One, we have created a monster, and more potential terrorists than Bin Laden could have ever have hoped for.
Forgive me for being self-centered, but I'm thinking more of what this means for the United States. Those men have to return to civilian life at some point. Some of these men have abused or tortured prisoners; others have raped Iraqi women and impregnated them (seemingly with impunity). Also, not mentioned in the above link but rather on Nightline a few weeks ago, there are cases of rape within the ranks that aren't being prosecuted, either. If the Army sees fit that their troops can rape their own compatriots, well, we see where that slippery slope has taken us.
Two, where is the progressive liberal outrage at that kind of treatment of women? We can't leave these women to a fate of islamic extremism.
There is outrage. Feminists have decried the treatment of women in repressive Islamic culture for several years. There is genuine alarm with regard to the situation in Fallujah, which has reverted back to "traditional" Islamic culture, which means restrictions on women. It doesn't matter if those women were respected teachers or scientists when Saddam Hussein was in power; now they are as restricted as other women under such "traditional" rule.
But what can be done? The President's own policy, insofar as it can be ascertained, is to come out of this with some sense of "victory". What that might be keeps mutating. If it means, "Giving the Iraqis elections," that's great, but those elections might put in place a government that institutes sharp restrictions on large portions of the populace, particularly women. But that would be one sense of "victory". Iraqi elections gives us a chance to save face.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
branchandroot![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-31 08:25 am (UTC)One, we have created a monster, and more potential terrorists than Bin Laden could have ever have hoped for.
Two, where is the progressive liberal outrage at that kind of treatment of women? We can't leave these women to a fate of islamic extremism.
But, we can't stay without inflaming more extremism! Where is the leader who is not afraid to tell us these hard truths?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-05-31 10:52 am (UTC)Forgive me for being self-centered, but I'm thinking more of what this means for the United States. Those men have to return to civilian life at some point. Some of these men have abused or tortured prisoners; others have raped Iraqi women and impregnated them (seemingly with impunity). Also, not mentioned in the above link but rather on Nightline a few weeks ago, there are cases of rape within the ranks that aren't being prosecuted, either. If the Army sees fit that their troops can rape their own compatriots, well, we see where that slippery slope has taken us.
Two, where is the progressive liberal outrage at that kind of treatment of women? We can't leave these women to a fate of islamic extremism.
There is outrage. Feminists have decried the treatment of women in repressive Islamic culture for several years. There is genuine alarm with regard to the situation in Fallujah, which has reverted back to "traditional" Islamic culture, which means restrictions on women. It doesn't matter if those women were respected teachers or scientists when Saddam Hussein was in power; now they are as restricted as other women under such "traditional" rule.
But what can be done? The President's own policy, insofar as it can be ascertained, is to come out of this with some sense of "victory". What that might be keeps mutating. If it means, "Giving the Iraqis elections," that's great, but those elections might put in place a government that institutes sharp restrictions on large portions of the populace, particularly women. But that would be one sense of "victory". Iraqi elections gives us a chance to save face.