An unqualified cheer for the election in Iraq!

[Melvyn]

As a supporter of the intervention in Iraq, while a fierce critic of the Bush administration handling of it, I am happy to raise an unqualified cheer for the election held last Sunday. It is of course only an interim step and many things could still go wrong. After getting past the administration hype and the media saturation, one thing is clear. The Iraqis who could possibly make it to the polls did so, under great risk.

In America we are grateful when 60% of eligible voters go to the polls and we are under no threat. (Although our politicians manage to do a little crooked business). Iraq has something like a 60% turnout with the Sunni vote clearly suppressed. We could take a lesson.

George Bush has put forth the thesis that freedom is the gift of God and that all peoples want it. He is answered by critics who point to various places, including Iraq and question whether people really care about a concept that given the conditions of their lives is only abstract. The Iraqis have come down clearly on the side of George Bush.

I seriously question those sophisticates who say this or that population is not ready for democracy. To say that other people don't care about freedom is to say they have less human worthiness than us. Is that not a form of racism?

I don't mean we should go out and conquer the world for democracy as George Bush's rhetoric sometimes indicates. If we attempt to militarily force the world into submission we will probably lose our own democracy in the process. We should be heartened by this turn of events, finish our work in Iraq and Afghanistan and to paraphrase Bush the rest of the world is the patient work of generations. That work consists of diplomacy, honorable commerce and good will with encouragement toward the democratic elements in all nations and the willingness to criticize those nations with unsavory records of abuse.


Melvyn

[Milton Bradley]

Just think, it only cost us about $400 Billion to install rights for the Iraqi's while I still don't have the same rights in my own country.


If only we American's could get a legitamate election here at home. Perhaps even the ability to spend our money at home where it will do American's some actual good.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Melvyn After getting past the administration hype and the media saturation, one thing is clear. The Iraqis who could possibly make it to the polls did so, under great risk.

Very much like some of the South American countries which had similar violence in the last couple of decades. They dodged bullets as well, and we didn't go to war with them to let them do it either.

George Bush has put forth the thesis that freedom is the gift of God and that all peoples want it. He is answered by critics who point to various places, including Iraq and question whether people really care about a concept that given the conditions of their lives is only abstract. The Iraqis have come down clearly on the side of George Bush.

The Iraqis were not voting for Bush. They came down on their OWN side. I suggest we allow them to work with their new found freedom for a while before breaking out the party hats.

I seriously question those sophisticates who say this or that population is not ready for democracy. To say that other people don't care about freedom is to say they have less human worthiness than us. Is that not a form of racism?

If they had fought for their freedom it might be a different story, but they fought for NOTHING! WE allowed this election, the Iraqis did nothing to show they ARE worthy of freedom, and certainly not at the cost.
Someone here asked why didn't they place a few suicide bombers in Saddam's vicinity when he would tour the streets. I ask the same thing.

However, good for them. They should have done it on their own.

[Gorgo]

Again, they vote a lot in Cuba, too.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Melvyn As a supporter of the intervention in Iraq, while a fierce critic of the Bush administration handling of it, I am happy to raise an unqualified cheer for the election held last Sunday. It is of course only an interim step and many things could still go wrong. After getting past the administration hype and the media saturation, one thing is clear. The Iraqis who could possibly make it to the polls did so, under great risk. <snip> George Bush has put forth the thesis that freedom is the gift of God and that all peoples want it. He is answered by critics who point to various places, including Iraq and question whether people really care about a concept that given the conditions of their lives is only abstract. The Iraqis have come down clearly on the side of George Bush.

And you come to this conclusion how? Are you too busy running the victory lap to even look at what is happening in Iraq? The occupation is widely despised, even accourding to polls commissioned by the US Occupation Authority. Did it ever occur to you that the Iraqi people, particularly the Shia', might consider voting the only way to end a brutal occupaton by a foriegn invader?

From Juan Coles blog of Wednesday, February 02, 2005:

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim claimed victory in the Sunday elections for the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of religious Shiite parties he leads. And this is what the winners, if they are winners, think of the US: "No one welcomes the foreign troops in Iraq. We believe in the ability of Iraqis to run their own issues, including the security issue," Mr Hakim said. "Of course this issue could be brought up by the new government." The idea that the revolutionary Shiite al-Dawa Party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Badr Organization (trained by the Iranian revolutionary guards), all of them with close ties to Tehran, would welcome a permanent US military presence in Iraq was always a chimera. Most Shiites who voted on Sunday thought they were voting for an end to US hegemony in their country. This is why it is so bizarre that the US Right is interpreting the elections as a victory for the Bush administration.[Emphamis added] Interim President Ghazi al-Yawir expressed hope that a substantial withdrawal of Coalition troops could be effected by the end of 2005, and this hope seems widely shared in Iraq. Al-Yawir cautioned that it would be unwise for US forces to just up and leave immediately, given the chaos in the country, and the Western press often latched on to this part of his statement rather than his call for withdrawal by the end of the year. That is, it might on the surface look as though al-Hakim and al-Yawir are in disagreement, but they probably are not.

[bishop]

good article rick..

if the newly elected officials begin to demand that we leave their country, then i'll see these elections as a success and something worth cheering about. the fact that they're voting means next to nothing to me, and i don't see why it should.

[Melvyn]

Quote by: RickSp And you come to this conclusion how? Are you too busy running the victory lap to even look at what is happening in Iraq? The occupation is widely despised, even accourding to polls commissioned by the US Occupation Authority. Did it ever occur to you that the Iraqi people, particularly the Shia', might consider voting the only way to end a brutal occupaton by a foriegn invader? From Juan Coles blog of Wednesday, February 02, 2005:

I took no victory lap in my post. I am cheering for the courage of the Iraqi voters. It is not a presumtion of overall success. The election will eventually spur American forces to leave only if the other steps are taken successfully, A big if.

I have no idea, nor does anybody else, whether the rest of the process can go forward. The insurgent strategy is to kill and intimidate enough so that Ameican forces leave in defeat and the insurgents rise to power, something that can not possibly happen with elections. If the process does go forward succesfully, some future government of Iraq will invite the Americans to leave and we will go gladly.

Actually the occupation plays into their hands because they can attempt to divert attention from their real motive which is to return to a Baathist style regime with the Sunnis in charge. Those who voted were not fooled.

Melvyn

[bishop]

while bush is cheering now, it seems that the shiite's may have won a simple majority in this election. and, they beat allawi by about 5:1. this block is backed by sistani, and their primary motivation is to boot us out of their country. i'm interested in seeing how this will all play out in the coming weeks/months.

i also wonder about what will happen to all of the noncompetitive contracts that we doled out to our companies.. the iraqis will undoubtedly seek to improve their ties with countries that we're not particularly friendly with, like russia, china and iran.

[allen]

Quote by: bishop if the newly elected officials begin to demand that we leave their country, then i'll see these elections as a success and something worth cheering about.

This is unlikely. The newly elected officials need US army to protect them.

An Iraqi in north america told me this, after having voted last Saturday:
No matter who wins the election, he/she is destined a puppet. The fact that he/she needs protection from foreign army suggests he/she has to follow commands. Otherwise, he/she can be easily exposed to assassination from insurgents. Whe Sadam ruled, he controled the Iraqi people, and people had to elect him. Now Iraqis can choose, but the elected official get controlled by foreigners. This is not a progress.

[bishop]

i'm not sure how much we've been protecting anyone over there. iraqi officials are constantly being assassinated. maybe we're simply protecting the #1 guy and ignoring everyone else. the thing is that if these leaders are seen as puppets, the legislature can issue a vote of no confidence and dump the guy.

also, i wouldn't be surprised if they continued to use our people as human shields while telling us to get out at the same time. wouldn't be the first case of hypocrisy.

[Melvyn]

Quote by: bishop this block is backed by sistani, and their primary motivation is to boot us out of their country. i'm interested in seeing how this will all play

I am wondering how you know this. I suspect it is what you want far more than what the Shiites want. You are correct in that the Shiites will probably have won power from Alawi. I would think the Shiite motivation is to take power and create whatever kind of regime they prefer. If they want to do that they are going to need the U.S. military for some time. They will ask us to leave when they believe they can handle their security situation. They can't do it now. It is not their first motivation and I suspect they have every confidence that we will go at the appropriate time or they would have long ago joined the insurgency.

Melvyn

[rmnunez]

Sistani is Iranian.

[RickSp]

Quote by: rmnunez Sistani is Iranian.

He is Persian born. He is one of five living grand ayatollahs and the most senior Shia cleric in Iraq. He is a conservative Twelver Shia who rejects the model of Iranian-style theocracy in favour of a separation between religion and politics.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop this block is backed by sistani, and their primary motivation is to boot us out of their country.

Quote by: Melvyn I am wondering how you know this.

Ah, because that is exactly what they have said? I quoted Abdul Aziz al-Hakim in a previous post. Why don't you believe what he is saying? The Shi'ites have been consistent in their opposition to the occupation.

Quote by: Melvyn The Iraqis have come down clearly on the side of George Bush.

You seem to be the one who is twisting the facts to reflect "what you want". The suggestion that the Iraqis have "come down on the side" of Bush seems like wishful thinking at best. Your assertion that the insurgents want to return the Ba'ath party to power seems odd as al-Zarqawi is a Wahabi jihadist. The insurgency is highly fragmented, united only by their opposition to the occupation.

[rmnunez]

Early election results:

With 2,212,000 votes out of 3.3 million counted, the Shiite list has 67% and a commanding lead over that of interim prime minister Iyad Allawi, in second place with 579,000 votes, or 17%. In a first count announced on Thursday, the alliance stood at 72.8%. http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050204/1/3qckx.html

To ask whether the Shia are pro-Bush is a very tendentious way of putting the question. Were one to ask whether they were pro-Regime Change, pro-democracy or even in favour of a secular representative and integrated national government for Iraq, they might answer in the affirmative. These being apparent aims of Bushian intervention, might suggest some pro-Bush attitudes. Doubtless they would preffer foreign troops leave, reconstruction proceed and insurgency rest too. I suspect some Shia can appreciate the relationship between reconstruction efforts and Coalitioneers, they realize the insurgency or terrorists do represent a danger their own armed forces may not be able to adequately handle just now. Some of these might even grasp the need for foreign troops to deal with the insurgency or terrorists, not everyone is certain they would spontaneously dissappear the moment the gringoes left.

[Melvyn]

Quote by: RickSp Ah, because that is exactly what they have said? I quoted Abdul Aziz al-Hakim in a previous post. Why don't you believe what he is saying? The Shi'ites have been consistent in their opposition to the occupation.

Wasn't it the same person who said something about it being very foolish for the americans to consider leaving immediately?

Quote by: RickSp You seem to be the one who is twisting the facts to reflect "what you want". The suggestion that the Iraqis have "come down on the side" of Bush seems like wishful thinking at best. Your assertion that the insurgents want to return the Ba'ath party to power seems odd as al-Zarqawi is a Wahabi jihadist. The insurgency is highly fragmented, united only by their opposition to the occupation.

I suspect that if Zarqawi even talks to the Baathists it is only in the spirit of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". We all know his agenda. i believe the Baathist hope to regain power by driving off the americans. You seem to believe they have some nationalistic motivation to end the occupation. Neither of us can actually prove our point of view. I'm sure we'll know the answer soon enough. One thing is for sure. They are not going to end the occupation by force as long as Bush is in power in Washington. So there is an exit strategy. Wait for the Democrats.

Melvyn

[rmnunez]

Whatever nationalistic inspiration may drive the insurgency, it is not apparent in any of their actions or gestures. I would expect insurgents to emblazon their acts with national emblems, name their cells, bands or groups after heroic nationalists of the past, where is their call for a "Free Iraq"? Instead of heroic warriors fallen in combat we get martyrs sacrificed for religious ideals.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Melvyn Wasn't it the same person who said something about it being very foolish for the americans to consider leaving immediately?

Best to read the quote before commenting on it. You are confusing al-Hakim and al-Yawir and seemed to completely have missed the point that Professor Cole was making about the Western press. Repeating the previously posted quote:

Interim President Ghazi al-Yawir expressed hope that a substantial withdrawal of Coalition troops could be effected by the end of 2005, and this hope seems widely shared in Iraq. Al-Yawir cautioned that it would be unwise for US forces to just up and leave immediately, given the chaos in the country, and the Western press often latched on to this part of his statement rather than his call for withdrawal by the end of the year. That is, it might on the surface look as though al-Hakim and al-Yawir are in disagreement, but they probably are not.

[bishop]

I am wondering how you know this. I suspect it is what you want far more than what the Shiites want.

like rick pointed out, the shi'ite block was publicly endorsed by sistani. ever since the occupation began, sistani was pushing for elections to serve as a tool for forcing us out of their country.

nobody commented on the reconstruction contracts and how they could be affected if we were asked to leave. that's a significant issue imo, because i've read MANY articles where iraqi officials have complained that iraqis can do the same jobs at a much lower cost. if these people are to represent their constituents, they need to do basic things like provide food, water, eletricity - and jobs. contracting all the good project work out to foreigners, while hundreds of thousands of iraqis are unemployed isn't in their constituents' interests. and what will we do when they they begin to form active partnerships with iran?


as an aside, while the administration has been careful not to say how long we should/will stay, allawi's people had been saying that we should stay there for the foreseeable future. i'm insightful (and cynnical) enough to realize that since we put them in power, any policy statement they'd say would largely reflect what we want them to say. allawi's people totally lost this election, to the group that is united for several purposes - one of the biggest of which is demanding that we leave.

[ericsp23]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the end result of all of this was to create a new ally for Iran?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...q_050204165403

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A new, partial tally of votes Friday from Iraq (news - web sites)'s landmark elections showed a Shiite coalition whose leaders have close ties to Iran rolling up a strong lead over other tickets, including that of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.