By So much for soldiers hanging out at juicy bars in Iraq:
It started in the Green Zone, with Iraqi soldiers ordering restaurants to stop serving alcohol and confiscating bottles from politicians at checkpoints.Then, mysterious signs began appearing across the rest of Baghdad declaring alcohol sinful and warning of damnation for those who drink.
Finally, the crackdown came. Phalanxes of soldiers and police officers descended on the nightclubs, cabarets and bars that had proliferated across the capital in the last two years and symbolized for many a return to normality.
Now Baghdad is almost dry, for the second time since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. But this time the government is enforcing the prohibition, not militias or insurgents.
“Our new constitution guarantees all freedoms for all Iraqi people,” said Ahmed Jassim Hamza, whose Deluxe nightclub on the Tigris River was among those raided by soldiers and ordered to close. “But the political powers in control are Islamic, and they can’t handle social freedoms such as alcohol because their minds are narrowed by religion.”
The crackdown was headed by the Baghdad provincial council, which is controlled by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Islamic Dawa Party. But many suspect al-Maliki himself played a role in the decision to restrict alcohol, to burnish his credentials among Islamist voters before national elections in March.
Hamza and several restaurant and liquor store owners said police told them they were acting “on the orders of the prime minister’s office.” [Stars & Stripes]
Some readers may remember the controversy that erupted last year when a reporter photographed soldiers hanging out in bars in Baghdad partying with locals. It will be interesting to see how long these new regulations stay in place.
5:19 pm on January 27th, 2010 1
They’re just appeasing conservatives prior to the 7 March elections. Everything should be back to normal by April.
6:27 pm on January 27th, 2010 2
Hmmm…
We destroyed the only secular government in the region which gave the most rights to women and discouraged Islamic extremism.
…and replaced it with this?
Whoopie. Three cheers for progress.
6:43 pm on January 27th, 2010 3
“…they can’t handle social freedoms such as alcohol because their minds are narrowed by religion.”
Amen Brother.
7:18 pm on January 27th, 2010 4
The sooner we leave the better. Do what we came to do and leave the Iraqis free to destroy their freeedoms. The future of Iraq is now in their own hands, how they deal with it is another matter.
7:52 pm on January 27th, 2010 5
Yes sir. Religion is like kryptonite to freedom. If they’re go down that road after all the blood and treasure spilled, shame on them.
7:52 pm on January 27th, 2010 6
Hmm this is not a good thing. It means Iraq can quickly become just another Iran, ruled by a religion and not a free country at all.
8:41 pm on January 27th, 2010 7
And I believe they will go down that road, and end up no better off than before the US invaded. Just give them about 10 years to destroy it all.
12:19 am on January 28th, 2010 8
Mark’s right. Things will be back to normal by April as soon as Maliki wins the elections. This new “law” will start seeing the same level of enforcement as the anti-prostitution laws here in Korea…
12:26 am on January 28th, 2010 9
Mr. Ahmed Jassim Hamza said, “Our new constitution guarantees all freedoms for all Iraqi people”
He is not quite right. If he looked at the Iraqi Constitution, such as it is, he would find a lot of ambiguity.
Under Article 2, it says:
Whoa!! Several “contradicts” in there, but one can argue that in many cases, B and C will contradict with A.
Under rights and liberties, they inserted moral qualifiers.
Rights
Liberties
As a young ‘democracy,’ they may literally find the devil in the details of defining morality. They can look around themselves at their neighbors and at other countries around the world that stamp Islam as the foundation of their State. They should easily recognize the range of interpreting the moral requirements in Islam. They could be whipsawed back and forth by the moral judgments of whomever comes to power or is appointed to their courts. Women may become the most obvious sign of that. Must they wear a head covering? If so, can it be a veil or must it be a burqa?
If Iraq remains a democracy, as we know it, they may eventually have to come to a California-vs-Miller like decision, where they decide on an objective standard by which morality can be determined.
12:32 am on January 28th, 2010 10
Yes, definitely.
12:35 am on January 28th, 2010 11
Unfortunately, A is probably open to the interpretation of those who screams the loudest…and you know who screams the loudest.