a democratically elected Iraqi government--which is why they are desperately trying to scuttle the elections. 

It comes down to legitimacy and justification. At this point in the conflict, the paramilitaries feel they can still make a valid claim--to their followers, the Arab world and "useful idiots" like Michael "Minuteman" Moore and Ted "Collaborator" Rall--that they are the true Iraqi patriots.  God willing, after the elections their lie will prove impossible to maintain.  They will appear to the world--and increasingly themselves--for what they are:  paramilitary gunmen seeking to launch a fascist coup against an elected government.

Of course, that is how many of us saw them from the first day of the war.  Nothing has changed, except which each moment, the hope of democracy in Iraq comes closer to some realization.  Sharing our understanding of the significance of this possibility is none other than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  In February, Coalition authorities intercepted a letter that the terror-master wrote to unknown confederates where, among other topics, he addressed the biggest danger facing the terrorist cause.

How can we kill [Iraqi] cousins and sons and under what pretext, after the American start withdrawing?  The Americans will continue to control from their bases, but the sons of this land will be the authority.  This is the democracy, we will have no pretext.

Pretext.  In other words, a legitimization, a plausible reason, a fig-leaf of morality to justify the unjustifiable slaughter of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.  That pretext is nonexistent.  Surely he doesn't think Allah will provide it for him? 

Moqtada al-Sadr does--or at least wants to appear so.  Braying from the other side of the terrorist junkyard, the renegade Shia cleric has been issuing futile declarations attempting to brand the elections as part of the "occupation"--and unIslamic, to boot. 

The elections aim to separate the Iraqi from his religion.  When people vote for politicians, secularists, those who cooperate with the occupation -- they will not think of God.

Unfortunately for him, Ayatollah Sistani has proclaimed the opposite:  that Allah demands each of the 16 million Shia go to the polls, with refusal bringing eternal damnation.

This voting is still weeks away, but already its effects are visible in the ethereal realm of memes.  Slowly, the notion of an "Iraqi government" is taking root in public awareness.  Press reports now speak of the "guerrillas"--not, as before, "resisting the occupation"--but  "trying to derail upcoming elections."  With each suicide bomb or IED, increasing numbers of people are beginning to ask themselves--if they haven't already--why are the Sunnis doing this?  What do they hope to gain?  Why do they fear democracy?  In the answers to those questions lies the ruin of the so-called "insurgency."

Assuming the elections take place and are perceived as reasonably legitimate, this ruin, this moral bankruptcy, will be all but apparent.  Only in the hotels and villas of Amman and Damascus will ex-Baathist leaders continue to view their drugged-up mercenaries as "resistance" fighters ("resisting" what?  Peace? A decent future for Iraqi families?).  Only in the backstreets of Ramadi or the caves of Waziristan will jihadists laud Zarqawi as a hero.  And when bin Laden's "emir" is caught--as he will be, betrayed by an Iraqi who has lost faith in the "cause"--we can hang this sign around his neck: 

This is democracy.  You have no pretext.

Lastly, after the elections, the Left will no longer escape the dilemma that has confronted them from the moment the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 1441:  in opposing the war, they have opposed the fight of democratic forces against fascism.  No longer will they be able to justify their unwillingness to act, their desire to remain cocooned in apathy, ignorance and self-reinforcing Bush-hatred by claiming that the war and "occupation" are "immoral."  A question will haunt their actions, as it has from the onset of this conflict:  if you do not support democracy in Iraq, where will you support it?

None of this means we are winning this war.  In fact, we--the U.S. and the Iraqis--are perilously close to losing.  As Reuel Marc Gerecht points out in this week's Weekly Standard, how can we claim momentum toward victory when our forces cannot even keep the road from the Baghdad airport free of terrorist ambushes? 

No, the tide has not yet turned.  We have horrific weeks to endure before ballots are cast.  And even after the elections, the bloodletting will not stop, Iraq will not become a democratic-minded polity overnight--nor will American mistakes and crimes find magic absolution.  The war will continue.  But if events on January 30 go reasonably well, the difference could be stark:  the enemy, finally, will have exhausted the lies they have used to justify their nihilistic murders.  At the same time, the Iraqis who have sided with the future will find their morale boosted, their courage fortified.  They will be fighting for their homeland, a legitimate democracy.  And that is a moral high-ground from where few dedicated combatants have ever failed.

CHARITY CASES

As the world reaches deep into its collective pocket to contribute money (latest count, $5 billion) to the relief of the South Asian tsunami victims, it's interesting to note who's doing the giving, and who's not.  While these statistics are fairly well known--especially amidst the blogosphere--they bear repeating, if only to expose some rank hypocrisy among our Saracen friends. 

As of today, the top five government donors are, in millions:  Australia ($765); Germany ($680); Japan ($500); the U.S. ($350); and the World Bank ($250).  Among private donations, however, America leads the pack with $1 billion--the next closest being Germany with $200 million.  These figures show that "stingy" Uncle Sam is by far the most generous nation on the planet, especially when it comes to aiding the largely Muslim survivors of last month's natural disaster.

And who's not pulling their charitable weight?  Our Friends the Saudis, for one, diverting some of the petro-dollars they usually use to fund Wahhabi-based clerics and anti-Semitic literature to kick in a paltry $30 million.  As for other Arab states, in millions:  Qatar (25); United Arab Emirates (20); Kuwait (10); and from Algeria, Libya and Bahrain, $2 million each--less than a sheik's nightly baccarat droppings at Semiramis Casino in Cairo.  Speaking of Egypt--and Jordan--and Iran--has anyone heard from those fine Muslim nations?

Indeed, inquiring minds among the Arab press want to know.  A December 30 editorial in Beirut's Daily Star throws down the gauntlet: 

Long-established images--nay, caricatures--of white-robed sheiks sailing their luxury yachts on seas of oil and using $100 bills to light their Havana cigars will only be reinforced in the face of collective miserliness in this hour of human need, especially if the petroleum-rich Gulf states do not dig a bit deeper into pockets that have become quite deep indeed over the last few years of high oil prices.

According to today's Seattle Times, an editorial in the Kuwaiti newspaper Qabas slammed the government's parsimony, reminding officials that Kuwait relies on South Asian workers to carry out menial tasks  The New York Sun's Benny Avni reports that a Saudi columnist writing for another Kuwaiti daily, Al-Watan complained that extremists have "hijacked" Islam and Saudi charities must return to "moderation and tolerance" rather than terrorism.

One reason that Islamic nations have been relatively tight-fisted is that Thailand and Sri Lanka are not predominately Muslim.  "They are focused on religious solidarity rather than global society," the Times quotes Cairo University professor Heba Raouf.  Moreover, Sri Lanka's Muslim minority have long claimed persecution, particularly at the hands of the so-called Tamil Tigers, who in 1990 drove 16,000 Muslim  families out of rebel-controlled areas. 

Still, there's Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, which suffered at least 94,000 dead.  With a tragedy of this magnitude, you'd think the umma would be rushing to Jakarta with bushels of zakaah to disburse.  But you'd be wrong, as Jon Alterman of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies told the Times:  "there's sort of a second-class Muslim idea in much of the Middle East."  Or, as the paper explains,

Many Arabs, whose lands gave birth to Islam and in whose language the Koran is written, look down on their brethren in Asia.

So much for "religious solidarity."

As for the U.S. winning Muslim hearts and minds through red, white and blue beneficence--sooner we'll see an NBA franchise in Riyadh.  Arthur Chrenkoff quotes an article appearing in Egypt's al-Ahkbar newspaper,

[Washington] uses all occasions and circumstances to consolidate its hegemony, and through all legitimate and illegitimate means...No one is convinced that U.S. motivations are surrounded by humanitarian and moral principles...[The primary American objective is to] consolidate itself as the superpower of the world.

Remind us again of Egypt's contribution to relief efforts?  Oh, that's right...

Meanwhile, the Sun's Avni informs us of a rumor bouncing around the Muslim world that the tsunami was the result of a nuclear experiment in the Indian Ocean.  Or, as the headline of Egypt's Al Osboa newspaper read: "Was it American, Israeli, Indian Nuclear Tests that caused the earthquakes?"  The Turkish newspaper Yeni Safak printed similar speculations. 

The conservative Iranian daily Kayhan contended that the U.S. knew about the tsunami but failed to act. 

We have to consider that an earthquake of this scale is very important for American satellites, since it may [have been caused by] a nuclear explosion by India in the middle of the Indian Ocean...how can it be accepted that Americans with their super-modern equipment could not [warn people]?.

Despite the lack of apparent urgency from the Islamic community, some Muslim groups are active in Indonesia, especially in the predominately Arab province of Aceh.  One of these, according to the Financial Times' Shawn Donnan, is the conservative Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) which has "charted airliners to ferry more than 1,300 volunteers from around Indonesia to Aceh, helicopters to reach remote areas and a fleet of trucks to distribute aid."  A rising political force--last year it won 48 seats in Indonesia's 500-seat parliament--the PKS believes that Islamic law should govern the nation's largely secular population.

Another group is the Indonesian Mujaheddin Council, which has linked to Jemaah Islamiyyah, the group responsible for the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings, among others in Indonesia.   As for its opinion of U.S. relief efforts, Donnan quotes a 26 year-old Council member.

The problem is America came here and helped us just to show its power...America uses the country [sic] they help as a toy.

Nothing the U.S. does or does not do will ever appear positive to these ideologues.  If it weren't so tragically apparent in Iraq, the old saw might seem mordantly amusing amidst the devastation of this Arab region:  no good deed goes unpunished.

UPDATE:  Arthur Chrenkoff provides the latest on the relief figures.  (My question is:  doesn't the combination of private and public monies make the U.S. the single largest donor?)  Arthur also provides some refreshingly positive comments from local Muslims about America's efforts to ameliorate their suffering.  Along with a round-up of further conspiracy theories explaining how the U.S. is either responsible for, or benefiting from, the disaster.  Sigh.

UPDATE AGAIN:  Prof. Cole at Informed Comment posts this tid-bit about OFTS--perhaps I had judged them wrong

Saudi Arabia Television held a fundraising drive for the victims of the tsunami and raised a little over $30 million on the first day. Saudi Arabia's per capita income is about $8500 per year according to the Atlas method, and there are about 15 million Saudi citizens. The one-day donation total equals $2 per citizen in absolute terms. Given the difference in per capita income and population, it is as though private US donors gave over $3 billion in a single day.

Still, $30 million compared to the relative wealth of the nation?  Better mathematical minds than mine will have to decide if that that figure means a lot--me, I have trouble balancing my checkbook.

THE NY SUN GOES INTO THE RED ZONE

She is tall, glamorous, speaks Mandarin Chinese and for nearly 20 years served as a case officer for the CIA.  No, she's not the model for "Alias'" Sydney Bristow--but my friend Martha Sutherland, who a few years back retired from the Agency to become a Manhattan-based dealer of contemporary Chinese art.  Why do I bring her up--besides introducing you to a fascinating person?  Because when the New York Sun asked her last week to nominate her favorite books of the year, one of her choices was--you guessed it--In the Red Zone.  Xie, xie, Martha.

DID THE PRIEST'S WIFE CONVERT?

Last month, a religious controversy shook the Land of the Pharaohs involving what for us would be a minor, or perhaps local, matter:  the apparent conversion of a Christian woman to Islam.  But seeing that the country was Egypt and the woman was the wife of a Coptic priest, the issue led to street demonstrations, arrests, accusations of religious discrimination, the "seclusion" of the Coptic Pope and the eventual intervention of President Hosni Mubarak.  Although this story has received fairly wide coverage, it's worth re-examining, if only to see how sensitive a role religion plays in the Muslim world and the dangers--all-too-apparent in Iraq--that occur when societies divide themselves along sectarian lines. 

The problem started on November 27, when Father Joseph Moawad, living in the village of Abul-Matameer, about 90 miles north of Cairo, reported that his wife, Wafaa Constantine, 48, was missing.  At the time, Father Moawad was in Alexandria, seeking medical treatment for diabetes.  On December 1, Constantine showed up in a Cairo police station and announced that she had left home and wanted to change her religion, according to Egyptian authorities, "of her own free will and without anybody's interference."

But interference is what she got.  The police informed Constantine that she had to first consult a priest before her conversion became official.  She agreed, and on December 2, the provincial governor of Beheira--where Abul-Matameer is located-- informed the regional archbishop of her decision and that she was ready for questioning by the church.  Nevertheless, Egyptian police did not release her, claiming that her life was endangered by angered Copts.

Copts make up between five to ten percent of Egypt's population, and relations between the nation's Christian minority and Muslim majority have generally been calm.  In the December 10 edition of FrontPage magazine, however, Robert Spencer quotes a spokesman for Jubilee Campaign, a U.K.-based Christian human rights group that  "attempts to force Christians to convert to Islam in Egypt are on the increase and the methods are getting increasingly varied and well organized."  (It should be noted that under shari'a, Muslims who leave their faith are guilty of apostasy, the penalty for which is death.)

When Constantine did not show up at Abul-Matameer, many Copts grew alarmed.  Rumors spread that Muslim radicals had kidnapped and drugged the woman, forcing her to convert.  Others said she had fallen in love with a Muslim colleague at work who had convinced her the only way she could continue the affair was to embrace Islam.  Still more began talking about a "clash of religions" and airing long-standing grievances with the Egyptian government.  At the same time, more reasonable voices argued that the woman's decision was purely a personal matter.  One bishop told Cairo's Al-Ahram Weekly that it involved a "crisis in her marital life" stemming from the fact that her husband had lost both his legs to diabetes:  Egyptian law forbids divorce in cases of adultery or conversion, so Constantine may have felt that "becoming a Muslim would be the only solution."

No matter.  On December 7, 1,000 Copts gathered at the main Cairo cathedral and a riot ensued.  Stone throwers injured 21 policemen, who in turn arrested 34 people.  In the upper Egyptian village of Munqateen, clashes between Christians and Muslims in which crowds attacked Christian homes and businesses and torched police cars led to the arrest of 25.  Concerned by the rising tensions, the Coptic leader Pope Shenouda III contacted Hosni Mubarak's office to ask for the President's intervention.  Soon afterwards, the police contacted the church and informed the Copts they would present the woman for an interview the following day. 

On December 8, Constantine, under police supervision and in the care of nuns, moved to a monastery in Cairo where a committee of priests questioned her.  That day, however, Pope Shenouda went into "seclusion," declaring his intention not to resume his duties until the government resolved "problems relating to the Copts"--specifically, as one bishop told Al-Ahram, "discrimination against Copts, restrictions on church construction and the forced conversion of Christian girls." On December 14, Constantine appeared before an Egyptian prosecutor accompanied by two lawyers from the church and announced her intention to remain a Christian.

Now it was the Muslims' turn to be outraged.  Noting that the Copts had refused to let the woman leave their custody, and even gave her job in the monastery, many charged that  the church had forced her to remain a Christian.  The fact that she appeared before the prosecutor-general in the company of lawyers added fuel to their suspicions.  An Egyptian judge accused the state of violating Constantine's freedoms by holding her "captive" in the monastery.  Others accused Pope Shenouda of using Constantine's marital confusion to put pressure on the government to accede to the Copts' demands. 

If so, the Pope was at least partially successful.  On December 22, the Egyptians released 13 rioters, mainly because they were young students who needed to take their exams.  This in turn mollified the Pope, who emerged from his "seclusion" in a Cairo monastery. 

Recriminations, however, are still flying.  Al-Ahram quotes a "prominent Coptic thinker" named Rafiq Habib who criticizes the both the government and the church for their dealings over the Constantine situation.  At a time when Islamist movements threaten Egyptian society, he argued, the fact that secular authorities yielded to the Copts when they used religion to cudgel the authorities "will have dangerous repercussions"--not the least of which will be to stir up sectarian anger among Muslims.  "All should be equal before the law, without any distinction," he said.

Thus ended l'affaire Constantine.  There's no word of her reunion--if there was one--with Father Moawad, or why, exactly, she sought to convert, and then re-convert.  "I was born a Christian," she reportedly told authorities, "and I will live and die a Christian."  If nothing else, she discovered that for a priest's wife, it's difficult to do anything else. 

TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT III

Headline:  London Times Online, January 4, 2005: 

Iraq insurgents now outnumber Coalition forces

Headline:  Fox News, January 5, 2005:

Iraqi Intel Head Sees End to Violence

Same story, opposite slants.  Once again, we detect the presence of two axioms of today's war reporting:

Truth is not found in Iraq, it is made.  And:  facts are facts--but perceptions are reality.  (thanks to antimedia)

UPDATE:  Via Iraqi Bloggers Central, I'll let Michael Totten do the talking on this one.  But check out the photo of the "insurgent" caught planting a bomb under civillian vehicles.  Contempt hardly expresses one's reaction.   

VOICES FROM IRAQ

I'm usually in agreement with Andrew Sullivan, and no more so than today when he confides that it has been a long time since he's read anything "more depressing" than this assessment by the director of Iraq's intellgence service, General Muhammad Abdullah Shahwani, that the "resistance" numbers "more than 200,000 people," 40,000 of which are "hard-core fighters."  Speaking to the London Times, the General explains,

People are fed up after two years without improvement. People are fed up with no security, no electricity, people feel they have to do something. The army (dissolved by the American occupation authority) was hundreds of thousands. You’d expect some veterans would join with their relatives, each one has sons and brothers

Bleak, indeed.  To this, I can only add as slight comfort this e-mail received from an Iraqi friend named Hassan.  Hassan is a journalist in Basra and from his message, you can see that the concerns of people in southern Iraq involve religious fundamentalism, rather than ex-Baathist paramilitaries and bloodthirsty jihadists.  They also enjoy a greater degree of freedom--although, as Hassan notes, it is a tenuous freedom indeed.

Actually, the best ways I can describe the differences between Saddam's dark days and the present are the following:

1) Politically speaking.  Any Iraqi citizen can speak loudly to refuse any opinion wihtout fear and nobody will arrest you because of your political orientations, writings or opinions.

But at the same time, there is still phobia inside people's hearts regarding the religious parties.  Step by step, these parties are trying to control everything, especially politics and the economy.  Elections are very important for this reason because those Iraqis who do not belong to a religious party or movement are powerless.  What I hope (but I know it is impossible) is that the country becomes free of parties and the people's loyalty is only to their homeland.

But the truth is, it is very difficult for a chaotic country like ours to become ideal within 10 years.  We need to change the very roots of our thinking to start a new life.

2) Economically speaking.  In spite of the daily smuggling of oil, life is getting better.  I can now buy a new shirt and shoes, or lunch and dinner with chicken.  I can buy books, newspaper and magazines.

But the question remains:  in the future, will we ever become like other people or will the disease of killing, arresting and poverty return in the guise of a new dictatorship chosen, at least in part, by--the United States?

Really, the only thing we are looking for is a peaceful life without shooting or cheating or political lies.

Hope, fear, cynicism, a touch of irony and a last-minute jab at the U.S.--in many ways, this e-mail typifies the Iraqi mindset.  However we feel about Hassan's comments, though, we should realize this:  many Iraqis know that they face a turning point in their nation's history, and their personal destinies, as well.  They are willing--and able--to do the hard work of changing age-old patterns of thinking and acting in order to gain a fresh start.  While they may not always earn our love, they deserve our admiration, respect and assistance.  Not to mention our prayers.

UPDATE: antimedia writes:

Before you get too upset about Al-Shahwani's comments, you might want to read an alternative version of what was apparently the same press conference - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143370,00.html.

'"Between 20,000 and 30,000 terrorists are operating throughout Iraq, led by Syria-based former regime leaders, Iraq's intelligence chief told Wednesday's edition of a pan-Arab newspaper.

Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abdullah al-Shahwani told Asharq Al-Awsat that he expected the armed attacks would decrease and end within a year.

"We officially call them terrorists," he said. "They are between 20,000 and 30,000 armed men operating all over Iraq, mainly in the Sunni areas where they receive moral support from about 200,000 people."

Puts a slightly different slant to the story, doesn't it?

Yes and no, I'd say.  The Times,  for some reason, placed the number of active paramilitaries at 40,000--Fox has them at 20-30,000.  Either way, that's a sobering figure.  Secondly, both accounts place the number of "moral" supporters at 200,000--given that the terrorists kill more Iraqis than Americans, and that they promise nothing for the Iraqi people except more misery and death, that total astonishes me. 

What's different--and encouraging--is al-Shahwani's assessment that the "armed attacks should decrease and end within a year."  It's interesting to note that the Times article did not carry that quote.  Why?

UPDATE AGAIN:  To underscore reader Jonathan Roth's comment about the bravery of the Iraq people (see comments), this from yesterday's New York Times. 

[S]everal people interviewed at the scene of the tanker bombing on Tueday morning [in Baghdad, killing 10] said the attack only strengthened their resolve.

"It's true that they don't want us to take part in the elections, but I am telling you that I am now more committed to go to the electoral centers and vote," said Murtadha Abdul al-Abbas, 28.  He suffered injuries to his head, arm and left leg.