montrealiraqi.com

نشرت شبكة عراقنا الأخبارية مقالة بعنوان: العراقيون .. الانتخابات جعلتهم ينقسمون و يتشتتون قلت أن السبب في إخفاق الانتخابات النيابية الأخيرة في توحيد العراقيين وفي ضياع آمالهم في المستقبل لا يعود إلى قصور في مبدأ الديمقراطية. فالديمقراطية ما هي إلا وسيلة يتحسن أدائها بالتكرار و مع الزمن، أي أن المتوقع في الحزب المسئ في نظر الناخبين أن لا يعاد انتخابه، ولكن ما حصل في الانتخابات الأخيرة يؤكد أن نظام محاسبة التقصير لا ولن يعمل بالصورة الصحيحة بغض النظر عن هوية الأحزاب الفائزة، وفقدنا الأمل لما رأينا سلطات الاحتلال تتغاضى عن ممارسات الإكراه والتزوير، بل وتنظم عملية إعادة التدقيق بتفويض محسوب بحيث أصبح من الواضح أن تصحيح الأوضاع ومحاسبة المسؤولين ليست على بال مدعي الديمقراطية. وإنني لا أتعاطف مع الاستنتاجات الداعية إلى تحميل الديمقراطية تبعة عدم الاستقرار في الوطن، فالانتخابات الأخيرة لم تكن بالشفافية المطلوبة. وعلينا أن نميز بين الديمقراطية في نظر جورج بوش الابن وبين ما هو مقبول ومتعارف عليه في العالم. ليس ذلك بالسهل حين يكون المبدأ والفاعل هما في قمة ما ينتظر من الالتزام بالديمقراطية. ولا هو بالسهل القول بأن من قضوا حياتهم في دراسة الفقه والعلوم الإسلامية في إيران هم في نظرنا لا يمثلون الإسلام ولا سوريا التي خاضت الحروب مع إسرائيل بأنها لا تمثل العروبة. ولكن هذا هو التحدي الحقيقي الذي يواجهنا في العراق، فالبديل أمامنا هو في تبني مواقف أحد هذه الأطراف وجميعها لها مصالحها الخاصة التي تختلف عما يناسبنا، وهذا البديل ما يجب علينا رفضه

There is a lot of talk about bringing back a benign dictator to rule Iraq, to bring back a measure of stability and security at the expense of democracy. There is more than talk about dictatorship in Iraq; many militia leaders, insurgents and even some American servicemen who truly believe that they will only stabilize Iraq if they can scare the population more than Saddam did, all understand that fear plays into the hands of the strong ruler, but the situation in reality is too complex, too much terror is directed towards the innocent; it took Saddam many years of building his intelligence machine and backstage conspiracies before he unleashed the full force of his fear machine. Saddam did kill many innocent civilians but had more direction than the auction of terror that’s ruling Baghdad today.

On Nov. 19, 2006, Henry Kissinger said to the Los Angeles Times that he “would have preferred a post-invasion policy that installed a strong Iraqi leader from the military or some other institution and deferred the development of democracy.” This would have been a good policy if the secular Iraqi army was not disbanded, the Turkish model of democracy would work better than the chaos of today. Now the only choice of a dictator is one of many islamists. The Iraqi elections became the straitjacket of U.S. policy; the choice of a possible benign dictator, if not from the largest elected shia coalition party then the choice will undermine the legitimacy of the current government by discrediting the elections, which is not a bad thing if done properly and not by a coup d’etat. The good choices are very few.

Saddam has set the highest standard of terror, it is difficult for any future dictator to compare with him, this is the trouble with dictatorship, any new dictator will be less fearful and the country will be less stable using the same tools. It would be far better to go in the other direction of more freedom, more elections and more transparency. Iraqis like clean elections, many defied real danger to their lives in order to cast their votes during the last one, then they found out about widespread incidents of coersion and allegations of rigging which were left un-investigated, and then an “international” committee came to investigate but had no mandate to open the ballot boxes. We don’t need dictators, we don’t need political correctness that glosses over bad elections, we don’t need the Israeli model of democracy, it is the only country in the world ruled by religeous laws. We had democracy during the monarchy for a longer period than Saddam’s rule, it was not perfect but it didn’t have the coersion and fraud allegations as much as the last one. Those who claim that Iraqis are not ready for democracy are either playing along political correctness or do not know much about the history of Iraq.

One of the shortfalls of Iraqi school curriculum is that students are brought up studying mainly Islamic, Arabic and European histories, very little attention was paid to Mesopotamian History. In my time I remember being taught about the French revolution more than the Assyrians, Babylonians or The Sumerians.

At school, we had to memorize the mu3alaqt (long pre-Islamic poetry which foments tribal loyalty and personal achievements), yet we were not given access to the Code of Hammurabi. I believe Iraqi students should memorize some of its clauses, not just by reading them. A deeper study would have instilled the sense of justice into all of us. I have met hundreds of Iraqi intellectuals, unfortunately not one in a hundred has ever read this great law that was the building stone of many other laws in the history of civilization.

The Code of Hammurabi is 3800 years old and it comprises 282 clauses. Here, I am listing the clauses that are relevant to family and women issues.

“Anu and Bel called me by name: Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, bring about the rule of righteousness in the land in order to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers so that the strong shall not harm the weak. So that I shall rule over the black-headed people like Shamash and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind. . . “.

136 If any one leaves his house, runs away and his wife go to another house. If then he returns and wishes to take his wife back, then because he fled from his home and ran away, the wife of this runaway shall not return to her husband.

137 If a man wishes to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children, then he shall give that wife her dowry and a part of the usufruct (produce) of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal to that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart.

138 If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father’s house, and let her go.

139 If there was no purchase price he shall give her one mina of gold as a gift of release.

140 If he be a freed man he shall give her one-third of a mina of gold.

141 If a man’s wife who lives in his house wishes to leave, then plunges into debt, tries to ruin her house, neglects her husband, and is convicted by a judge; if her husband offers to release her then she may go on her way and he needs not give her anything as a gift of release. If her husband does not wish to release her and takes another wife then she shall remain as a servant in her husband’s house.

142 If a woman quarrels with her husband and say: “You are not congenial to me,” then the reasons for her claims must be presented. If she is guiltless and there is no fault on her part but the husband leaves and neglects her, then no guilt attaches to this woman, she can take back her dowry and go back to her father’s house.

143 If she is not innocent, but leaves her husband, and ruins her house, neglecting her husband, this woman shall be cast into the water.

144 If a man take a wife and this woman give her husband a maid-servant, and she bears him children, yet this man wishes to take another wife, then this shall not be permitted; he shall not take a second wife.

145 If a man take a wife, and she bear him no children, and he intend to take another wife: if he take this second wife, and bring her into the house, this second wife shall not be allowed equality with his wife.

146 If a man takes a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the wife: because she has borne him children her master shall not sell her for money, but he may keep her as a slave, placing her among the maid-servants.

147 If she has not borne him children then her mistress may sell her for money.

148 If a man takes a wife and she be seized by disease, if he then desires to take a second wife then he shall not put away his first wife who has been stricken by disease, but he shall keep her in the house which he has built and support her so long as she lives.

149 If this woman does not wish to remain in her husband’s house then he shall compensate her for the dowry that she brought with her from her father’s house, and she may go.

150 If a man gives his wife a field, garden, and a house and a deed therefore, if then after the death of her husband the sons raise no claim, then the mother may bequeath all to one of her sons whom she prefers, and need leave nothing to his brothers.

151 If a woman who lived in a man’s house made an agreement with her husband, that no creditor can arrest her, and has given a document therefore: if that man, before he married that woman, had a debt, the creditor can not hold the woman for it. But if the woman, before she entered the man’s house, had contracted a debt, her creditor can not arrest her husband therefore.

152 If after the woman had entered the man’s house, both contracted a debt, both must pay the merchant.

153 If the wife of one man on account of another man has their mates (her husband and the other man’s wife) murdered, both of them shall be impaled.

154 If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven from the place (exiled).

155 If a man betroths a girl to his son, and his son has intercourse with her, but he (the father) afterward defiles her and be caught, then he shall be bound and cast into the water (drowned).

156 If a man betroths a girl to his son, but his son has not known her, and if then he defiles her, he shall pay her half a gold mina, and compensate her for all that she brought out of her father’s house. She may marry the man of her heart.

157 If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father, both shall be burned.

158 If any one be caught after his father with his chief wife, who has borne him children, he shall be driven out of his father’s house.

159 If any one, who has brought chattels into his father-in-law’s house, and has paid the purchase-money, looks for another wife, and says to his father-in-law: “I do not want your daughter,” the girl’s father may keep all that he had brought.

160 If a man bring chattels into the house of his father-in-law, and pay the “purchase price” (for his wife): if then the father of the girl say: “I will not give you my daughter,” he shall give him back all that he brought with him.

161 If a man bring chattels into his father-in-law’s house and pay the “purchase price,” if then his friend slanders him and his father-in-law says to the young husband: “You shall not marry my daughter,” then he shall give back to him undiminished all that he had brought with him; but his wife shall not be married to the friend.

162 If a man marries a woman and she bears him sons; if then this woman dies, then her father shall have no claim on her dowry; this belongs to her sons.

163 If a man marries a woman and she bears him no sons; if then this woman dies, if the “purchase price” which he had paid into the house of his father-in-law is repaid to him, her husband shall have no claim upon the dowry of this woman; it belongs to her father’s house.

164 If his father-in-law does not pay back to him the amount of the “purchase price” then he may subtract the amount of the “Purchase price” from the dowry, and then pay the remainder to her father’s house.

165 If a man gives to one of his sons whom he prefers a field, garden, or a house, and a deed therefore: if later the father dies, and the brothers divide the estate, then they shall first give him the present of his father, and he shall accept it; and the rest of the paternal property shall they divide.

166 If a man takes wives for his son, but takes no wife for his minor son, and if then he die: if the sons divide the estate, they shall set aside besides his portion the money for the “purchase price” for the minor brother who had taken no wife as yet, and secure a wife for him.

167 If a man marries a wife and she bears him children: if this wife dies and he then takes another wife and she bears him children: if the father dies then the sons must not partition the estate according to the mothers, they shall divide the dowries of their mothers only in this way; the paternal estate they shall divide equally with one another.

168 If a man wishes to put his son out of his house, and declare before the judge: “I want to put my son out,” then the judge shall examine into his reasons. If the son be guilty of no great fault for which he can be rightfully put out, then the father shall not put him out.

169 If he be guilty of a grave fault, which should rightfully deprive him of the filial relationship, the father shall forgive him the first time; but if he be guilty of a grave fault a second time the father may deprive his son of all filial relation.

170 If his wife bears sons to a man, or his maid-servant have borne sons, and the father while still living says to the children whom his maid-servant has borne: “My sons,” and he count them with the sons of his wife; if the father dies then the sons of the wife and of the maid-servant shall divide the paternal property in common. The sons of the wife is to partition and choose.

171 If, however, the father while still living did not say to the sons of the maid-servant: “My sons,” and then the father dies, then the sons of the maid-servant shall not share with the sons of the wife, but the freedom of the maid and her sons shall be granted. The sons of the wife shall have no right to enslave the sons of the maid; the wife shall take her dowry (from her father), and the gift that her husband gave her and deeded to her (separate from dowry, or the purchase-money paid her father), and live in the home of her husband: so long as she lives she shall use it, it shall not be sold for money. Whatever she leaves shall belong to her children.

172 If her husband made her no gift, she shall be compensated for her gift, and she shall receive a portion from the estate of her husband, equal to that of one child. If her sons oppress her, to force her out of the house, the judge shall examine into the matter, and if the sons are at fault the woman shall not leave her husband’s house. If the woman desires to leave the house, she must leave to her sons the gift which her husband gave her, but she may take the dowry of her father’s house. Then she may marry the man of her heart.

173 If this woman bears sons to her second husband in the place to which she went and then she dies, her earlier and later sons shall divide the dowry between them.

174 If she bear no sons to her second husband, the sons of her first husband shall have the dowry.

175 If a State slave or the slave of a freed man marries the daughter of a free man and children are born, the master of the slave shall have no right to enslave the children of the free.

176 If, however, a State slave or the slave of a freed man marries a man’s daughter, and after he marries her she brings a dowry from her father’s house, if then they both enjoy it and found a household, and accumulate means, if then the slave dies, then she who was free born may take her dowry, and all that her husband and she had earned; she shall divide them into two parts, one-half the master for the slave shall take, and the other half shall the free-born woman take for her children. If the free-born woman had no gift then she shall take all that belonged to her husband and she had earned and divide it into two parts; and the master of the slave shall take one-half and she shall take the other for her children.

177 If a widow, whose children are not grown, wishes to enter another house (remarry), she shall not enter it without the knowledge of the judge. If she enters another house the judge shall examine the state of the house of her first husband. Then the house of her first husband shall be entrusted to the second husband and the woman herself as managers. And a record must be made thereof. She shall keep the house in order, bring up the children, and not sell the house-hold utensils. He who buys the utensils of the children of a widow shall lose his money, and the goods shall return to their owners.

178 If a “devoted woman” or a prostitute to whom her father has given a dowry and a deed therefore, but if in this deed it is not stated that she may bequeath it as she pleases, and has not explicitly stated that she has the right of disposal; if then her father dies then her brothers shall hold her field and garden, and give her corn, oil and milk according to her portion, and satisfy her. If her brothers do not give her corn, oil, and milk according to her share, then her field and garden shall support her. She shall have the usufruct of field and garden and all that her father gave her so long as she lives, but she can not sell or assign it to others. Her position of inheritance belongs to her brothers.

179 If a “sister of a god,” or a prostitute, receive a gift from her father, and a deed in which it has been explicitly stated that she may dispose of it as she pleases, and give her complete disposition thereof: if then her father dies then she may leave her property to whomsoever she pleases. Her brothers can raise no claim thereto.

180 If a father gives a present to his daughter-either marriageable or a prostitute (unmarriageable)-and then dies, then she is to receive a portion as a child from the paternal estate and enjoy its usufruct so long as she lives. Her estate belongs to her brothers.

181 If a father devote a temple-maid or temple-virgin to God and give her no present: if then the father dies, she shall receive the third of a child’s portion from the inheritance of her father’s house, and enjoy its usufruct so long as she lives. Her estate belongs to her brothers.

182 If a father devotes his daughter as a wife of Mardi of Babylon (as in 181), and give her no present nor a deed; if then her father dies, then she shall receive one-third of her portion as a child of her father’s house from her brothers, but Marduk may leave her estate to whomsoever she wishes.

183 If a man give his daughter by a concubine a dowry, and a husband, and a deed; if then her father dies, she shall receive no portion from the paternal estate.

184 If a man does not give a dowry to his daughter by a concubine, and no husband; if then her father dies, her brothers shall give her a dowry according to her father’s wealth and secure a husband for her.

185 If a man adopts a child and to his name as son and rears him, this grown son can not be demanded back again.

186 If a man adopts a son, and if after he has taken him he injures his foster father and mother, then this adopted son shall return to his father’s house.

187 The son of a paramour in the palace service, or of a prostitute, can not be demanded back.

My Iraqi friend was comparing the situation during the rule of Saddam to nowadays; he was saying there are positive signs now and went on to explain. He described an interview between an unknown journalist and a government minister in which the journalist had the guts to ask tough questions with impunity. He compared this with an incident when Saddam was in power when my friend was challenged by a government agent over a simple complaint to a waiter. The waiter brought slightly discolored sugar, my friend objected but in the agent’s eyes such complaint meant dissatisfaction over the policy of the regime. The conclusion was that you could not voice any complaint when Saddam was in power but now you can. I suggested that freedom of the press alone is not enough, and that its achievement is so shallow that most Iraqis would gladly trade it for the relative personal security at the time of the dictator. My friends thought that I was slighting the achievement of freedom of the press, to which I replied on the contrary, I believe the media should have the highest priority. This suggestion did not register with those present, so I owe them an explanation.

Simply put, any stable society is regulated against threats to its instability, the institution that points the finger at threats is the media, other state institutions follow on with legal and coercive action. It is not enough to have freedom of the press, the media must have integrity and access to accurate information before it can be taken seriously by the other institutions. Politics is about prioritizing actions and allocating resources, any investment in the media’s integrity is leveraged, and I mean public investment, not disguised bribes and threats to journalists like what’s currently happening in Iraq. Such investments are leveraged because when you are protecting honest journalists you are really protecting the voice of the public; the killings of other innocent people is no less criminal but the crimes do not usually extend beyond the people directly affected.

My other suggestion for top political priority is boarder sealing, because it isolates the neighbors’ justifiable insecurity from affecting Iraqi society; if the occupiers cannot change their hostile policies towards Iraq’s neighbors, thereby removing cause of interference, then they should take full responsibility for protecting the political process inside.

In January 2006 Iraqis went to the polls in order to elect a new government for the first time since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the incumbent prime minister, Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, was chosen by his own faction by a margin of 1 vote, yet he clung tenaciously to his designate position for months. One plausible explanation: he was cynical about democracy; his selection is not likely to repeat. Many Iraqis are cynical about democracy and there are historical reasons.
In the late nineteen fifties there was a different party claiming to be democratic and pushing to “democratize” Iraq. This party had democratic youth organizations, democratic trade unions and democratic militias. That was the time when the Communist Party was strong and many of its front organizations were called democratic, so much so that democratic became the buzzword for communism, many Iraqis still associate the practices of the Communist Party with democracy. The communist idea of dictatorship of the proletariat is what many Iraqis at present understand how a majority should rule. Before that the monarchy from 1923 to 1958 had a functioning democracy, but the poor, the disaffected and many others scorned the process, this was tolerated by the authorities of the time. What the Iraqis did not understand at the time was that tolerance is part of real democracy. Saddam’s regime treated the democratic process as a rubber stamp, in a sense reflecting popular cynicism.
Many Iraqis agree that the first constitutional election of 2005 was fair but partial; many Sunnis boycotted the polls out of fear, which worked against their seat allocations for the next elections. The partiality worked against the Shia’s Coalition Party also, it robbed them of achieving absolute majority by a very small margin. Yet many smaller parties formed a loose group to question the large numerical jump in the Coalition Party’s popular vote, allegations of fraud and coercion were plenty. An appointed 3-man international committee came to investigate, it investigated procedural claims and made adjustment to the seat allocations, but it did not carry a mandate to investigate coercion or to open and recount the ballot boxes, apparently nobody told the group of the committee’s limited mandate before they agreed in advance to accept the committee’s findings.

According to some definitions, humor consists of incongruous events and situations. Incongruous means lacking in harmony or inconsistent; in a scientific experiment, boxes which look exactly the same were placed in line, all had the same weight except one which was either much lighter or heavier than the others. The subjects were asked to lift the boxes; all thought the odd box was funny just because it was incongruous. I think Saddam’s trial is incongruous but not at all funny.

In a country where every government decision seems to be politicized, Saddam’s trial is oddly different. The extent of politicization took a sad turn recently, when the body of a ten-year-old boy was found in a Baghdad morgue, criminal gangs killed him for no reason. Like most murders in Iraq, his death certificate said that “an unknown” killed him and the investigation was closed “in order to preserve national unity.” The political excuse of national unity outraged Iraqi society, perhaps because national unity simply did not exist; its use is seen as a cover up for the inadequacy of the police, or maybe because this is a sad example of using politics where it doesn’t belong. Saddam’s trial is on the other extreme, a criminal trial where it should be political like almost every other process in Iraq. Many Iraqis understand the motivation behind making the ex-dictator’s trial non-political; we see the historical trend of prosecuting old tyrants all over the world but Saddam’s trial seems like a pretense when basic justice is denied to the rest, like a fig leave which cannot stop the smell. It is time to add politics and end Saddam’s misery in the quickest and most respectful way!

A man in Baghdad calls the Ministry of Interior’s hot line, he says in panic: Hello, there are men from Al-Badr Brigade (militia) in our neighborhood, they are killing people, please come and help us. The man from the ministry answers: How do you know they are from Al-Badr? was it written on their foreheads? anyway they are in your neighborhood in order to catch terrorists like you, and hung up. The story is shocking enough but the real news is; it was the man who made the call who reported the story in an internet blog, the Iraqi free press could not verify a call like this with a 911-type voice recording. More about this later, let me now switch gear to systems science.

In control systems, when confronted with a disturbance there are two possible types of strategies; either isolate the disturbance or control it. If isolation is not possible then we attempt to control the disturbance only after carefully monitoring its behavior. These strategies are the result of economical necessity; isolation and monitoring are usually less costly than to control with little or no knowledge of the disturbance. Present U.S. policy in Iraq focuses too much on controlling the insurgency by military force and too little on isolating its causes and monitoring its development. How? Porous borders and not providing critical information to the media are examples of bad isolation and monitoring respectively. I’ll explain.

The claim that the Iraqi borders with Syria and Iran are not tight is an understatement, I am sure many intelligent minds are looking for ways to reduce illegal crossings. However, there are too many commentaries by political experts that suggest feeble, daydreaming deals with Syria and Iran to cooperate in sealing their side of the border. The argument offered is that instability in Iraq can spill over and de-stabilize their countries. This argument is long-term and tenuous at best, unlike politics at present, which is mostly about short term, sure-bet decisions. Such decisions need dynamic, verifiable information available at all times, such as up-to-the-minute images from micro satellite surveillance of the boarder areas. This information is useless when old, it should be shared in real time with Iraq’s hostile neighbors, and with the press after a short cooling time. UHF satellite telephones should be available inexpensively but not freely to the population in boarder areas. Better still in my opinion, GPS-enabled sets with auto shut down when outside Iraq’s territory will go a long way in improving security. Inexpensive cellular phones may seem like a detail but it shouldn’t. The Systems Science argument sees the free flow of information as part of the self-regulation mechanisms of a normal functioning society. Apart from that there is a political argument, free communication is the antithesis of Saddam’s dictatorial strategy, my Baghdadi friends told me that Saddam once abolished public telephones until only two remained in the whole city of over 5 million inhabitants. The widespread availability of inexpensive telephones is the hard-to-reverse sign that the era of dictatorship is over for good.

Is the Kurdish population 13% or a quarter of Iraq’s population? Are the Shia a political group or religious, ethnic, cultural and/or racial groups? How come Iraq had two free elections and no census of population? If a census leads to a breakup of the country how come it didn’t do so in the past? If these questions are politically incorrect, they shouldn’t be so, the Iraqi people deserve to know the statistical truth, not censorship disguised as political correctness or propaganda.The security situation in Iraq is appalling, if improvement were to arrive, where would it come from? From stronger police or the army? More U.S. troops? More elections? No, these are more of the same tried and failed solutions. At this stage of chaos the only universal authority that everybody would respect is the media, this is the ultimate regulating institution of the state whose truthfulness everybody should fear and respect. We all agree that there is freedom of expression and of the press in Iraq, why is the process not working? Why, because the Iraqi authorities do not fear the press anymore! If a story is published and the authorities didn’t like it, they would either ignore it or someone high up in the government would issue an official denial and that’s the end of the story. No investigation, no punishment, no scandal. A case in point is the story of the man who called the Ministry of the Interior, he is easy to ignore because nobody can verify his call. In other words, the Iraqi media is free but the authorities have prostituted it to the extent that it is no longer functioning. The solution? You don’t need the best judges in Iraq to sit on Saddam’s case or on corruption cases, you need them on media cases where fairness and justice are leveraged in order to correct massive wrongs, where people with power and authority cannot brush aside blaring truths about their decisions and conduct. That’s how systems regulation works in society and this is where public security starts. If you need less casualties on all sides and a systematic controlled exit then start with restoring the credibility and respect of the media and the press.

Shakespeare wrote about human motivation, every play he wrote dealt with one motivation deeply, in detail and from different angles. Some say this is what makes his literature so great. Shakespeare emphasized the qualitative differences between motivations; each play identifies a motivation with different qualities almost incomparable with the others. His plays, and the motivations he identified, multiplied until he died. Perhaps if he had lived longer then he would have identified many more. Shakespeare’s model of personality was simple: opposites are clear, cowardice or fear is the opposite of courage or aggression. You could say his model is made of unlimited and increasing dimensions with no clear structure or relationships between them.

Hemingway came much later and he saw some structure in personality. To him, cowardice and courage are two sides of the same coin; some of his novels show how a normal personality flips quickly between states of extreme fear and aggression. Hemingway and many others nowadays might say that the real opposite of fear is not aggression but a disappearance of fear. Here I would suggest that the cognitive opposite of fear is aggression and the motivational opposite is a state of no fear, or jubilation for its disappearance. Hemingway does not appear to rationalize or condone cowardice or aggression, rather he seems to understand that aggression is justified only if it leads to a disappearance of fear. Shakespeare decidedly seems old fashioned when compared with Hemingway.

As a parallel, the U.S. Middle East policy seems to reacts quickly to threats by counter threats, sometimes with little discrimination between friend and foe. Those who oppose or criticize run the risk of being seen as cowards or indecisive or worse. The motivation behind the politics seems simple and Shakespearean in the sense that fear seems to justifies aggression, which, like in a Shakespearean play, leads to extremism and polarization of the roles. The moderates are squeezed out of the drama or rendered ineffective. What the world needs now is more Hemingways in higher places..

Welcome to Faisal Kadri’s new Iraq politics site.

I promote No hate No fear Optimistic dialog. Please browse through and let me know your opinion.

Peace for Iraq.