Leaked memo.......

[harleygirl]

Interesting, I wonder how this happened??
CONFIDENTIAL MEMO
FROM: US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, Baghdad
TO: Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
SUBJECT: SNAPSHOTS FROM THE OFFICE
SENSITIVE
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1090904.ece

 

[vraiblonde]

The ugly truth about everyday life in Baghdad (by the US ambassador)

None of that is particularly shocking.

 

[huntr1]

None of that is particularly shocking.

Nor is any of it new news. If one has been paying attention, this information has all been out there for months.

 

[rraley]

The one troubling aspect of the new Iraqi society (which is far, far overshadowed by the benefits of not having Saddam Hussein in power) that really concerns me is the plight of women. While Hussein was a terrible, dictatorial leader, he ran a secular state that provided leadership positions to females and did not enforce strict Islamic law against women's rights. With popular elections, however, and the demographic majority of the Shi'a, who are much more conservative in their interpretation of women's rights as defined by the Quran, it is hard to believe that women in the new Iraq will enjoy equal rights. It's something that I believe needs to be monitored against and actively addressed by the United States government so that we can protect Iraqi women from oppressive Islamic law.

 

[huntr1]

The one troubling aspect of the new Iraqi society (which is far, far overshadowed by the benefits of not having Saddam Hussein in power) that really concerns me is the plight of women. While Hussein was a terrible, dictatorial leader, he ran a secular state that provided leadership positions to females and did not enforce strict Islamic law against women's rights. With popular elections, however, and the demographic majority of the Shi'a, who are much more conservative in their interpretation of women's rights as defined by the Quran, it is hard to believe that women in the new Iraq will enjoy equal rights. It's something that I believe needs to be monitored against and actively addressed by the United States government so that we can protect Iraqi women from oppressive Islamic law.

The Iraqi people are forming their own government, on THEIR terms, not ours.

While I agree that it is a bad thing that women's rights are going into the crapper over there, it is NOT the U.S. govt's job to make laws for IRAQ. Our job is to help protect them and give them the support they need to re-form their country in a non-dictatorial fashion.

 

[vraiblonde]

It's something that I believe needs to be monitored against and actively addressed by the United States government so that we can protect Iraqi women from oppressive Islamic law.

Is that a fact?

So you're advocating the US inflicting its values and culture on other countries? By...what? Force?

 

[rraley]

Is that a fact?

So you're advocating the US inflicting its values and culture on other countries? By...what? Force?

I support spreading human rights and democratic self-determination, as outlined in the UN charter as ratified in the 1940s. The most preferrable way to ensure that these positive values (held mutually by the United States and most of Europe) are endorsed by more nations is through diplomacy. This means the increased use of international aid, trade (either incentives or sanctions), treaties, etc.

Force is also a possible alternative, but it is a last resort that should only be used when it is clearly justified. The use of force should only occur when there are serious human rights abuses or a grave threat to national security. Furthermore, the outcome of the use of that force must incur less death and suffering than the status quo. Clearly, in the case of Iraq and women's rights, it is not at the point where there should be the use of force, but in the future, the United States should view Iraq as equally harmful to women's rights as nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

My preferred method of having other nations adopt stronger human rights standards is to either cut off trade or foreign aid to that country. It bothers me beyond words that not only do we trade with China but also that it has most favored status. China is a terrible human rights abuser and it is a growing threat to our future security and as such, I do not believe we should be trading with them.

 

[Bruzilla]

I getting that ole' stinky fish feeling again! This memo does not read like what one would expect to hear from a career diplomat, and certainly not from a govie to his superior. No one ever writes a memo that's all negatives and no positives. Also, folk's at the SECSTATE level get memos with problems AND suggested/recommended solutions - never just problems.

This memo sure sounds fake to me.

 

[FromTexas]

Philosophical question for you Rraley: Was a woman in Saddam's government as a political figure a woman with freedom? Does having the position matter when your only position is your dictator's position?

 

[Bruzilla]

I support spreading human rights and democratic self-determination, as outlined in the UN charter as ratified in the 1940s.

How about supporting and spreading human rights simply because it;s the right thing to do?

The most preferrable way to ensure that these positive values (held mutually by the United States and most of Europe) are endorsed by more nations is through diplomacy. This means the increased use of international aid, trade (either incentives or sanctions), treaties, etc.

And the most preferrable way for me to become a millionaire is to win the lottery, but the odds are that won't happen any faster than using sanctions to get despots to have "positive values."

The use of force should only occur when there are serious human rights abuses or a grave threat to national security. Furthermore, the outcome of the use of that force must incur less death and suffering than the status quo.

How do you define a threat to our national security? What would happen if Hussein set off WMDs in the US? Deaths, collapse of our economy, widespread hopelessness, etc. What would have happened if Hussein had succeeded in bringing the Middle East used his control over a huge chunk of the World's oil to destroy our economy, blackmail our allies, and use his power to gain WMDs that would allow him to take over even more territory? Is that any less a threat to our national security than someone using WMDs? Our way of life would be just as devastated.

As for the need to incur less death than the status quo, do you look at the status quo on a static or cumulative basis? If Hussein murders 1,000 people a year for 20 years, do we only count the 20,000 dead or can we also count the 20,000 more he'll be killing in the next ten years? How about the 20,000 after that? At what point can you come up with a life and death balance sheet that shows "X" number of deaths equals a need for action? And does that balance sheet that has a column that would have an entry for potential deaths in toppling the despot and what "X" value in that column would make saving the lives of thousands in the future not worth it?