Iraqi Women On U.S.-Sponsored Tour Of America To Praise Invasion

by Joseph E. Mulligan

On Sept. 23 Dr. Ayad Allawi, the interim Prime Minister of Iraq who lived in exile from his country for over thirty years, told a joint session of the U.S. Congress that the Iraqi people are grateful to America for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Challenging most news reports, he claimed that security is getting better, economic reconstruction is moving forward and democratic institutions are taking root. "It was everything the Bush re-election campaign could have asked for," a New York Times editorial observed (Sept. 24). "Unfortunately, most of it was wrong."

Other Iraqis had come to the U.S. with the same message, visiting Detroit and other cities. On August 4, I and other listeners to Detroit-based WJR radio heard testimony by two women from Iraq about the horrible human-rights violations committed by the deposed Saddam Hussein regime. Taghreed Al-Qaragholi and Surood Ahmad Falih spoke strongly and gratefully in favor of the policies of the Bush administration, thanking the American people and soldiers for all the sacrifices made to liberate Iraq. On a speaking tour which included a number of U.S. cities, they criticized the U.S. mass media for focusing on "all the bad things" about the invasion and occupation.

In their presentation that evening at the Southfield Manor just outside Detroit they stressed the same themes. Surood Ahmad Falih, a Kurdish woman, said "whether there were weapons of mass destruction or not, it's not important for the Iraqi people. What was important was to get rid of Saddam Hussein." Some people have a higher estimate of the importance of one of the main reasons put forth by the Bush administration for the invasion.

Both witnesses stated that the divisions among the Iraqi people are only apparent and that the people are really united in their commitment to building a new Iraq in cooperation with the interim government.

According to the Aug. 8, Southfield (Michigan) Eccentric, "both women said they were surprised and dismayed at the media portrayal of the U.S. as invaders. Both said they see the U.S. as liberators, not invaders. "If it was an invasion," said Al-Qaragholi, 'it was a good invasion." With U.S. assistance, good things are happening in their homeland, both women said, such as opening schools, building roads and promoting an economy. The majority of Iraqi people are grateful, they insisted."

Laura Berman, in her Aug. 5 Detroit News column, summarized the women's message: "Thanks for liberating Iraq. Thanks for sending American troops. You Americans are a lovely people."

Their listeners were informed that the women's speaking tour in the U.S. was sponsored by the Iraq-America Freedom Alliance. The two women along with others from Iraq had been in Washington, D.C., for an 8-day program of training in democracy and political participation -- sponsored by the U.S. government's Agency for International Development -- in preparation for the elections in Iraq.

The Freedom Alliance mentioned that Washington was not paying for the tour but had financed the training program. However, in the Detroit News and Southfield Eccentric articles there was no mention of U.S. government sponsorship of the women's trip to the U.S. and their training. Listeners hearing testimony and advocacy should know with whom the witnesses are allied.

The American government's sponsorship of the training was corroborated by a July 13 article in the Voice of America News about the Iraqi delegation which included the two women who later went on tour, noting that the group was "visiting the U.S. Congress this week as part of a U.S. government-funded program aimed at giving them a glimpse of the American political process and democratic system....The U.S. Agency for International Development sponsored the visit of the women's group to Washington. They will also be receiving training from the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, U.S. Institute for Peace and the Heritage Foundation."

The Women's Alliance for a Democratic Iraq, a member of the Iraq-America Freedom Alliance, played a major role in the training, which included input by some top-level American businesswomen.

The Iraq-America Freedom Alliance, which uses as its slogan "Working Together to Win the War on Terror," describes itself as "a non-partisan group of American and Iraqi organizations and individuals that work to inform the public about the positive changes occurring in Iraq. Thanks to the U.S. military and other courageous Americans, we are winning the war on terror and promoting a free Iraq."

The Alliance in turn is part of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which identifies itself as "a policy institute focusing on terrorism created immediately following the 9/11 attacks on the United States." In reality it is a right-wing organization whose personnel, board and advisors consist of some of the most conservative Republicans and the strongest supporters of the hard-line policies of the Israeli government. Clifford D. May, president of the FDD, served as the Director of Communications for the Republican National Committee from 1997 to 2001 .

In a Jan. 8, 2004 article for the Scripps Howard News Service, May wrote: "It takes some nerve to scold people for defending their children from terrorists -- the more so when their method of defense is simply to erect a fence to keep the murderers from reaching their intended victims. Yet critics have lashed out at the Israeli government's decision to erect a security barrier to separate Israel proper from the West Bank communities that have harbored suicide terrorists for years. Not the least of these critics is the International Court of Justice in The Hague which has granted itself the jurisdiction to hold a hearing on Israel's fence next month."

On its own website the FDD proudly told of its "Campaign Against UN Court Hearings on Israel's Anti-Terrorism Fence." According to its report, on July 9, 2004 the ICJ "issued an advisory, non-binding opinion declaring that the Israeli wall was illegal and must be torn down. The U.S. representative to the ICJ strongly dissented on the ruling since it did not deal with 'Israel's legitimate right of self-defense, military necessity and security needs.'"

The FDD's Director of Research, Andrew Apostolou, an occasional guest on Fox TV's "The O'Reilly Factor," wrote in a Sept. 10, 2004 Knight-Ridder article entitled "America is Winning an Unprecedented War Against a Fanatical Enemy:" while the "headlines are grim and the casualties keep rising, significant progress is being made" in Iraq.

The FDD claims that its "board members and advisors range across the political spectrum. Our founding members and distinguished advisors are Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Frank Lautenberg, Newt Gingrich and James Woolsey. Our advisors include members of Congress from both parties.." Woolsey is a former director of the CIA.

Richard Perle, William Kristol, and Woolsey, current "advisors" to the FDD, had been gunning for Saddam Hussein for years. They, along with important officials of the current Bush administration, were among the signers of the Jan. 26, 1998 letter from the Project for the New American Century to Pres. Clinton, which stated "We urge you to ... turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts." Sept. 11, 2001, was the 'Pearl Harbor' they needed.

Perle had also been among the signers of a 1996 paper issued by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank, calling for the toppling of Saddam Hussein in order to enhance Israeli security (The New York Times, Sept. 6, 2004). The institute's paper argued: "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq -- an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right -- as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."

Perle, a director of Hollinger International, has been heavily criticized in a recent internal company report "for rubber-stamping transactions that company investigators say led to the plundering of the company" by its founding executive, Conrad M. Black, a close friend of Perle (The New York Times, Sept. 6, 2004).

The FDD and the Independent Women's Forum helped to train the Iraqi women in "democracy." The IWF, revealing its conservative Republican bent, states that it "provides a voice for responsible, mainstream women who embrace common sense over divisive ideology. We make that voice heard in the U.S. Supreme Court, among other decision makers in Washington, and across America's airwaves as we counter the dangerous influence of radical feminism in the courts; combat corrosive feminist ideology on campus; change the terms of the debate on quality of life issues affecting American women."

Second Lady Lynne V. Cheney, listed by IWF as one of its "Directors Emeritae," received the organization's Woman of Valor Award this year.

The IWF, promoting a distinctly Republican political philosophy, says that it "will continue to educate women on the benefits of the free market and the danger of big government; challenge conventional feminist myths with accurate information and lively debate; provide a forum for women who are not represented by radical feminist groups."

The State Department has awarded an explicitly anti-feminist U.S. group [IWF] part of a $10 million grant to train Iraqi women in political participation and democracy.

People who heard or read about the two witnesses from Iraq who were lavish in their praise of Bush policies need to know that they had been brought to the U.S. by our government, were trained in an extremely conservative, 'free-market' theory of democracy, and were on a speaking tour sponsored by a right-wing group whose directors and advisors support the extreme hard-line policies of the Israeli government and had promoted hostile action against Iraq.

On its website the IWF features several speeches by Rend al-Rahim, Iraqi Ambassador-Designate to the United States. In her speech on June 29, 2004 at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., she spoke of the "marketing job" needed to sell the new Iraqi government to its own people: "This has to be a national battle against terrorism, not just a battle waged by the security forces, by the national guard and by the army. It has to be a battle waged by every Iraqi, civilians as well as uniformed. And to do that, we must sell the new order to the entire Iraqi population and we must sell it to segments of the Iraqi nation that hitherto may have not been totally persuaded. It's a marketing job. I believe we have made a good start. Members of the new government have repeatedly appeared on television ...."

As Executive Director of the Iraq Foundation (Washington, D.C.), she had stated to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on August 1, 2002 that on the day after an invasion the immediate priorities in Iraq would be: "(a) restoring law and order and preventing vigilantism, (b) addressing humanitarian needs, and (c) dismantling the old regime's weapons of mass destruction." Thus she gave credence to the now-discredited notion that Iraq had WMDs.

As Iraqi Representative to the U.S., Rend al-Rahim of course supports the legitimacy of the Iraqi government but nevertheless has offered some remarkable criticism of the U.S. intervention. In a June 15, 2004 statement to the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations of the House Committee on Government Reform, she referred to the issues of "occupation, loss of sovereignty, disempowerment of Iraqis, and failed expectations." One of the reasons for deteriorating relations, she said, "is the strategic decision by the Coalition to declare a military occupation of Iraq. Iraqis wanted and welcomed the U.S. and the Coalition as liberators and partners, not as occupiers. We wanted liberation to have an Iraqi face and to take ownership of it. In the event, we felt we had been sidelined.

"Prior to military action in 2003, Iraqis who spoke to policy makers in Washington urged the U.S. not to adopt the posture of occupation" she continued. "We felt that this would be counterproductive and send the wrong signal to Iraqis. Despite our recommendation, the Coalition declared that it was an occupying power, and took on full military, political and operational authority, to the dismay of many Iraqis. There really is no 'nice' way to describe military occupation once you experience it first hand. Occupation is offensive, both in principle and in practice, and it is especially sensitive in a part of the world that has suffered long periods of foreign rule. Declaring an occupation dealt a blow to Iraqi dignity and national pride."

She also complained about the heavy-handed style of the occupation. "Iraqis also urged the U.S. military to assume a more discrete, low profile presence in the cities and towns, to minimize possible friction between Iraqi civilians and heavily armed troops. Yet the opposite happened. Going about their daily lives, Iraqis encountered heavily armed Coalition troops and tanks at innumerable checkpoints, outside office buildings, and in residential neighborhoods. These encounters were often humiliating to Iraqis. Inevitably, given the tense environment, tempers flared, clashes erupted, and Iraqis and Americans were wounded or killed. This created a downward spiral in trust and cooperation on both sides."

She also criticized the political vacuum created by the occupying forces and the "suspension of sovereignty." The collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, she observed, "led to an anticipated disintegration of the state and an ensuing vacuum of political authority. Prior to the war, Iraqis had cautioned against this political vacuum, and called for the rapid rebuilding of the state through the formation of an Iraqi government that is seen by the people of Iraq as sovereign and authoritative. Sovereignty was needed as a matter of national pride and dignity, as well as for the practical purposes of restoring order and running the institutions of state.

"However, rather than permitting an Iraqi government with real authority to take shape, the Coalition suspended sovereignty for 14 months and severely restricted the powers of the Governing Council that was formed in July 2003," she pointed out. "The Coalition itself had neither the resources nor the credibility to act as an Iraqi government. As a result, no one was running the country, and the very concept of an Iraqi state was annulled for 14 months. A profound sense of confusion and drift prevailed among ordinary Iraqis in the summer and fall of 2003. It left Iraqis feeling disempowered and disenfranchised, and contributed a great deal to the growing frustration."

She also took the U.S. to task for allowing a "breakdown in law and order that followed the fall of the regime."

Given these U.S. errors criticized by the Iraqi Ambassador-Designate, one has reason to doubt whether any Iraqi regime formed under the occupiers' control and tutelage can ever gain legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people and the world.

Indeed, the "downward spiral in trust and cooperation on both sides" mentioned in June by the Iraqi Ambassador-Designate has only continued to sink. "My whole opinion of the people here has changed," said Marine Cpl. Travis Friedrichsen, who used to give candy to Iraqi children. "There aren't any good people" (Chicago Tribune, Sept. 16). A sergeant complained: "We're out here giving our lives for these people. You'd think they'd show some gratitude. Instead, the don't seem to care."

The Marines complain of hostile glares from Iraqi civilians and "the scarcity of tips from Iraqis on the locations of the roadside bombs that kill and maim Marines, even though the explosives frequently are placed in well-trafficked areas where bomb teams probably would be observed," the Tribune noted.

The depths to which American distrust and hostility have sunk can be seen in this statement by Lance Cpl. David Goward, a machine gunner: "We're not taking any chances: Shoot first and ask questions later."