Make this my home page
More buttons
Best of the Day
Page
Turn off that Wi-Fi network - it's disturbing our chakras.
Video

Hot For Words: Lollipop

Blog
Innocent Spam
Game
EA SPORTS Complex on PlayStation Home
Art
Kinetic sculpture is a cross between art and engineering.
Cool tools
Hot links
Dadaist deconstruction of new media, as a flash game.
Everything you need to know about microscopic water bears
News for nerds
For lovers of the Green Fairy
Stories and art from Australia's Yolgnu people
Australia's best science fiction author
Did the earth just move?
Don't discount journalism
Novelist and comic book legend's homepage
Searchable history of the internet
Exposing systematic torture in Iran
Museum of science fiction, utopia and extraordinary journeys
The real story of christianity
Image bookmarking
Developing tech to get the internet to its full potential
This is no sop. It is a vote to end the occupation of Iraq - by Jonathan Steele

Two victories in a single month. Amid the encircling economic gloom, it's hard to believe we deserve such good news. First, of course, Barack Obama's election win. And now Iraq's unexpected deal with the American government for the occupation to end at last.

Debated by the Iraqi parliament today, the agreement has been virtually ignored in many left-liberal circles as well as by most of the mainstream American media. We are so inured to thinking that the US will always get its way in Iraq, thanks to its enormous investment of troops and treasure, that any potentially contrary development is dismissed. The US has agreed to leave Iraq. "You must be joking," comes the response. "Why would they build 14 mega-bases if they didn't intend to stay for decades?" The US is allowing Iraqi courts jurisdiction over crimes committed by American troops. "Give me a break. You can't believe that," I hear the sneer.

Well, look at the agreement's text. It is remarkable for the number and scope of the concessions that the Iraqi government has managed to get from the Bush administration. They amount to a series of U-turns that spell the complete defeat of the neoconservative plan to turn Iraq into a pro-western ally and a platform from which to project US power across the Middle East.

The title gives the game away - Agreement on the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organisation of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq. Remember how Bush (and his ally, Gordon Brown) constantly rejected any "artificial timetables" for pulling out the troops. Everything had to be "conditions-based", meaning that no dates could be given in advance since all depended on whether Iraq's own forces were ready to fill the gap. It was an elastic formula that allowed Washington to delay a withdrawal for ever.

That has gone by the board. The agreement stipulates that "all US forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31 2011". More remarkably, all combat troops will leave Iraqi towns and villages and go back to base by the end of June next year. Pause for a moment and take that in. Six years and three months after the invasion, Iraqi streets will be a US-free zone again.

Click the view button below to read the full article.

View the pageGo back to previous pageLeave some feedbackPrint this pageEmail link to friendsBookmark in del.icio.usAdd to Stumble ThisAdd to your favourite bookmarksDigg this article

Tags

 

Related Stories

   
Next

So, I read today that the designer of Mattel's Barbie doll was obsessed with sex. Seriously? We need a book-length study to tell us that?

We in the land of feminist academics have been teaching the pernicious sexual politics of Barbie for years. The breasts that defy gravity, the hair, the long, long legs and of course the cruel, nipped in waist. Oh, don't forget the tiny clothes, the f*ck-me pumps, not to mention the well-equipped kitchens in every Barbie Dream House. The message of Barbie seems unambiguous to me.

Still, many students (and not a few colleagues) consistently resist seeing Barbie as a miniature sex toy, claiming instead that the doll was a good role model for little girls. (One could, after all, purchase a Barbie doll dressed as a doctor.) Or claiming, equally untenably, that toys had no impact on their ideas about gender roles or their own sexuality.

These students, mostly women, want to rescue Barbie, to protect their own childhoods from academic interrogations of pop culture and what those interrogations might reveal. That's understandable. Yet, many of these same students sit in my class pouring out of tank tops, squeezed into low-rise jeans, or tugging on mini-skirts so short they are nearly impossible to sit down in. That is, dressed like Barbie.

It's an experience I regularly have as a feminist critic of popular culture: a media event, book or news story demonstrates that I'm not wrong, my ideology is not based in "over analyzing," "hyper sensitivity," or "reading too much into things" (the three most common criticisms feminists tend to encounter). It's disappointing, frankly, to stumble so often upon evidence of society's sexism and to keep having to explain that it's there. Disappointing that Barbie was so obviously a sexed-up, misogynist, bad idea for little girls and to realize how thoroughly our culture embraced the toy anyway.

So, here we are again. Feminists were right: no one but a sex-obsessed man with a perverse idea of female anatomy would create a female toy like Barbie. And, as is too too often the case for feminists, being right isn't something to celebrate.

Dr. Bean is an Associate Professor of English at Marshall University, specializing in Gender Studies, Film and Drama. She is the author of "Post-Backlash Feminism: Women and the Media Since Reagan/Bush" (McFarland & Co. 2007). She hosts a blog on mid-life and feminism at kelliebean.com.