Which direction is Iraq moving?
Friday, 29 September 2006 | 366 readers so far
Sometimes, things have to get worse before they get better.
Iraqis have some freedoms that they once were not allowed. Cell phones. Satellite television. A free press.
But just how free is Iraq’s budding media?
Under a broad new set of laws criminalizing speech that ridicules the government or its officials, some resurrected verbatim from Saddam Hussein’s penal code, roughly a dozen Iraqi journalists have been charged with offending public officials in the past year.
Currently, three journalists for a small newspaper in southeastern Iraq are being tried here for articles last year that accused a provincial governor, local judges and police officials of corruption. The journalists are accused of violating Paragraph 226 of the penal code, which makes anyone who “publicly insults” the government or public officials subject to up to seven years in prison.
Problems you are not allowed to talk about are nearly impossible to solve. I know this from personal and recent experience.
If Iraq is going to move in positive directions, a free press is absolutely critical to the process. How can we claim we’ve liberated a country where the press cannot question the actions of government officials without fear of imprisonment? That’s a really tough sell…
1 September 29th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
datarat says:
I find this more disturbing than all the other tales of failure I’m regaled with on a daily basis.
Being an optimist, I suppose I could say that if they’re not being summarily shoved into a grinder it’s a good thing, but I just can’t dredge up that much optimism right now.
2 September 29th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Mike says:
American troops need to be withdrawn to safe areas and let the rest of Iraq sort themselves out. We are not Iraqi policeman. It will happen it is the force of civilization and happens one way or the other. Let them solve their own problems. We withdraw our troops to Kuawati camps, Kurd camps and let the Shea’s and Sunni’s have it out… why put our troops in harms way?
3 September 29th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Mariestaad says:
I must say, Trevor, that is a really disturbing account. You are right. Without a free press, what is a democracy? Without a free press, it’s only a matter of time before some strongman (or men) commandeer the government. I’m with datarat on this one–more discouraging than most tales.
4 September 30th, 2006 at 5:10 am
FVK says:
Like other readers commenting here, this does seem to be a disturbing turn of events, but I try to keep things in perspective when it comes to democracy, especially in the Middle East.
I’m no expert, but it’s obviously a difficult and abstract concept for the average Iraqi to grasp and understand. We’ve been fortunate enough to have had a couple hundreds years living in freedom under a democracy, and we’re still trying to get it right. Americans can be an impatient lot.
I’m thankful our founding father’s and my parents’ generation didn’t have the same mindset and lack of courage and determination displayed by some in this generation.
5 September 30th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Trevor says:
I’m an optimist too, when I can muster it. It’s been harder to maintain as the year has passed here. Close exposure to constant strife tends to make it hard to remain positive. And other things dampened my spirits, but I’ll rehash those in the days and months to come, God willing.
That’s not to say there is not hope in Iraq. There is. It’s just in hiding. Perhaps that is what bothers me most about my time here. I’ve said many times that Iraq is on a long road. The horror of daily existence here wears me out. War is a wearying endeavor.
Day to day, things may seem hopeless from the vantage point of an Iraqi living in Baghdad. What do you tell someone who has watched their family be pulled out of a car and shot in the head, or who has to go collect dead relatives who were tortured before being murdered from the morgue? Not much, I would suppose.
If someone tortured and murdered my wife, they would end up dead. Point blank. The law wouldn’t matter too much to me. So I understand some of what’s happening in the streets of Baghdad.
Iraq is cursed with terrible leadership and more than a thousand years of the millstone that is Islam hanging around her neck. That’s how I see it anyhow.
Why is it difficult for an average Iraqi to understand freedom (I hate the word democracy)? Because he or she has been exposed to very little of it. That’s another reason why this process is so painful.
No Iraqi alive today has experienced a system where they can get ahead by making good choices and working hard. They’ve never experienced a government where things get done without bribes or family connections. That doesn’t seem to be changing much but again, it will take some time. Much more time. Think in decades.
Religion has long been the mechanism whereby the population is controlled. Even Saddam had to pay lip service to it to stay in power. Those things don’t change overnight.
I hold out hope. Americans are here providing a very frail web that keeps Iraq from plunging into full scale civil war (I’ll call what’s happening right now low intensity civil war). Meanwhile, young Iraqis are exposed to the Internet and international television. And that’s what will change Iraq for the better if anything does. Fresh ideas from outside. Better memes.
Let’s hope they don’t spend most of their time looking at porn like the puerile American public.
We ARE Iraqi policemen. We appointed ourselves such when we removed Saddam. Sure, there is probably some point where Americans would be forced to decide that we don’t have the resources or troops to fix Iraq. Are we there yet? No.
6 October 1st, 2006 at 6:59 am
Papa Ray says:
In a time of war, free press should take a back seat to a press that is working toward helping the government in their efforts to win that war.
Both in Iraq and in America.
Call it what you will, but we could use a little less of the media’s crap here in this Republic right now. Less negative and more positive outlook would be a good start.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
7 October 1st, 2006 at 9:00 am
Trevor says:
I couldn’t disagree with you more Papa Ray.
Freedom of speech trumps just about any other “necessity.” Could we use a little less media “crap?” Sure. But what you seem to be saying is that the press should be forced to report positive news. Now who should do that? The government?
I don’t think so.
8 October 1st, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Harley says:
Hmm. I read Papa Ray’s comment and thought, “right on”. (My thoughts on FVK’s comment were similar.) Then, I read Trevor’s rebuttal and thought, “I don’t see a put-down of freedom of speech or press in Papa Ray’s item”.
Perhaps Trevor’s comeback revolves around the word “free”. I don’t sense Papa implying either suppression or censorship of the press. When I watch CNN and ABC news, the slant toward the politics of Pelossi, Dean, et al. is obvious. Ditto for the New York Times and the Washington Post. The same for Rush Limbaugh in the opposite direction.
As Rush said on his program the other day, the liberals who spew hate speech against Bush and denegrade America’s relationship with the world may not realize their words are immediately heard by both friend and foe everywhere.
Al-Queda, and the leaders of Iran and Venezuela may be the unintended beneficiaries of irresponsible opposition reporting — but they are beneficiaries nevertheless.
And that is unpatriotic!
9 October 1st, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Trevor says:
It’s certainly possible I’m misintrepreting what Papa Ray meant. Perhaps that is a reaction the the mentality I’ve dealt with here in Iraq, where decisions and information are dealt with in an arbitrary fashion using closed information systems rather than proactively using open information systems.
I would almost describe myself as “gun shy” toward military authorities right about now.
The word patriot, like the word terror, gets overused these days.
10 October 1st, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Mariestaad says:
No, you have to report news warts and all–so I couldn’t disagree more with Papa Ray. And about the “liberal conspiracy” in the media, Harley, I just don’t see it. I think the only conspiracy is to line up as many sponsors as possible, and dumb down the news to where “whether to breast feed or not” becomes a more pressing issue than a realistic analysis and explanation to the American of two government-supported surveys that state 6 out 10 Iraqis support attacks on Americans, and 8 out of 10 want us out now. But as Mike Dewine, Senator for Ohio stated today on Meet the Press, much to everyone’s shock (you could have dropped a pin on the set) “We aren’t in Iraq for the Iraqi people. We are in Iraq for us–our security.” Shouldn’t we be having a discussion, in the press, about this? I mean this wasn’t anyone filtering or paraphrasing his comments: this was live TV. So, yeah, if that’s what we are in Iraq for, I want to hear it–in plain English. I don’t want a “positive” or “negative” spin, I just want to hear what our government has to say, and what its detractors have to say as well. Start “filtering” the news to be “positive,” and then you tip your hat to Stalin: the master of positive spin. (Nazis surrounding Stalingrad? Perish the thought! Or better yet, go to the gulag!). So this is why I read Trevor–because I don’t want spin. I don’t want ads every 60 seconds. I don’t want perky newscasters, or pedantic pundits: I want to hear it from the horse’s mouth–be it good or bad. So Trevor, keep up the good work.
11 October 2nd, 2006 at 5:30 am
Harley says:
Mariestaad,
I don’t object to posting all the news, but as you state, it is best presented in context and unfiltered. “Just the facts, ma’am.”
Your own blog states the sacrifices of our soldiers and Iraqi citizens in gross numbers, but fails to state the ideals for which they stand and the heroism shown in sacrifice to their own country and to the future of democracy in Iraq.
(http://makeadesert.blogspot.com/2006/09/attention-students-our-blogs-good.html).
By using Trevor’s blog to give credence to the Time article he references, you convey the impression that the men on the ground in Iraq support the “cut and run” position. That is far from accurate. I, too, am glad that Trevor should soon be on his way home — but not because that means one less soldier in Iraq to uphold the tenuous freedom the Iraqis are exercising.
And, a note on the other side. I think it is deplorable that Senator Foley was permitted by the Republicans and one or more families of the victims to hide his sin of child molestation for nearly a year. It’s not clear whether there is any violation of the law, but his acts were certainly contrary to the mores of our country and should be exposed.
I favor factual news reporting, elimination of spin, and the overturning of tolerance when its for the sake of political correctness.
12 October 2nd, 2006 at 7:25 pm
Mariestaad says:
Harley, by no means did I intend to “distort” Trevor’s blog by referring to the article he posted from Time, which wasn’t about, if I read it right (and I make a profession of reading) “cutting and running,” it was about the cost of the war–about amputees, and about someone who didn’t support the war gaining a new appreciation for those who fight. It was a possible source for my students’ papers: they can draw their own conclusions. If Trevor would like me to remove the link, I will respect his wishes immediately. I know you “get it,” the cost of the war and the heroism of our soldiers, but many of my students don’t. They don’t know much, don’t read much, and until last week, many didn’t even know what an “insurgent” was. And as far as me talking about the heroics in my post noting the deceased, I think Mr. Shakespeare is far more eloquent than I am. Furthermore, I have to remain as neutral as possible. You will notice that I usually end each blog posting with a question. This is to elicit repsonses–the purpose of this blog. And just in case you doubt that I understand the heroism of our soldiers, I have an immediate family member serving in Afghanistan. Again, I have to be careful in my blog precisely because I’m hardly neutral when it comes to my loved ones. I hope this clarifies things a bit. Why don’t you post something on our blog? We welcome all voices and opinions, and would love to hear from you.
13 November 6th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Nick says:
The entire country of Iraq is still less violent than the cities of Washington, D.C., Detroit, Baltimore, Atlanta, and St. Louis individually.
The Iraqi civilian death rate was 27.51 per 100,000.
In Washington D.C. the civilian death rate is 45 violent deaths per 100,000. Detroit is 41.8 per 100,000, Baltimore is 37.7 per 100,000, Atlanta is 34.9 per 100,000, and St. Louis is 31.4 per 100,000.
What does that say about our system of government… it should be abandon, right?