Quote of the day

The sudden assertion of human criteria within a dehumanising framework of political manipulation can be like a flash of lightning illuminating a dark landscape

— Vaclav Havel

Syndicate content

Login

Login or Register to be identified in your comments

Everydaylifemodern

Email & RSS

Sign up to oD's editorial summaries email:



Follow oD on Twitter


Add oD to your Netvibes: Add to Netvibes

openDemocracy likes

Home → Forums → democracy & power >> The Iraqi Elections

The Iraqi Elections

ronr327

Posts: 636
 Joined: 2003-02-15
As I begin writing this, the elections in Iraq are just getting underway. I regretfully offer the observation that they don’t matter. The political reality in Iraq has not evolved to the point where elections can meaningfully move the situation forward. The Iraqis hold no real idea what they are voting for. Tom Friedman’s hope for the Iraq War was embodied in the Pottery Barn rule: “If you break it, you own it”. Behind that lay the notion that the “new owners”, the Bushies, would have to get it right, and that a “can do”America couldn’t and wouldn’t fail. Well . . . . . . . . . . . . Friedman has now offered a new rule: “If you own it, you’ll fix it”. The “idea” is if the Iraqi’s understand they own it, they will “fix it”. From the Iraqi perspective, however, the problem is just Who will own What? The Iraqi’s fully appreciate that is what is unfolding now. The elections, which for us seem to be nothing less than the logical starting point for defining the “new Iraq”, are for them an unknown process, and they have no experiance to provide them with any confidence in it. It becomes overwhelmingly likely they will understand the outcome as but one more datum in an evolving and dangerous reality. They are on terra incognita, and will continue to be there after the election is over. George Bush’s pipe dream - a stable, democratic, prosperous, pluralistic Iraq - is just that to the Iraqi people: a pipe dream. However desirable, it is heartbreakingly remote. The notion that the answer will come from simply getting an effective, “home grown”, force in the field to fight for the “new Iraq” founders on just this point. The very people we are trying so assiduously to train do not understand what this Iraq they are expected to fight for will be, or how they and what they hold dear will fare in it. It remains nebulous, undefined, and frighteningly perilous. If one had to parse out the loyalties of the force in training now, they would be, first and foremost, to their families and friends, then to their tribes, then to their identities as Sunni, Shia, or Kurd, then to their identities as Muslims, and finally, last and most distant, to some dream of an Iraq that can somehow unite all these identities into a stable, just and prospering reality. The very remoteness of this last possibility, and the far more immediate and vivid reality of the preceding associations, is what makes the situation so difficult. It is the reason we have found the commitment of many we have already trained so tenuous and volatile. And none of this takes into account what the election seems to have no chance of affecting: who we are, and what we have done; or of resolving the question: what are we doing there? We are aliens – non Muslims; we are the historical lineal descendants of the British – the last foreign entity who tried to suborn Iraq; we are Israel’s great champion in the world; and we are, undeniably, INTERESTED in Iraqi oil. We are the authors of much “collateral damage”, and are known to have committed willful acts of torture against the Iraqi people, and outrages against their deepest sensibilities. Our presence becomes inherently destabilizing, much as the presence of the English was in Northern Ireland – an offense to all Irishmen. Are we also those who liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein? Yes! Do we still retain, on balance, the support of the Iraqi people? Yes! But every day a foreign force which is essentially American remains, the Iraqi’s will likely tote-up the balance for that day negatively. In time the steady drip of those negative days will shift the balance away from us - and ultimately - against us. No matter how many constructive and hopeful acts our troops in the field may perform, and I am sure they are many, they will always be weighed in the balance, and likely found wanting, against the many many things we have done poorly or wrongly, and against the Iraqi experience of us as aliens. If we had not done so much so poorly or so wrongly, these elections might have had a chance to move Iraq forward. There is, I fear, no chance now. Message was edited by: ronr327
‹ Fashionable anti-Americanism Dominic Hilton New EU 25 - US Trade relations ›

Submitted on Sun, 2005-01-30 05:58

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Home → Forums → democracy & power >> Re: The Iraqi Elections

fdbjr

Posts: 289
 Joined: 2004-02-27
Re: The Iraqi Elections
Yeah, right. Those elections were a crashing failure. There are about 20,000 insurgents in Iraq. That is extremely bad news, becausxe the Baader-Meinhof gang (by way of comparison) never numbered more than 40 members, but nonetheless terrorized West Germany for a number of years. However, it isn't civil war. It is a large, obnoxious criminal problem.

Submitted on Mon, 2005-01-31 01:59
reply | email this commentquote

Matt Murrell

Posts: 1547
 Joined: 2004-02-22
Re: The Iraqi Elections
fdbjr, "There are about 20,000 insurgents in Iraq." Don't know whether you missed out a 0 by accident or... BAGHDAD: Iraq's insurgency counts more than 200,000 active fighters and sympathizers, the country's national intelligence chief said, in the bleakest assessment to date of the armed revolt waged by Sunnis. Speaking in an interview, Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani said: "I think the resistance is bigger than the U.S. military in Iraq. I think the resistance is more than 200,000 people." http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=11487

Submitted on Wed, 2005-02-02 10:29
reply | email this commentquote

ronr327

Posts: 636
 Joined: 2003-02-15
Re: The Iraqi Elections
Am I the only one taking exception to the “spin” being placed on the Iraq elections? Nearly all the commentary I have seen posits that what was in the balance, what was attested to, by those elections is the fervent hope of the Iraqi people for George Bush’s “Freedom” (i.e. his conjuring of a stable, democratic, prosperous, pluralistic Iraq), as against the bleak, unreasoning, (quasi religious) fanatical hatred driving the insurgency, whose all to believable threats of violence the Iraqis braved in order to cast their votes. That is NOT the reality seen by the Iraqis. The bravery and resolution of the Iraqis is unquestioned, but the vast majority of those who voted were registering support, not for something - however achingly desirable - glimmering on a far too distant horizon, but for their own electorally established, voice in a contention for power in the “new” Iraq. The Shia were striking for a position of dominance in an Arab state previously unknown in Islamic history - an ancient frustration which might well encourage running great, even mortal, risks. And the Kurds were seeking to establish support for a semi-autonomous Kurdish Iraq – an almost equally ancient and deeply longed for aspiration. Admirable? Yes! Courageous? Yes! But nowhere near what an election could have (and should have!) produced in a politically matured reality. The case can too easily be made that, rather than the “miracle” being represented, the elections, the milieu in which they unfolded, and the sequence of events leading up to them, represented GREAT FAILURES of American effort and policy. After all, who would describe it as a “miracle” that Saddam’s army would be defeated by the Americans - an army that didn’t even want to fight for the regime, and effectively walked away from the battlefield? Given that Saddam’s regime was gone, who would have expected anything else but elections from an American directed reality? That things in the end proved so difficult is incontestably the direct result of an almost breathtaking succession of failures by Bush and Co. That they should now claim the elections are a “miracle” is to proclaim their own miserable failures in the time leading up to those elections. In that sense, there are another couple of “miracles”: Bush and Co.’s self-satisfied chutzpah, and the (all too familiar) gullibility of media complicit in the Bush spin.

Submitted on Sat, 2005-02-05 04:15
reply | email this commentquote

GTJ

Posts: 307
 Joined: 2003-02-16
Re: The Iraqi Elections
"The bravery and resolution of the Iraqis is unquestioned, but the vast majority of those who voted were registering support, not for something - however achingly desirable - glimmering on a far too distant horizon, but for their own electorally established, voice in a contention for power in the “new” Iraq. The Shia were striking for a position of dominance in an Arab state previously unknown in Islamic history - an ancient frustration which might well encourage running great, even mortal, risks. And the Kurds were seeking to establish support for a semi-autonomous Kurdish Iraq – an almost equally ancient and deeply longed for aspiration." Quite right. Sistani told them to vote, so that the Shia would have the majority in the National Assembly. The Kurdish leaders told their people to vote so that the Kurds would not miss out on the power. If they had been told not to vote, then they would not have voted. It is as simple as that. It has nothing to do with democracy. If the process for getting power for the respective groups had involved swimming the Tigris river, then they would have all gone for a swim. Then the Us media could have called the outcome a victory for swimocracy.

Submitted on Sat, 2005-02-05 14:15
reply | email this commentquote

fdbjr

Posts: 289
 Joined: 2004-02-27
Re: The Iraqi Elections
Well, it's taken a week, but you've done it. You've spun it completely. By the way - any of you Commonwealth types ever realize the amount of good ol' imperial racism that lies behind this sneering cynicism?

Submitted on Sat, 2005-02-05 16:18
reply | email this commentquote

Matt Murrell

Posts: 1547
 Joined: 2004-02-22
Re: The Iraqi Elections
"By the way - any of you Commonwealth types ever realize the amount of good ol' imperial racism that lies behind this sneering cynicism?" Nope. But then we are a backwards people... From the Christian Science Monitor: "What's retarding democracy in the rest of the Middle East is the resentment and opposition to the American military context in which this is happening," says Rami Khouri, a Jordanian political analyst. That's why, he says, foreign forces should start leaving Iraq soon. "Sovereignty is the central requirement for genuine democracy," he says. "The elections do not constitute democracy. Sovereignty is going to be the criterion that will then allow us to determine if democracy takes root in Iraq and if it does, you will have impact elsewhere in the region." In Syria, the only remaining Arab country under Baath Party rule, a halting process of reform has been under way for several years. However, the Bush administration's vilification of that regime and demands that it change has seen some Syrians rally around the flag. "Pressure for democracy is very much related to the feeling that there is no threat to the regime, because people still believe that the threats to a regime mean threats to the state and society as well," says Samir al-Taqi, a Syrian political analyst. "As long as the notion of regime change remains on the table, people are not giving democratic change the priority. Even though there is still enthusiasm for democracy." http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0203/p01s03-wome.html (A Boston-based paper I believe?)

Submitted on Sat, 2005-02-05 17:16
reply | email this commentquote

fdbjr

Posts: 289
 Joined: 2004-02-27
Re: The Iraqi Elections
Better read GTJ's post carefully, CM - particularly the sneering comment about 'jumping in the river'. And sorry, quoting American newspapers is not necessarily credible. The most rabid anti-Americans are certain American intellectuals. Paul Krugman has needed a rabies test for at least three years. (By the way, he hasn't seen fit to comment on the election - he's venting on Social Security reform. Typical. When facts get insisgtent. . . change the subject.)

Submitted on Sat, 2005-02-05 17:37
reply | email this commentquote

Matt Murrell

Posts: 1547
 Joined: 2004-02-22
Re: The Iraqi Elections
fdbjr, The newspaper article was aimed at the general thread, as well as just your comment. For once when claiming a source is 'biased' or not 'credible', I would love for someone to back it up with actual evidence. Otherwise it simply comes across as "I don't believe it. Therefore it's inadmissible." As for GTJ's comment about "jumping in the river". It has an element of truth in it. It does not, as you seem to think, imply that the Iraqis are stupid, but that people in general are. But I leave a full defense to the author of the comment. Could you define exactly what is meant by "anti-Americanism"? And provide some examples? Either here or on the number of threads that now deal with topic. It would be much appreciated and further the general discussion considerably. For me the logic seems to go: "What I believe in is therefore what America stands for. If someone criticises my beliefs, they must be anti-American." This is a rather simplistic take on it, I fully admit. But so far no-one has offered anything to contrary.

Submitted on Sat, 2005-02-05 18:54
reply | email this commentquote

Hobbes

Posts: 245
 Joined: 2004-08-22
The Iraqi Elections--Some Arab Views
"They are on terra incognita, and will continue to be there after the election is over." Ron-- I think you're too hasty in drawing your conclusions. The curtain is just going up. Compare, for instance, the following: From the NYT, on coverage of the elections in the Arabic press: "For many Arabs, the strong turnout on election day proved a unique opening, one that made the debate on television screens more nuanced. On Al Jazeera, especially, many Iraqis lauded the process even as analysts from other Arab countries and Iraqis tied to the former government of Saddam Hussein denounced the elections for having occurred under occupation, and for having been centered on sectarian issues. "Things used to be a negotiation between political parties where you scratch my back and I scratch your back," noted one commentator, Abas al-Bayati, on Al Jazeera. "Now, this new government will approach all the parties as having the backing of the people. It will have legitimacy." And that legitimacy should allow the government to face down the insurgents, he added. With the relative lack of violence, many nerves appeared calmed. Iraqis, especially, may have been emboldened by the coverage. "What was important is that the satellite channels were taking us throughout the region, and also showed everyone how Iraqis outside Iraq were adamant and focused on voting," said Imad Hmoud, editor in chief of the newspaper Al Ghad in Jordan. "That was very important for people, especially Iraqis, to see." "In the end the coverage was a success - not perfect, but a success under the conditions," he added." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/31/international/middleeast/31press.html? Message was edited by: oD Forum Moderator [- long url replaced with shorter version]

Submitted on Mon, 2005-01-31 03:41
reply | email this commentquote

owly

Posts: 801
 Joined: 2004-07-31
Re: The Iraqi Elections
ronr327, If these elections for the Assembly that will elect the President and draw up the new constitution were so meaningless then why did so many people stand for hours to vote ? As one man said 'I have waited 50 years for this day'. What the election showed was how keen the people of Iraq were to have a say in their government and their future. You had your say in November of last year so why are you so arrogant in denying that right, a right you so freely enjoy, to others ?

Submitted on Mon, 2005-01-31 10:15
reply | email this commentquote

ronr327

Posts: 636
 Joined: 2003-02-15
Re: The Iraqi Elections
Owly, Why do you trouble yourself to take exception to points not made? I did not say there should be no elections, nor that the elections were "so meaningless", but rather lamented the meaning I believe the elections will assume will not move the situation forward. The meaning they are overwhelmingly likely to come to will be to intensify already existing partisan division. They will serve to affirm Iraq’s existing societal fault lines, and will do so because the political reality has not matured to a point where there is much chance they can do anything else. Some comments voters are reported to have made in the election’s aftermath explicitly refute my understanding. They said that the Sunni/Shia/Kurd divide is not nearly so deep or so intractable as outside observers contend. And they asserted that the people of Iraq consider themselves to be Iraqis before anything else. The former point flies in the face of the widely reported eruption of Shia violence against Sunnis in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, and reported simmering desires for Shia revenge against recent intentionally provocative, and very bloody, Sunni attacks. It also must face the less well reported, but it would appear relatively well grounded, reality that the vast sea of Arab Sunnis surrounding Shia Iraq regard Shia governance as something like the way white Southerners regarded the black legislatures of America’s post Civil War South during the Reconstruction Era. Just this past morning, Tom Friedman offered a similar observation on the Imus in the Morning radio show that it’s like a black man had just been elected Governor in Mississippi in 1920’s. [Or rather, had been installed as Governor – mind you with a genuine electoral majority – assisted by significant “outside” northern contrivance.] Such societal attitudes about "fitness to govern", as patently groundless and repugnant as we may understand them to be, can, in the moment, embody the very essence of intractability. In short the evidence for the relatively “inconsequential” import of the Sunni/Shia/Kurd divide must be seen as, at least, equivocal. Things could all to easily go another way. With regard to the second point, yes the Iraqis may say they see themselves as Iraqi first, but we aren’t talking about some ancient civilizational Iraq as may exist in their collective imaginations, but this particular incarnation of that hagiographic Iraq that remains, to this point, far too undefined. The practical result is that the realities of well established associations, tribal, historical (Sunni/Shia/Kurd), and religious (Muslim/Infidel) will likely dominate the consciousness out of which the Iraqi’s will, in fact, act in the coming months. Not encouraging! Message was edited by: ronr327

Submitted on Tue, 2005-02-01 06:26
reply | email this commentquote

John Rhys-Burgess

Posts: 127
 Joined: 2002-12-10
The Possible Impact of the Iraqi Elections on Democracy in the U
As at 2 pm GMT this morning, I heard that there had up to that point been an astonishing 60% turnout to vote. After reading about the proportional voting system under which each party will be allocated seats in direct proportion to the votes that they win, (rather than the antiquated first-past-the-post, territorial basis that we have in Britain) I actually felt that the people of Iraq might agree to peacefully coexist and start the job of reconstructing their country. Who knows, but the unintended effect of such a system might be the catalyist for electoral reform in the United Kingdom, which is long overdue. If Mr. Blair thinks that proportional representation is the appropriate model for Iraq, why does he not think it suitable for Britain? http://JohnRhysBurgess.tripod.com .

Submitted on Mon, 2005-01-31 20:07
reply | email this commentquote

Hobbes

Posts: 245
 Joined: 2004-08-22
Re: The Possible Impact of the Iraqi Elections on Democracy in t
John-- I'm curious whether you consider the events of last Sunday to be a humiliating defeat for US policy in Iraq, which (on Dec 14) you considered to be "imperative." We await the results, of course, but do you still think Iraqis are opting for an Iranian-style theocracy?

Submitted on Tue, 2005-02-01 03:03
reply | email this commentquote

John Rhys-Burgess

Posts: 127
 Joined: 2002-12-10
No, Hobbes, I thave to admit that the result so far, is very
It is encouraging because whatever now happens, the government of Iraq will have an undeniably democratic legitimacy. Since this was a stated objective of U.S. policy, albeit one at which we are entitled to look askance, given the violence and destruction that the American led occupation has visited upon the country, it would even possibly be regarded as something of a victory for Bush. My hope frankly, is that the U.S. will eagerly embrace the newly elected government which will then turn around and throw them out. I am confident that this will happen, because as the head of British defence intelligence pointed out as long ago as July of last year, the credibility of the new government of Iraq depends on getting rid of all foreign troops, especially those of the U.S., as soon as possible. My own advice to the new government, would be to seek a clear and unequivocal ruling from the International Court of Justice, that the invasion was unlawful, and then to demand reparations from the U.S. and its allies, to the full extent of the damage and destruction of property and infrastructure inflicted in Iraq during the course of the unlawful invasion. It will be recalled that Libya was obliged to pay $10 million in damages to the families of each of the victims of the Lockerbie bombing. Justice demands that the U.S. and its self-styled "coalition" should be made to do the same since their conduct has been equally barbarous and unacceptable. Whatever Iraq is able to obtain by way of compensation, from the U.S. and Britain and their allies, as to which one cannot be very optimistic, it would also be highly desirable if not one cent of it, be spent with U.S. or British firms. It is also to be hoped that the principal trading partners of Iraq in the future, will be France and Germany. I don't any longer believe that Iraq will slide into further anarchy and violence, and as soon as the "coalition" forces leaves, the security situation is bound to improve. The Sunnai extremists will probably continue to be problematical but the electoral results so far, give every indication that the majority of Iraqis have welcomed the opportunity to elect a government of their own choosing. Sistani seems to be an exceptionaly mature, stable, moderate and sensible leader. I sill believe that Iraqi society will become more theocratic though not to the same extent as I had previously believed and that it will also look to Iran and Syria, and certainly not, towards the U.S. or Britain for economic and military cooperation. It is still important, where this can be achieved without detriment to the people of Iraq, for it not to be possible for the United States to claim any credit for this seemingly favourable outcome, or to otherwise ensure that it deprives no economic or military benefits in any future relations between the two countries. http://JohnRhysBurgess.tripod.com Message was edited by: John Rhys-Burgess

Submitted on Tue, 2005-02-01 09:13
reply | email this commentquote

GTJ

Posts: 307
 Joined: 2003-02-16
Re: No, Hobbes, I thave to admit that the result so far, is v
I must be somewhat naive, but I really can't see that an 'election' to creat a National Assembly which then in turn will meet to draw up a new Constitution, where the names and presumably the policies of the candidates were kept secret, is much of a step forward. Am I wrong, and this new National Assembly will actually govern the country ? Or will the power stay with the people appointed by George, at least until the constitution is drawn up, and then elections are held to elect people to the posts created by the new constitution ? Also, did not Sistani tell his people whom they should vote for, and will they not be Shia theocrats, who share with the Iranians the hatred of the Americans ? Did the Sunni particiapte in the election, and if not, won;t they be somewhat marginalised when it comes to drawing up a new constitution ? In fact, because any constitution must of necessity be weighted towards the majority, will not the Sunni even if they do eventually participate become another version of the Catholics of Northern Ireland (particularly given what one might assume is a fair bit of stored up hatred on the part of the Shia ) ? With that in store for them, are the Sunni likely to be more or less enamoured of the 'electoral' process as it proceeds ? Further, even if they do get to the point where they have a constitution, and a properly elected government, will there not be more rather than less insurgency a la the I R A in Ireland ( and many other minority groups around the world )? Can George really afford a one man one vote election which must result in a pro Iranian theocracy, given the long history of anti Americanism in Iran slash amongst the Shia, and given the anti Shia feelings amongst the more moderate Sunni populations in the surrounding states ? Or to put it another way, when there is an election which actually means something will we see a repeat of the Afghanistan joke or the Nicaraguan joke, or the Haitian joke, when the end result was that an American puppet got the job ? On another note, I saw a thing on the television the other night about some Marine general back in the early 1900's who apparently spent his career getting rid of unco-operative governments in central and south america on behalf of American business interests. He finally got sick of it and retired, and then he was approached by a group of American business people who wanted him to lead an insurgency against Roosevelt, who at that time was putting programmes in place for the benefit of the American working man as part of his recovery programme from the Depression. He refused, and took the story to the authorities, but apprently these people were serious about getting rid of the US Government. They weren't Backwoods USA lunatics either but prominent business people. I venture to suggest that subsequent Presidents took heed, and decided that doing things for the working man in America was the road to oblivion.

Submitted on Tue, 2005-02-01 11:45
reply | email this commentquote

fdbjr

Posts: 289
 Joined: 2004-02-27
Re: No, Hobbes, I thave to admit that the result so far, is v
> I must be somewhat naive, but I really can't see that > an 'election' to creat a National Assembly which then > in turn will meet to draw up a new Constitution, > where the names and presumably the policies of the > candidates were kept secret, is much of a step > forward. Am I wrong, and this new National Assembly > will actually govern the country ? Or will the power > stay with the people appointed by George, at least > until the constitution is drawn up, and then > elections are held to elect people to the posts > created by the new constitution ? Let the spinning begin.

Submitted on Tue, 2005-02-01 14:10
reply | email this commentquote

Hobbes

Posts: 245
 Joined: 2004-08-22
Let the spinning begin--the politicking has!
For those enamored of such matters, a fascinating glimpse of post-electoral maneuvering in Iraq from today's NYT. Note especially the explanation of the rules governing the selection of the new government, clearly (???) designed to favor centrist and consensualist politics: "Less than a day after millions of Iraqis flocked to the polls, the leaders of the major political parties said they were reaching out to potential allies in what is almost certain to be a coalition government. Between rivals, candidates signaled that the battle lines had been drawn. The most likely contest, political leaders here say, will pit the largest coalition of Shiite parties, the United Iraqi Alliance, against a group led by the interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi. The struggle, in addition to setting the composition of the next government, will raise fundamental questions about the nature of the new political order. Principal among them, these political leaders say, will be the role of Islam in governing the country and the relative influence of the United States and Iran. ... Under the charter, the national assembly must first pick a president and two deputies by a two-thirds majority. The president and deputies then pick a party or coalition, along with its choice of a prime minister, to form a government. In practical terms, that means the group that ultimately takes power needs the same backing as the president the deputies: two-thirds of the assembly. Shiite leaders believe they have a formula for securing the necessary two-thirds majority: through a deal with Kurdish leaders. So if Dr. Allawi's slate of candidates, called the Iraqi List, or a coalition that he patches together wins just one-third of the assembly seats, he would be in a position to block the ascension of the Shiite coalition to power. Then, political leaders here say, Dr. Allawi could be in a position to offer himself to the coalition as a candidate for prime minister, or he could try to pick off members of the Shiite coalition and cobble together a coalition for himself. ... "Everything will depend on how Allawi does relative to the Shiite coalition," said an aide to an Iraqi political party leader, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Allawi's chance will come if the Shiite coalition breaks up." To prevent that from happening, the leaders of the United Iraqi Alliance are working feverishly to shore up their group. It is an ungainly alliance: secular technocrats, like Adil Abdul Mahdi, the current finance minister, and Ahmad Chalabi, the exile leader, as well as acolytes of Moktada al-Sadr, the rebel cleric who led several armed uprisings against American forces. In addition, Dawa and Sciri, the two main Shiite parties in the coalition, are longtime rivals. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60811FA395F0C728CDDAB0894DD404482 Message was edited by: oD Forum Moderator [- long url replaced with shorter version]

Submitted on Tue, 2005-02-01 21:31
reply | email this commentquote

Matt Murrell

Posts: 1547
 Joined: 2004-02-22
Re: Let the spinning begin--the politicking has!
The new government (voted for in December?) will only have legitimacy if it is seen to be acting in accordance with the wishes of the general population. One of it's first actions must be to ask the Coalition to leave. A Zogby International poll found that: Majorities of both Sunni Arabs (82%) and Shiites (69%) also favor U.S. forces withdrawing either immediately or after an elected government is in place. The poll also found that of Iraq’s ethnic and religious groups, only the Kurds believe the U.S. will “help” Iraq over the next five years, while half (49%) of Shiites and a majority (64%) of Sunni Arabs believe the U.S. will “hurt” Iraq. http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=957 It will interesting to see how the Coalition reacts if this new government is less then friendly. Interviewed on Democracy Now, Robert Fisk (Middle East correspondent for the Independent) had this to say: "Now it is all very well for the American media that they came to vote for democracy. They probably did. But they also came because they think and believe and are convinced of the fact that by voting that they'll have a free country without an occupation force. If they are denied this, if they feel they are betrayed that their vote is worth nothing, of course a different question arises. What will they think of democracy and will they join the insurgency? The Kurds, of course, voted for their own autonomy and they are the most pro-American of all Iraqis and in a sense, you see, although they voted in the Iraqi election, they were in a sense trying to continue to vote themselves out of Iraq. The more autonomy they had, and the flags you saw in the streets were Kurdistan not Iraqi, the nearer they are to the independents which Kurdish people have been demanding for so many decades. Indeed at least 200 years." http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/31/1516244

Submitted on Tue, 2005-02-01 22:16
reply | email this commentquote

erinleonard2

Posts: 385
 Joined: 2003-02-01
Re: Let the spinning begin--the politicking has!
This was included in "Harper's Weekly" http://www.harpers.org/MostRecentWR.html INBOX From September 3, 1967: U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times 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. ....A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February. The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

Submitted on Tue, 2005-02-01 22:28
reply | email this commentquote

GTJ

Posts: 307
 Joined: 2003-02-16
Re: Let the spinning begin--the politicking has!
"From September 3, 1967: U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times 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." What a wonderful little piece of deja vu. Congratulations on the research, and on the fact that it was posted without any comment. It really does speak for itself.

Submitted on Sat, 2005-02-05 13:33
reply | email this commentquote

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options