02/16/2009 1:25 pm

POV

'Iraq Is Alive Again,' Says Zainab Al-Suwaij

© AP

Editor’s Note: Zainab Al-Suwaij is the executive director of the American Islamic Congress.

Two weeks ago, I drove up to Basra from Kuwait just before Iraq’s nationwide municipal elections. The sea of candidate posters immediately caught my eye. Nearly every inch of public wall space had been plastered with headshots of candidates representing dozens of parties. Beyond the mosaic of politicians’ faces, however, I saw something just as inspiring: hundreds of laughing children played in a new park set up on the side of the main road.

My eye fixed on one little boy in particular, hanging precariously from the monkey bars. With my maternal instinct kicking in, I pulled over. “Be careful,” I warned him. “That’s dangerous.” He was only six years old and smiled shyly. “But I haven’t played like this in my whole life,” he said. "Let me enjoy it."

I smiled, too, remembering that I hadn’t seen anything quite like this either: a crowded children’s park in Basra — and Iraq on the upswing.

For the first time since I participated in the failed 1991 intifada against Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s prospects look greater than the dangers. The daily violence that battered the country has largely subsided. And the Iraqi mosaic, which was thought to have been broken beyond repair, has regenerated. Iraq is alive again.

Despite the many remaining challenges, there are telling indicators of the country’s health: bustling economic activity, a functioning security force and a vibrant press. And here’s something new for Iraq, as well as the rest of the Arab world: The country’s politicians have been held accountable to their constituents.

It was this month’s elections that, more than anything else, marked the rebirth of Iraq. The elections featured more than 14,000 candidates, many of them representing secular political parties. That Iraqis turned away from major religious political parties — one lost control of five provinces — suggests that we have entered a new era of Iraqi politics. Voters are more secure about their future, and Iraqis are showing their pragmatism by opting for competence and change and shunning religious parties that many analysts once expected to dominate the country for decades to come.

Several women work in my grandmother’s home, assisting with cleaning and other domestic work. None of them can read or write, but all of them made a point to request time off to vote on Election Day. As they left to head home to their districts to vote, one of them observed: “My vote makes a difference. If the politicians I vote for do not do good work, I can vote them out. For the first time in my life, leaders are accountable to me.”

The scene at many polling stations revealed how Iraqi women are becoming more comfortable dressing liberally in public. In the past, fundamentalist militias would harass and even kill women who didn’t cover up or didn’t wear their hijab modestly enough. Now the militias appear to have been defeated, and some Christian, Sabean and even secular Muslim women felt comfortable going to the polls without their heads covered.

Sunni turnout for the elections was massive, as high as 60 percent in some regions, and this fact alone shows that something transformative has happened in Iraq. The Sunni community is on board with the idea of a new Iraq, the rift has begun to heal — and now it’s time for us Americans to reunify as well.

Iraq’s success is a bipartisan issue. The blood spilt by Americans and Iraqis to make this happen was neither Republican nor Democrat. Now we owe it to them, and the future of our two countries, to reap the seeds they sowed. Now that elections are over in the U.S. and Iraq, our position has to look forward, not backward — not about vindicating past policies but recognizing where we are right now and where we should be going.

175 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

jj5
If this war had not happened, would those children have been allowed to play? Would these women have been allowed to vote? Things in that country would have never changed.
By jj5 on 02/16/2009 1:44 pm
Marina B.
If there was a restriction on children playing in Iraq prior to our invasion, I am not aware of it. Source, please? In pre-invasion Iraq, women were allowed to vote to the same extent as men. It was not all hearts and flowers for women in Iraq under Hussein. There was abuse of men and women. But the implication that Iraq was akin to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan in its treatment of women is off-base. Women could go to school, hold jobs outside the home, drive, walk around without male escort, and wear secular clothing under Hussein. Women in Afghanistan did regain the right to vote (which they had prior to the Taliban) after the overthrow of the Taliban. Women can vote in most Muslim countries, although women in Lebanon have restrictions that are not placed on men (namely proof of education). The only two Muslim countries I’m aware of in which women can’t vote are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. (Actually, Kuwaiti women can vote in municipal elections, but not in the parliamentary elections.) So please note that the only Muslim countries in which women are not permitted to vote are U.S. allies.
By Marina B. on 02/16/2009 2:38 pm
SteveDouglass
Hmmmm…isn’t it interesting though, that when people voted in Iraq prior to the invasion, that the Baath party and Saddam Hussein himself recieved 99% of the vote? Yeah, there’s voting that’s really meaningful.
By SteveDouglass on 02/16/2009 5:31 pm
Marina B.
Did you miss the part where I said “to the same extent as men”?
By Marina B. on 02/16/2009 5:50 pm
Marina B.
If there was a restriction on children playing in Iraq prior to our invasion, I am not aware of it. Source, please? In pre-invasion Iraq, women were allowed to vote to the same extent as men. It was not all hearts and flowers for women in Iraq under Hussein. There was abuse of men and women. But the implication that Iraq was akin to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan in its treatment of women is off-base. Women could go to school, hold jobs outside the home, drive, walk around without male escort, and wear secular clothing under Hussein. Women in Afghanistan did regain the right to vote (which they had prior to the Taliban) after the overthrow of the Taliban. Women can vote in most Muslim countries, although women in Lebanon have restrictions that are not placed on men (namely proof of education). The only two Muslim countries I’m aware of in which women can’t vote are Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. (Actually, Kuwaiti women can vote in municipal elections, but not in the parliamentary elections.) So please note that the only Muslim countries in which women are not permitted to vote are U.S. allies.
By Marina B. on 02/16/2009 2:38 pm
WowTropdeclasse
Jera, Really, study facts, read…..truly embarrassing your lack of knowledge.
By WowTropdeclasse on 02/16/2009 4:47 pm
DianaT
Speaking of which, Tom Ricks has just published a new book. And, as you know, he is very well respected in his knowledge of Iraq and Bushs’ war. So, he was on Charlie Rose Friday evening, and I have been waiting for the interview to be available, which is about the Surge, and is fascinating: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10080
By DianaT on 02/16/2009 6:27 pm
BuhBye
Just going on the title of this article. No. Republicans were not right on Iraq.
By BuhBye on 02/16/2009 8:00 pm
MommyDearest1
My dears, there was a fascinating piece on “Sunday Morning” about a recently retired Middle East CIA operative, who said that his contacts in Iraq are fearful that, if the “Axis of Evil” US policy with Iraq is continued, it is likely to emerge as the most significant Middle East power. He concludes that we may best be served by pursuing a policy like Nixon did with respect to China. An interesting point of view from one with hands-on knowledge, isn’t it, dears?
By MommyDearest1 on 02/16/2009 1:44 pm
Marina B.
Was he talking about Iraq or Iran? I would assume the latter.
By Marina B. on 02/16/2009 2:26 pm
MommyDearest1
Pardon me, Marina dear, it was Iran. In addition, he mentioned that Iraq was a “buffer” for Iran’s power, having engaged them in war. By removing Iraq’s threat to them, dear, a possibly unwitting consequence was the fact that Iraq’s buffer has been removed. Fascinating point of view, isn’t it Marina? Thanks, dear, for pointing out my mistake.
By MommyDearest1 on 02/16/2009 2:34 pm
Marina B.
It is, indeed, Mommy Dearest. The increase in Iran’s power was just one of the almost inevitable consequences of our invasion that was not considered beforehand. My apologies to everyone for the repeat postings. It seems I must use a lighter touch when clicking on the “Submit” button.
By Marina B. on 02/16/2009 2:43 pm
JamestheGame
Iran’s the most likely to start WW3, no doubt about that.
By JamestheGame on 02/16/2009 9:25 pm
WowTropdeclasse
It was Kimberly Dozier reporting and Robert Baer, who wasn’t a “CIA-operative” but the CIA Directorate in the Middle East for over a decade, and who’s been speaking out and writing books for years. Along with many other very credible and mostly ignored sources on the Reagan-Bush-rumsfeld-Cheney cabal that trained and outfitted OBL, Saddam who were CIA assets, and funded and armed both sides of the Iran Iraq war for 7 years. The term is BLOWBACK….we are all dealing with the backlash of failed Reagan-Bush-Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney polices that also gave us the BCCI scandal, Iran Contra, Iraq Gate, floods of refugees escaping all their phony South American wars to replace democratically elected leaders with their dictator puppets. Robert Baer: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/15/sunday/main4803601.shtml And an interview: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/09/12_baer.html Sorrows of Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson Here’s Middle East CIA Directorate Robert Baer, played by George Clooney in “Syrianna,” on the official cover-up of 911. http://www.911blogger.com/node/1780 Here Rober Baer is speaking on 911, stating the obvious. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/031107Baer.htm
By WowTropdeclasse on 02/16/2009 5:10 pm
RobertThompson
And here is another great Idea from Obama!! Obama Signs Presidential Determination Allowing Palestinians Loyal to Hamas to Resettle In US http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2181149/posts Posted on Sunday, February 08, 2009 3:18:31 PM by NoLibZone President Barack Obama has signed an executive order presidential determination allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians to resettle in the United States . Sure, what can go wrong when we allow hundreds of thousands of people who have been, as Mark Steyn memorably described, “marinated” in a “sick death cult,” who voted for Hamas, and 55% of whom support suicide bombings live here and at the American taxpayers’ expense: By executive order, President Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza . The “presidential determination” which allows hundreds of thousands of Palestinians with ties to Hamas to resettle in the United States was signed on January 27 and appeared in the Federal Register on February 4. President Obama’s decision, according to the Register, was necessitated by “the urgent refugee and migration needs” of the “victims.” Few on Capitol Hill took note that the order provides a free ticket replete with housing and food allowances to individuals who have displayed their overwhelming support of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) in the parliamentary election of January 2006. Let’s review some of Barack Obama’s most recent actions since he was inaugurated a little more than two weeks ago: * His first call to any head of state as president was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of Fatah party in the Palestinian territory. * His first one on one interview with any news organization was with Al Arabia television. * He ordered Guantanamo Bay closed and all military trials of detainees halted. * He ordered all overseas CIA interrogation centers closed. * He withdrew all charges against the masterminds behind the USS Cole and 9/11. * Today we learn that he is allowing hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refuges to move to and live in the US at American taxpayer expense. Anyone else seeing a pattern here?
By RobertThompson on 02/16/2009 1:47 pm