War! What’s it good For?

civil-war-005.jpg

A while back, I struck up a conversation with the elegantly dressed man sitting to my right at a dinner party. We were talking about the cost/benefit ratios of war. It is hard to say war is beneficial, but the reality can be—for example, WWII halted the eradication of millions of Jews--a benefit. Then there was the first Gulf War—a war that many Americans fretted heavily about but were also able to find the benefit of waging that war once it was a done deal…once it ended, we stocked up on SUVs, and heated our homes, went on vacations and generally lived the modern oil-glutted life we love while feeling good about stopping a bully from annexing another country.

Then the conversation took a more ominous turn, as the fit and trim man to my left mentioned the financial benefit of the Vietnam War. I won’t go into the details of that conversation, but it is not inarguable that there was benefit on both sides of the Pacific to the Vietnam War. Which brings me to Iraq.

I was not in favor of the Iraq War, but that does not stop me from seeing benefit when there is benefit. And one thing I feel certain of: If women the world over participated in government and politics in equal measure to men this world would be a VASTLY less warring planet. Men doing 90% or more of the killing in most societies.

So that brings me to the Benefit portion of our current wars. From the Times, January 29th, 09:

“Defying Hurdles, Thousands of Iraqi Women Vie for Votes and Taste of Power.”

Before that, on Jan. 14th, 09:
“Election Quotas for Iraqi Women are Weakened, Provoking Anger as Vote Nears.”
Now this headline, would at first blush seem bad news, but thinking about it…would these women have even had a voice to demand representation before the war? No.
And while the quota system was undermined by those opposed, it remains in the Iraq Constitution.

From the Jan. 29th Defying Hurdles story, this brilliant bit of good news:

Of the estimated 14,000 candidates, close to 4, 000 are women.

Wow….28% of the candidates were women! That is striking and a VERY big margin for hope. Now, of course, Iraqi women themselves will have to overcome their fear and bias against voting for women as much as Iraqi men. And while many will say: "oh she is SUCH a liar, or she is a SELL out, I’d rather have this man instead"….those votes that did not go to women will set Iraqi backwards more than anything else in its fledgling democratic history.

Another related item ran in the Times March 3rd—this time war’s benefit to Afghan Women. “Long-viewed as Chattel, Afghan Women Slowly Gain Protection.”
Some quick quotes:

“Since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, a more egalitarian notion of women’s rights has begun to take hold, founded in the country’s new Constitution and promoted by the newly created Ministry of Women’s Affairs and a small community of women’s advocates.”

Let’s be clear, G.W did not go to war to bring women’s rights to regions desperately in need. Let’s be EQUALLY clear, the U.S does not place sanctions upon nations that abuse women “simply” b/c those nations abuse women.
No one is going to place sanctions of South Africa because women are treated as 2nd class citizens. But the question remains why not? Is not it equally evil to have brutal policies towards women as towards a race? In this patriarchal world we live in and are governed by…no. Woman are not a primary objective of fopo (foreign policy.) Hell, most of the time the world's brutal treatment of women is not even on the RADAR.

But, just b/c G.W. did not wage war for women’s rights doesn’t mean women everywhere need to be blind to the benefits of his wars.

If democracy takes root in Iraq and if we stick with this commitment to keep the process going, then women worldwide will be better off for generations to come. When Iranian women see their Iraqi sisters holding public office in record numbers, then the sea will shift and this may be the moment when the oceans of women’s oppression began to slow and our planet begins to heal. (Sorry to Obama for borrowing your self-congratulatory words.)

It took decades for civil rights to inch forward after our country was divided by war, and the world truly benefited from the outcome of that war. Now let’s nurture the benefits of war, and not squander them in our indignation for a person named G.W., as the whole planet holds its breath.

Comments

excellent point and one i've

excellent point and one i've thought of many times this year as i read hint of good news coming out of iraq. i remember the Times opinion page published the thoughts of iraqi citizens on the day of (or days before, i can't recall) of this year's vote and it floored me to read their hopeful thoughts.

good to know that i'm not alone in thinking out of the Bush wars may come something immeasurably good for women.

I hope you are right when you

I hope you are right when you say "the oceans of womens oppression began to slow and our planet begins to heal" Lets hope it doesnt take another generation for this to happen.

Please also don't miss this

Please also don't miss this excellent MUST READ op/ed by Michael E. O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institutionand Kenneth M. Pollack of Saban Center for Middle East Policy @ Brookings.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/opinion/26ohanlon.html?scp=1&sq=Iraq's%20year%20of%20living%20dangerously&st=cse
excerpt:

THE Iraq war isn’t over. And while President Obama’s apparent decision to withdraw the bulk of American troops by August 2010 is not necessarily a mistake, it cannot be carried out rigidly. If all continues to go well, it should be eminently feasible; if not,the administration will have to show the strategic wisdom to slow down as needed to deal with problems.

"GIVEN Iraq’s strategic significance, the mission ceased to be a “war of choice” the moment American forces crossed the border in March 2003. Now we have no choice but to see Iraq through to stability."

Now when reading this op/ed that basically says no rigid timelines, recall that the Editor of the op/ed pages REFUSED to print an op/ed by McCain b/c he did not have Rigid Timelines for withdrawal from Iraq.

The Times needs a NEW owner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And we need her to be FEMALE!
BYe BYE Mr. Sulzberger. This democrat wants to see you swimming in Boca and out of NYC. America needs an honest broker at the Head of the Times.

Added reading: "While four

Added reading:
"While four years ago there was almost no public campaigning for fear of assassination, this time candidates have gone door to door, given speeches and — contrary to Iraq’s election law — doled out cash, cars, watches, food and blankets, among other items, to win votes."
above excerpt from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/world/middleeast/31primer.html?_r=1&hp

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options