by Eric Martin
George Packer describes one particularly painful reverberation emanating from the Madoff scandal:
When Bernard Madoff was defrauding investors, do you imagine he gave a thought to the refugees he was going to harm? Human Rights First, formerly Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, has a refugee protection program that advocates on behalf of, among others, Iraqi refugees (HRF also gives free and very able legal representation to Iraqis and others, including a few people I know, in asylum cases). The refugee protection program was funded by the late Picower Foundation, at $250,000 a year. All of that money is gone. Between Picower and another now-defunct foundation, JEHT, which was also conned by Madoff, HRF is looking at a shortfall of over a million dollars this year. If you want to help this excellent organization, you can.
The roughly four million internally and externally displaced Iraqis remain a source of potential future destabilization – both inside Iraq and in the surrounding countries that have been inundated with the flow of refugees. Beyond those strategic concerns, the plight of the Iraqis themselves is nothing short of heartbreaking. Many are likely familiar with the stories of how Iraqi women in places like Syria have been forced, by the dire circumstances, to turn to prostitution. Actually, it's not just women. Some girls, barely in their teens, have also had to undergo this humiliation and trauma.
But with the latest in a series of triumphalist episodes now percolating up from war supporters, someone should let those women – and young girls - know that, contrary to what the traitorous liberals and their media stooges claim, we've won! I'm sure they'll be relieved. Another person likely to break out the confetti and rejoice is Ahmed – the person described in this piece appearing on Steve Clemons' site:
Ahmed, an Iraqi in his early 30s, crossed the Iraqi-Syrian border in late November. With him were his wife and his two young sons. They chose Damascus as their destination, a city so flooded with refugees that entire neighborhoods, if it weren't for the numerous statues and photographs of Syria's ruling family, would feel more like districts in Baghdad than neighborhoods of the Syrian capitol.
The change in Damascus's demographic landscape is starting to look permanent. As rates of violence have decreased in areas of Iraq in recent months, many here had hoped that Syria's massive Iraqi community would move back home. But most Iraqis have stayed put. Many Syrians resent the continued presence of these refugees, and dozens of informal interviews I have conducted with average Syrian citizens over the past three months have revealed strong currents of xenophobia and distrust toward Syria's Iraqi refugee population. In recent years, the Syrian government has welcomed Iraqi refugees with open arms. But despite this official hospitality, ordinary Syrians are feeling increasingly less welcoming.
When Ahmed and his family crossed the border recently, they were not met with open arms. Their taxi driver, on the road towards Damascus, tricked them into getting out of the car on an abandoned stretch of highway. He then drove off, leaving them without belongings, identification, or money. A Syrian professor (and a friend of mine), out on a late-night drive, happened across them coincidentally, wandering alongside the side of the road. It was a stretch of highway that, as the Syrian professor later described it, was "so abandoned that they may as well have been left to die."
Ahmed fled the country for similar reasons as many other Sunnis; his relatives had been harassed by American forces in the years since the invasion. His family eventually scattered and lost track of one another. Ahmed's house in Baghdad, where he lived with his young kids and wife, was repeatedly raided by government troops. His plan was vague — find an apartment in Damascus and look for any type of job to support his family. Being left penniless along the side of the road was an inauspicious beginning, and the weeks since have brought him little relief. […]
Ahmed's situation is shared by many Iraqis in Syria, and it suggests that social prejudices and xenophobia, in addition to legal barriers, are proving increasingly problematic for refugees. Some Syrians have begun to use the term "dirty" to describe their Iraqi neighbors. I noticed the term used on multiple occasions, often coupled with descriptions of the refugees as being cheaters, thieves, and prostitutes. Not surprisingly, some Iraqis (though not all) describe feeling unwelcome as well; many lie about their country of origin, explaining away their unusual accent as a product of a village upbringing. It's a falsehood that allows them to get a job or rent an apartment or, at the very least, escape various degrees of social ostracization.
This changing attitude toward refugees appears to be based, in part, on economic conditions. Gas and food prices have shot up in recent years, and many Syrians citizens are unable to find a decent job. Tens of thousands, many of them with advanced educational degrees, take to the roads every morning to drive taxis for around ten dollars a day, or sell vegetables on street corners.
Can't imagine that situation ending badly. Not that it started off well, or experienced an uptick in the middle. Ah, sweet, sweet victory.
Eric:
Thank you, in all sincerity, for this post – reminding us all of the incalculable damage and suffering left in the wake of our intervention. Obama may succeed in withdrawing a large percentage of our forces, but he cannot possibly undo these tectonic shifts, whose reverberations will be felt for decades to come. It is sobering, and depressing, to think of the full costs of our Iraqi blunders.
That’s what the “victory” is, just as predicted: a Shia-dominated government.
The sectarian cleansing of Baghdad is looking permanent. The vast majority of the prisoners in U.S. military prison camps (“Reconciliation Centers”) are Sunnis. The same is true of prisoners held in Iraqi jails and prisons. The Awakening/Sons of Iraq/whatever groups are being stiffed.
Interesting times ahead; what will be the level of U.S. support for Maliki’s or some similar government? That residual force: will it be soldiers and marines, or private military? What kind of meddling will we undertake in the provincial elections, if any?
Intervention? Is that the word you intended to use?
Eric:
I used ‘intervention’ because it encompasses the full range of activities in which we’ve engaged. We aided and helped arm Saddam, and then opposed him. We drove Iraqi forces out of Kuwait and bombed Iraq. We subjected the country to a prolonged economic blockade. We encouraged an internal revolt, and erected a virtual state-within-a-state in the north. And, yes, we invaded and occupied the country. Each of those actions constituted an intervention, and most exacerbated the problems presently besetting the country.
Honestly, I was trying to respond to your post in the spirit in which it seemed to be offered – to acknowledge the incalculable suffering of innocent civilians swept up in these events, too often ignored. If you want to discuss the proper characterization of our actions in the Middle East, we can do that; but on this thread, I have to say, I’d prefer to focus for a moment on the millions who will never be able to go home again.
Observer: You know, I didn’t mean that to sound as controversial as it did. I apologize for that errant tone.
Also, I appreciate your comments on this site. They have been thought provoking, challenging and civil. A rare triple play.
I just bristle a little at the characterization of the 2003 invasion as an intervention – which connotes a humanitarian relief effort. Which it was most certainly not.
But that was not what you meant, and I was overly brusque.
And by “controversial” I actually meant “confrontational”…
“But with the latest in a series of triumphalist episodes now percolating up from war supporters, someone should let those women – and young girls – know that, contrary to what the traitorous liberals and their media stooges claim, we’ve won!”
Just so.
Also, regarding purple hearts.
Just so.
Also, regarding purple hearts.
Sheesh, what one sees after posting is completely unreliable now.
“the person described in this piece appearing on Steve Clemons’ site”
For what it’s worth, pieces reading exactly like this were being published two years ago and more.
Indeed Gary. And the prostitution pieces aren’t new either. But still relevant. Ahmed only departed for Syria this November after all.
@Eric:
Your exchange with Observer reminded me of a political divide that was very evident in discussions before the Iraq invasion, but has been blurred in recent years.
‘U.S. intervention’ is not a good thing to me, nor even a neutral thing. The interventionist character of our foreign policy is exactly what I’m opposed to — along with the assumption that it’s the U.S. government’s right to intervene anywhere in the world (by any means — military, economic, non-governmental organizations, media…)
It never occurred to me that to some it might connote “humanitarian intervention,” which I regard as a ludicrous bit of propaganda that served as the favored cover for U.S. wars of choice of the 1990s.
Nell,
Me and wiki down by the schoolyard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention
I just bristle a little at the characterization of the 2003 invasion as an intervention
And I bristle at Observer’s characterization of civilians being “swept up in these events” as if they were victims of a natural disaster, and not of the very deliberate actions of the United States government. But maybe that’s just me.
Once again — has anyone heard from Riverbend after she arrived in Syria? I didn’t really follow her blog until she left; now it seems too late.
Thanks, Eric. I appreciate that.
There’s on odd dynamic to commenting on blogs. I’m drawn to read those with which I find thought-provoking, interesting, informative, or otherwise enlightening. Yet, typically, I’m moved to comment by posts which seem to me misguided, or with which I think I can productively disagree. I probably come off as an inveterate crank; that’s hardly my intent. The truth is, I agree with most things that get posted to this site, but don’t generally feel moved to say so. And I take the trouble to air my disagreements because I respect the authors – and most of the other commenters they’ve attracted – and find that the ensuing dialogue helps to clarify and crystallize my own views, and on occasion, serves to profoundly alter or change them.
So I’ll continue to voice my cantankerous dissent, but hope it will be accepted in the spirit in which it’s offered – as an invitation to discuss.
“The truth is, I agree with most things that get posted to this site, but don’t generally feel moved to say so.”
I think that’s entirely common; it’s not very interesting to simply repeat variants of “well-put; I agree!,” no matter that it’s unfair that most of us don’t tend to post such comments as often as we think that.
Jeff: I have not heard from, or of her, since.
I’ve noticed that the most commented posts, on any blog, will be those where a front-page poster writes a piece that’s (on that blog’s terms) reasonably mainstream… and then a drop-in or a regular disagreeable posts a comment in absolute contradiction.
Result, on any blog: more than the usual number of comments from regulars who might never have thought to post anything if all they could say is “How true!” or “I agree!”
Observer, of course I disagree with you on most points, but the fact is, the most interesting political blogs to read are in general those which are set up to allow run-and-run discussion, providing the blog owner does something to get rid of the outright trolls (sadly, Kevin Drum took a hands-off approach in that regard, rendering the threads at Political Animal useless for discussion).
Commenters who can be relied upon to post in civil articulate disagreement with the front page posters are as valuable to a blog in building up an online community as the articulate intelligence of the front page posters is. Even if the pile-on isn’t much fun… 😉 …think of it as an Internet hampster hug?
Jes, sorry I didn’t say anything when you posted it, but thanks for the recipe for Chewy Chocolate Gingerbread Cookies you dropped in the comments earlier to when I suggested a food thread.
I had to set my own limits.
I promised myself to stay away, if I called Von or Sebastian a Fascist, one more time.
(I was thinking right-wing nihilist but….)
Jes, sorry I didn’t say anything when you posted it, but thanks for the recipe for Chewy Chocolate Gingerbread Cookies you dropped in the comments earlier to when I suggested a food thread.
Thanks! Hope you enjoy them. My blogoresolutions for 2009 were to keep doing Tuesday Recipe Blogging on a regular basis.
Actually, I already wrote the one for next Tuesday. It’s mostly about how to make good pastry, and the title of the post is “Promises Are Piecrust”.