Laughter, tears and dancing mark a Iraqi Voices Amplification Project Team visit with Iraqi refugee families in Beirut, Lebanon.
Laughter, tears and dancing mark a Iraqi Voices Amplification Project Team visit with Iraqi refugee families in Beirut, Lebanon.
I met a pair of sisters this afternoon — I’ll call them Amira and Farrah* — whose lives, even in thumbnail-sketch form, capture much of the complexity and tragedy of the contemporary Iraqi experience.
Amira, the younger of the two, is 53 years old. In Baghdad, she worked for an investment bank and raised her four children alone. (Her husband died before the war.) Her eldest son, Samir, was trained as an electrical engineer but started working as an interpreter for the U.S. Army when the war began. Within a year, the threats against his life had escalated to the point where he had to leave the country. Now he lives in Florida and works at a gas station.
Back in Iraq, the insurgents who had threatened Samir were undeterred. They kidnapped his younger brother Ali instead and beat and tortured him, leaving his genitals so badly damaged that he will never be able to have children. His mother fears that he will never overcome the psychological problems he developed after the kidnapping, either. Today, Ali lives with his mother and sister in Lebanon, where their lives are in limbo until they can join Samir in Florida.

Amira in Beirut, awaiting resettlement in Florida, where she will be reunited with her son for the first time in three years
Meanwhile, Amira’s sister Farrah still lives in Iraq. She is only in Lebanon temporarily, to undergo radiation therapy for breast cancer. (Cancer rates among Iraqis are alarmingly high, most likely from the use of depleted uranium munitions by Americans during both the 1991 Gulf War and the current one. A similar trend appears to be emerging among U.S. troops who served in Iraq.)
Farrah is married with three children, and her life in Iraq is extremely difficult. Her husband goes to his job as a schoolteacher every day, but otherwise, the family leaves the house only when absolutely necessary; the streets of Baghdad are simply too dangerous for all but the most crucial errands. When I asked Farrah whether she wanted to stay in Iraq or, like her sister, resettle somewhere more stable, she replied that it was up to her children. If they wanted to go, she would go; if they wanted to stay, she would stay.
It takes money to get out of Iraq, and leaving your homeland out of necessity is an acutely unwelcome prospect: frightening, exhausting, lonely, sad. Still, even with the financial and emotional difficulties of leaving, it’s hard to imagine, at first, what could possess people like Farah and her family to stay in Iraq. But consider this: her son just finished medical school — a famously rigorous six-year training program that entitles him to enter a well-paid, well-respected, meaningful profession.
So here is the dilemma facing Ahmed — and by extension his whole family, and by analogy the whole of Iraq. He can stay in a country where his cousin was kidnapped and tortured, where violence remains so omnipresent that his own life has narrowed almost to the walls of his house — and where he has a newly-minted degree in a prestigious and lucrative field that he loves. Or he can leave Iraq, wait in limbo in Lebanon or one of the other refugee holding-pins around the Middle East for eight to ten months (the average length of time a refugee resettlement takes, according to the U.S. State Department), after which he can go to Florida and live in safety — and file away his medical degree and his dreams to work with his cousin at a gas station.
Idiomatically, this is called a Morton’s Fork: a choice that consists of two equally bad options. For Ahmed and millions of other Iraqis, it appears, for the time being, to be the only kind of choice they have.
* All the names in this post have been changed.

Today, the IVAP group split up into smaller teams to do in-depth interviews with Iraqi refugees. Most of the discussions were held in the Iraqis’ actual homes.
These were moving, poignant experiences. My group met with two parents and their four young children. They fled Iraq after the father was threatened several times.
Then, we visited with a mother of four children. Her young son was kidnapped and held for ransom. Her husband is missing – and presumably dead.
Next, we met a 53-year-old mother of four. She had one son flee Iraq – only to have her second son kidnapped, tortured and mutilated.
Finally, we talked with that woman’s sister. She still lives in Baghdad but is staying in Lebanon to undergo cancer treatments.
Each story was different and — to some degree — horrifying. But there were common themes that ran through each of them.
Their only hopes for the future are very base and primal: to be safe. To have stability in their lives. No talk about happiness or success.
They have very little desire to return to Iraq. They basically want to go wherever their families are, be it Australia, Sweden or the US. I guess home really is where the heart is.
All of their situations are the result of the chaos that is Iraq. Surprisingly, they were not universally critical of or angry at the US, but I suspect they may have just been saying that to a roomful of Americans.
Tomorrow, we go again.
Our trip got started with a coincidence: on Friday, Oct. 2, the same day we arrived in Lebanon to begin learning about and drawing attention to the Iraqi refugee crisis, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pit showed up in Syria to … well, to do pretty much the same thing.
There’s a lot to be said — most of it in fairly strident tones — about the merit or (depending on your point of view) absurdity of celebrity activism on enormously complicated geopolitical problems such as the Iraqi refugee crisis. I’m not going to wade into that terrain right now; but I think it’s reasonable to ask why, if many people think it’s pretty questionable for celebrities to parachute into crisis areas for photo ops and heartfelt messages (and if this is not an issue that you track, take my word for it that many people do think it’s questionable) — if that’s the case, then maybe it makes sense for those of us on this trip to think about and justify why we’re doing what we’re doing.
In other words, the celebrity issue suggests a question that’s relevant to the rest of us: how best can we Americans come here and bear witness to a crisis that is, in very substantial measure, of our own nation’s making? If that question seems like so much naval-gazing (and I hope it doesn’t, since my end goal here is to write about the Iraqi refugee crisis, not about Americans’ crises of conscience), it seems worth pointing out that it is different in scope but not in kind from the questions we must ask of ourselves and our government as we try determine what role the United States should play in bringing stability and justice to Iraq.
So what of bearing witness? Well, first, there’s no question that seeing is morally preferable to refusing to see. As countless students of tragedy have observed, the simplest way to avoid having to intervene in a crisis – in fact, to avoid even having to decide whether to intervene in a crisis – is simply to turn one’s back on the evidence that the crisis exists in the first place.
To no small extent, that kind of willful moral blindness has been the fate of the Iraqi refugees to date. Of the 26 million people who lived in Iraq before the start of the war in 2003, the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees estimates that roughly 4.2 million have fled their homes. Half of those are internally displaced people, who are living (in many cases very tenuously) elsewhere in Iraq — typically among members of their own ethnic and religious background, since much of the violence in the country has amounted to a concerted campaign of ethnic cleansing. The other half, an estimated 2.2 million people, have fled to neighboring nations, primarily Lebanon, Jordan, and (especially) Syria.
In other words, more than one-sixth of the population of Iraq has been displaced by war. Taken together, these people represent the largest forced migration anywhere in the world – not just currently, but at any time in at least the last half-century. And yet, unless you track international issues pretty closely, you probably haven’t heard very much about it. In fact, I’d bet decent money that Darfur emits a stronger blip on your radar screen than Iraq – which, for comparisons’ sake, has hemorrhaged twice as many of its citizens. (That’s not to suggest that these two conflicts are otherwise comparable, let alone that there is some kind of sliding scale of human suffering – just to point out that we are doing a far better job of bearing witness to the one than the other.)
When it comes to the Iraqi refugee crisis, then, we need to sit up and take notice – since seeing is, in this and all things, the crucial first step to acting. And yet, bearing witness is a tricky business. We know from a different domain – the law – that we should be somewhat wary of eyewitness accounts. There’s nothing like seeing something firsthand to make you believe you really grasp it and to feel certain that you got right – yet eyewitness testimony turns out to be some of the most unreliable evidence there is. Worse: it is, simultaneously, some of the most convincing. It’s no accident that mistaken eyewitness are the number one reason innocent people wind up beyond bars. While the stakes of getting our stories wrong over here might not be as steep, what we think we see matters immensely — for what we learn (and what we don’t learn), what we bring back home, and what kinds of conclusions we influence our friends, our neighbors, and our nation to reach.
So how do we look, yet not be deceived by the limitations of our own impressions? Like many journalists, I pretty much live on the horns of this dilemma. On the one hand, you have to go out there and have first-hand experiences and listen to people’s stories and try to make sense for yourself of what’s going on. On the other hand, it is staggeringly hard to get it right. Every passionate conviction has an equally impassioned contradiction; every story contests another story. And when the issue at hand is as vast and complex as the Iraqi refugee crisis – a crisis that involves not just the immediate history of the Saddam years and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but also the entire colonial and precolonial history of a nation, a region, and multiple religions – well, let’s just say that I’m not sure I trust Brangelina to translate all that to the American public. Frankly, I’m not sure I trust myself to do so, either. Like most Americans, when it comes to Iraq, I have virtually everything to learn.
I do trust, though, in two ways that can help us bear witness a little better. The first is to get seriously acquainted with the facts – and, to that end, I’ll be blogging a lot here about the nuts and bolts of the refugee crisis in the coming days and weeks. The second is to try, as often as possible, to see through other people’s eyes – especially those with different experiences and opinions than we alone can bring to the table. To that end, I’ll be linking to lots of other people’s informed work on the refugee crisis, and I encourage everyone to share their thoughts and comments on the blog.
More details (and, I promise, many more stories) soon.

Colonel Michael J. Meese, Director Robert Chase, Megan Hoelle, Kirk W. Johnson, Ambassador Cynthia P. Schneider, Moderator Damian Bednarz and C. Eduardo Vargas
On Thursday, April 2, Intersections concluded its conversation series, “The Cost of War at Home & Abroad,” with a panel discussion, After the Surge: Ethical Exit Strategies From Iraq.
Panelists included Cynthia P. Schneider, former U.S. Ambassador to The Netherlands and Georgetown University faculty member; U.S. Army Col. Michael J. Meese, Ph.D.; and Kirk W. Johnson, The List Project founder and director. The conversation explored American strategies of withdrawing from Iraq while fulfilling political, military and humanitarian obligations.
“From the military perspective, the importance of the ethical withdrawal is to turn over security in a way that minimizes the chances of a return to sectarianism,” said Meese. For that reason, the military method is to “thin forces and continue to maintain transition teams.”
Johnson noted that some 3,000 Iraqis have contacted him in fear for their safety because they aided U.S. efforts. “I am praying and hoping that the people [developing the exit strategy] are taking into consideration what happens to these Iraqis who have helped us, because if we abandon them, I don’t see how we can ever claim any mantle of an ethical withdrawal,” he said.
“I think it’s so important that we define this beyond military security, that we define it in terms of a viable life for people in Iraq,” said Schneider. This means “economic development, education, adequate health care, water, power grid, electricity [and] restoration of their cultural institutions.”
The “Cost of War” series “raised awareness about how the global war on terror has impacted different sectors of our society in ways that people are unaware of,” said Eduardo Vargas, Intersections’ project manager.
To hear an audio recording of the presentation, please visit www.intersectionsinternational.org/costofwarlectures.
See below for a highlight video from this discussion.
On November 13th, Intersections hosted its fourth conversation exploring the cost of war, at home and abroad. Iraqi Voices featured three Iraqis who have been recently resettled to the United States. All three had worked with the US government during the early stages of the war, a choice that later marked them as targets, forcing them to leave family and country in order to seek safer ground. Moderated by Anisa Medhi, an award-winning journalist and filmmaker, the conversation provided an in-depth look at the many “costs” of the Iraq War, both personal and political.
To protect the identities of the Iraqis participating in our discussion, only their first names were used. Assad was a translator in Iraq, now living in Ithaca, NY, where he teaches Arabic at Ithaca College. Ameer has a Bachelors in English and is currently living with his family in Dearborn, MI. Ehab, who made it to the US with the help of the List Project to Resettle Iraqi Allies, now works with one of the law firms handling the immigration cases of Iraqi refugees.
All three shared stories of their desire to work with the Americans in 2003, as they believed they were helping to build a new life and brighter future for Iraqis. Unfortunately, things did not go as planned and as the occupation wore on with little of the promised improvements to infrastructure materializing and a continuing escalation of violence, Ehab, Ameer and Assad were in ever growing danger. “The Americans inherited Saddam’s position in the minds of the Iraqi people. So whatever happened in Iraq the Iraqi people blamed the United States for it, but then they couldn’t see the Americans, the Americans were behind the green zones, they could see me Ameer and Assad and we were very obvious…we were the collaborators, we were the ones making the Americans work in Iraq… So we were the ones to be blamed.”
Eventually all three made it safely out of Iraq, but not without significant hardship. Ehab’s journey took him more than a year and took him through India, Syria and Egypt before he made it to Arizona. Assad is still getting used to the snow in Ithaca, but is grateful for the warm reception he has received there. “I think they understand we have suffered a lot, we were very welcomed.”
While the future of Iraq is uncertain, all three Iraqis shared their hopes that their country will be rebuilt and that young people will feel like they have a future there. It is clear that this can not happen without the participation of the Iraqi people and that political realities and timelines for withdrawal are extremely complicated. In the meantime, America is deeply honored by all the Iraqis that risked so much in helping us and Intersections extends them a warm welcome.
To hear an audio recording of the presentation from this discussion, please visit us here.