Two different acts

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

The anti-war movement that existed before we invaded Iraq, has now been tasked with ensuring that we withdraw from Iraq. Thanks to a mother of a dead soldier and the folk singer, Joan Baez, the chant of ‘Get us out of Iraq now!’ can be heard across the land.

However, the “anti-war” movement in question isn’t really one movement, it’s two.

The first was based on an effort to prevent the President of the United States from unilaterally invading Iraq for no really justifiable reason. I was part of this movement, and take very little comfort in knowing that everything I wrote about the consequences of an invasion before we entered Iraq has come true: the looting of historical treasures, the uncertainty of civil war, Iraq now becoming a focus for terrorism, and the mistreatment and subjugation of women.

It is because of the latter that I am not part of the second “anti-war” movement: the demand to pull out of Iraq now. Ms. Baez has confused Iraq with Vietnam, and has dusted off her anti-war songs, and the country is ready to get out of something that is expensive in terms of lives and money. Yet, Iraq didn’t ask us to invade, and we had no justification for doing so. To pull out now, after only a cursory token effort to ensure stability, makes us into the worst form of invaders–those who come, conquer, pillage, and then leave.

I used to sing these anti-war songs once, long ago, but not now. Iraq is not Vietnam. I hate having to be on the side of those who promoted our invasion of Iraq, but I can’t see us pulling out now. Not because the President’s “job isn’t done”–I could care less for that man and his pathetic attempts to salvage his image for history. It’s because as bad as it is in Iraq now for women, as well as other minorities such as gays and members of religions other than the dominate three, if we pull out it only threatens to get worse. Much worse.

As it stands now, if a particular type of Islamic law, Shari’a, is incorporated into the constitution for Iraq, there is no doubt that women stand to lose many of their rights in that country. Though some vague wording about ‘rights’ is incorporated, it is hedged about with a provision that only if such rights don’t violate Shari’a. We only have to look next door, in Iran, to see the ‘fairness’ of Shari’a. Iranian law condones the murder of sixteen year old girls for having sex. That isn’t law. That isn’t even inhumanity. It has to climb a long away to be called “inhumanity”.

Bush has said that the Iraqi draft Constitution protects women’s rights. According to the San Franciso Chronicle:

Bush said Tuesday that the draft constitution protects women.

“The way the constitution is written is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognized in the constitution,’’ Bush said, adding it is important that the draft said Islam is “not ‘the’ religion, but ‘a’ religion.’’

If we’re to believe President Bush, then we know where we can find the “guaranteed” rights for women: sitting right next to the Weapons of Mass Destruction that led us into Iraq in the first place.

(Thanks to Lauren for link to Heretik.)

And there’s this from the Daily Pepper. And a partial translation of the draft constitution.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email