Good is good policy.

From the Paratrooper of Love:

Iraqi media, almost unbelievably, have in recent days begun to editorialized astonishment at how the United States has responded [to the prison scandle]. No covers ups. No denials. The President of the United States, the world's most powerful man, formally apologized to the people of Iraq. The U.S. Congress grilled a senior member of the Administration and all the while the U.S. media was allowed to report on the unfolding story with full freedom and access. "Why does Arab media fail at self criticism and why can't Arab human rights NGOs pressure Arab governments the way their counterparts do in America?", asked the host of satellite news channel al-Arabiy's (one of the harshest critics of the United States) "Spotlight" news program. The follow up commentary was even more astounding, given the source. "The Americans exposed their own scandal, queried the officials and got the American Government to accept responsibility for the actions of its soldiers," stated the host before asking her guests why this sort of open and responsive action isn't taken in the Arab world.

One of the largest newspapers in the Pan-Arab world raised the stakes even higher yesterday with this editorial comment: "Bush has apologized and claimed that democratic regimes make mistakes, but that the guilty will be punished. What happened at Abu Ghuraib is not surprising as there are many stories of horror inside Arab jails. The abuses that the Arab governments condemn at Abu Ghuraib are nothing compared to what happens in these governments' jails. Will the Arab regimes go on TV and apologize to their people in the same way President Bush did?"

My colleague who heads our Arab media unit here in Baghdad called these statements nothing short of revolutionary for the Middle East media. And while they may not seem that profound on the surface, they are threads of a far greater, and still unfolding, story. Yes, the horrific actions of a few have tainted the good work of the many. But they have unwittingly done something else. The events of the past several days have given democracy a global stage within which to prove its worth.

Like the Cold War, this is a battle of ideals. We win by staying true to our own.

Comments

[Dave Schuler]

Thanks. I could use a bit of good news about now.

[Fabius]

A possible silver lining where I thought there could be none. It's encouraging if the Arab press takes the right lessons out of this. Hopefully, we will too.

[eSteve]

Good grief! Don't you think we could have thought of a better way to prove the superiority of democratic institutions? I mean, other than waging an illegal war, lying about the reasons, alienating the entire civilized world, and killing thousands of innocent people? For a less starry-eyed assessment of the long-term consequences of this unholy mess we're in, check out this piece by a 30-year veteran middle-east reporter in the Sunday Washington Post:

"Over the past quarter-century, I've covered the rage of the Islamic world, witnessing much of it up close, losing friends who became victims to its extremist wings and watching its furies swell. But I've never been scared until now."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28339-2004May14?language=printer

[Jadegold]

Ahhh, the soft bigotry of low expectations.

No coverups? No denials? The jury's still out.

[Jadegold]

Despite the swooning rapture over the 'Iraqi media'--it must be pointed out the 'Iraqi media' is rigidly under the control of the US occupation forces. On several occasions, those 'Iraqi media' outlets deigned to have strayed from the party line have been raided and/or shuttered.

[mark]

On the other hand, Jadegold, Al-Arabiya is a far cry from Al-Hurra, in terms of the degree to which we control it.

[Gary Farber]

Of course, "No covers ups. No denials." is, um, true if you want to believe that it's only 7 enlisted folk from Cumberland, Maryland at fault.

Otherwise, there have been more and more spirited editorials in Arab media in the last couple of years calling for self-examination. But they're still largely drops in a large bucket, and it's also hard for much to change under the repressive and authoritarian governments extant, such as those of our good pals the Egyptians and Saudi Arabians.

Of course, as history shows us, once things start to change, a tipping point can be reached where suddenly a seemingly immobile regime suddenly crumbles to bits, as we particularly saw in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. So there are indeed grounds for long, and even mid, term optimism.

Just probably nothing huge in the next year or so.

[Jadegold]

Very true, Mark. But my understanding is that Al-Arabiya (a relatively new media outlet) has demonstrated a rather independent streak. It seems to feature a great deal more debate than one might expect from a Middle Eastern media outlets.

[asdf]

That's interesting. Thanks for posting. As I commented a while back, the Washington Bureau chief of Al Jazeera has made this same point.

Now what I hope we do, after actually getting to the bottom of this issue, is to throw down the gauntlet to regimes around the world to do the same.

[JimPortlandOR]

a slim ray of sunshine amid a monster thunderstorm is alway encouraging and welcome.

after we punish those up the line who set the policies (and provide the nudges and winks), can WE feel that we acted on the abuses the way a democracy ought to.

[double-plus-ungood]

Well, it's a good sentiment, but when I read this line in the quoted piece:

No covers ups.

... I had to post this article from yesterday's ABC news:

‘Definitely a Cover-Up’
Former Abu Ghraib Intel Staffer Says Army Concealed Involvement in Abuse Scandal

Dozens of soldiers — other than the seven military police reservists who have been charged — were involved in the abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, and there is an effort under way in the Army to hide it, a key witness in the investigation told ABCNEWS.

[Timmy the Wonder Dog]

What are the Iraqis really concerned about, well according to this Iraqi expat it is:

The main concern of the people he talks to is that the photos, and the beaten-up outrage from the rest of the Arab world, might encourage America to leave.

[via instapundit and yes I know how Von feels about him]

[asdf]

Timmy, ex-pats and their friends like the U.S. That's good, and we knew it already.

A contrasting view of the trial.

[Sam]

Let's grant that our relatively open political system may have some salutary demonstration effects on Iraq. The question then is: how much is subsequently squandered by events like today's bombing of the wedding party. The US military has denied that we bombed a wedding party and asserts that we intended to bomb terrorists. They will likely stick by that denial for some time while an official investigation takes place. A couple of months from now, the denial will be revised in some manner to reflect the reality that dozens of civilians were killed. But all the while Iraqis will have believed we really did bomb a wedding party and will wonder why we stuck by an obviously untrue denial (I imagine that some right-wing commentator somewhere will say it is unpatriotic to deny the denial... helps the enemy and all that). Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the US military will work with alacrity to admit that a terrible mistake has been made, that a wedding party was bombed and that dozens of innocent civilians were killed. But I doubt it. We did this whole dance in Afghanistan already. Whatever we gain from the virtues of our owe democratic openness, we lose with the continuing brutalities of occupation (Falluja, Abu Ghraib, the wedding party, etc. etc.).

[Moe Lane]

"A couple of months from now, the denial will be revised in some manner to reflect the reality that dozens of civilians were killed."

You were there? And if you were, why was it that they had "numerous weapons, two million Iraqi and Syrian dinar, foreign passports and a satellite communications system"? Troubles with the registry?

And before you tell me that the military's telling a lie in this case, tell me this: what evidence would you accept as proof that it was not?

Moe

[Sam]

Moe,

As I said, maybe I am wrong. But, please remember to send me a note in a month or two when the revision of the denial comes out. After all, both things could be true: there could be some nefarious types lurking about, and there could also have been a wedding party involving many innocents. Our problem is, just like Falluja, we went in with overly blunt "high tech" (the term might suggest surgical precision which we should be skeptical of) weapons and, apparently, wiped out a bunch of civilians - or so say our Iraqi police allies (they are our allies, aren't they?). Did we get a couple of bad guys? Maybe. Did we further erode our legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis? Almost certainly. Is it a net gain or loss for a posistive political settlement? I am betting that it is a loss.

[ajay]

Moe wrote: You were there? And if you were, why was it that they had "numerous weapons, two million Iraqi and Syrian dinar, foreign passports and a satellite communications system"? Troubles with the registry?

Well, let me see. The incident took place in a village near Qaim, which is on the Syrian border. So maybe some of the guests were family members from the other side of the border. With their passports. So much for that.

"Two million Iraqi and Syrian dinar"? First of all, there's nothing illegal about having Iraqi currency in Iraq. Or Syrian currency. At a wedding? It could be gifts - Iraqis can't all have wedding present lists at Nieman Marcus. I've never been at an Iraqi wedding, but I know that in lots of countries in Europe cash is an acceptable gift at a wedding. Same in the US.
And it doesn't say how much of each currency. 2 million Iraqi dinar is about $1400 - say a $14 gift per guest? It's hardly vast amounts of terrorist blood money. The Syrian dinar is worth about 50 to the dollar - but, as I say, we don't know how many Syrian dinar there were. Could have been only a few hundred (as you'd expect if the cousins from across the border had turned up for the party). The blurring is a little dishonest.

Weapons? Iraqis are allowed to own one AK-47 per household. Out in the boondocks there is basically no law and order, so they'd be fools not to be armed. And they'd need them to fire into the air in celebration.

Satellite communications system? You mean a Thuraya mobile phone? Very common in the Middle East - especially if the alternative is the wonky landline system in place.

Basically, if you slaughtered any genuine wedding party in western Iraq, you should expect to find a) lots of cash money b) weapons c) a few Syrian passports d) maybe a mobile phone or two. And e) lots of innocent people with bits missing.

They were idiots to fire into the air - especially after the incident in Afghanistan - but they were innocent idiots.