Only bad options

Monday, October 23, 2006

'The week the war unravelled' was Saturday's headline on the Independent. It's still unravelling. The director of public diplomacy(sic) in Washington's bureau of near eastern affairs has retracted his weekend claim that the US 'failure' in Iraq stemmed in part from 'arrogance and stupidity'.

The US has admitted that it can no longer continue its operation of trying to control Baghdad. The town of Amara, handed over by British forces in the summer, has once more erupted in fighting between the Badr Brigades and the Mahdi Army.

George Bush has now compared the war on Iraq with Vietnam, which can't be a great idea two weeks before an election where the Republicans look like getting pasted over the war.

Ever since General Sir Richard Dannatt's bombshell two weeks ago, the ground has been cut from beneath the feet of the pro war lobby (itself an ever dwindling group of people reliant on the indefatigable Christopher Hitchens to keep it in good heart).

The problem for the war party is there is a momentum here which may be unstoppable, even if Donald Rumsfeld is sacrificed, as is now being talked about.

I am frequently confronted by journalists and military who say 'we have to stay and finish the job'. Or, in the words of Margaret Beckett and Tony Blair, we 'have to hold our nerve' (as if the occupation of Iraq was a trapeze act at the circus). There's one simple flaw in this argument: it isn't getting any better. In the words of Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who helped run the occupation in Iraq, 'there are only bad options for the coalition from now on.'

There is no job being done here apart from occupying a country the majority of whose population want the troops to leave. There is no reconstruction, no improvement in people's lives.

Even most pro war elements now understand this. When you have Dannatt and Greenstock both saying things can only get worse, you know that Blair is pretty much last man standing in Whitehall.

The solution isn't, however, sending in more troops _ or asserting that if only more troops had gone in three and a half years ago then things would have gone swimmingly. The problem here is not implementation but the principle involved. When you occupy someone else's country you are going to find the population against you.

So let's not occupy countries and pretend we are doing them a favour, or that the morass we find ourselves in is 'progress'.

In Afghanistan there is still a lot of talk about finishing the job. But the occupation has presided over the demise of the Taliban, the election of a pro western government, the rise of the Taliban, and the growing unpopularity of the pro western government. Meanwhile no women's liberation, no reconstruction.

Doesn't that mean it's going backwards?

10/23/2006 09:05:00 AM | Permalink

The fashion and thought police

Monday, October 16, 2006

The war on terror has created some unlikely allies. When George Bush told us he was bombing Afghanistan in order to liberate women, many found that particularly hard to take. One of the more distasteful features of the wave of attacks on Muslims in recent weeks has been the sight of feminists lining up to support Jack Straw in his demand that women should not wear the veil in his presence.

Women who claim they believe in liberation really should know better. The women’s movement of the 1960s was anti racist, coming out of the civil rights and anti war movements in the US. It was against cultural imperialism for the same reasons. Indeed, many African Americans turned to traditional dress to reject western culture and to assert their identity.

Why are people who espouse their ideas today attacking some of the most oppressed women in the name of liberating them? Why are they backing a privileged man who is in a much more powerful position than his constituents by supporting his version of 'What not to wear'? New Labour's very own equivalent of Trinny and Susannah no doubt has many delightful versions of integrated outerwear. But shouldn't we be telling him it's none of his business?

Some feminists assume that any Muslim woman who wears the veil or the hijab does so because of social and family pressure. Even when Muslim women assert in the strongest possible terms that this is not true and that they have made this choice themselves, they are not believed. The term for that is patronising. It's bad enough to be patronised by a man like Jack Straw but when others join in you could forgive most Muslim women for thinking that they are not being treated as serious human beings but as the goods of their husbands and fathers.

A pretty sexist assumption when you come to think about it.

Another unlikely ally is General Sir Richard Dannatt. It's a once in a lifetime thing when you think about it for the head of the army to denounce a war in which his soldiers are engaged. But that's what he's done and there's nothing Tony Blair can do about it. The US wanted to tell Dannatt off but even Blair couldn't allow that.

So vindication for the anti war movement. But the more they lose on the war the more they attack Muslims. That's true of Dannatt as well, who clearly thinks it's all been downhill since the 1950s and who fears the 'Islamist threat' in Britain.

The latest twist in the war against Muslims is the announcement that the Department for Education wants university lecturers and staff to spy on Muslims or people who are 'Asian-looking', and report them to Special Branch. This government document claims those from 'segregated' backgrounds are more likely to be radical than those who have 'integrated into wider society'.

How can they tell? I take that to mean if you wear the veil or hijab you can expect to be spied on or reported to the authorities. So it's What not to wear with a nod to McCarthyism. Nothing like destroying democracy in the name of saving it.

10/16/2006 03:22:00 PM | Permalink

Straw should hide his face in shame

Thursday, October 05, 2006

What's more despicable than a foreign secretary who takes us into an illegal war and then tries to distance himself from it for electoral reasons? What about a former foreign secretary who attacks Muslim women wearing the veil for electoral reasons?

Jack Straw has added his unwelcome voice to the bidding war over who can make the most headlines by attacking Muslims. He had a hard act to follow with John Reid, whose bid for the Labour leadership is based on ratcheting up the attacks on civil liberties and on the Muslim community.

Even David Cameron at the Tory conference, oh so liberal on gay marriages, doesn't think there should be Muslim only 'parallel' areas (actually there aren't), and that Muslim schools should accept one quarter non Muslims, in the name of ...well, in the name of not being exclusively Muslim. Next they'll be saying mosques should reserve places for non Muslims as well.

With this political background, I'm not surprised that a Muslim owned dairy in Windsor has been attacked by thugs. When the main political representatives in the country declare that it's open season on Muslims, no wonder those who want to attack them see it as a green light.

Let's examine this argument a minute. Jack Straw has told Muslim women who wear veils that they should take them off ...in the interests of getting a good look at their mouths and noses. When Jack Straw went on the Today programme today we couldn't see his face but his odious message was all too comprehensible.

Surely rather than attacking the victims of racism, the government should be defending them. It is up to the women themselves to choose what they wear and when they wear it. If Muslim women in veils are good enough to vote for Jack Straw, they are good enough to speak to, however they are dressed.

The difference between the government attitude today and five years ago is palpable. Then, government spokespeople went out of their way to attack the scapegoating of Muslims and to preach race harmony. Five years, three wars and two military occupations later, the last refuge of these scoundrels is to scapegoat Muslims for the consequences of the war.

Jack Straw should cover his face in shame.

10/05/2006 06:04:00 PM | Permalink