Fear and Polling In Iraq [UPDATED]
The Iraqi elections were surreal but on the whole heartening and downright inspiring. I cannot imagine
many Americans voting under such horrific conditions, frankly. There are many reasons why the Bush administration insisted on having this vote take place in the midst of a bloody war"”and few of them have anything to do with the advancement of democracy. And please remember that the Bush administration originally opposed this type of direct voting having originally pushed for a cockamamie caucus system. The direct one man-one vote polling was won by the Iraqis, and specifically by the struggle of Ayatollah Sistani.
All in all, I don't think it was fair to force people out into the current atmosphere to vote and that the elections should have been preceded by enhanced security conditions.
That said, millions of Iraqis disagreed and were willing to brave the risk of car bombs and mortar fire because they hope and want a better future-- something they are absolutely entitled to.
I don't believe that the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing occupation were justified by the arguments presented by the Bush administration. Nor do I believe for a moment that this administration knew or currently knows what it is doing and is dangerously lost in a fog of dogma.
But the political opening in Iraq, no matter its limited size and the grotesque distortions imposed by the war, is a felicitous by-product of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the U.S. occupation.
Those of who opposed this war and who want to see the U.S. troops withdrawn as soon as possible should unequivocally encourage the tenuous political process now underway in Iraq. We should stand for more and better elections, not fewer. We should be encouraging the writing of a fair constitution, an inclusion of the Sunnis into the process in order to reduce the violence, and a bolstering of civil society (as a safeguard against fundamentalism). If we merely write off yesterday's vote as only potemkin or charade elections we take ourselves out of any serious debate and we degrade the legitimate aspirations of the Iraqi people. Indeed, the more one opposes the war and its pretexts, the more we should support the stabilization of a successful, pluralistic Iraqi state.
There is no "other side" to support. The Bush administration's cartoonish characterization of the armed opposition is just that -- cartoonish. The insurgency is, indeed, rife with religious fundamentalists, revengeful Ba'athists and a certain foreign terrorist element. We can also be sure that there are other less politically defined "nationalist" strains who are just plain angry and humiliated by the dire economic conditions and by the presence of foreign troops. But taken together, this insurgency offers no evidence of supporting a political process that is somehow more open than the limited process imposed by the U.S.
I was truly encouraged and inspired by the Iraqis who went to the polls today. I will keep them uppermost in mind in the days to come as fundamentalists on both sides of the political spectrum step in to spin these complicated and still uncertain events. The Bush administration is already verging on a posture of Mission Accomplish Version 2.0 while ignoring the more complex ramifications of this war — both abroad and domestically. Likewise, some on the anti-war left are making an equal error by writing off Sunday's voting as a "charade" a "farce" or as "so-called" elections. Both of these attitudes from the right and the left are a dis-service to the Iraqi people.
We need to find a way to escalate the politics and reduce the bloodshed and simplistic nostrums from triumphalist on the one side or Leftish isolationists on the other will not cut the mustard. We owe a more sober response to the Iraqi people.
UPDATE: Just came across this first person piece in the WSJ by Farnaz Fassihi reporting from Baghdad. This is precisely the sort of direct journalism I was calling for in the column I wrote in the posting below. See what a great read it is and how much you learn without the reporter have to "balance" it with official spin.
January 31st, 2005 at 2:26 am
Marc, i know this may not be kosher, but i’m quite cautious about doing too long posts, and positively find this article by Canadian jornalist Rick Salutin to be throughougly engaging. I promise this will be the first, and last article i post on here.
Don’t mistake elections for democracy
>by Rick Salutin
January 28, 2005
“The notion that, you know, somehow we’re not making progress [in Iraq] I — I just don’t subscribe to. I mean, we’re having elections.†— George W. Bush
I would call this a fetish, a handy term that comes from anthropology, where it describes “any object of irrational or superstitious devotion.†Karl Marx adapted it as he puzzled over the oddity of capitalist economies, in which people often have more intense relations with things they buy than with humans they know (commodity fetishism). Freud applied it to sexual proclivity: for obsession with a part, like a foot or shoe, rather than the whole to which it belongs. George Bush has an elections fetish.
He often repeats the term in an empty, adoring, fetishistic way. He grows almost tumescent just saying the words: “People are voting. . . . It’s exciting times for the Iraqi people. . . . The fact that they’re voting in itself is successful.â€
He also tends to use the part, elections, for a grander whole: freedom or democracy, as if elections are democracy, full stop. And note that he said “we’re,†not “they’re,†having elections.
“Irrationally reverenced†is part of the Concise Oxford’s definition of a fetish. What’s irrational in the Bush reverence for Iraq’s election? Well, the vote is being imposed after an unprovoked invasion and under an occupation that is onerous and humiliating — a set of contradictions that seem evident to almost every Iraqi passerby interviewed by a Western journalist who slips out of his barricaded hotel. It will occur under a virtual lockdown: traffic banned, airport closed, a three-day curfew. Iraqis will vote for 111 different lists, but few candidates are named, out of fear.
The election’s promoters, the occupying powers, tortured detainees (the latest photos show UK troops making naked Iraqis simulate oral and anal sex). Jittery soldiers kill families whose cars approach checkpoints. Fallujah lies waste, its 300,000 people living as refugees. You have to really focus on voting and nothing else, to get giddy about this election.
What else is irrational in the fetish? It’s capricious. It doesn’t attach to all elections, just some. (Her shoe but not others.) In 1984, the Sandinista government of Nicaragua held an election that was validated by 400 observers from 40 countries, but the U.S. rejected its legitimacy. In 1990, the country elected a party supported by the U.S., and it accepted the result. In Algeria in 1991, the Islamic Salvation Front (’nuff said) won a clear victory, but the army cancelled the result. No objection from the U.S. For that matter, Yasser Arafat was probably the most genuinely elected Arab leader in his time, but the U.S. said he had to go. Riddle me that.
The British Colonial Office had a great term for this approach to elections in the Arab world: indirect rule. Margaret MacMillan quotes an official in her book Paris 1919: “What we want is some administration with Arab institutions which we can safely leave while pulling the strings ourselves, something that won’t cost very much . . . but under which our economic and political interests will be secure.†Sounds exactly like what the U.S. got in Afghanistan with Hamid Karzai, whom they first approved and then got elected. Same deal with Ayad Allawi in Iraq: Appoint him prime minister, then make sure he’s elected.
They’ve now decided Belarus, for some reason, is democratically objectionable, while their ally Uzbekistan, where an opposition leader was boiled alive for insisting on his religious rights, is not on the same list. But a fetish would hardly be a fetish if it weren’t fickle.
The notion of fetishes suits our era of archaic religious clashes: Islam versus Christianity and Judaism etc. The Bible’s second commandment, after all, forbids graven images, i.e., fetishes. But I confess I actually thought about it after Stephen Harper’s latest warning over same-sex marriage: that it might lead to polygamy. If polygamy, I thought, what will we need to panic about next — idolatry? But say this at least for the Bible: While it is dead set against fetishes, it nowhere prohibits polygamy.
Originally published in The Globe and Mail, Rick Salutin’s column appears every Friday.
January 31st, 2005 at 3:11 am
Well, Marc. I agree with every word in your posting as I do the article by Rick Salutin. Ah – the complexity of life! But I also remember the long lines of voters when Mandella was released. I wept with the hope of it and the joy of it. I could never have imagined in my wildest dreams that it would happen. Hope is a good thing no matter what you or Salutin say, eh?
January 31st, 2005 at 4:05 am
I’ve spent several hours now looking for someone who opposed the war on principle, yet had respect for the Iraqi people and praise for yesterday’s vote. You’re a difficult breed to find, apparently. Between you and Jim Henley, I’ve almost gotten the sour taste of four-star jackasses like Oliver Willis, Kos and the rest of the sad wingnuts out of my mouth. Thank you.
Now, if someone could just convince you to stop abusing the bold tag…
January 31st, 2005 at 5:43 am
Good for you Marc, would that we could have more of your type of sanity (and humanity) from those opposed to what we are doing in Iraq. And thank you for linking to the Mossback piece.
As for Salutin, if it’s fetishes he likes to examine then he needn’t look to George Bush for examples, he can settle in and judge himself on that score. What thinly veiled tripe he writes. I only know this piece of his (reproduced above) but find in it a cowardly obtuse regurgitation of old sins. Just say it Rick: you opposed the war, you don’t care about Iraq, you don’t care about Iraqis, and you hope that it all fails miserably so that you can stand up and proudly say you were right and George Bush was wrong. Good for you.
There is plenty to criticize about our involvement in Iraq (see also Eliot A. Cohen’s piece in the WSJ today) but if you share Ted Kennedy’s view that we never should have gone, that we are doing bad things, that we are making things worse, and that we should leave immediately, well, then there really is nothing for us to talk about because there is no debate when your position is absolute.
The difference between a cynic and a skeptic is hope, the latter has it and the former does not. I remain hopeful for the Iraqi people but skeptical enough to know that there are many, many ways for things to go badly.
Marc and most of the commenters here get that, which is why – in spite of my disagreement with some of his basic premises – I continue to come here.
January 31st, 2005 at 6:02 am
I, for one, will not be posting any comments here until I see one posted by Steve. I don’t want to participate in a purportedly open forum that is closed to some.
January 31st, 2005 at 6:05 am
steve was unblocked last nite… calm down
January 31st, 2005 at 6:12 am
An excellent post. I view the events in Iraq exactly as you laid out. [ So you must be right
]. I was genuinely excited and encouraged by the success of their voting day. The only way we can leave is if there is a government that is recognized by the people there. This is the first step. I don’t believe that this is what the Bush administration had in mind when they started, but events seemed to have forced them to a better course. I will continue to pray for the success of this fledgling democracy.
January 31st, 2005 at 6:27 am
Marc, You just have to stop living in the past. Yes there were no WMDs. Yes George hyped the Iraq threat in order to get rid of a nut, now. Yes there was gross underestimation of resistance.
Get over it and help America win the war we find ourselves in. Stop demoralizing it at a time our troops are at risk and dieing. Grow up and drop the ego.
Thanks for this painful and token piece of an olive branch post about the ‘surprising’ reaction to humans risking their lives to exercise your understood and taken for granted ‘freedom of speech’.
January 31st, 2005 at 6:56 am
Ronald Reagan statement on the election of Jose Napoleon Duarte as President of El Salvador
May 18, 1984
On Wednesday, May 16, the Central Elections Commission of El Salvador certified Jose Napoleon Duarte as the winner of the May 6 Presidential election in that country. By this act, the people of El Salvador have made clear their choice of Mr. Duarte as the first popularly elected President of that country in recent history.
The voters have chosen as President a man who had dedicated his life to achieving democracy and reform for his homeland. We congratulate President-elect Duarte on his victory and pledge that we will do all in our power to strengthen the ties of freedom and democracy that unite us.
Mr. Duarte carried with him a clear mandate from the people of El Salvador, over 80 percent of whom voted on May 6, that democracy and the vote should determine their future. The United States bipartisan observer delegation noted that, “This election was fair and honest, and . . . provided a clear and undeniable mandate to whichever candidate is elected.” Election observers from other countries echoed a similar conclusion.
In protecting both rounds of the recent elections, the Salvadoran Armed Forces took more than 80 casualties, demonstrating once again their determination to defend freedom. They acted professionally and apolitically and are showing us now that they will respect the popular electoral will. In contrast, the guerrillas refused to participate in the election and intensified the combat before, during, and after the voting.
As El Salvador’s voters had to brave the intimidation of the guerrillas, their newly elected President will have to face the challenges of creating a peaceful and secure framework for social and humanitarian reform, economic development, and further democratic advance.
The people of El Salvador have spoken. We, along with other nations committed to a democratic form of government, must heed their courageous action. We will support their newly elected government in the pursuit of and the opportunity for a better life.
I look forward to meeting with El Salvador’s new President-elect on Monday, May 21, during his visit to Washington. In addition, I have asked Secretary of State George Shultz to head our delegation to the President-elect’s inauguration on June 1 in San Salvador.
January 31st, 2005 at 7:02 am
Sorry, Marc, I missed that. I must not have refreshed my screen or something. Good decision.
January 31st, 2005 at 7:14 am
It’s going to be interesting to see how this plays out in Iran over the next few months, in regards to the moderates of that country vs. the current leadership. I wonder if we’ll start seeing interviews with people like Bani Sadr?
January 31st, 2005 at 7:41 am
I must say that I was pleased to see so many Iraqis turn out to vote. Canadian Press said 60 % or
8 million Iraqis voted.
However, I do have great concern about the structure of the government. Professor Juan Cole Middle East expert said on C-SPAN that the new government has only one chamber. The problem is that the Shiite could dominate and pass religious laws without and upper house to support the minority population.
January 31st, 2005 at 7:47 am
I’m going to take the news of the Iraqi elections as a good thing. And no, it’s not because I intially supported the effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power. This is a good thing in itself.
But we can’t let the Bush Administration use this as a vindication of their policies over the past four years. The lack of materiel support for the troops. The failure to maintain an international consensus. The Abu Ghraib horrors. It’s like that bullshit about Reagan ending the Cold War by committing billions to crazy military schemes: yes, it ended, but imagine how it could have been if decent and intelligent people were in charge.
January 31st, 2005 at 9:14 am
“If decent and intelligent people were in charge”
Oh, you mean like John Kerry and his bunch of unilateral disarmament freaks?
Had they been in charge, the Cold War would not have ended when it had, the Cold War would have continued.
Or are you talking about the continued care under President Carter, who started backing the mujadin in Afghanistan BEFORE the Soviets invaded, and who left the democratically minded in Iran, NO HOPE?
In times of a war, I’d rather have a President who pisses off the enemy, and who even allies think is a little daft. Not someone who not only would have appeased the enemy, but given ground to them.
Marc – here I thought there were no reasonable liberals. Regardless of how we got here, we must help the Iraqis rebuild their country. It seems we agree on that.
Regards
January 31st, 2005 at 9:38 am
Rather than repeat the obvious,I will just ‘ditto’everything that Jim R. said in his prior posting.
Oh except for one additional comment:the election in Iraq was not a felicitous happenstance,as much as you want to portray it as such.The election in Iraq was the immediate result of inspired leadership by the Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani,but it was the direct result of theories and intentions enunciated by GWB and his dreaded neo-con advisors.
Had it been left up to you —- Saddam would be feeding victims into the shredders and Uday would be roaming Baghdad looking for girls to abuse.Any support from the left is ‘nice’and is clearly preferable to the usual drivel from that quarter,but frankly – too little;too late.
January 31st, 2005 at 10:00 am
Is Iraq really another Vietnam?
Well, there were no national elections in Vietnam.
Despite intense and negative pressures, the administration remained dedicated to the job and now has given real results, not just hope, to people seeking freedom. From the pictures I’ve seen, the Iraqui people have shown courage and joy–something that can’t be said about many from the left who wanted to say “I told you so”…but, can’t.
I’m happy for the people of Iraq and other people of the mideast who might now live under a democracy one day as a result of our help and example. I’m also proud of this nation and our soldiers for the sacrifices made to help these people.
Another Vietnam? Not in my eyes.
January 31st, 2005 at 10:49 am
Jim R:
I think that your comments, “Get over it and help win the war we find ourselves in and stop dmoralizing it at a time our troops are at risk and dying”, need to be put into context. I’m sure you believe in freedom of speech, but it is essentail in a democratic society that its citizens question their govt at times of war. Do you think Iraqis were allowed to question Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war. Russians who questioned the occupation of Afghanistan risked not only being labeled unpatriotic, but possible arrest and police harrassment. In my own country we faced the same penalties if we questioned the 1968 Soviet invasion. Criticism should be reasonable and supported by facts. However, equating dissent with support of the enemy is trademark of undemocratic and totalitarian societies.
My feelings about Bush and this war are summed up perfectly in Mr. Brian Siano’s post. I am also ecstatic to say that I was inspired by yesterdays elections and I happily admit that(for the first time) I am optimistic that there will be a positive outcome for all Iraqis.
Ned, Frydek-Mistek
January 31st, 2005 at 10:51 am
From 1967:
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :Officials
Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3– United States officials were surprised and heartened
today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a
Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered
voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals
threatened by the Vietcong.
The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the
election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the
nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here.
January 31st, 2005 at 10:52 am
Nice post, Woody
Ned, Frydek-Mistek
January 31st, 2005 at 11:06 am
“I’ve almost gotten the sour taste of four-star jackasses like Oliver Willis, Kos and the rest of the sad wingnuts out of my mouth. Thank you.”
Kos served his time in the army and has a lot more credibility than real wingnuts like Limbaugh or Hannity. Typical rightwing smear to talk about Kos like he is a ‘wingnut’.
The elections are not that much different from the Saddam capture ecstasy. Americans will continue to die as the occupation drags on and on and on and on ad infinitum.
January 31st, 2005 at 11:17 am
“Saddam would be feeding victims into the shredders ”
You’ve been watching too much Fargo Doug Feith. Maybe you need to need reports that have debunked that silly story, it’s about as real as inucubator babies. Yes, there were real human rights violations in Iraq, made up stories about shredders [do you have any idea how shredders work? how difficult it would be to put a human being through a shredder without destroying its mechanical integrity entirely?) were not part of the real suffering.
January 31st, 2005 at 11:34 am
…a felicitous by-product of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the U.S. occupation.
Those of who opposed this war and who want to see the U.S. troops withdrawn as soon as possible should unequivocally encourage the tenuous political process now underway in Iraq.
This is why I’ve said (since our own awful elections) that I’ve migrated from an “anti-war” stance to a “pro-truth” stance. Given that what has gone on to date has been a national catastrophe, we need now to accept it as catastrophe, and therefore deal with it as we would in the wake of any catastrophe: looking for opportunity.
Justice is always hard to administrate, but especially hard to administrate perfectly in the wake of catastrophe. It will come, eventually, in Senate committee or in history books. But in the interim, we need to do what we can to prevent the suffocation of truth in the context of political discourse, the triumph of dirty political trickstering over honest debate.
“[f]elicitous by-product” is a felicitous little phrase.
January 31st, 2005 at 11:41 am
Re: El Salvador
Duarte doesn’t say about El Salvador’s 1984 elections something that was true of the Iraqi 2005 elections. In ES, combat operations took place before, during and after, but in Iraq, it was more than that. People were warned not to go to polls because they would be attacked, and in some places, threatened with death should they vote.
One of the longest corrections the NYTimes ever ran during the 1980s was with respect to an article by James LeMoyne, who had reported that a body had been found with his electoral carnet stuffed in his mouth just before the elections. That never happened (he took from a local newspaper), and it was supremely embarrassing for the NYTimes and LeMoyne, who was otherwise a very good reporter.
January 31st, 2005 at 12:03 pm
Thanks for the link Marc. Great reading.
January 31st, 2005 at 12:08 pm
RE: Chris’ article: “U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote.”
Chris, I understand your point about the vote in South Vietnam in 1967 and it is a good one. Because I considered that in my note, I changed “elections” to “national elections” during my preview.
While Iraq is diverse, at least it is a united country and everyone had the opportunity to take part in the election. Vietnam was not united and the people in the north never got to vote–and, their leaders made sure that the people in the south didn’t get to vote later. The headline of the article incorrectly referenced a “Vietnam Vote”, but the body of it correctly referred to “South Vietnam’s presidential election”–which is something different.
Since human nature, nation building, and wars are universal in many respects, we can always find some similarities among those of today with those of the past to support different positions. By the same token, I think it is important to also look honestly at the dissimilarities, which may lead us to conclude that the differences outweigh the similarities; thus, the two are not the same.
January 31st, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Some Just Voted for Food
by Dahr Jamail January 31, 2005
BAGHDAD, Jan 31 (IPS) – Voting in Baghdad was linked with receipt of food rations, several voters said after the Sunday poll.
Many Iraqis said Monday that their names were marked on a list provided by the government agency that provides monthly food rations before they were allowed to vote.
â€I went to the voting centre and gave my name and district where I lived to a man,†said Wassif Hamsa, a 32-year-old journalist who lives in the predominantly Shia area Janila in Baghdad. â€This man then sent me to the person who distributed my monthly food ration.â€
Mohammed Ra’ad, an engineering student who lives in the Baya’a district of the capital city reported a similar experience.
Ra’ad, 23, said he saw the man who distributed monthly food rations in his district at his polling station. â€The food dealer, who I know personally of course, took my name and those of my family who were voting,†he said. â€Only then did I get my ballot and was allowed to vote.â€
â€Two of the food dealers I know told me personally that our food rations would be withheld if we did not vote,†said Saeed Jodhet, a 21-year-old engineering student who voted in the Hay al-Jihad district of Baghdad.
There has been no official indication that Iraqis who did not vote would not receive their monthly food rations.
Many Iraqis had expressed fears before the election that their monthly food rations would be cut if they did not vote. They said they had to sign voter registration forms in order to pick up their food supplies.
full: http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/hard_news/000192.php
January 31st, 2005 at 1:29 pm
More celebrations of Democracy were held in Um Qassr today, evidence that a lot is about to change in Iraq after the elections:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050131/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_riot&cid=540&ncid=1480
January 31st, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Sunday was inspiring. The fact that so many Iraqi’s were willing to brave bombs in order to vote left we with a sense of contempt for those that will exploit the elections (the Right), cynically downplay the election (the Left), and the 1/2 of the US electorate that didn’t vote in the last election.
It is an utter embarrassment that we have a lower percentage of eligible voters going out to the polls.
January 31st, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Certainly an exciting moment, Marc. It’s the first time in months that I’ve felt like things might work out – of course that may be irrational – but it’s always a little inspiring to see people beginning to fashion a social contract.
I disagree with that article Ahmed. I truly believe that an election among the disenfranchised is very exciting. If in some cases it’s only a symbol then at least it is a great one – we can all agree on that.
And I don’t think “fetish†is an appropriate term for Bush’s attitude toward democracy – though it certainly has the desired effect of demeaning his commitment to democracy. My critique of Bush’s treatment of democracy is exclusively on Orwellian grounds. I think he often uses the word as a political tool rather than as a true ideal. Portrayals of Bush as “irrational†or “capricious†downplay the obvious complexities of the Bush & Co. machine. (Conservatives, this is the closest I will ever come to defending W. – try and enjoy it!)
January 31st, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Good one, Marc. Really. All blessings on the Iraqis and their amazing, inspiring, brilliant courage.
(There’s also good piece at Salon about the vote. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/31/proud/index.html)
An enjoyable thread in general. Nice to see how many ways people can come at this issue and, even if we all don’t agree, we can still all celebrate this moment.
As for the single commenter on today’s thread who decided the best way he could honor the grace and bravery of the Iraqi people was to use their efforts toward self-determination solely as a political cudgel….go to hell.
January 31st, 2005 at 3:08 pm
Mavis, to me it looks like you’ve misunderstood rick’s point. It’s not that Bush i rationally worships freedom and democracy, but rather that the vote or free elections stand as the be all and end all defintion of democracy. Salutin asks of us to think of what this idoltry of elections leave out, and how this narrow definition of democracy is selectively applied and negates larger realities. So, what are the paraodxes of democracy in Iraq imposed by a military occupier, freedom to vote while jailing and torture run rampant, a right to go to the polls while Iraqis are being killed heavily by well armed troops and insurgents as well. This is what Salutin was getting at, and in that way what he was saying was really helpful.
January 31st, 2005 at 3:22 pm
Rosedog, i really hope that the sole commentor you castigated wasn’t myself. If so, you’re horrible mistaken my point. The argument Salutin was trying to make, that i agree with, was more about the ways we speak of democracy, freedom, elections and what evasions, omissions and paradoxes they ignore. Let me affirm here i was in no way downplaying the courage and trbulations of ordinary Iraqi people who under surrouded by daily violence everywhere brazely and honourably made it to the polls none the less.
January 31st, 2005 at 3:51 pm
As for the single commenter on today’s thread who decided the best way he could honor the grace and bravery of the Iraqi people was to use their efforts toward self-determination solely as a political cudgel….go to hell.>i> Rosedog
Amen !!(well unless that was directed at me)
Differences aside,anyone who cannot find pleasure in the images out of Iraq yesterday,is so internally dead that they should just find a convenient hole and lie down.
January 31st, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Ahmed…. No, no it wasn’t you at all. It was someone who was growling “I Told You So,†(or words to that effect), at all those who opposed the war. It really got on my last nerve and I’m afraid I reacted in a somewhat less than temperate fashion. (Too many deadlines, not enough sleep.)
Seems to me that everyone else was engaging in a good faith discussion—whether they were coming down on the right, the left or somewhere in between—except the person who simply used this as an opportunity to lob several slimy mudballs at anyone who’d had the temerity to question Bush Co’s sterling actions and intentions.
To avoid further coyness, let me just say that the key word here is “shredder.”
January 31st, 2005 at 3:57 pm
Okay, Doug, yeah it was you. But your just-posted comment seems much more in the spirit of honest discussion, so maybe I’m just feeling bad tempered.
January 31st, 2005 at 4:40 pm
I was touched to see the lines of women voting. A colleague of mine, born in Lebanon, felt the same way. We made a little pledge to each other to make sure we took our voting duty more seriously in the future!
“As the Secretary-General (Kofi Annan) has said, the success of the elections augurs well for the transitional process,” Ambassador Mayoral said, noting that the next phase will see the just-elected Transitional National Assembly draft a permanent constitution, which is expected to be put to a referendum in October.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=13194&Cr=iraq&Cr1
Ambling around Wikipedia (I know, I know) I saw that the last set of elections in India were accompanied by at least 48 deaths (more I’m sure) and that the army had to be mobilized to certain regions. Comparisons between Iraq and India are not really valid, I know, but I’m always amazed (as a desi myself) at the way democracy of a kind seems to stick given the difficulties of poverty, communalism, etc. I remember watching the news coverage of Indira Gandhi’s assassination with my family and another family from India, as a child. The adults were disgusted with the Western media. “Why are they saying India is going to fall apart? What do they know!”
I dunno, considering marc cooper’s last post, and the current one, I think I like hearing from the people, myself. First person reporting and all that.
January 31st, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Woody wrote, to distinguish the election in Iraq from the 1967 election in Vietnam: “While Iraq is diverse, at least it is a united country and everyone had the opportunity to take part in the election.”
Well, I agree that all of Iraq is within a single set of borders, but I’m not sure in what other sense it’s “united”. The country is really three distinct regions that are divided by geography and culture/ethnicity. Under Saddam, the Sunni grouping controlled the others by force. The elections give the Shiites the opportunity to dominate. Whether Iraq (as a whole) becomes a functioning demcocracy depends in large part on whether the Shi’ites can find some basis (other than force) to give the other two groups a satisfactory (to them) stake in a united Iraq. If they can’t – if, for example, they see the vote as merely them exercising the prerogatives of demography to take control back from the Sunnis – then the result will be the same as Vietnam: a civil war, with the United States fighting on one side against the other.
January 31st, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Ooh, one more thing. I liked the WSJ article, mainly for the quality of the writing.
January 31st, 2005 at 5:08 pm
I thought Dennis Perrin’s blog had a perspective that highlights something that Marc overlooks, namely the permanent base element that ‘democracy’ is helping legitimate [democracy because if this kind of democracy took place in our 'enemy' states we'd denounce it as thoroughly farcical]:
“And can we end all this talk about our troops coming home? They’re not coming home anytime soon, not with talk of “enduring” bases in Iraq and the surrounding region. This is a long-term imperial project. However wonderful the election was for those who found it wonderful, it is but one chapter in a larger, bloodier narrative that continues to unfold.”
Patrick Cockburn is also sharp in his analysis as usual:
http://www.counterpunch.com/patrick01312005.html
January 31st, 2005 at 5:12 pm
This was the first day of real hope I’ve felt since immediately after Baghdad fell. And there’s still plenty of room for skepticism and concern about the future without submission to cynicism or carping. Serious observers on the ground in Iraq like Farnaz Fassahi and John Burns are able to communicate a rational degree of hope without abandoning their attention to the long-term realities on the ground, ignoring the problems that are still endemic to cobbling together a functioning civil order and certainly without engaging in the bogus triumphalism of CYA neo-con desperation. (Incidentally Fassahi’s email from Iraq that many of us circulated last summer was exactly the kind of personal journalism that marc alluded to in his earlier thread as a valuable supplement to more structured “news – of course it got her put on furlough by the watchdogs at WSJ.)
I’ll be more than happy to play dueling “I told you so” with BushCo aficianados again once the smoke clears – although it’s getting boring and the level of honesty on the other side tends to be pretty low…but what the hell. Today should be reserved as a day for humility for Americans in the face of an overwhelming demonstration on the part of Iraqis of their desire to reclaim their country and get on with their lives.
Although I knew the war was sold dishonestly – which is nothing less than criminal in my moral system – my gut feeling once our troops were sent in was that at least the toppling of Saddam would benefit the Iraqis. At the time even I, as a hardcore skeptic of the whole operation, didn’t anticipate how badly and consistently the aftermath of the initial engagement would be bungled and how ill-prepared and out-of-touch with reality the folks in charge would turn out to be. That early feeling of something good likely coming out of it all – leaving a reckoning with our own political scoundrels aside – began to dissipate as the deepening chaos and the violence of occupation and insurgency claimed more and more victims.
The problems with this election are as obvious as the magnificent spirit it unleashed. I’m still not sure whether this might be a turning point – no one who’s honest does – but the last thing I’ve wanted to see from day one of the war was all of the blood shed with nothing to show for it this side of PNAC wet dreams and their dubious creature, Chalabi, installed in the Republican Palace.
In the long run I’m still dead certain that the biggest beneficiary of this war geopolitically, outside of the Iraqi Shia, will be Iran. But that may not turn out to be as bad as it sounds, and better the majority Shia unite to control the Gulf than Saddam. But that liklihood (or inevitability) is steeped in irony, as is so much that relates to this war.
As I said, I’m feeling a revival of hope that there might possibly be something beyond the downsides – the terrible burdens of conquest, too many young soldiers corrupted by the cynicism and incompetence of their leaders and role as occupiers, and the whole range of unintended consequences that inevitably flow from ill-conceived adventurism, including corruption of our own domestic politics and further division of the country.
I’m pressed for time this week and was going to avoid posting for a while, but as one of the most outspoken opponents of the war here, I didn’t want to let this pass totally without comment.
January 31st, 2005 at 5:35 pm
“Incidentally Fassahi’s email from Iraq that many of us circulated last summer was exactly the kind of personal journalism that marc alluded to in his earlier thread as a valuable supplement to more structured “news – of course it got her put on furlough by the watchdogs at WSJ.”
She wasn’t PC enough.
January 31st, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Steve – glad to see you back. And I think your point is well taken, insofar as how the various players deal with the question of American military bases is going to be very revealing as this drama unfolds. Apparently Judith Miller of the NYT (who isn’t a reliable reporter but does serve as an interesting bellweather of what neo-con insiders are chewing on or want to feed to the press) claimed on Hardball that “the administration” was offering Chalabi a post as interior minister. Unfortunately, I’m not really surprised that kind of game is being played while, on the one hand, the votes are still being counted and, for the purposes of press conferences, the glories of Iraqi self-rule are being touted as the over-riding concern at the White House. Now I’ve really got to get out of here…
January 31st, 2005 at 5:53 pm
Steve welcome back man, it goes without saying that your presence was missed
January 31st, 2005 at 6:15 pm
Thanks Ahmed, and thanks to others who stated nice things about me in my apparent absence.
January 31st, 2005 at 6:26 pm
Meant to add Ahmed, check this out on the media demonisation of the Lancelot study of deaths in Iraq:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0127-23.htm
January 31st, 2005 at 6:56 pm
I celebrate the elections. This is a major step towards Iraqi self-determination and Iraqi peace. The Iraqis have more cojones than I do, that’s for sure!
The “votes for food” story is bogus.
The following points will be controversial. Of course, as Marc says, they are all wrong and I wouldn’t want to disappoint
The detail of these points is at http://snow.he.net/~ozone/BlogArchives/000898.html
This is a tremendous success for Iraq and for the coalition.
George Bush is completely genuine in his desire to spread democracy. Bush is an unusual politician in that he personally feels, as a result of 9-11, a “mission.” See the link.
A significant advantage that Bush has as commander of this battle is his single minded determination. His war cabinet is unusually good, with experience deep into critical agencies. His weaknesses are several – see the link.
Iraq is the test case of a dangerous and unpopular dictatorship transformed into a local democratic form.
The hope and theory (largely from neocons) is that this democracy, a great good in itself, will spread itself by destabilizing dictatorships.
Iraq was attacked for a large number of reasons (see link).
Three major mistakes were made by the US (see link). The WMD justification and intelligence failure was NOT one of them – just bad luck (and Saddam too sneaky for his own good).
Contrary to some commenters, effective and clever methods were used to provide for an election with a remarkably low death toll. The Iraqis had their election, and denigrating it is denigrating the Iraqis.
January 31st, 2005 at 7:17 pm
At it again…and I’m too much of an idiot not to respond.
“Three major mistakes were made by the US (see link). The WMD justification and intelligence failure was NOT one of them – just bad luck.”
I’m amazed that anyone would be so irresponsible and defensive at their having bought a line of bullshit that they would term Saddam’s weakness as regards WMDs “bad luck”. It would have been “good luck” if he’d had bio-weapons or nuclear materials to hand off to some terrorist gang on his way out the door ? Wow…
And also I’m struck (but not surprised) by the continuing dishonesty of war proponents who conjure up the notion that a war rationale could possibly have had any credibility with the American people short of the WMD hype.
Foolish…shameless…
What else is new ?
Okay, that’s my legal limit.
January 31st, 2005 at 7:42 pm
“The “votes for food” story is bogus.”
Of course it was, you say so after all, who needs to hear anything else in way of evidence?
January 31st, 2005 at 7:42 pm
Woody:
Thanks for reply.
I think you are right, there are more differences between the Iraq and the Vietnam occupations.
Seymour Hersh brings up a good one. That our interests in Vietnam were tactical, and our interests in Iraq are strategic.
Those folks wishing things to go badly in Iraq, because they were against the war, (and i don’t mean you, but i know people who think this way), should think twice. If things go badly in Iraq, gawd save us all: our people, the republic, and what’s left of our bill of rights.
Chalmers Johnson, in a interview with, what’s his name? … oh ya, Marc Cooper, on RadioNation stated that the republic may already be gone at this point (or close to gone, can’t remember his exact words…). I’m not sure if Mr. Johnson is correct or not, but i’m hoping things will turn out ok, both here and in Iraq.
January 31st, 2005 at 7:55 pm
Looking at those Iraqi’s proudly showing off their inked fingers, you get the feeling that they just won’t settle for anything less than a real democracy. I wish them well.
January 31st, 2005 at 8:03 pm
To the extent that I think the elections will succeed in ushering a democratic, pluralistic, and probably federalist Iraq, and to the extent that the Sunni insurgency will probably over time only succeed in killing more people (and not succeed in restoring Baathist tyranny or creating an Islamo-fascist state), I’m optimistic.
However, this doesn’t mean that the global left is somehow morally required to dance in total exaltation at the outcome of the war, and the elections, which is to say that as optimistic as I am about the prospect of seeing the brutality of Saddam Hussein’s regime replaced by a far more decent not to mention democratically elected government, how excited am I supposed to be that the new boss is likely to be at least as corporatist, demgagogic, and generally douchebaggey as the corporatist, demagogic, douchebags who run our own country, and most countries in the west (and probably slightly more douchebaggey)?
January 31st, 2005 at 8:05 pm
**Those folks wishing things to go badly in Iraq, because they were against the war, (and i don’t mean you, but i know people who think this way), should think twice. **
Do you really know people who think like that, Chris? I sure as hell don’t.
Are you sure that you’re not falling into the fallacy of assuming that people you disagree with on one issue actually believe the opposite to what you do on everything else?
January 31st, 2005 at 8:29 pm
“Those folks wishing things to go badly in Iraq, because they were against the war, (and i don’t mean you, but i know people who think this way), should think twice.”
You overestimate the significance of our influence I’m afraid. In fact we dont’ have to ‘hope’ things go badly, they have been terribly destructive, are destructive, and will be destructive. The belief that these ‘elections’ can bring any change to that paradigm is naive I’m afraid. 1,440 Dead American GIs and we’re still only at about 1965.
January 31st, 2005 at 8:43 pm
Steve,
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Where’s yours on the food for votes? The only substantiated reports even near this were of a *rumor* of food for votes circulating in Tikrit.
As to the WMD issue, Steve, the bad luck was obviously in not detecting that Saddam was bluffing, not in not having chemical weapons shot around the country.
I challenge anyone to tell me how we should have known that Saddam had no WMDs, even after inspector Clouseau did his bit. Just remember, before you bite, that the UN inspection teams NEVER found Iraq’s massive biological weapons capability in four years of searching after the ’91 war. Only the defection of Saddam’s son in law (who ran the program) led to its discovery, when he told about the program. That is what is called “good luck.” It certainly wasn’t good intelligence work or good UN inspector work.
You continue to be knee-jerk predictable, insults guaranteed when I post, and other positions predictable as they were from the left 50 years ago. Fortunately, you are the exception on this board. I see lots of new names here, and they don’t seem to be excretory organs like some people.
January 31st, 2005 at 8:53 pm
“Steve,
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Where’s yours on the food for votes? The only substantiated reports even near this were of a *rumor* of food for votes circulating in Tikrit.”
You have pretty high standards, except that this, unlike myths, are at least sourced and recent and able to be checked by others in the event they wish to do so. I don’t see what you’re getting at as a result.
“As to the WMD issue, Steve, the bad luck was obviously in not detecting that Saddam was bluffing, not in not having chemical weapons shot around the country.”
I didn’t raise this ,in case you were paying attention. However, this wingnut line is silly, there was way more than enough reason to know that the “WMD” business was about as true as the incubator babies stories or the shredders stories that exiles made up and fed to an all too willing ‘liberal’ media. Happily most of the nation now sees this afer two years of zero in the way of evidence that Sodom was producing so-called “WMDs”.
” I challenge anyone to tell me how we should have known that Saddam had no WMDs, e”
http://traprockpeace.org/glen_rangwala_index.html#misled
http://traprockpeace.org/iraqweapons.html#index
January 31st, 2005 at 8:57 pm
“I challenge anyone to tell me how we should have known that Saddam had no WMDs, even after inspector Clouseau did his bit.”
John, I don’t have time to debate this right now, but suffice to say that you don’t even pose the actual issues we were facing, as regards going to war, coherently or in terms of anything remotely approaching strategic analysis. First of all, “WMDs” is a category that includes stuff that couldn’t possibly have been a threat to us. Secondly, the outright fabrications that were being floated by the administration made it obvious that they were pushing an agenda that needed a cover that Average Joe would buy into out of fear. You’re playing a sophomoric game by posing that challenge and assuming that it deals with what most anti-war people were aware of that you obviously weren’t. You don’t even understand what serious war opponents were saying – or you know your position is so bogus and debased that you refuse to engage the actual debate as it existed at the time. Nobody could have proven he “had no WMDs”, but that’s a stupid, reductive question. And if there was an Inspector Clouseau in this game, it was George Tenet. Insulting Hans Blix is truly foul hubris for someone who peddles your half-assed baggage as serious argument.
January 31st, 2005 at 9:00 pm
My God Reg, I’ve discovered that I’m wrong again, the elections were a resounding success after all!
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20050131/002263.html
January 31st, 2005 at 9:12 pm
Marc,
Thank you for this piece. I mentioned it here in my new blog.
http://vietpundit.blogspot.com/2005/01/last-honest-progressive-in-america.html
January 31st, 2005 at 9:17 pm
“You continue to be knee-jerk predictable, insults guaranteed when I post, and other positions predictable as they were from the left 50 years ago. Fortunately, you are the exception on this board. I see lots of new names here, and they don’t seem to be excretory organs like some people.”
After claiming that I engaged him on the WMD issue, then our Monsieur Moore claims I have “insulted” him. Of course, any rational person can see I have not insulted him in my previous posts.
Then, after accusing without any evidence, he calls me an ‘execretory organ’. I can see why I am so offensive to some people now, the words I write are not only not PC, but smell! What nonsense.
I’d appreciate any rational person pointing out to me where I have ‘insulted’ Moore in the posts he claims I have insulted him, otherwise it appears he’s just making stuff up to confuse people when his arguments transparently fail.
Nota bene, he has no response to my arguments, never reacting the the excellent work done by Glenn Rangwala before and after the official invasion of Iraq and the current US occupation of Iraq. Far easier to pretend I’m “insulting” him.
January 31st, 2005 at 9:51 pm
Steve,
May I say something? Since you keep bringing up Vietnam and I’m Vietnamese.
What does that press clip (which is all over the Left blogosphere today) prove? That elections are no guarantee of success later? Of course. Who would argue with that point? We’re talking about a small, but important, step forward here.
Now, about the South Vietnamese government: Yes it was incompement and corrupt, but it was 100 times better than what came after the Americans left. Does the suffering of the Vietnamese people after the Communists took over trouble you at all? Somehow I got the feeling that you care more about being proven right than about the lives of the people affected, whether Vietnamese or Iraqi.
January 31st, 2005 at 9:52 pm
“Yes it was incompement and corrupt, but it was 100 times better than what came after the Americans left. Does the suffering of the Vietnamese people after the Communists took over trouble you at all?”
Not as much as our going back on our promises to give reparations after reigning holy hell like terror on the majority of Vietnamese with the most modern and dangerous weaponry available short of nuclear weapons.
January 31st, 2005 at 10:13 pm
Steve,
I owe you an apology. It was reg I was replying to – a practice I try to avoid.
My bad. You didn’t deserve it.
(Wow, that really hurt to say that)
This post is long. It contains details about WMDs.
I see a couple of links that claim to show that we could have known that Iraq did not have WMDs along with some waffling about what WMDs are (very odd). Please show where in those links the evidence exists. Arguments that intelligence was exaggerated are irrelevant to that issue, btw. If Iraq had WMD’s, even in small quantities, they represented a terrorist threat. We were not worried about Iraq invading us with WMDs, so large quantities were irrelevant except for the military planning. It is clear from the military actions that both sides thought the Iraqis had large quantities of chemical agents. The continued insistence of the left that we knew that Iraq had no WMDs is quite bizarre in the face of statements by Iraq generals that they believed right up to the start of the war that their flanking units had adequate chmical weapons, and Saddam’s documented statement that he kept it a secret until right before the war. Given a country trying to convince Iran that it had WMDs, how we were supposed to be sure (and I mean sure) that they did not have those weapons is a mystery.
I gave a list of reasons why we invaded Iraq. Everyone is still hung up on the fact that we didn’t find *large quantities* of WMD’s.
We did find enough Sarin to take out all the people in a some big office buildings, and importantly, it was in binary form – a capability that we and the UN never knew Iraq possessed, and in shells never declared by Iraq. How many more of those shells still exist is unknown, since the existence of that kind of weapon in Iraq was only discovered when one was used, incorrectly, in an IED. Even used improperly, it still caused two US EOD soldiers to need treatment for nerve agent poisoning.
Here is the traditional definition of WMD’s:
1) Nuclear explosives
2) Radiological dispersal devices (which Iraq had tested)
3) Lethal chemical weapons that can kill a large number of people if properly dispersed. Agents include organophosphate nerve agents, blister agents, and other toxins.
4) Biological agents suitable for causing mass death or morbidity. In general, these are viruses, bacteria or fungi that are either relatively non-contagious (Anthrax), non-living biological toxins ( botulinum toxin, ricin) or contagious (smallpox or perhaps other modified orthopox viri such as monkeypox, plague, genetically modified flu, genetically modified measles).
In a war of terrorism, small quantities are sufficient. For example, VX nerve gas is highly toxic, but in military use has to be dispersed in large quantities, outdoors. In terrorist use, a small amount injected into the air handling system of a large building would kill thousands of people.
Infected suicide terrorists could spread contagious disease by natural means – aerosol from coughing, or by touching common surfaces with contaminated fingers, as they went through transportation nexi. Again, only small quantities (micrograms) of agent are needed.
We have seen how Anthrax can be used. The only reason the 2001 Anthrax attacks didn’t kill thousands was that the agent was only partially militarized – it reportedly had very high grade processing for spore size and dispersal (the hard problem) but was not given antibiotic resistance (an easy thing to do). Hence Cipro saved thousands of lives.
Iraq had laboratories in their secret police safehouses suitable for production of either terrorist quantities of chemical agents or biological agents.
Their bacillus thuringensis pesticide plant was appropriate for producing Anthrax.
Their organophosphate pesticide plant made toxic chemicals – pesticides which are easily converted to nerve agents. Many barrels of those pesticides were stored in an underground camoflaged bunker. Why? The soldiers and reporters who went into that bunker had to be treated for nerve agent poisoning.
Seed stock of botulinum was stored in one scientist’s refrigerator. Botulin produces the most toxic chemicals known – thousands of times as deadly as nerve agents. An active program for ricin toxin was found to exist at the time of the invasion, both in Iraq proper and at Ansar al Islam, an Al Qaeda affiliate in North-Eastern Iraq (run by Zarqawi).
David Kay, after his inspection which didn’t find stocks of WMDs, said that he considered Iraq to have been more likely to provide WMDs to terrorists that he had thought prior to the war (when he thought they had quantities of WMD). The first civilian targets of the Baathist assassination campaign were technical people with knowledge of WMD technologies. Why?
Iraq obviously had no nuclear weapons capability – that is the one WMD system that is likely to be detected by remote sensing. They did, however, seek to purchase yellowcake from Niger – a fact that was obfuscated by someone’s (the French are suspect) creation of a fake document alleging the same thing, leading to the conclusion that because there was a fraudulent document alleging the yellowcake attempt, that no attempt happened – a logical fallacy. Wilson, the same man who attacked Bush for the African yellowcake assertion has since admitted the attempted buy.
Oddly, Iraq really had nothing they could do in thort term with the yellowcake.
Add all of this to an unstable dictator who sheltered terrorists and was in a state of war with the United States, and you have a very good reason to be concerned.
January 31st, 2005 at 10:19 pm
vietpundit,
It is an article of faith on the left that they were on the right side in the Vietnam War. They construct elaborate rationalizations and bizarre theories to try to convince others. The only major anti-war figure I know who apologized for being wrong about the effects of a communist takeover was Joan Baez. People here may know of others.
They also try to convince us that we are responsible for Pol Pot’s butchery, or he didn’t do it.
Denial is a powerful human emotion.
You and I and anyone who has studied what happened in Vietnam after the US betrayed South Vietnam know better. We know of the “re-education camps” and the trick the communists used to get people to go voluntarily to them. We know of the mass executions. We know of the genocide against the mountain tribes that is going on right now. We understand that boat people come from communist tyranies. We understand that even undemocratic authoritarian regimes are infinitely better than any communist regime ever created.
They don’t get it. They never will.
January 31st, 2005 at 11:16 pm
The reactions here are why I don’t consider myself a leftist. What’s wrong is wrong, when Pinochet does it (throwing kids out of helicopters) and when Saddam does it (feeding people into shredders and cutting their hands off) and when Zarqawi and his bunch do it (saw folks heads off; blow kids, soldiers, and innocent civilians apart). Not ONE notable figure on the Left condemned the murder of election workers in broad daylight (and what appeared to be collusion by the AP “stringer” with the terrorists, a pattern shown earlier in the murder of Americans at Fallujah).
Kos exemplifies this … the sickness within the Left. His famous “screw em” comment about the murder and mutilation of the Americans bodies from the bridge at Fallujah shows why he and the Deaniac wing of the Democratic Party simply are un-American, lacking in fundamental ideals that make up American political discourse. As such he’s as shameful as the shills for Pinochet on the Right. He’s Kissinger, without the erudition. Dean for his reaction that “it’s an interesting theory” that Bush knew in advance of 9/11 is simply unqualified to hold any significant Democratic post, despite Dean himself being a fairly decent guy.
Ahmed seems to want the “perfect” elections of Saddam. Yes, 98% turnout and and 100% voting for Saddam. Castro, Mubarak, and Assad also preside over similar elections. Much of the Left openly longs for the Reactionary Rule of the Philosopher King, so long as the tyrant mouths anti-American slogans. Mike seems to be making apologies for Saddam, who had videos of his regimes victims having their hands cut off; and who personally presided over executions of anyone who might be a threat to him. The man’s personal brutality is so well known and documented that to deny it is to deny the obvious.
Again, my problem with the Left. They are not concerned with morality, or justice, or human rights, merely politics. Marc’s statement about “belligerents” in the Times strayed dangerously close IMHO to moral equivalence, as if people who cut heads off and blow up little kids deliberately are equal to US Marines. This leads me to suspect that if Pinochet had styled himself an anti-American, and actually killed a few, those on the Left would have fawned over him as Oliver Stone and other folks fawn over Castro, a man who throws poets and librarians and democracy activists in jail. [Marc I remain baffled by why you think propaganda from folks who are cutting heads off of innocent people would be a good thing. We didn't have reporters lauding the Totenkampf SS in WWII].
Look, I disagree with pretty much EVERYTHING Bush stands for domestically. I didn’t think Iraq was the right call at the time given the gathering Iranian threat with nukes and a willingness to use them. But I’ll give Bush this much credit, coming into office as an isolationist, specifically rejecting Clinton’s nation building and focusing on shovelling out the pork, he did finally wake up to reality a couple of days after 9/11. And he wasn’t just going to take Saddam’s word for it about much of anything. [Everyone on the Left ignores Saddam essentially picking the fight; he could have let inspectors in and kicked out Zarqawi, avoided War, but instead bet France would prevent a resolution and thought the US weak and unwilling to fight]. Bush did remove the open sore of Saddam’s regime on the world, and for that he deserves credit. As do the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen who gave their lives or bodies to make that happen. The elections would not have happened without considerable American sacrifice. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN, and all the other “feel good” folks were unable to make this happen. Only the US was.
The Left sadly lives in a fantasy world, so much for the “reality based” community. Shiela Jackson Lee, Lunatic Dem-Oakland, is proposing to stop the genocide (oops, the UN made SURE to not call it that to avoid actually having to act and upset the Arab League) in Darfur by “divestiture.” The model of action by the Suffragettes, Civil Rights movement, Ghandi, or even the ANC is unique to countries with competing power sources and moderate politics. Even Pinochet could not act with impunity against his fellow Generals when he became a liability as Marc tells us. With folks like Saddam, the Iranian Mullahs, and Sudan leaders, there is simply no way to stop the killing short of Western (read: American) military force through removal of the regime. You either accept that or you endorse the killing, torture, rape, and other atrocities the regime inflicts.
If Pinochet is wrong, then Saddam is wrong, and the terrorists in Iraq are wrong, and killing election workers or setting kids on fire is wrong. It’s ALL wrong. THAT trumps Bush hatred (the reverse of Clinton hatred btw) any time. That’s all there is to say.
January 31st, 2005 at 11:24 pm
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: IF U HAVE POSTED THREE OR MORE TIMES IN THIS THREAD ALREADY PLEASE REFRAIN FROM ANY MORE COMMENTS.
I HAVE ALSO CAUGHT THE GAME OF THOSE IMPERSONATING OTHERS. YOU WLL BE AXED PERMANENTLY.
FOR EVERYONE ELSE… THREE COMMENTS AND YOU ARE OUT. I AM NOT RUNNING A PUBLIC SERVICE FOR THOSE AFFLICTED WITH VERBAL OCD.
January 31st, 2005 at 11:48 pm
Steve: Thank you for your honest answer. Just as I thought.
John Moore: Thank you for your comments. I haven’t “studied” Vietnam, I’ve lived through it. Theories don’t amount to a hill of beans when you get your throat cut (like my grandfather did), or when you get to spend 12 years in a “re-education” camp being tortured (like my father did), or spend days floating on the South China Sea in a leaky boat (like I did).
I must say, though, that as I’ve grown older, I’ve learned to distinguish between decent anti-war people (like Marc, as I said here http://vietpundit.blogspot.com/2005/01/last-honest-progressive-in-america.html) and the other not-so-decent apologists for dictatorships (Communist or Islamo-fascist), like the Chomskyites that still refuse to give up their delusions.
February 1st, 2005 at 12:04 am
John Moore,
Just to clarify: when I said “theories don’t amount to a hill of beans” I don’t mean you, I mean the leftist academics in their Ivory towers who claimed to speak for “the people” but who had no clue what was going on. Like that creep Ward Churchill in the news recently.
http://dennisthepeasant.typepad.com/dennis_the_peasant/2005/01/there_really_is.html
February 1st, 2005 at 1:12 am
The election demonstrated a weakness that should have been obvious before the fact and became blindingly obvious afterwards: The insurgency can kill a certain number of people every day but it can’t mount major military operations. Therefore, when millions of people went out to vote there was nothing the insurgency could do to stop them.
I still suspect that this will turn out to be a classic One Man, One Vote, Once. Still, another thing that should be clear is that the Iraqi majority are not going to surrender themselves to Baathist lunatics just to spite the Americans. There is a powerful incentive for any government to try its best to succeed: The oil gelt. If you get to rake it off, that’s money, and if you get to pass it around, that’s power.
February 1st, 2005 at 3:01 am
A friend of mine who has done work on education programs in the hinterlands of developing countries said something that surprised me, a few years ago: “Traditional peoples are pretty distrustful of the concept of democracy. The instantly interpret as ‘biggest tribe wins.’”
So let’s take a look at this one, from Iraq, a still rather tribal society.
Highest turnout: the Shi’ites, the biggest single major ethnic grouping. (Expatriate Iraqis in Iran are predomininantly Shi’ite, and posted the highest voting rates of any expatriate Iraqi grouping in the world. Iraqis in the U.S. hardly even registered, by comparison. Hm. Make what you will of that.)
Second highest turnout: the Kurds, with leaders who proclaim the conveniently oil-rich Kirkuk area as “our Jerusalem.” (In the run-up to the election, US GIs with pained expressions drove around, politely asking people to take down Kurdistan flags, and took them down themselves when some owners refused.)
Lowest turnout: the Sunnis. Were they any more terrorized out of voting than anyone else? Certainly so, to the extent that they were in the Sunni Triangle. But you can hardly blame the otherwise-brave for deciding it was pointless anyway.
Should I be thrilled for Iraqis for going out and voting? It depends on what they were voting for – as INDIVIDUALS. I don’t judge people by nationality, PERIOD.
If it was a Shi’ite voting for payback, or for theocracy, or maybe both, then my answer is no. In fact, I’d say it’s scary and reprehensible.
If it was a Kurd saying, “We’ve got to have representative clout, so that we can get either our fair share of OVER-representation, OR a better position from which to maneuver toward secession”, then my answer is “maybe – depends on whether that pragmatic political response hides some more noble or some more nefarious motive.”
And if it was a Sunni, turning out in somewhere near the Tikriti Mafia heartland, voting to be represented at all, because he or (as it now seems, more predominantly) SHE thought his or her vote really meant something, then I admire it.
I could go on all night, listing permutations of affiliations and motives, and ranking them. But that’s a judgment on each kind of vote – and different from a judgment on the elections themselves, and what they might mean. What do these elections they mean? As a think-tank friend of mine once told me, you never know until about the second or third election anyway. So is it despicable of me to look at motives and affiliations in the meantime, and restrain any exultation about the phenomenon itself? Well, then it’s despicable.
“Forget the WMD lies, forget the Occupation fumbles, the Bushies got Iraq to THIS point!” seems too easy by half, to me. “THIS point” is a point that I still don’t understand, and if you think you do, I strongly suggest you revisit all of your assumptions, if in fact you are reasoning from assumptions. And if your response is, instread, primarily emotional, I suggest you ask yourself whether you’ve fallen in love with an image, rather than concerning yourself – as intimately as this great distance allows – with the reality.
Go ahead, call me despicable for not loving something you loved when you saw it on TV. I welcome that kind of attack. Democracy is the worst system of government ever devised, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time. Do I support it? I support it. Do I love it? I can’t. Breathes there a soul so dead? Yeah, I guess there does: mine.
February 1st, 2005 at 3:41 am
Rounding it up to my quota of two posts, let me illustrate a logical pitfall that Marc falls into: “If we merely write off yesterday’s vote as only potemkin or charade elections we take ourselves out of any serious debate and we degrade the legitimate aspirations of the Iraqi people. Indeed, the more one opposes the war and its pretexts, the more we should support the stabilization of a successful, pluralistic Iraqi state. There is no ‘other side’ to support …. this insurgency offers no evidence of supporting a political process that is somehow more open than the limited process imposed by the U.S.”
That’s either-or thinking, Marc. The “legitimate aspirations of the Iraqi people” presupposes that there IS an overriding affiliation called “Iraqi.” What if there isn’t?
Iraq is not Vietnam, which was carved into two halves by post-WW II powers – one sop thrown to our friends, the French, and another to our supposed friends, the Chinese (then mistakenly identified with Chiang Kai-shek.)
Iraq is not Vietnam. Iraq was a bunch of terroritories of the Ottoman Empire, then a colonial possession artifically “unified” by and for the British, then a player under a series of tyrants in the game of pan-Arab nationalism (with one brief period of rule by an elected government), then somewhat the Soviet client state at times, but also meddled in with some “success” by the U.S. in a few CIA-sponsored coups, from which you finally get Saddam, a Uniter Not a Divider. (But not exactly in the nicest possible way, was he?)
It’s possible that Iraqis can only have successful, pluralistic governments if they are broken into (or voluntarily break into) separate states. It’s also possible that unity is only likely under some form of dictatorship. In the middle of it all, is the ball: all that oil. Behind them, a bloody history. The future: fog.
We don’t really know if these elections are the beginning of something good, or are instead setting the stage for civil war. We do know that the Bush administration holds the dice cup, and decides when the dice roll. I assume they are smart gamblers, so I assume they’ve gamed out scenarios in which they still get something in the worst case. And that worst case might be, “Hey, the Iraqi Congress has voted for us to leave, but the Kurdish delegation stormed out in a huff, and *their* parliament just voted for us to stay and protect them … hmm … and one nice thing about the sanctions period and the chaos of the Occupation is that all that juicy, easily extracted Kirkuk oil is still there, right in the ground, only … um … about a trillion dollars worth, just sitting there. I think we can cut a deal that doesn’t look like ‘cut-and-run’, don’t you? We can stay in AND leave, at the same time, and being limited to border defense, we can cut our own casualty rates on top of it …. even as the bloodiest civil war in Middle East history rips loose to the South of Kurdistan.”
Did they game out this possibility long before going in? I’ll bet they did it even before Bush took office. There are people who do this for a living, and there always have been.
February 1st, 2005 at 5:12 am
POINT OF INFORMATION FOR JIM ROCKFORD: The next time you slander somebody and call them a lunatic after they’ve successfully focused public attention on a case of genocidal warfare, it would give your drivel more credibility if there was some indication you at least knew their name. (Forget trying to accurately characterize what they actually said and accomplished. I’m beyond expecting that…)
February 1st, 2005 at 7:30 am
“It is an article of faith on the left that they were on the right side in the Vietnam War. ”
No, actually, unlike faith in Zeus or the holy ghost, our belief is represented by reference to clear empirical evidence to support that position.
February 1st, 2005 at 7:50 am
From the “Things we learn in kindergarten” file:
“European Union members yesterday were congratulating everyone involved in the Iraqi election process, including themselves, with one notable exception: the U.S. French Prime Minister Michel Barnier explained that the U.S. is part of the U.N., which was on the list, Le Figaro says. But another diplomat from ‘the peace camp’ reasoned: ‘Bush and Blair have already sufficiently congratulated themselves, no?’”
You just can’t make this shit up.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20050201.FIG0082.html
February 1st, 2005 at 8:49 am
This article might answer some questions people have about WMDs.
“John Dean is a former counsel to President Richard Nixon, a Watergate co-conspirator, the author of the book Blind Justice”
“Even before formally declaring war against Iraq, the president had dispatched American military special forces into the country to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.”
Here is the Link to the article:
http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content.html?oid=oid:25312
February 1st, 2005 at 9:11 am
This is a hopeful sign for Iraq’s future free of US occupation:
http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=2883920
February 1st, 2005 at 9:23 am
Voter registration tied to food aid lists.
Completely correct and according to plan.
That would seem to be the law. Everything else is rumor at this point. A few anectdotal claims which may or may not be true, and may only be isolated to a very few cases.
If you were an Iraqi food agent and you wanted to make sure people were registering to vote, you might fib and say you need to register before you get your food.
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=32471
BAGHDAD, Nov 1 (AFP) – Iraq began on Monday registering voters and potential candidates for legislative elections planned for January amid confusion among the electorate and fears that the relentless violence could derail the process.
“Today voter registration is starting all over the country,” said Farid Ayar, the spokesman for Iraq’s Independent Electoral Commission. “It is going well up until now.”
Some 550 registration centres throughout Iraq have been set up in the same location or near where Iraqis are accustomed to receiving their food rations — a leftover from the UN oil-for-food programme when the country was under sanctions.
“We are not worried about security, everything is going very well,” Ayar said.
…
Food agents like Iyad Salman, 51, at Dabash must distribute registration notices to would-be voters instructing them to go to their nearest voter registration centre to verify that their names appear on a national register.
There are an estimated 45,000 agents like Salman across Iraq charged with distributing monthly food rations to Iraqi families.
“I am just going to make people sign off a piece of paper saying they received the notice and it is up them then to go to the centre,” he said.
About 25 food agents showed up at Dabash on Monday to pick up rations of flour, rice, sugar and tea and the voter registration notices, but a lot of Iraqis appear uncertain about what to do next.
****************
http://www.ieciraq.org/English/docs/5_VOTER_REGISTRATION.htm
Voter Register
The IECI will produce a provisional voter register that lists people who are eligible to vote. Families will receive a form from their food agent which shows how the family members are listed on this register.
If all the data on this form is correct, voters can keep the form; their names will be listed on the final voter register.
February 1st, 2005 at 11:36 am
It’s funny (and not funny ha ha) that after reading Jim Rockford’s post here about terrorism and rule by murder simply being wrong, no matter what, that the item reg choose to respond to was that Rockford didn’t use a particular pols name (perhaps Rockford knew it but was making a point). Reg – that wasn’t the most important part of the post. Liberals are still standing in the barn fighting over who gets to shut the door and how best to do it.
Too many steves – I really wanted to read the article you gave the link for, however, my french is a tad rusty (ok, it’s not rusty, it’s nonexistant). Any English translation handy?
February 1st, 2005 at 11:50 am
May all the Iraqi people raise their purple fingers and poke the eyes of the nay-sayers.
February 1st, 2005 at 12:31 pm
ahabers – if I wasn’t overlimit I could pick the “analysis” in Rockford’s post apart with a toothpick. The wrong name attached to a crackpot insult just stuck out so far I couldn’t let it pass.
Ditto for the wild mis-and-disinformation in Moore’s laughable WMD post. Don’t have the time for – or frankly the interest in – a detailed response, given how far they are off any mark that could make those kinds of comments, “analysis” and “facts” matter.
February 1st, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Uh-oh, time to demonize Gorby:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A2BF1277-4200-4BDB-9A98-162CFAA84225.htm
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050201/wl_nm/iraq_riot_dc&cid=574&ncid=1480
And this Iraqi official:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050201/wl_nm/iraq_riot_dc&cid=574&ncid=1480
This is playing out just like the ecstasy after Sodom and Udayqusay’s captures…War lovers are hanging onto the excitement for what little it’s worth for as long as possible. Plus ca change…
February 1st, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Sorry, I don’t accept the sweeping generalization claiming that we who have criticized the invasion and subsequent handling of the situation in Iraq are somehow “naysayers”. I think Marc’s post is a superb and clear way of expressing both (A) hopefulness in the future of Iraq democracy and (B) strong disapproval at the Bush Administration’s earlier and current goals in Iraq. You can keep fruitlessly (and boringly) building straw men all you want, but don’t pretend you speak for me.
February 1st, 2005 at 12:46 pm
ahabers: your wish is my command *with the help of babelfish. Here is a loose translation (I can’t find an english version of the publication):
Europe avoids congratulating the United States
Brussels: of our corresponding Alexandrine Bouilhet
[ February 01, 2005 ]
Surprised by the success of the elections in Iraq, Europeans congratulate everyone, including themselves, except the United States. In their common official statement, strongly inspired by the embarrassment of “old Europe”, (tms ed: I think that’s a reference to Cheney’s – or was it Rumsfeld? – equally childish insult and gets mentioned here as a form of “he started it”) the Twenty-five greeted, yesterday, the “efforts made by the Iraqi electoral independent Commission, its Iraqi personnel, the local observers, the temporary Iraqi government and UNO (United Nations) which allowed the behaviour of the elections within the times retained by the resolution 1546 of the Security Council”. In their conclusions, the Foreign Ministers of the Union insist this occurred with the “support provided by the international community, including the European Union”.
The five paragraphs devoted to Iraq mention neither the Americans nor the members of the coalition. “Bush and Blair have already sufficiently congratulated themselves, no?”, said a diplomat of the “camp of peace”. More diplomatic, the French minister, Michel Barnier, point out that the United States is “in UNO”, and “included” in the international community.
Host of the meeting, the Luxembourg presidency of the Union laid the stress, like Javier Solana, on the representation of the sunnites. “the interests of the minorities must be taken into account. The sunnites must take share with the discussions on the future Constitution “, hammered the Minister of the Grand Duchy, Jean Asselborn. “Without an equitable representation of all the communities, of all the areas, the process in progress will not succeed”, increased Michel Barnier. “Let us hope especially that the level of violence on the ground drops!”, repeated the chief of the German diplomacy, Joschka Fischer.
The rest simply states that Bush will be visiting Europe soon.
February 1st, 2005 at 1:22 pm
Reg, steve, turner… please be quiet for a while and let others post. Im bored repeating this.
February 1st, 2005 at 1:59 pm
One man said the following on the eve of the Iraq War…
And I will steadfastly maintain that he, his administration, and the brave men and women in our and our allies forces are doing the best they can to prove these words true.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
***************
wow, prisoners were shot during a riot. Something that is repeated on a yearly basis in better parts of the world. WTF does that have to do with the elections in Iraq.
Is your point that there wasn’t a sudden reversal of all that is wrong in Iraq?
Talk about an infantile P.O.V.
February 1st, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Thought some of you might want to read what the International Action Center (the ANSWER is a front group for them) had to say about the election. Good old Ramsey.
The Election in Iraq:
“…a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
-William Shakespeare
The media and the Bush Administration are in high gear, trumpeting this weekend’s election as a victory for democracy. However, this election changes nothing on the ground in Iraq. On Monday, January 31, the day after the election, the people of Iraq woke up with 150,000 U.S. troops occupying their country, CIA asset Ayad Allawi the appointed head of state, and the Pentagon’s plans to build 14 permanent military bases still proceeding. Democracy means, “rule of the people.” What happened on Sunday merely continues rule by military occupation and an appointed government.
This was a meaningless election.
This piece of political theater can’t even be accurately described as an election. In an election, voters get to choose candidates who will then hold office and exercise some measure of power.
In this election, voters didn’t get to vote for a candidate, or even for a political party. Instead, they were allowed to vote for a list, which may include several parties or individuals–there was no way to know. These lists were approved by the Bremer-appointed High Commission for Elections. The names of the 7,700 candidates were not publicly available, so there was no way to know who was actually being voted for.
The candidates who are eventually selected by this process will exercise no executive or legislative authority. They will form a transitional national assembly, which will draft a constitution under the supervision of the occupiers. The people of Iraq were not given the opportunity to vote against the occupation–they were allowed to vote for anonymous lists, representing U.S.-approved candidates that will not have the power to alter U.S. plans to colonize Iraq.
Of course, the people of Iraq want to vote in free and open elections to determine their own future, but the occupation was not on the ballot, rendering any pretense at an election meaningless. The more than 100,000 people who were killed by the U.S. during this war were not given the opportunity to vote. Nor were the prisoners in the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib.
Returning Iraq to 1955.
It is telling that the Bush Administration is claiming this is the first democratic election to be held in Iraq in fifty years. The election referred to as the last democratic election was held under a U.S. & British appointed monarchy to select an advisory body that had no executive or legislative power. Its only function was to provide a façade of legitimacy to the puppet regime; the election did not change the fact that the people of Iraq were under the thumb of U.S. and British oil companies. Less than 3 years later, a massive popular revolutionary upheaval overthrew the corrupt monarchy and, since that time, the U.S. and Britain have been trying to return Iraq to the same semi-colonial status. This election is part of their plan.
The U.S. government has never demonstrated any interest in bringing democracy to the Middle East. Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger outlined U.S. policy in the region when he said, “Middle East oil is too important to be left to hands of the Arabs.” The U.S. has made no effort to bring democracy in any of the nations in the region where it has maintained troops-the people of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates all live under feudal monarchies, without free elections, civil liberties, civil rights, union rights, or rights for women.
This was an election under occupation.
It is important to emphasize the circumstances under which this election was held. More than 150,000 U.S. troops occupy the country, patrolling the streets with guns trained on the Iraqi people. Throughout Iraq, the U.S. occupation forces imposed an unprecedented series of security measures – including shoot-on-sight curfews, closed borders, and a ban on cars and travel restrictions within Iraq.
This election was held under the supervision of U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte. Negroponte served as U.S. Ambassador to Honduras from 1981-1985 and was involved with Contra terrorists and death squads. While he was Ambassador, Honduras was the launching pad from which the Reagan administration conducted its violent attacks on the people of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
Negroponte’s predecessor, Paul Bremer, set up the rules for this election. The organization that ran the election, the High Commission for Elections, was appointed by Bremer, and had the authority to disqualify any party that did not meet with Washington’s approval. Before he left his post, Bremer issued a series of articles which cannot be reversed by any election. Many of these articles, which are in violation of international law, have to do with the plundering of Iraq’s resources and control of the economy by U.S. corporations. No matter what list the Iraqi people voted for, decisions that affect their future are being made by the occupation government under orders from Wall Street.
Assisting Negroponte were two U.S.-funded organizations with long records of manipulating overseas elections on behalf of U.S. corporate interests, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI). Both organizations work closely with the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Agency for International Development, long used by the CIA for covert operations abroad. They were, for example, involved in orchestrating the failed coup and recall referendum in Venezuela in an attempt to remove the democratically-elected and popular President Hugo Chavez. Both were involved in manipulating the election in the Ukraine to ensure that a pro-U.S. head of state would be installed.
Similar elections were held during the U.S. war against the people of Vietnam. They were conducted under military occupation, administered by the U.S., and in no way allowed for any real self-government. None of the U.S.-managed elections in Vietnam succeeded in conferring legitimacy on the occupation government or in ending the resistance. Likewise, this election was conducted at gunpoint, administered by a war criminal, and stage-managed by CIA front companies. To pretend that this has anything to do with democracy is outrageous.
This election has no credibility.
This election was almost unique in that it had no international observers. There was no outside source to monitor the voting, the integrity of the ballots, or the counting. The only monitoring was by observers trained by groups like the National Democratic Institute–in other words, by the CIA.
With no international observers monitoring the election process, the elections are only as credible as the people running it–the Bush Administration, who lied about weapons of mass destruction, lied about ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, lied about everything associated with this war and occupation.
This election was a public relations campaign.
Opposition to the occupation has been growing in the U.S. Many people, including members of Congress, have begun to demand an end to the occupation.
The election was staged to create the illusion of progress, much like the phony transfer of power held on June 28 of last year. The idea is to create a new fiction to legitimize the occupation. The lies about weapons of mass destruction have been exposed. The lies about the people of Iraq being involved in the attacks on September 11 have been refuted. So now, the Bush Administration is taking up the cause of democracy to justify the ongoing occupation.
The claim that the U.S. needs to bring democracy to Iraq, that the country would descend into civil war without the U.S. presence, is pure racism. It is a rehash of the arguments used by the British Empire and other empires to justify the colonization of entire nations.
Many of those who did vote, took part in the election thinking that it would be part of a process that would lead to ending the occupation of their country. All polls indicate that an overwhelming number of Iraqis want an immediate end to the occupation. Once they realize that the election serves only to justify further occupation and plundering of their country, this will give rise to a new level of outrage and resistance.
The myth of high turnout.
Despite the media’s claim that turnout was overwhelming, in many areas, polling centers were closed or deserted. Only a handful of people voted in Fallujah, Samarra and Ramadi. Among Iraqis living abroad, 80% of eligible voters did not vote. This dispels the myth that low turnout was due to security concerns. Turnout was low because the people oppose occupation and recognized that the election was a public relations effort by the occupier of their country.
The Iraqi people want the occupation to end now.
Any real interest in democracy would lead us to recognize that the Iraqi people are opposed to the occupation. Polls have repeatedly shown that the people of Iraq want the troops to leave now–not after they have stage-managed an election and installed a puppet regime.
The growing resistance throughout the country demonstrates how the Iraqi people feel about the occupiers. The occupiers are not there to bring democracy–they have instead brought death, destruction, and torture. The Iraqi people and a growing number of people worldwide want it to end.
March 19
Troops Out Now!
March on Central Park in NYC!
Regional Demonstrations Across the U.S. & Worldwide
February 1st, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Josh, very interesting stuff from A.N.S.W.E.R. and, about what I would expect from them. Perhaps this fellow is part of their cadre.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/02/01/train_wreck_of_an_election/
February 1st, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Just to annoy at least 1(but more likely lots more than 1 person),I am posting this except from a NR commentary.
—-
–”Yes, agreed, it’s all true: the nobility of the vote, the courage of the Iraqis, the challenge to the Terror Party, the lines to the voting booths with the smiling women who make the victory sign and show their inked fingers, and now the hope for a sovereign national solution that banishes the memories of the horrors of war and occupation.
All true, heaven knows, but also all false and cynical, too comfortable and easy, too condescending and consoling.
The true glory of these elections is that they flowed from bayonets, which are the dry and bitter fruit of a war and a tenacious military occupation, they are part of the global strategy of the United States, part of a wager and a strategic doctrine for global security and therefore command, they are purely and simply the exportation of a modern Western cultural model that is alien to the very roots of fundamentalist Islamic culture , that rightly considers it blasphemous, according to the fundamentalists’ principles. From a certain point of view, Democracy and Liberty are meta-principles, recurrent forms of universal human identity that run through history, from and to which they enter and exit in a thousand different forms. The Iraqi version is the reincarnation, in Arab-Islamic soil, of a social method that has become a philosophy and a myth and even a religion, which it is hard to resist in modern times.
But it is also a much more prosaic political strategy, made possible by thousands of deaths, by enormous wealth spent in weaponry, by the decision to move and use armies to confront an ambitious, global terrorist challenge, a fundamentalist uprising within a great premodern civilization like the Islamic one.
Too easy, and stupid, is the position of those who were opposed to the war and now praise the elections, without reconsidering their previous position, because the elections are a direct product of the war, they would be inconceivable without the Anglo-American troops, without the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by bombs, without all the dirty work of the Coalition Provision Authority, without the checkmate of the U.N., and the acceptance of the fracture within the West.
The elections in Iraq are an act of global sedition, the imposition of liberty as a model, a revolutionary act of the imperial sort, a ring in the chain of political necessity, not a new version of rainbow idealism, of the religion of good, humanitarian religion.. Their nobility, which is real, is tempered by steel and does not permit hypocrisy”–
February 1st, 2005 at 6:33 pm
I was going to emulate another commenter and post someone else’s article from another publication, but then I thought that might be rather rude to our host and my pal Marc. So, here is a link for the liberal minded folks if they have the fortitude to read it. Its by Mark Brown, pretty liberal commentator at the Chicago Sun-Times.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown01.html
By the way, Ive changed my blog host to another site. You can come visit at http://gmroper.com and I hope you’ll leave a POLITE comment or two. I’m not as nice to my commenters (when I have some) as Marc is. I won’t let you get away with vulgarity for example, though you are free to discuss any idea you wish. So, if you have a good heart, come visit! This means even you steve, even you.
February 1st, 2005 at 7:24 pm
Who knows…Maybe when this whole insurgency thing dies down I’ll emigrate to the New and Improved Iraq, get myself a nice 4 bedroom 2 1/2 bath Ottoman style in the El Mirage subdivision outside Baghdad, spend sixty hollow and meaningless hours a week in a 4×4 cubicle cell in some exurban office park, my nights watching vapid, porny soaps beamed in by satellite from Bahrain or the latest celebrity sex monkey trial on Al Jazeera, and the whole of my hollow and meaningless weekends shopping for cheap and extraneous crap made by near slave labor in the newly industrializing sub-saharan Africa at the Al Anbar Wal Mart. Banality is always better than brutality, but no one in the end should forget that that is what our kids have likely fought, killed, and died for…
February 1st, 2005 at 7:48 pm
I think the Iraqis deserve a little banality.
February 1st, 2005 at 7:51 pm
Well, I don’t know, Green Dem…seems like a big leap for Al Jazeera…
February 1st, 2005 at 7:53 pm
“I think the Iraqis deserve a little banality.”
Be careful what you wish for…
February 1st, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Compared to Saddam, what you described would be heaven for most Iraqis, Green Dem. I believe you are fooling yourself if you think otherwise. And I say this as someone who is anti-war.
February 1st, 2005 at 8:22 pm
“Compared to Saddam, what you described would be heaven for most Iraqis, Green Dem.”
Which part of my original statement “banality is always better than brutality” didn’t you get? This was meant to pre-empt any lame debate about the relative goodness of tyranny vs burgeois capitalist democracy, but I guess the transparently obvious was too irresistable for some not to bring up. In any event give it another couple decades…The Iraqis will find out how “heavenly” it is to have corrupt, demagogish, corporatist, douchebags at the helm. Or maybe they won’t. The American people don’t seem to have figured it out yet (most of them anyhow), and they’ve had a couple hundred years to do so. I find little reason to suspect the Iraqis are any brighter. !Vive la banality! !Vive la stupidity!
February 1st, 2005 at 8:24 pm
Green Dem,
Get an English teaching job in China(or Moscow), hand out pamphlets in the streets denouncing the Communist party(or Putin). See what happens to you… then post what you think about banality.
Ned Frydek-Mistek
February 1st, 2005 at 8:31 pm
“Get an English teaching job in China(or Moscow), hand out pamphlets in the streets denouncing the Communist party(or Putin). See what happens to you… then post what you think about banality.”
Yawn. For the last time, and as I just said:
“Which part of my original statement “banality is always better than brutality” didn’t you get? This was meant to pre-empt any lame debate about the relative goodness of tyranny vs burgeois capitalist democracy, but I guess the transparently obvious was too irresistable for some not to bring up.”
February 1st, 2005 at 8:44 pm
I’ve already posted way too many times on this thread, but I have one final and I hope provocative point to make, which is that the American right ought to be reflecting very seriously on the ultimate triumph of global democratic, burgeois capitalism. In relative terms, compared with fascism, and communism, and all sorts of other repressive isms, it looks pretty darn attractive. But the global right may well find out that upon its eventual triumph globally it may well look a whole lot less attractive to the people of this world in absolute terms. And eventually the global right will run out of cultural issues to demagogue…Again, be careful what you wish for…
February 1st, 2005 at 9:00 pm
“Reg, steve, turner… please be quiet for a while and let others post. Im bored repeating this.”
Interesting … despite staying to my quota of two posts (until this one), I can see quite a number of others (besides reg and steve), who had already exceeded that number.
I’m noisier because … I went on at some length? No, John Moore does that all the time, and he’s not listed (and had made three long contributions to my two.)
Or is it because I strayed off-topic? At least one of Moore’s contributions was a lengthy analysis of all that WMD Iraq had prior to the invasion (including that little bottle of Botox in somebody’s home freezer – like Iraqi women didn’t want to nuke their wrinkles too, despite chemical/bio-weapons sanctions).
So what exactly ARE the shit-list criteria, Marc? Would one of them be “Noisy: including anyone who addresses me by name and directly challenges my thinking in ways that leave me at a loss for how to respond”? Just wondering. That’s the only one my brain is pattern-matching on, at the moment. Tell me I’m wrong. Then tell my WHY I’m wrong.
February 1st, 2005 at 9:19 pm
“But the global right may well find out that upon its eventual triumph globally it may well look a whole lot less attractive to the people of this world in absolute terms”.
In Marxist terms, that is exactly what should happen and what good leftists should be promoting. Capitalism replaces feudalism, an enlightened proletariot emerges, throws off their chains, eliminates the burgeoisis, a temporary dictatorship of the proletariot will establish socialism, expoitation will end, the state will wither away, and we’ll all go fishing according to our needs and abilities. Actually Marx was a little vague on what a socilialist society would look like.
Ned, Frydek-Mistek
February 1st, 2005 at 9:27 pm
Naw, I’d be willing to bet it was just a slip on Marc’s part, Michael.
BTW, the Strike Force clearly erred in giving you the boot…you’ve
been PERFECT…
February 1st, 2005 at 9:30 pm
Jesus, that last comment was stupid.
The brain-dead Right….
February 1st, 2005 at 9:31 pm
(was referring to Mystek’s nonsensical offering)
February 1st, 2005 at 9:37 pm
I knew that, Reg. Had to laugh at my timing, though.
February 1st, 2005 at 10:15 pm
Sorry Reg,
Green Dem’s comments made me think of an untranslatable, inside joke that was told about Western English teachers(mostly from affluent American suburbs) who would rail against global capitalism to students who had spent years resenting being forced to study Marx, Lenin and the evils of global burgeis capitolism.
Ned, Frydek-Mistek
February 1st, 2005 at 11:39 pm
M. Turner.. dont inflate urself so much. Sorry to disappoint you but I dont spend anytime thinking about how or if or when or why I should or not respond to your comments. You underestimate me. The words you consider a challenge to me, in my world, amount more or less to the buzz of dying mosquito.
All Im trying to do is keep repeitious postings to a minimum and frankly Im not having much success because it seems the blogosphere attracts OCD types.
Your challenges are absurd and warrant no answer from me. Im way too busy to tend to personal neuroses. And please dont answer THIS post.
Bottom line: this blog is the personal living room I open up at my discretion and primarily for MY pleasure. I reserve the right to toss out whoever I please simply if I friggin’ feel like it and … believe it or not I dont owe you or any other commenter a damn thing. Not even an explanation.
So far I havent tossed out nearly enough people–as my friends know and they have been urging me. So for God’s sake, dont burn up any more electrons whining and carrying on. It’s about as boring and meaningless as can be and I guarantee you the other commenters dont give a flip.
February 2nd, 2005 at 12:31 am
My basic rule about message board posting is, if you find yourself repeating yourself, don’t.
February 2nd, 2005 at 7:05 am
As a periodic transgressor, I’d suggest, Marc, that you’d likely enjoy yourself here more in your digital living room (more like corner bar, unless you run the wackiest boarding house this side of a Dickens novel) if you laid out a couple of ongoing guidelines regarding conduct once, posting them as a header or sidebar to the homepage and “frame” (humorous would be nice) – and then enforcing them with a modicum of consistency when you feel like a line has been seriously crossed without a lot of prior verbal intervention.
Frankly, the stuff that’s really over the line – particularly in the case of OCD posting – is pretty easy to spot and either scroll past or amuse oneself with if you’re in the mood and it strikes me that censorship, such as it is, is more trouble than it’s worth, but that’s just my humble opinion. Maybe you do, in fact, enjoy the constant sparring about manners with those of us who periodically get on your nerves by over-posting or whatever. Hard to imagine, but we’ve all got our quirks. But if you truly don’t – mainly because it’s wearying – I’m suggesting that you put a consumer warning somewhere on your blog that outlines your game plan, stick to it and enforce it when it’s clearly gone awry, but with a modicum of flexibility and as much fairness as you can muster. You’d avoid a running game of dodgeball with the usual suspects that often seems haphazard and inconsistent.
Or not… And my feelings won’t be hurt if you delete this once you’ve ingested it, since it’s inside blogball. Just a thought.
February 2nd, 2005 at 8:21 am
another steve posted “Voting in Baghdad was linked with receipt of food rations, several voters said after the Sunday poll.”
–Wow! Think that’s bad? Read this. While renewing my drivers license, I saw government officials–with armed police on site!–trying to get people to register to vote at the same time as they applied for drivers licenses! These people need licenses to drive to work to feed their families and to get to school to get out of poverty–and it certainly appears that their privilege to drive and survive was tied to registering to vote! I think it’s time for Dahr Jamail at “The Nation” to expose this “motor-voter” atrocity in the U.S.!
Regarding “Saddam would be feeding victims into the shredders,” mike wrote “…made up stories about shredders [do you have any idea...how difficult it would be to put a human being through a shredder...]…”
–Just two weeks ago a worker clearing limbs got accidentally pulled through a tree shredder and lost his own limbs…and head and body. Go tell his family it really didn’t happen and that this guy is living it up in L.A. Haven’t you ever seen huge trees ground up to sawdust by shredders?!… Good grief. The extent that some of you will go to try to defend Saddam and attack this country….
Mork wrote “Well, I agree that all of Iraq is within a single set of borders, but I’m not sure in what other sense it’s “united”. The country is really three distinct regions that are divided by geography and culture/ethnicity.”
–Mork, I agree that there are not perfect analogies with Vietnam or other countries, but consider that the U.S. has similar divisions–red and blue states. So, one could argue that Iraq is more like the U.S. than Vietnam–but, I only present that for argument sake because it’s not true, either. Iraq is like Iraq, and that’s it.
I realize that this is my third post, so this will be it for me except that I have done a word count and find that I have enough words left to yield 100 words to my distinguished colleage, steve. Wait a minute, in saying that I used up the words. Sorry, steve.
February 2nd, 2005 at 8:59 am
GM, thanks for the article. It’s always good to see people questioning their assumptions. I remember around the start of this war having long debates with a good friend who fell in the pro-war camp. He was pro-war on the grounds that spreading democracy was possible and important. I thought you couldn’t deliver democracy with a sidewinder. If it turns out a healthy democracy flourishes in the wake, I owe him a mea culpa. We also discussed the dangers of some one like President Bush undertaking this project. He thought it was worth the risk, I said no way. It’s way too late for me to feel wrong on that one.
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:16 am
I’m transgressing with regard to my allotted number of posts, so I’ll do my best to keep this to a point of information. About the food rationing thing:
Because Iraq has no official census, voters were registered through ration cards from the UN oil-for-food program. (People could register in addition to that, or make corrections if the ration card info was incorrect. But if the existing ration card information was correct, for convenience and safety’s sake, they were considered automatically registered.)
The point is, if over zealous poll workers wouldn’t give people their food on election day until or unless they voted, as Woody pointed out, that isn’t exactly scandal worthy. If those same poll workers wouldn’t folk over the food allowance unless people voted a CERTAIN WAY, then there’s a problem. But that’s not what’s been reported. Of if it has, I haven’t seen it.
Okay, returning to spidey hole now.
February 2nd, 2005 at 11:57 am
Mavis your comment: “He thought it was worth the risk, I said no way. It’s way too late for me to feel wrong on that one.”
I have the same doubts too from time to time, but, I think too if people of good heart keep trying to come together, maybe there is hope yet for the human race. Nicht Wahr?
February 2nd, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Well said, GM It’s always a little frustrating when Republicans are good people. It’d be much easier for my world view if you’d change your politics.
February 2nd, 2005 at 2:01 pm
Mavis, two things. 1. I’m conservative, not necessarily a Republican, though I vote for many of them, I have also voted for a lot of conservative democrats (and even Hubert Humphry once.) 2. If it’s uncomfortable me being a good people and I’d be uncomfortable coming over there, you could always come over to my side. Then your world view would always be comfortable
P.S., I know lot’s of good people that are liberal, I love them all. I wonder why sometimes more liberal folk are uncomfortable imagining that we can be nice folk too
February 2nd, 2005 at 7:30 pm
“I know lot’s of good people that are liberal, I love them all”
Only a liberal could write such a shortsighted article as the one by the columnist declaring Bush right now. I reminds me of the brimming confidence with which Aaron Brown gloated when Sodom was captured, sure this was a big turning point…
February 2nd, 2005 at 8:31 pm
I even love you Steve, even when you’re vexing.
February 2nd, 2005 at 9:23 pm
On no, not vexed at all, I see this as just one more in a series of marketing brands that have been designed to make a bloody pointless war look less bloody and less pointless. And I think it’s fair to say that little will change, much as the ‘transition’, “sodom’s capture”, “udayqusay’s deaths”, etc. didn’t change anything, although it made cable news talking heads very excited. I thought Aaron Brown was on the verge of sexual release when Sodom was caught…
Ditto when, surprise surprise, lots of Kurds and Shiites went and voted with the hope of ending the occupation.
BTW, here’s an interesting question, why is it terrible to point out the obvious, namely that the Iraq ‘election’ was farcical, but it’s A-OK for you or Marc to go on about the ‘fraudulent’ nature of the Venezuelan plebiscites? Isn’t that a tad hypocritical?
February 3rd, 2005 at 5:58 am
Steve, Two, count-em T. W. O. reasons. Thinking the Iraqi elections were farcical is an opinion, nothing more. Thinking that the Venezuelan plebiscites were fraudulent is based on observations by many. The real difference is however, that Marc and I see the Iraqi elections as a victory for Iraq and you see the Venezuelan plebiscite as a victory for Chavez. The Iraqi elections are about a free people getting to vote for their own government. The Vene is about a Pseudo – Socialist “Dictator” cementing his power. Big difference, but I suspect you won’t agree.
February 3rd, 2005 at 6:46 am
“Thinking that the Venezuelan plebiscites were fraudulent is based on observations by many.”
You’ve got to be kidding. IRaqis didn’t even know who they were voting for. At least Venezuelans had a clear idea about who they were voting for or against. Gosh, talk about relativism in action, you’re outdoing yourself.
February 3rd, 2005 at 9:18 am
Better look at our own history of elections, they’ve never been perfect, but we’ve managed to get along with each other despite that..
Maybe we should go back to the first disputed election and reset the legislative clock…
That would be the early 1800′s if I recall correctly.
February 3rd, 2005 at 8:48 pm
Shiite Coalition Takes a Big Lead in Early Vote Count in Iraq
By JOHN F. BURNS and DEXTER FILKINS
Published: February 4, 2005/NYTs
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 3 – Preliminary election returns released Thursday by Iraqi authorities showed that 72 percent of the 1.6 million votes counted so far from Sunday’s election went to an alliance of Shiite parties dominated by religious groups with strong links to Iran. Only 18 percent went to a group led by Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite who favors strong ties to the United States. Few votes went to Sunni candidates.
AS I WAS SAYING BEFORE I WAS SO RUDELY INTERRUPTED…
January 31st, 2005 at 3:04 am
Bitterness and hope
You find no larger load of crap about the Iraq election than this one from Kevin T. Keith:So while there is quite a bit to be pleased about (no one should minimize the courage of the Iraqis. People literally died in order to exercise their franchise), …
January 31st, 2005 at 8:24 am
Steyn Gets It Right; As Boxer, Kennedy & Kerry Get
There are plenty of things that have gone wrong in Iraq, things not planned for, changes in strategy, the increase in the terrorists determination to keep Iraq a fiefdom of the Baathst Party or a Mullahocracy a’ la Iran. But cataloging those faults, …
January 31st, 2005 at 8:34 am
Steyn Gets It Right; As Boxer, Kennedy & Kerry Get It Wrong
Mark Steyn writing in Jewish World Review notes that “In Europe, the wise old foreign-policy “realists” scoff at the Iraq elections — Islam and democracy are completely incompatible, old boy; everybody knows that, except these naive blundering Yanks …
January 31st, 2005 at 11:50 am
Marc Cooper’s measured assessment of the Iraq elections
There’s much being said about the elections in Iraq across the web, from denouncing them as a complete sham to praising them as if they will fix everything in one fell swoop.Marc Cooper has a reaso…