With Fallujah being pounded to bits, jihadi and insurgent attacks everywhere and a state of emergency, this may seem like a bad time to discuss the Iraqi elections, but there’s no reason to suppose that there’s going to be a better one.
In the Washington Post, Marina Ottaway develops concerns I’ve expressed previously about the possibility that the Iraqi election will degenerate into a Yes-No vote on a unified slate of candidates with a predetermined sharing of the spoils (thanks to Jack Strocchi for the link). Apparently the US Embassy/shadow government is backing this idea. It seems unbelievable that anyone on the US side could see this as a good idea (of course, it makes great sense for Allawi who would be wiped out in a competitive election), but this kind of thing has been the pattern at every previous stage of the occupation
John Quiggin 
The Iraq elections are, of course, a Soviet-Stlye election,…just as the USA is occupying Iraq as the USSR occupied the Soviet Bloc countries.
The only surprising thing is that the
non-thinking American people, who are cattle, accept this a moral triumph of “Democracy”.
Americans deserve “freedom” no more than their bovine counterparts do.
Yep, and when the slate is ‘elected’ we’ll all be loudly told what a triumph this is for democracy and the American way; vide Afghanistan.
Mind you, the yanks being yanks they need to declare victory to themselves before they can give up and go home (they’re brought up to love winners and hate losers – winning is a sign God is on your side and hence all your actions were justified). If the plan is to use the election as cause for such a declaration then maybe its the least bad option for everyone at this stage.
If Iraq is to be a (single) democracy it must be a federation. That seems obvious.
For a federation to work the states (provinces, cantons, Länder – apparently there are 18 credible regions in Iraq) must have recourse against the federal government and federal law. This requires an independent constitutional court.
Since there is no prospect of an independent court in Iraq, Iraq is doomed.
But wait: one federation does keep powerful regions without such a court: Switzerland. Here the people and the cantons can reject a federal law through petition and referendum.
Iraq is doomed.
How about a few facts to debate for starters rather than idle speculation :
http://iraq.usembassy.gov/iraq/041022_electsupport.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=197311
Lets not forget that a democracy is much much more than placing an X on a ballot paper. The development of civil liberties, political rights and democratic institutions is paramount. The whole notion that come a certain date, a country becomes a democracy is silly and is of propaganda value only. The development of a democracy in Iraq will take years, if not decades.
Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that those links really do provide accurate information. What has that to do with this topic? Money spent, and procedures intended to be followed, aren’t the relevant things. What counts is whether Iraq could end up with an honest democratic outcome or a Soviet style appearance of one via a slate. Of course, we could enlarge the topic, but we shouldn’t take our attention away and answer a different question instead.
The current pseudo-democratc processes are being rammed through in Iraq for the political convenience of the REP. party, not the US nation. The REP. party is to the CCCP as CENTCOM is to the WARSAW pact.
I am ashamed to say that as early as 2002, in a bout of neo-Jacobin hysteria, I predicted that the US would turn IRAQ into a peoples democratic military client of the US.
This turned out to be a good positive prediction, but bad political advice. Perhaps I was subconsciously projecting the preferences of AUS citizens onto IRAQ. I assumed the Iraqi’s would welcome US forces as liberators and be happy to slot into a US military alliance system ala QUATAR.
In any case, in 2002 the US believed that it could mould IRAQ into an alliance partner, ala NATO. In 2004 it feels that it has little strategic option but to force IRAQ into a US alliance subordinate, ala the WARSAW pact.
The US will try to supress IRAQ nationalism & ISLAMIC sectarianism. But IRAQ nationalism is simply a scaled up version of fractious IRAQ provicialism and tribalism. It follows that a unified secular democratic IRAQ is a pipe dream. Mill was very skeptical that “multicultural” polities could co-exist with democratic process:
IRAQ cannot succeed as a multi-ethnic democracy because the ethnic differences are too great. It can either:
splinter into ethno-uniform democratic sub-states; or
consolidate in an ethno-diverse dictatorial state.
It is evident that the US has taken the second option because a splintered IRAQ would be at the mercy of adverse regional powers, SAUDI, SYRIA, IRAN, TURK, would all hop in and try to grab their ethno-sectarian slice of the carcass. This would lead to protracted civil war at least, and probably wind up giving the balance of ME power to IRAN.
I predict that the US will continue to enforce a pseudo-democratic cliency onto IRAQ. The Bush admin will not change course whilst it has such a huge political investment in this nation. The REP party, quite frankly, wants out of IRAQ, which is a money pit and a vote-turner.
The REPs are looking for an exit strategy that will leave them without too much egg on their face. The pseudo-democratic legitimacy of a gamed electoral process will do nicely for the time being.
The US will probably be able to prevail in the short-run because of its immense financial and martial resources. But the US is kidding itself if it thinks this set up will stick. In the long-run an IRAQ pseudo-democracy will fail.
Either an Iraqi strong man (witch doctor/war lord) will enforce martial law indefinitely (which is already happening). Or a civil war will break out, with ethnic cleansing and regional military intervention and extension. The US will then resort to traditional gun-ship diplomacy to keep matters in hand.
I guess it’s sometimes difficult in business to deal with the mission statement rewrite committee, when you’re up to your tits in phone calls. Personally I don’t really focus on where I’m at compared with a Billiton, but rather how I’m doing compared with the bloke down the road.
How would you rate the new management team in Afghanistan after the hostile takeover? I reckon they’re turning things around fairly well, compared with the last lot. Iraq was a bit of a basket case too with rotten top management for years. The liquidators have a tough job there saving the enterprise, particularly from being dragged down by subsidiaries like Fallujah. Still with the crooked management gone, if they manage to eradicate some of the UNion’s complicity in apalling work practices over the years, there’s good prospects for a competent middle management buyout to save the joint. Look forward to its relisting on the stock exchange when the present difficulties are behind it.
This thread makes me wonder what would be posted if we confined comments to constructive remarks.Precious little I’d say. I reckon they need all the contructive help they can get in the region, whatever the moral standing of recent history. Still at least cynicism is more constructive than outright support of terrorism.
The mechanics of the proposed voting system are quite democratic. The Hare system of proportional representation will be used and the whole of Iraq is a single electorate. Thus, there is no concession for ethnic minorities. However, continued insurgency may result in under participation in affected areas. The Kurds will accept the process. The US might quite like as few Shiites to vote as can be managed. It is likely that the US would welcome a Mehdi Army boycott of the election. On the other hand, there must be an acceptable turnout of Sunnis, else the ethno-religious imbalance becomes too transparent.
A little discussed aspect of the electoral process for the Iraqi National Assembly is that at least 25% of nominees on the electoral lists must be female. This policy of affirmative action strikes at the heart of Islamic masculinist attitudes and may therefore deter Islamist groups from competing.
My point is that this process has been engineered quite carefully to achieve a credible and acceptable political outcome.
A Shiite vote united behind their religious authorities is the nightmare scenario for the US. Only the Sunnis can give this process of blunting the power of the Shiites the appearance of credibility. The question is: will the destruction of Shiite Fallujah achieve what the collapse of the Twin Towers didn’t: the compliance of the locals?
Sorry, I meant SUNNI Fallujah above…
The Republican Right has totally lost its moral bearings. Apparently Garner’s program of promoting democratisation and preventing privatisation contradicted the Heritage/Norquist plan for Iraq Shock-Therapy. Greg Palast interviewed Norquist, who was quite open about his designs:
An Iraqi guerialla insurgency intervened so the much of the privatisation reform had to be shelved. But the damage had been done.
It seems Bremer suspended elections in Najaf because of property, not security, fears. The front story was that Sadr was making a bid at a fundamentalist takeover. The backsstory is that Sadr wanted to prevernt a capitalist takeover. The CPA was afraid that Sadr, a socialist, would put the kibosh on Iraqi privatisation. So they crushed his rebels.
I am still reeling from this latest outrage. Every revelation about the Bush plan in Iraq simply confirms the worst left-wing steretypes about that factions patronage of aggressive militarists, exploitative capitalists and demented religionists. I am sure that only worse is to come.
The eco-cons have given up Iraq for a bad job, a vote-loser and money-pit, and are now seeking a politically painless exit strategy. Norquist suggested that the US simply retires to oil security work and let the Iraqis sort out the politics:
So these elections are only a charade designed to put a legitimating gloss on an exit strategy.
hmm, a yes/no election on the single slate put foward… Saddam won the last one of those held in Iraq with over 99% of the vote. 😀
Oh joy, democracy. Democracy is just a ballot, its not a popular process, were it a popular process the people might demand some role in actually running the country. A totally unacceptable outcome, democracy must marginalize the masses, and provide a legitimate pretext for crushing oppisition to proported democractic state.
The “worst left-wing steretypes” that Jack refers to, aren’t stereotypes, but a quite accurate description.
To describe Iraq as a failure for the US, requires one to believe that democracy was ever a goal. It certainly didn’t feature prominently in the justifications for war and was never much more than sugar-coating on a bitter pill.
Much more important was a demonstration of – ‘what we say goes’. Democracy? Sure, but just as long as it doesn’t get in the way.
The US will be, I think, fairly happy if they can get anything vaguely resembling a free election which will install Allawi and others who are in hock to the US. If there are no elections after that, I don’t think there will be many tears shed amongst the neo-cons, as long as the new Iraqi economy can be shepherded towards a free-market approach, especially in the oil-sector.
You guys just don’t get it.
Iraq is no more relevant than the invasion of Italy was in WWII.
We still have Iran, Syria. Saudi Arabia and all the rest of the despots in the Greater Middle East to sort out.
Any focus other than that, is failing to see the wood for the trees.
If Iraq isn’t “relevant”, than I guess Iran isn’t either, nor Saudi Arabia etc.
As for “despots”, I think that the US would be perfectly happy with a despot in the shape of Allawi.
It’s not a question of despots themselves, but whether or not they serve the right interests.
You honestly had me there for a moment Tipper, thinking it was a bit of wicked jokesterism from you. Sadly, not true!
If Americans could see what was before their eyes they wouldn’t be screwing up so badly in Iraq, and they wouldn’t have re-elected Bush thinking they had some idea what they were doing. Whereas the remarkable reality seems to be – and this is not politically correct, but enough’s enough – that those who won with their vote for Bush are in reality more ignorant, in fact far more ignorant, than the losers who voted for Kerry. So without the moron vote from people who indeed can’t see the woods for the trees, Bush wouldn’t have been electable. Who’d have thought it?!
Frankis, the Coalition is not screwing up in Iraq.
The terrorists are a combination of Baathists, Islamic Extremists and criminals. All of them are violently opposed to the imposition of democracy in Iraq because they know that they would have no hope of gaining the power and legitimacy that they hope for. They are encouraged by the fact that the US withdrew from Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia because public opinion decided American lives were no longer worth trying to bring about legitimate governments and peace in those places.
Just as Kerry was unable to layout his plan for future success in Iraq, neither have you except to criticize current efforts. I doubt that you think Saddam should have remained in power – only absolute pacifists and Baathists think that. To withdraw now would be to condemn the majority of Iraqis to a regime no less terrifying than Saddams. Therefore the Coalition must continue its’ efforts to bring about democracy and peace. Negotiations have failed. Direct action is the only morally justifiable course.
This will take a long time and a lot of money and lives. The US voters have said that it is worth it. I hope that they maintain that view, because I will (I believe the War in Vietnam was a just war, too and abandoning the Vietnamese like we did was moral cowardice and millions have paid with their lives for that.)
If I had an answer for Iraq I’d post it Razor. It doesn’t help to note that the answer two years back was to a) have not elected Bush/Cheney and b) to take good advice from the right people before rushing in where angels weren’t treading.
On a general note, are you quite sure that strangers like George Bush in Iraq are likely to do better sorting out other nations’ domestic problems than are the citizens themselves? Or is that not really the point? Are those US voters for Bush, apparently ignorant about all manner of things up to and including who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11, really wise to believe that their ignorance is going to prove a winning starting point from which to invade another country?
Good advice is hard to come by, and then some people have more of a problem listening to it than others. I don’t think George is a great listener, is he?
So sorry, but I admit that I’ve nothing by way of hints to offer to an administration as mendacious and brazenly inept as the re-elected Bush/Cheney team. Of course the reality is that, even if I had an insight to offer – they wouldn’t be listening would they? Afraid I’m beat.
You have to admire Razors’ faith. The US is “trying to bring about legitimate government[s] and peace” in Iraq.
It’s a little closer to the mark to say that “imposing democracy” is more like it, with the emphasis very much on the “imposing” part.
I share Frankis’ frustration, which was highlighted by Isam al-Khafaji, an Iraqi social scientist. He took part in the IRDC (briefly) and ws part of the ‘Future of Iraq’ workshops in 2002.
For him the problem was summed up by a statement by Paul Wolfowitz who, in contrast to the many lamenting Middle East instability, referred instead to the “dreadful stability”. While I’d take his comment with a grain of salt, al-Khafaji commented that,
“I was saddened and happy at the same time. Isn’t that what the left should have said? How is it that we turned into such a reactionary force, fearing for the stability of Middle East regimes? Certainly the Middle East is a region ripe for change, although the left and the right differ about the mechanism of change and where change should lead”.
Frankis – in answer to your question – “are you quite sure that strangers like George Bush in Iraq are likely to do better sorting out other nations’ domestic problems than are the citizens themselves?”. The Coalition is helping the Iraqi people sort out their nation. They did not have the ability to over-throw Saddam because of the terror with which he reigned. Family members informed on family members. No dissent was tolerated. They are now being given the opportunity to sort it out.
MichaelH – you appear to give some sort of religious flavour to my position. Faith is the belief in something that cannot be proven. Their is plenty of proof of the Coalition’s intention help the Iraqi people. It is a fact.
Those who opposed the war and now offer no support or alternatives to the occupation offer the Iraqi people nothing. No hope. You would have been happy for Saddam to remain in power and for the population to continue to suffer under to UN Oil-for-fraud program. You also offer no hope to the rest of the Middle-East complicit in the on-going despotism and theocracies with the populations comdemned to lives of poverty, fatalism and nihilism.
So the elections aren’t going to be perfect. They aren’t perfect here in Australia or the rest of the world either. But it is a start. And for those who think the Coalition didn’t have a plan post-invasion I offer you this comparison – It took five years to convert Germany’s currency post WWII. It took less than 5 months to convert Iraq’s. There are still Allied troops in Germany and Japan almost 60 years later. What is the big rush for Iraq?
The people of Iraq are being offered hope by the coalition. Hope is the well-spring of human endeavor. How do you offer the Iraqi people and the rest of the Middle East hope? You don’t, do you.
QUESTION: If Sadr’s Shiite militias were beaten into poltical submission by the US military in Najaf, can the Suuni militias be likewise bludgeoned into submission by the latest show of force in Falluja?
Or have I got my facts wrong and are the Sadrites militias still a force in being, just laying low for a while?
Just curious.
The US idea that they beat Sadr into submission is one of the more bizarre features of a generally bizarre belief system. In April, Sadr had a militia that pretty much controlled Sadr city and was an active participant in the political process such as it was.
Bremer banned his newspaper and tried to arrest him, so there was a lot of fighting during which Sadr acquired a national profile and moved to Najaf. There was a ceasefire and the US claimed victory.
Then, apparently on the initiative of a Marine Colonel, there was another round of fighting which ended with Sadr acquiring an even higher profile and moving back to Sadr City. In subsequent negotiations the Americans agreed to pay large sums of money for weapons (given that they were paying above market price, there are obvious arbitrage opportunities) and for Sadr to return to the political system.
Thus, after two great and famous victories over Sadr he is back where he was, with much more support and US funding for his operations.
Razor,
Yes, I think it’s a ‘belief system’ as JQ proposes.
I’m dumbfounded on the claims of “plenty of proof”. Obviously the US doesn’t mind helping the Iraqis, no doubt there are some good intentions, it’s just not the priority. Not even close.
Jay Garner wasn’t too shy about this when he was interviewed by ‘The National Journal’ on how long and why US troops would remain in Iraq,
“I hope they’re there a long time” .
“One of the most important things we can do right now is start getting basing rights with [the Iraqi authorities]”, he said. “And I think we’ll have basing rights in the north and basing rights in the south … we’d want to keep at least a brigade”.
“Look back on the Philippines around the turn of the 20th century: they were a coaling station for the navy, and that allowed us to keep a great presence in the Pacific. That’s what Iraq is for the next few decades: our coaling station that gives us great presence in the Middle East”.
We’re meant to beleive (yes, believe) that US presence in the region is about defeating nepotism and theocracy.
Past behaviour should at least partly inform our view of present actions. So, how has US influence been applied in Saudi Arabia? What great strides towards democracy have occurred in Kuwait since 1991?
But Razor does raise the important issue of offering alternatives. The reactionary right may appear to have the only plan in town, or at least are the only ones in a position to execute them.
Progressive forces seem to have abandoned the Middle East. As Isam al-Khafaji said, there needs to be serious effort put into developing a “mechanism of change” and being clear on “where change should lead”.
But, if the proposed plans of action are insane (as the current ones are), that there seems to be nothing better on offer is not a good reason to support them.
At this stage, frustrating US plans is probably the most constructive course of action. The January elections were scheduled only because of Iraqi protests at US foot-dragging.
General frustration is summed up by what is claimed to be the latest saying on the street – You can only get concessions from the Americans if you shoot at them.
In which case, there’s likely to be a whole lot more shooting in Iraq.
Razor, mistaken paths have always been paved with good intentions. You’d have us believe that Bush/Cheney’s intentions are and have always been only the best for Iraq and the Middle East. But then you probably also believe that this US administration is not unusually incompetent and mendacious.
Imagine though the position of others who don’t share your faith in the goodness of their intentions or in the ability of these people to get right anything substantial (except for the duping and terrorising of US voters). To make it the harder for you to imagine that, note that I for one was a champion of the US’ leadership on Bosnia, for instance, and supportive of the post 9/11 campaign in Afghanistan. But Razor there’s not much hope going around at the moment as the world ponders the nightmare scenario of having the most powerful and dangerous nation in history lead by its fools, thieves and liars, voted into power by the uneducated, the uneducable, the fearfully paranoid and the violent. Where’s the hope among reasonable, conscious and witting life forms supposed to come from when the USA is no longer reality based?
In more genteel times, the London Times published letters from retired colonels claiming the first spring-sighting of blackbirds.
In the same spirit I’d like to claim my identification of Razor as the first supporter of the Iraq misadventure to concede that the Vietnam fiasco is not entirely irrelevant.
Frankis,
Well it was so good of you to say something positive about the Americans in the context of liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban who many so-called progressives seem to see as somewhat less a threat to world harmony than someone being politically incorrect and telling a sexist joke.
To refer though to the US as the most powerful and dangerous nation in history is the kind of nonsense that has brought the left and European elites into disrepute. Imagine for a moment what the world would have been like without the US over the last 50 years (Europe would have been overrun by the Soviets for a start assuming that Hitler had not been victorious in the US’s absence) or would be like in the future with no one to balance China and Islamic fascism etc. The mindless anti-Americanism of individuals such as yourself and of European nations such as France could well yet be the ruin of us all.
Frankis and MichaelH – I suppose you think the Falklands War should never have been fought because Margaret Thatcher and the conservatives were in power and the losses from the Sheffield, Sir Galahad, Atlantic Conveyor and the Battles of Goose Green and Mt Longdon were too high.
That is the premise of your comments.
Dear Katz – your assertion that no one who supports the liberation of Iraq admits to learning anything from the experience of Vietnam is unmitigated crap.
Get a grip Michael, calling something “dangerous” is not a moral judgment. Or are you scandalised by electricitiy as well? Thanks for the homily, mindless or not.
No, that wasn’t the premise of my comments Razor.
Dear Razor,
Thank you for sharing your defecatory metaphor.
Perhaps I did exaggerate a little about lessons learned from Vietnam.
Indeed, “embedding” journalists does arise from an unequal struggle with the truth first suffered in Vietnam.
And, in the eyes of at least one Marine Sgt. Major, Fallujah does look a lot like Hue.
I’m prepared to concede that supporters of the Iraq misadventure have learned every lesson to be taught by the Vietnam fiasco but the essential one.
So there can be no misunderstanding, the essential lesson unlearned is that American resolve to concoct the semblance of a credible exit strategy will overwhelm any genuinely democratic outcome for Iraq.
Dear Katz
So, the essential lesson was to have a credible exit stategy. What is wrong with the current one – establish a stable democracy with a stable security situation. If the terrorists want the Coalition to leave, all they have to do is stop the killing. Easy, very straight forward.
I would suggest that essential lessons from the Vietnam war were to win the information battle and to allow the enemy no sanctuary anywhere. Do not tie the military’s arm behind its’ back by limiting courses of action and allow them to take the fight up to the enemy where ever they are.
Razor,
Let’s distinguish between Iraqi nationalists and jihadists.
Iraqi nationalists increasingly want the Americans to leave. There may have been an opportunity, like that afforded during WWII to the Nazis in the Ukraine and in other non-Russian parts of the Soviet Union, to cultivate nationalist support. But the sheer ignorance, arrogance and insufferable contempt of the invading forces for the locals generated a powerful partisan movement. Sound familiar?
Jihadists, whether Iraqi or not, seem to be quite content to have the Americans stay as long as they can be killed and as long as their own martyrdom is a passport to paradise.
You’ve misconstrued my articulation of the essential lesson.
In situations like Vietnam and Iraq it is impossible for the United States to deliver on the exit strategy that you enunciated. I want you to understand that this is an admirable quality in Americans. Most of them are simply not prepared to allow their government to go on committing the kind of atrocities that the Nazi government meted out in the occupied Soviet Union. America is a democracy. These people vote. I am confident that the CultureWar in America will turn to the disadvatage of the Bushites long before your rosy scenario is achieved.
Katz,
You have no proof that those attacking the Iraqi people and the Coalition are Nationalists. The proof is definitley in the public domain that they are Radical Islamists – Jihadists.
Your comparison of the nazi occupation of Russia and the Coaition operations in Iraq is morally bankrupt. The worst the US have done is the Abu Ghraib fiasco. There is nothing to compare to the atrocities commited by the Nazis in the Ukraine etc. There is no comparison apart from both being occupying forces.
In particular you discount the significant efforts being made by the Coalition in rebuilding the infrastructure. You also ignore the fact that the majority of Iraq is quite peaceful with fledgling democratic and social institutions appearing. I recommend you go and read the good news stories at Chrenkoff.
Also, you appear to be of the belief that once terrorists start a campaign, it can never be defeated. There are many examples of succesful anti-terrorist campaigns, such as Malaya and Kenya, to name a couple.
I do hope you believe what you say about the American voters and put your money where your mouth is because I am enjoying taking money off people like you over the last few US and Australian elections. (My wife does to because she gets the winnings!)
Razor,
I too have won money backing recent winners. A post on this very website will confirm this fact. I have no difficulty distinguishing what I want from what I’ll get. You should try it some time.
Truth entails its own morality that no amount of special pleading can bankrupt.
I think your own words best encapsulate the methods most favoured by the US occupation forces. They have a ring of truth:
“I would suggest that essential lessons from the Vietnam war were to win the information battle and to allow the enemy no sanctuary anywhere. Do not tie the military’s arm behind its’ back by limiting courses of action and allow them to take the fight up to the enemy where ever they are.”
Now read Hitler’s instructions to the Wehrmacht
“Instructions to German soldiers serving in the Soviet Union, 16 September, 1941.
The Führer has given orders that we take action everywhere with the most drastic means in order to crush the movement in the shortest possible time… In this connection it should be remembered that a human life in unsettled countries frequently counts for nothing, and a deterrent effect can be attained only by the greatest severity. The death penalty for fifty to one hundred Communists should generally be regarded in these cases as suitable atonement for one German soldier’s life. The way in which the sentence is carried out should still further increase the deterrent effect.”
Hitler didn’t want to “tie the military’s arm behind its back by limiting courses of action” either.
Terrorists are easier to defeat than partisans, but it may be possible to defeat even the partisan movement in Iraq if the US is prepared to pay the price.
But that is a big if. My guess is that the people of the US are not prepared to pay that price. But we’re covering old ground here.
Katz, you should be in the media if you aren’t already.
Hitler’s orders are blatant instructions to commit war crimes. You are therefore inferring that the US is issuing orders to commit war crimes. That is a patently ridiculous position. There is no evidene of the US military being instructed to commit war crimes or of commiting a significant number of war crimes. Isn’t it evidence enough that they charge soldiers for piling prisoners up naked and making fun of them. There are constant examples of terrorists engaging Coalition troops from Mosques (in violation of the Geneva Convention) and the Coalition forces refraining from leveling the mosques. (I note that they are taking a harder line in Fallujah and destroying the minarets used as firing points while not destroying the mosques completely – that is complying with the Law of War even if the terrorists don’t.)
The Democrats said that the election was a referendum on the War in Iraq The ALP didn’t push the line because their polling didn’t support that line. Well, the US and Australian people have shown their majority support for the war. The majority appear to have learnt the essential lesson the public needed to take from Vietnam – this war must not be withdrawn from because the price for the West and the Iraqi people would be much more than the cost of winning.
A small poll by Zogby International in August last year found that 65% of Iraqis interviewed wanted the US forces out within a year. That was 15 months ago.
While some may prefer to stress the role of foreign fighters and ‘jihadists’ in the insurgency, this poll result might point to large pool of potential participants and sympathisers which might be significant.
The same poll found that half of the respondents thought that the US presence would be harmful rather than helpful to Iraq.
Discussions on the democratic wishes of the invading nations is rather interesting. Not surprisingly, after the fact, public opinion generally falls in behind the war effort, at least until it goes too badly wrong.
That Razors’ defence of the war is based on recent election results is fascinating. What then does he conclude from the general opposition prior to its’ commencement?
There’s a very interesting, and consistent, theme that runs through this. The advertising campaign to sell the war was full of half-truths, deceptions and a few outright lies to convince a skeptical public. The post-war situation is one where the US has made it clear that there are certain unacceptable outcomes. It has delayed elections for as long as possible to allow time for it’s preferred candidates to build a constituency and patronage with reconstruction funds.
The consistent theme is a high level of distrust of democracy.
Democracy is all well and good as long as it delivers the correct outcome. Hence, the pre-war PR wasn’t about putting the facts before the public to allow informed decision making, but putting forward certain interpretations and limited facts that would hopefully persuade the various publics to agree to a plan of action that had already been determined.
Despite Razors’ belief in the rhetoric of good intentions in Iraq, this tends to supports PQ’s proposition of “Soviet-style elections”.
I believe that Katz’s last contribution to this thread automaticly terminates the debate in favour or Razor, throught the invocation of Godwins Law.
Should Nazis have been allowed to contest German elections immediately following WWII?
Should the Nazi party have been allowed to exist following WWII?
If you answer NO to these questions then you understand why the restrictions are placed on who can nominate for the elections and what type of party can nominate.
I do hope that they use Preferential voting like Australia and not a proportional representation system.
The anti-US/cultural relativist side of the debate (oh yes you are) might find it useful to read Chris Hitchens latest entitled Bush’s Secularist Triumph – The left apologizes for religious fanatics. The president fights them. It can be found at
http://slate.msn.com/id/2109377
It is not just relevant in the context of Iraq but also to the broader issue of the dangers of Islamic extremism brought home by the recent horrific murder of a Dutch journalist who was somewhat braver than all the mindless apologists for Islamic extremism one finds in academia and among many of those who regard themselves as progressives. As Hitchens points out ‘only one faction in American politics has found itself able to make excuses for the kind of religious fanaticism that immediately menaces us in the here and now. And that faction, I am sorry and furious to say, is the left. From the first day of the immolation of the World Trade Center, right down to the present moment, a gallery of pseudointellectuals has been willing to represent the worst face of Islam as the voice of the oppressed. How can these people bear to reread their own propaganda? Suicide murderers in Palestine—disowned and denounced by the new leader of the PLO—described as the victims of “despair.” The forces of al-Qaida and the Taliban represented as misguided spokespeople for antiglobalization. The blood-maddened thugs in Iraq, who would rather bring down the roof on a suffering people than allow them to vote, pictured prettily as “insurgents” or even, by Michael Moore, as the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers. If this is liberal secularism, I’ll take a modest, God-fearing, deer-hunting Baptist from Kentucky every time, as long as he didn’t want to impose his principles on me (which our Constitution forbids him to do).’
Being an optimist, I assumed that with the decline of communism and the falling out of favour of Marxism in universities that left wing analysis would significantly improve how wrong I was. Many so called progressives seem to think that the likes of John Howard and George Bush or Israel for that matter are a bigger threat to world peace than Islamic fanatics or China. They seem to get outraged by someone in an office telling a sexist joke than Muslims forcing their daughters to go overseas to get married or throwing acid in the face of women who refuses to wear the veil. I have no doubt that many contributors to this blog have read numerous books by the likes of Moore, Klein, Chomsky and Pilger but how many have read the Trouble with Islam by Irshad Manji – a Muslim lesbian critical of Islam- and if not why not given that you are supposed to be progressive. Is it because what she says you don’t want to here – it is not only Murdoch and Fox we have to worry about.
Michael’s view has a lot going for it – as long as you subscribe to the view that ‘they’ are all horrible, nasty and wicked and ‘we’ are misunderstood, acting with the best of intentions but occassionally led astray by our own lofty ideals.
Hitchens opinions are certainly worth looking at, but my reasonably high opinion of him took a battering last year when I saw him give a prety lame defence of the Iraq war on ABC TV’s LateLine last year.
But surely Michael having a joke when he mentions Bush and religious fanatics in the same sentence, but as opposing phenomenon. Hilarious.
Here is a reference to a declaration made as recently as late Oct. that the US government has chosen to apply the Geneva Conventions selectively in Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/politics/26detain.html?ex=1100322000&en=ed4eb60c4909f045&ei=5070
Selectivity was also the policy of the Nazis during WWII.
As for Godwin’s Law, I too would like to see it applied to debate as unselectively as possible. Nazism has been turned into very boring topic. But I’m sure any fair-minded reader would agree that Razor’s articulation of US military policy provides a striking parallel to the unmentionable.
BTW, I gather that a career in the media is not deemed to be A Good Thing.
Any fair-minded reader would agree that Katz’s failed attempt to smear the US by association with Nazis reveals the intellectual bankruptcy of his position.
Evil Pundit, any issues you may have about the misrepresentation of US policies are with Razor, because they are his words, not mine.
My issue us with your misrepresentation of US policies as being comparable with those of the Nazis. Razor has convincingly refuted your false comparisons.
Here’s what Razor said, it bears repeating:
“If the terrorists want the Coalition to leave, all they have to do is stop the killing. Easy, very straight forward”.
And Razor has an easy and straightforward solution to the Israel/Palestine problem as well, which only modesty has thus far prevented him from posting.
He further wrote “I would suggest that essential lessons from the Vietnam war were to win the information battle” – presumably this means that your lies must trump theirs – “and to allow the enemy no sanctuary anywhere. Do not tie the military’s arm behind its’ back by limiting courses of action and allow them to take the fight up to the enemy where ever they are.”
It’s probably a valid test of your moral character, whether or not you think that an enlightened viewpoint.
If you do think it’s cool that the good guys (you know, the ones on your side!) should “leave the enemy no sanctuary anywhere” and should not “limit the courses of action” of the military, then Jack’s mistaken in calling Katz on the Godwin’s violation. Surely Godwin’s Law is not invokable by the time someone has already ruled out “limits on courses of action” – that’s a debate stopper already. Do you characters think that it’s OK for the white team of lovable good guys to “not limit their courses of action” but that the Nazis were, as we all know, the epitome of evil despite doing no more? Perhaps Razor’s choice of words was not felicitous and he’d like to review them, but as they stand they’re damning. Some goose above was talking about moral or cultural relativism and, of course, this was a failing in his opponents, not him.
You characters would demean the standards of the US forces in Iraq were there any chance of your either physically fronting up to practice your preachings in hard reality along with the ground forces, or were the good guys on the ground in Iraq ever to think as you’d have them, in this uncivilized “discussion” you’re having with yourselves. I’m personally proud that the actual military and moral standards of the coalition forces in Iraq, and elsewhere, are orders of magnitude beyond what’s displayed in what passes for debate here among you armchair warlords. It’s not an excuse that you’re all just sooo upset by them lefty liberal fifth columnists.
Howard gave the game away a few months ago when he talked about a “form of democrcay for Iraq”.
What,like burma or zimbabwe?
Thank you Frankis. You’ve nailed the essential point.
Infelicitousness of phrase seems to be an occupational hazard for our fox blood-drinking interlocutors.
Muddy thinking drives muddled action.
Michael H says ‘but surely Michael having a joke when he mentions Bush and religious fanatics in the same sentence, but as opposing phenomenon. Hilarious.’ Well actually no. As about as militant an atheist as one gets Bush’ religious obsessions certainly worry me. However, it is not Christian fundamentalists at the present time who are hell bent on murdering unbelievers, forcing them to wear veils and throwing acid in women’s faces and murdering Dutch journalists etc. Based on the evidence so far Christian fundamentalists such as Bush have a world view which is loopy but far less loopy than many so-called progressives who out of political correctness, anti-Americanism and other reasons simply can’t bring themselves to condemn (with at least any sense of appropriate perspectives) members of so called minority cultures when they behave badly. Like the obsessions of many so-called progressives in the past with communism and Marxism such cultural and moral relativism (although underpinned by a loathing for western culture) simply plays into the hands of the right who look progressive in comparison (but only in comparison).
Frankis and Katz,
Not limiting the courses of action open to the military does not mean that they operate outside the Law of War, which doesn’t just include the Geneva Conventions. And in relation to your aspersions about me operating with US Forces, while I can’t prove it to you, I had 13 years experience in the defence force and worked with the US on a number of occaisions and it is my friends who are in the front line at the moment.