Baltimore Sun:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.iraqiwomen22dec22,1,2115829.story?ctrack=1&cset=true …

Paul O’Neill: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml …

“Before the U.S. invasion, Iraqi women were highly educated. Their strong and independent women’s movement had successfully forced the government to pass the groundbreaking 1959 Family Law Act, which ensured equal rights in matters of personal law. Iraqi women could inherit land and property; they had equal rights to divorce and custody of their children; they were protected from domestic violence within marriage. In other words, they had achieved real gains in the struggle for equality. Iraqi women, like all Iraqis, certainly suffered from political repression and lack of freedom, but the secular – albeit brutal – Baathist regime did not impose tribal and religious fundamentalist laws that are now in effect and are contributing to women being kidnapped, raped and executed. ”

So it is not clear whether or not Matt has any awareness of Iraqi society before the Baathist regime was toppled. At least it was not demonstrated in the posting.

Subadei: except the architects of the war in Iraq were planning it before 9/11 and the GWOT (or Long War or whatever it is called now) began. I recall Paul O’Neill speaking about that in 2004.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

Looking back, this is an amusing article (from May 2001), especially the stuff about Chalabi: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20010514.htm ..

Enjoy!

“Blood for oil” in the context you provide is accurate in that the US (and other countries) have spent “blood and treasure” on maintaining stable oil supplies in the middle east.
However the more popular context, as Alex seems to adhere to, is a simplified label with damn near zero critical consideration behind it. It’s almost as intellectually blind as the Nazi comparisons tossed around in the more radical liberal forums of political discourse.

I’ll certainly have a look at your Frontline link.

I agree with some of what you wrote. US policies towards the Middle East rightfully focus on keeping oil supplies available, but no, the US did not invade Iraq in order to take control of its oil fields. The US did seek to topple Saddam, not because of how Iraqis felt about him, but because he made an enemy out of reluctant ally Uncle Sam when he invaded Kuwait.

“Blood for Oil” is not totally off the mark in that if Iraq and Kuwait had none, the US would not be military involved in the region.

I don’t think the US wants to, can, or should “Westernize” Iraq; it simply wants a government that does not pose a threat to the United States or its close allies.

The PBS website has loads of interesting materials from Frontline programs about Iraq. I found in this interview with Saddam’s biographer a clear and thoughtful analysis of Saddam’s rise to power, presidency, wars with Iran and Kuwait, attacks on Israel, changing relationship with the United States, and support/opposition to Saddam in Iraq and across the Arab world.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html

Sonagi,
To make a long opinion short, I believe the Iraq invasion was a long term goal that was destroyed by strategic failures and simple incompetence. I think the intent was to overthrow a dictator (whom the majority of his populace hated) and effectively westernize Iraq. Iraq could then serve as a powerful prowestern presence and strategic military point for possible deployment. I think the Bush admin. imagined terrorism as the next cold war and thought that cold war tactics could be applied. I do not think a Bush Cabal awoke one morning and launched a massive campaign to steal Iraqi oil and make Haliburton richer. While these make exciting talking points for Air America and the Democratic underground they’re a bit to simplistic to make much sense to me. Certainly oil was a considered factor and the US and it’s allies stood to gain some attractive oil deals with the new government. But to assail the war as something so simple as “Blood for Oil” is tiresome and shortsighted IMO.

“The whole word” has condemned US actions since at least Kennedy, at that was at a time of very low religiosity.

I also suggest, if your attempt is to change opinion, that you give original reasons to oppose the Iraq War, and not just standard talking-points that have years ago warn out their freshness.

During Saddam’s rule, neither men nor women enjoyed real suffrage.

I agree. Thus, to avoid dishonesty, don’t pretend otherwise.

Matt’s correct, as it was after the war that women gained the right to vote. For that matter, men gained the right to vote at the same time. The Iraq War transformed Iraq from an absolutist dictatorship (without elections) to an illiberal democracy (with elections).

Don’t seek an asinine cover for appearing clever. It doesn’t become you. I hope.

You’re missing my point.

Your missing my point. Matt stated under the post-war occupation, women gained the right to vote. That is not correct. It is correct to say that the recent elections were first contested elections in Iraqi history. Gender is irrelevant. During Saddam’s rule, neither men nor women enjoyed real suffrage.

Very funny comment.

I imagine Hosni Mubarak also deserves credit for the “suffrage” in the Egyptian elections. It’s easy to be a liberal democrat when you’re assured of a 99% majority every time you run!