No one familiar with the career of British journalist Yvonne Ridley doubts her courage for a moment. She is a woman who built her reputation in the field, not behind a desk; who crossed burning frontiers, confronted regimes, and paid personal and professional costs to bear witness to the oppressed. When she writes about governments that turn dissent into a prison cell, her words carry the weight of lived experience, not the comfort of distant analysis.
Yet in her recent article, “The Cowards’ Playbook,” Ridley’s courage seemed to falter—not in conviction, but in scope. She saw Tunisia, Pakistan, and Syria. But she did not see Iraq. And that omission is not a minor oversight; it is an ethical gap unworthy of her record.
Since 2003, Iraq has not merely become a failed state; it has become a vast prison wrapped in the illusion of democracy—an illusion engineered by the United States and handed over to Iran‑backed parties and militias. A prison that requires no show trials, because arrests rarely pass through the judiciary at all. In fact, the judiciary itself has become part of the machinery of disappearance rather than a guardian of justice.
Does Ridley know that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been forcibly disappeared, according to United Nations reports? Taken from streets, homes, and checkpoints—then vanished. No graves, no names, no trace. Their families have lived for more than a decade on the thin hope of learning their fate, while the state behaves as if they never existed.
Does she know the number of victims of the Tishreen (October) uprising? Young Iraqis who marched unarmed, unaffiliated, and unprotected, demanding nothing more radical than a homeland. The response was live ammunition, snipers, banned tear gas, kidnappings, and torture. More than 700 killed, thousands wounded, hundreds abducted. Yet Ridley did not mention them.
And while she rightly condemns regimes that imprison political leaders, does she know that in Iraq a single tweet can lead to arrest or disappearance? The charges are ready-made:
“Insulting state symbols,”
“Spreading chaos,”
“Threatening civil peace.”
Between arrest and disappearance, no one knows where a writer or journalist might end up—or whether they will return at all.
As for political opposition—the absence of which Ridley laments in other countries—it is, in Iraq, a worn-out fiction. The political process run by Iran‑aligned parties and militias has imposed its terms with brutal clarity:
Enter the game under our rules,
or be excluded,
or threatened,
or crushed.
There is no opposition. Only rival factions within the same ruling structure, competing over spoils.
READ: Iraq foils plot to assassinate National Security Service chief, senior officers
Ignoring Iraq cannot be explained as a simple journalistic lapse. It reflects a more comfortable international narrative—one that keeps Iraq outside the frame because it represents the West’s most catastrophic failure in the Middle East. Mentioning Tunisia, Pakistan, or Syria unsettles no one in Western capitals. Mentioning Iraq, however, means reopening the files of occupation, militias, and a state engineered to collapse. Iraq is the “embarrassing exception” many prefer to skip—not out of malice, but out of fear of what acknowledging it would require. And here lies the paradox: a journalist who once confronted armies and dictators hesitated before confronting a narrative crafted by the world’s major powers.
Moreover, Iraq presents a unique model of repression unlike anything Ridley described. In Tunisia, Pakistan, or Idlib, repression is exercised by a single identifiable authority. In Iraq, repression is fragmented—shared between a hollow state, empowered militias, overlapping security agencies, politicized courts, and domesticated media. It is repression without a center, without a signature, without accountability. This makes the Iraqi victim more vulnerable, the journalist more exposed, and justice nearly impossible. Iraq is not merely a state that practices repression; it is an ecosystem designed so that repression becomes the only language the militia‑state understands.
Leaving Iraq off the list of regimes practicing “the coward’s playbook” is not a small omission. It is a misalignment of the moral compass. Iraq today is not a state that merely silences its opponents; it devours them. Not a state that imprisons voices, but one that erases them. Not a state afraid of its rivals, but one afraid of its own shadow.
If Ridley wishes to write about regimes terrified of their people, Iraq belongs on the first page, not the margins. What is happening there is not episodic political repression—it is a fully formed militia‑state built on fear, sustained by fear, and reproducing fear every day.
We do not question her intentions, her bravery, or her history. But we remind her that true courage is not complete unless it sees the whole picture, not half of it. And Iraq—with all its blood, absence, and ruin—is not a detail to be skipped. It is the ultimate test for any writer who claims to stand with the oppressed.
If Ridley seeks to expose political cowardice, then the greatest cowardice in the region today is what unfolds in Iraq with regional and international complicity—where democracy has become a mask, the state a prison, and the citizen a number waiting endlessly for a turn that never comes.
OPINION: What awaits Iraq’s militias under Tom Barrack?
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.
