Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former Middle East specialist for the CIA, appeared on “Meet the Press” yesterday to discuss the new Iraqi constitution and dropped this little gem:
MR. GERECHT: Actually, I’m not terribly worried about this. I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women’s social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there’s no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it’s important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we’d all be thrilled. I mean, women’s social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they’re there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.
What perspective is that? The perspective that women in Iraq could end up worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein? That they could be forced to give up their professions and only allowed to leave their homes if they are accompanied by a male relative? That Iraq could end up with its own Taliban?
I wonder what Mr. Gerecht would think if Iraq were considering denying men the vote.
This pretty much puts the lie to Bush’s stated goal of spreading real democracy in the Middle East. Who cares what the constitution actually says, as long as it’s completed on time? It’s more important that he have the opportunity to proclaim “mission accomplished” once again than it is to insure that all Iraqi citizens have equal status under the law.
I wish I could say I’m surprised.
I saw the very end of the replay last night on MSNBC. I went to sleep angry and woke up still angry! It’s nice to know our efforts in Iraq are so good for the women there.