No result found
Foreign policy experts and policy analysts are misreading the lessons of Iraq. The emerging conventional wisdom holds that success could have been achieved in Iraq with more troops, more cooperation among U.S. government agencies, and better counterinsurgency doctrine. To analysts who share these views, Iraq is not an example of what not to do but of how not to do it. Their policy proposals aim to reform the national security bureaucracy so that we will get it right the next time. The near-consensus view is wrong and dangerous. What Iraq demonstrates is a need for a new national security strategy, not better tactics and tools to serve the current one. By insisting that Iraq was ours to remake were it not for the Bush administration's mismanagement, we ignore the limits on our power that the war exposes and in the process risk repeating our mistake. The popular contention that the Bush administration's failures and errors in judgment can be attributed to poor planning is also false. There was ample planning for the war, but it conflicted with the Bush administration's expectations. To the extent that planning failed, therefore, the lesson to draw is not that the United States national security establishment needs better planning, but that it needs better leaders. That problem is solved by elections, not bureaucratic tinkering. The military gives us the power to conquer foreign countries, but not the power to run them. Because there are few good reasons to take on missions meant to resuscitate failed governments, terrorism notwithstanding, the most important lesson from the war in Iraq should be a newfound appreciation for the limits of our power.
Social IMPACT Research Center;
Human trafficking in the form of forced prostitution and labor has long existed in Iraq, as has forced marriage and domestic servitude within the family, tribe and community. Since the 2003 invasion and subsequent civil war, Iraq has increasingly been a source of trafficking victims who are transported to neighboring countries, as well as a destination for foreign workers who are at risk of trafficking and come to Iraq from the Philippines, Nepal, Bangladesh and other countries where poverty is widespread. Furthermore, internal conflict and breakdown in law and order has resulted in a rise in kidnapping and trafficking from one location to another within Iraq.
The Iraqi Constitution prohibits forced labor, kidnapping, slavery, slave trade, trafficking in women or children, and the sex trade, and the Government of Iraq ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women ("CEDAW"). However Iraqi government officials have overwhelmingly failed to act to prevent abuses and to punish offenders. Iraq has not passed anti-trafficking legislation, allowing traffickers to continue to operate with impunity. Research and preliminary investigations leading to the production of this report indicate that Iraqi women and girls are being subjected to the following types of trafficking: 1) exploitation of prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation; 2) forced labor or services; 3) slavery or practices similar to slavery; and 4) servitude. There are also credible reports of trafficking-related practices such as forced participation in criminal activity. Because of the nature of trafficking, quantitative measurement is inexact even in developed nations with functioning judicial and law enforcement sectors. In Iraq, measuring the scope of trafficking is far more difficult. However, there is ample evidence of established patterns and practices of trafficking, leading to a strong likelihood that hundreds of women have been trafficked over the last five years in the Kurdistan region, and thousands elsewhere in Iraq and in neighboring regions.
In accordance with the Iraqi Constitution as well as international treaty obligations, Iraq must develop an effective national and regional counter-trafficking strategy. A comprehensive approach to combating trafficking must include prevention strategies, protection of trafficking victims, and prosecution of traffickers. This is a difficult time for Iraqis as they struggle with ongoing violence and war, as well as ongoing political restructuring in which many issues have yet to be determined. However it is also an opportune time to address trafficking and other serious human rights violations, as Iraq's national and regional governments work to strengthen the rule of law. Addressing problems of trafficking and other forms of gender-motivated violence is integral to this process of reform.
United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF);
Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is a human rights issue that affects girls and women worldwide. As such, its elimination is a global concern. In 2012, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a milestone resolution calling on the international community to intensify efforts to end the practice. More recently, in September 2015, the global community agreed to a new set of development goals -- the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) -- which includes a target under Goal 5 to eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and FGM/C, by the year 2030. Both the resolution and the SDG framework signify the political will of the international community and national partners to work together to accelerate action towards a total, and final, end to the practice in all continents of the world. More and better data are needed to measure progress towards this common goal.
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation;
Summarizes panel discussions at a May 2010 conference on past economic development efforts in post-war areas, current debates over Iraq and Afghanistan, and how to incorporate "expeditionary economics" into future stabilization and reconstruction efforts.
Pew Global Attitudes Project;
Focuses on the reaction to the war in Iraq, attitudes around the world towards the war on terrorism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iran, Syria, and North Korea, and views on American unilateralism.
The Constitution Project's blue-ribbon Task Force on Detainee Treatment is made up of former high-ranking officials with distinguished careers in the judiciary, Congress, the diplomatic service, law enforcement, the military, and other parts of the executive branch, as well as recognized experts in law, medicine and ethics. The group includes conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats. The Task Force was charged with providing the American people with a broad understanding of what is known -- and what may still be unknown -- about the past and current treatment of suspected terrorists detained by the U.S. government during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations.
This report is the product of more than two years of research, analysis and deliberation by the Task Force members and staff. It is based on a thorough examination of available public records and interviews with more than 100 people, including former detainees, military and intelligence officers, interrogators and policymakers. It is a comprehensive record of detainee treatment across multiple administrations and multiple geographic theatres -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantánamo and the so-called "black sites" -- yet published.
Evaluates the postwar reconstruction and reform efforts of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq and its administrator, L. Paul Bremer, against other nation-building efforts. Examines the decisions and factors behind the failure to halt civil war.
Presents a background paper and summary of discussions from an April 1987 seminar on the capacity of the United Nations Security Council to take effective action to end the Iran-Iraq War. Outlines suggestions for a new negotiating approach.
Robert R. McCormick Foundation;
In fall 2006, approximately 140,000 American troops were deployed in Iraq, compared with about 20,000 in Afghanistan. By September 2009, there were 65,000 U.S. troops and nearly 40,000 NATO soldiers in Afghanistan, with 124,000 still in Iraq. During those same three years, reporters and the news organizations that they represent also have confronted enormous change. Print and broadcast news outlets are struggling both to adapt to and compete with online media. Although people are reading newspapers in record numbers, many are reading them online, a factor that has toppled the traditional advertising model. Plummeting ad revenues have led to layoffs, slashed budgets and closures. Meanwhile, broadcast news organizations seem to compete for audience by increasing the number of shouting matches rather than nuanced, unbiased coverage of important stories.
A few figures reveal the changing landscape. A 2009 report from the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism shows that the Internet surpassed newspapers as a main source of news for those surveyed, growing from about 10 percent in 2001 to 40 percent in 2008. During the same period, newspapers dropped as a main source of news from more than 40 percent in 2001 to 35 percent in 2008. While television still leads the pack, it has fallen from a peak of 90 percent in 1996 to 70 percent in 2008. (See chart
"Main News Sources for Americans," page 7.) "Viewership of serious news programs in broadcast is turning down sharply, so broadcasters are turning even more toward less serious news," said conference moderator Ralph Begleiter, director of the Center for Political Communication at the University of Delaware.
This strategy has had a major impact on coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan. "Let's face it, most Americans could care less whether the lights are on in Baghdad today or whether young women in Afghanistan are going to school," said Begleiter. "Most Americans just want to know when our boys are coming home." Against the background of these changes in the news business are two wars that are extremely complicated to cover, Afghanistan even more than Iraq. How does the military deal with reporters who are bloggers with strong points of view and no organizational affiliation? "You're dealing with irregular media as well as irregular warfare," said Begleiter. This puts an added strain on an adversarial relationship. Irreconcilable differences exist between the way the military and media carry out the same mission: to support the nation. "Many people inthe military believe that the way to be a team player is to support winning the war, which supports the nation. It's a logical conclusion."
The media, on the other hand, play the role of devil's advocate in monitoring institutions like the military and the government. "Their purpose in life is to pick at the scab, to find out where the problem is. Of course, the ultimate goal is to help fix the problem," Begleiter said.