When Le Monde wants a nativist opinion on the situation in Iraq (and the election), it chooses a sympathizer of Saddam

When Le Monde decides to give a full-page article to a common citizen of Iraq, somebody whose opinion is supposed to reflect the general view in the street, whom does the independent newspaper choose?

An Iraqi citizen who complains of the "atrocities" and the "atrocious war", of course, who justifies the "resistance", of course, who refuses to vote "out of principle", of course (!), and who naturally wails that fear, "'anxiety', 'trembling', [and] 'disgust' … are my daily lot since that accursed night of March 20, 2003, and the beginning of the Americans' war against my country."

I, a [49-year-old, French-speaking middle-class] Iraqi woman, the mother of two children … I can say that today, fear accompanies me everywhere, even in bed, which has become collective, shared with my sons, out of fear of dying separately, each one alone in bed, should a rocket or a missile fall on us at night by mistake.

(As you will read later on, the sons in question are even more traumatized than she is.)

Besides the explosions, Nadia Ahmed (not her real name [!]) goes on to complain of the content of television programs, of "the noise of low-flying planes which tears apart the silence and steals our intimicy", of the continuing buzz of the electric generators (when the grid isn't cut), of having consequently to get up at 6 a.m. to do the laundry and vacuum the house, and, if the electricity does happen to fail half-way through her cleaning chores, of having to finish washing the dishes by hand.

She also fears taking a drive in her car, and that one day she will be crushed by a Humvee, or see

Americans break down the door to search our house, as they do so often elsewhere.

As you can see, poor Nadia Ahmed has a lot to complain of, and we can only agree with her that life would be much better were Saddam and his Mukhabarat thugs still in power. (The secret police never broke down doors; its fear-inspiring members didn't have to.)

But let's not be too harsh or too sarcastic. The poor mother is understandably concerned about the effect the war will have on her 16- and 10-year-old sons. Notably, she imagines her children being terrified of the news of a bomb in their school. I hate to sound callous, but personally at that age I would have found any kind of alert exciting to the hilt.

As it turns out, the boys do not seem to be frightened of the GIs at all. Au contraire.

From the very first day of the conflict, in March 2003, Ahmed [10] and his friends started playing war, asking for soldier toys, machine guns, tanks, and planes. Ahmed often imitates the Americans. A weapon in his hands, he kicks doors open with his feet, shouting "Go! Go! Go!" He always takes the side of the GIs, their technology fascinates him. He is happy when Iraqis are killed.

Uh-oh. Incoming whopper (When you hear the word "logic", you know you're going to hear an example of moral relativism).

His cousins hold the same language, the same logic: that of the strongest. I try to explain that they are occupiers and that one must defend one's country against occupiers, and to tell them the damage that this war has caused, there is nothing to do.

Well, see, of course, if Iraqis (kids or other) are not afraid of the Americans, then that, too, is something that… the Americans must be reproached for! And in impeccable (il)logic, if the kids are not traumatized, this in itself is cause for… traumatism!

The traumatism is such that it seems impossible to heal in so short a time. Violence turns them into agitated, perturbed, anxious kids, undermined by the apprehension of being killed or kidnapped, which is very frequent.

Of course, life was much better when schoolkids sat in classrooms, simply chanting the name of Saddam Hussein as the leader and protector of all Iraqis, and Iraqis the country over were taken away to jail and to the death fields.

When a woman is killed by a bomb, Nadia Ahmed calls her

yet another victim in this war that has made so many orphans, so many widowers and widows, so many poor and mutilated people, so many innocent prisoners, so many hoodlums in liberty, and also so many women cloistered at home, condemned to question themselves about the country's future.

Regarding "the country's future", did she vote, at least (hyperlink: thanks to Chris)?

I might as well tell you right away: I didn't participate [in the elections]. For reasons of security, first of all, and for reasons of principle. Numerous political parties and cities were not allowed to join in. Something that made the vote hobbled and predetermined!

"Numerous political parties were not allowed to run"? The evidence was visible all through the article, here, as far as I am concerned, is the ultimate proof:

When Le Monde wants a nativist opinion on the situation in Iraq, France's newspaper of reference chooses a member, or a sympathizer, of the Ba'athist party!

What a waste, my God, what a waste! …

May God curse the Americans and those that support them!