Iraqi elections

[Tricky]

It's looking very much like the Shiites are going to control the country (big surprise). The US-backed secular candidates are getting thrashed. I'm sure Iran is pleased with the results. Seems like a lot of lives and money just to create another Islamic theocracy.

(Sorry about misposting to two other "election" threads. I'm shocked that there isn't a thread for this subject already.)

 

[Ziggurat]

It's looking very much like the Shiites are going to control the country (big surprise). The US-backed secular candidates are getting thrashed. I'm sure Iran is pleased with the results. Seems like a lot of lives and money just to create another Islamic theocracy.

I'm not sure why so many people think that Iraqi Shiites want to recreate the Iranian theocracy in their own country. Mooky Sadr might want to, but he's a perenial loser. Sistani quite definitely does NOT want to duplicate the Iranian experience, and he's the most influential religious leader. They might tilt more religious and conservative than we would like, but that really wouldn't be a big problem. As long as the institutions remain democratic, things will work out (if Iranians had the choice, they wouldn't let the mullahs stay in power). And Iraqi Shia, even the more religious among them, have got good reason to keep it things democratic, because the Shia still get to lead but they get to keep the Kurds and even probably the Sunnis on board without having to fight a civil war. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not the candidates the US supposedly backed do well or not, what matters is that the system works, because if it does, the system will outlast every individual politician.

 

[rikzilla]

I'm not sure why so many people think that Iraqi Shiites want to recreate the Iranian theocracy in their own country. Mooky Sadr might want to, but he's a perenial loser. Sistani quite definitely does NOT want to duplicate the Iranian experience, and he's the most influential religious leader. They might tilt more religious and conservative than we would like, but that really wouldn't be a big problem. As long as the institutions remain democratic, things will work out (if Iranians had the choice, they wouldn't let the mullahs stay in power). And Iraqi Shia, even the more religious among them, have got good reason to keep it things democratic, because the Shia still get to lead but they get to keep the Kurds and even probably the Sunnis on board without having to fight a civil war. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not the candidates the US supposedly backed do well or not, what matters is that the system works, because if it does, the system will outlast every individual politician.

Well said!

But not only that; a viable, plural, shiite led representative democracy in Iraq will create pressure on the Mullahs in Iran. When the Iranian people see a Shia democracy next door they're going to be asking "why not us?"

-z

 

[Tricky]

I'm not sure why so many people think that Iraqi Shiites want to recreate the Iranian theocracy in their own country. Mooky Sadr might want to, but he's a perenial loser. Sistani quite definitely does NOT want to duplicate the Iranian experience, and he's the most influential religious leader. They might tilt more religious and conservative than we would like, but that really wouldn't be a big problem. As long as the institutions remain democratic, things will work out (if Iranians had the choice, they wouldn't let the mullahs stay in power). And Iraqi Shia, even the more religious among them, have got good reason to keep it things democratic, because the Shia still get to lead but they get to keep the Kurds and even probably the Sunnis on board without having to fight a civil war. Frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not the candidates the US supposedly backed do well or not, what matters is that the system works, because if it does, the system will outlast every individual politician.

I believe it matters very much whether the candidates the US backed do well, because it wasn't our objective to make another enemy in the region. I don't think anyone can deny that the US wanted an ally. If not, then why haven't we taken on some of the other oppressive regimes? Of course, I'm happy if the government is stable, but it was (arguably) stable before the invasion. The invasion cost us much diplomatic capital and severely alienated some of our best friends, increased worldwide terrorism and it put a big drain on the economy for years to come. Was it worth it just to have another stable but US/Israel-hating government come to power? I see it as a total fiasco from start to finish.

 

[corplinx]

It's looking very much like the Shiites are going to control the country (big surprise). The US-backed secular candidates are getting thrashed. I'm sure Iran is pleased with the results. Seems like a lot of lives and money just to create another Islamic theocracy.

(Sorry about misposting to two other "election" threads. I'm shocked that there isn't a thread for this subject already.)

Since bombs didnt blow up the major voting locations, I guess you have to find failure elsewhere.

 

[Garrette]

I seriously question the oft-repeated contention that the war in Iraq has increased worldwide terrorism.

 

[corplinx]

I believe it matters very much whether the candidates the US backed do well, because it wasn't our objective to make another enemy in the region.

We should have backed the most extreme candidates so people would vote for the milquetoast ones.

 

[shecky]

I'm not sure why so many people think that Iraqi Shiites want to recreate the Iranian theocracy in their own country.

Any resulting theocracy would represent a big failure for the US. Even moreso if the resulting theocracy were close buddys with Iran. Will anyone deny this?

 

[Ziggurat]

Any resulting theocracy would represent a big failure for the US. Even moreso if the resulting theocracy were close buddys with Iran. Will anyone deny this?

A theocracy would be bad, yes. But that doesn't address my statement: what indications are there that Iraqis would actually try to do this? I don't mean a few Iranian-backed nutjobs like Mooky, I mean a large enough block of voters and politicians to start making it actually happen.

 

[Ziggurat]

I believe it matters very much whether the candidates the US backed do well, because it wasn't our objective to make another enemy in the region. I don't think anyone can deny that the US wanted an ally.

And who says that we can only end up allies with our "chosen" candidates? It's still in the interests of pretty much EVERY Iraqi in government to stay allied with the US, even if they want different things from that alliance. If the democratic process takes hold, then regardless of who ends up in office, they'll have to represent the interests of Iraqis. And as long as that's happening, there isn't going to be any strong push from the Iraqis to upset that and install a system which is pretty much guaranteed to STOP acting in their interest. Iraqis aren't stupid, most of them understand that well enough, the challenge is to build enough confidence that an honest and representative government can actually form. But to do that REQUIRES that we accept ANYONE they elect, as long as they keep to those core democratic principles.

 

[Tricky]

Since bombs didnt blow up the major voting locations, I guess you have to find failure elsewhere.

I cannot see that this point has anything to do with the issue. Yes, the elections were safe, and for that Iraq has the coalition to thank, not that they will. In fact it looks as if they will say thanks by electing anti-western candidates. Is this what the Bush admin had in mind when they invaded?

 

[Tricky]

And who says that we can only end up allies with our "chosen" candidates? It's still in the interests of pretty much EVERY Iraqi in government to stay allied with the US, even if they want different things from that alliance.

I don't believe that is true. Anti-US sentiment is quite strong there, so the candidates who want to stay in office will be cautious not to be too cozy with the west. Perhaps you are hoping that they will repeat anti-US slogans, but secretly keep us in the loop. Maybe so. It seems very doubtful to me.

If the democratic process takes hold, then regardless of who ends up in office, they'll have to represent the interests of Iraqis. And as long as that's happening, there isn't going to be any strong push from the Iraqis to upset that and install a system which is pretty much guaranteed to STOP acting in their interest.

From what I've seen so far, I am not at all convinced that Iraqis can agree on what the interests of Iraqis are. If they can stave off civil war it will be a bloody miracle.

The challenge is to build enough confidence that an honest and representative government can actually form. But to do that REQUIRES that we accept ANYONE they elect, as long as they keep to those core democratic principles.

I'm not sure that is the only challenge. Perhaps a bigger challenge is to assure that they will accept anyone they elect. Of course, I agree that the US has to stand by the results or else lose face completely. I feel relatively sure that the US will do just that, although nothing the Bush administration does will surprise me anyomore. Still, it is at best a pyrrhic victory.

 

[Tricky]

I seriously question the oft-repeated contention that the war in Iraq has increased worldwide terrorism.

MSNBC

Washington Post

Last year, the department was forced to withdraw the report and admit that its initial version vastly understated what turned out to be a record high number of terrorist attacks. This year, government analysts determined that attacks had gone up once again -- three times more, in fact, to a high of 651 attacks that resulted in 1,907 deaths. Rather than publish that information, the State Department decided to strip the annual terrorism report of the numbers and hand responsibility to Brennan's new NCTC.

Seattle Times

A senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, confirmed that the publication was eliminated, but said the allegation that it was done for political reasons was "categorically untrue."
According to Johnson and U.S. intelligence officials, statistics that the National Counterterrorism Center provided to the State Department reported 625 "significant" terrorist attacks in 2004. That compared with 175 such incidents in 2003, the highest number in two decades.
The statistics didn't include attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, which President Bush as recently as Tuesday called "a central front in the war on terror."

US News & World Report

Officials insist that the new figures should not be compared with historic statistics because the NCTC has adopted a completely new methodology, including a broader definition of worldwide terrorism that covers all deliberate attacks on civilians or noncombatants, even indigenous ones. "It really would be comparing apples and oranges," says John Brennan, the outgoing interim director of NCTC.

Note that although the officials "insist that figures should not be compared", they do NOT state that terrorism is actually stable or decreasing.

 

[rikzilla]

I believe it matters very much whether the candidates the US backed do well, because it wasn't our objective to make another enemy in the region. I don't think anyone can deny that the US wanted an ally. If not, then why haven't we taken on some of the other oppressive regimes? Of course, I'm happy if the government is stable, but it was (arguably) stable before the invasion. The invasion cost us much diplomatic capital and severely alienated some of our best friends, increased worldwide terrorism and it put a big drain on the economy for years to come. Was it worth it just to have another stable but US/Israel-hating government come to power? I see it as a total fiasco from start to finish.

Tricky!

Do you mean to tell me that YOU; my favorite thoughtful, smart, intelligent and cool JREF liberal has NOT read Sharansky yet???

Do it! The book is well written and you won't be able to put it down! You question will be answered. Here, I'll give you a preview:

"The democracy that hates us is still better than the tyranny that loves us."

Trust me, it's no polemic. You'll dig it. It's nothing less than our best hope for a free and peaceful world....yes his ideas ARE that important!

-z

 

[rikzilla]

Any resulting theocracy would represent a big failure for the US. Even moreso if the resulting theocracy were close buddys with Iran. Will anyone deny this?

The Sunnis and Kurds would never let a Shia majority go that far. It'd be civil war first.

-z

 

[Tricky]

Tricky!

Do you mean to tell me that YOU; my favorite thoughtful, smart, intelligent and cool JREF liberal has NOT read Sharansky yet???

Um.. no. In truth, I don't do a lot of political reading. I keep up with the news and columnists. Writing brilliant parodies takes so much of my time.

But thanks... I think.

Do it! The book is well written and you won't be able to put it down! You question will be answered. Here, I'll give you a preview:

"The democracy that hates us is still better than the tyranny that loves us."

A bit simplistic, but then it's only one sentence. However, as much as I love the US, I am not convinced that democracy works everywhere as well as it does here. But even if I accept that statement, my greatest fear is that Iraq will not remain a true democracy. Heck, Saddam had elections, but he made it impossible for opposition candidates to win. Once the US is gone, what is to keep the party in power from pulling the plug on the other parties?

Trust me, it's no polemic. You'll dig it. It's nothing less than our best hope for a free and peaceful world....yes his ideas ARE that important!

Well, that may be. I will try to give him a look. But it is my observation that it is much easer to write about ideas than to effect their institution.

 

[Garrette]

Tricky, thanks for the links but I don't think that supports your contention. Perhaps I should have been more clear in my emphasis:

I seriously question the oft-repeated contention that the war in Iraq has increased worldwide terrorism.

The article you linked to mentions only two terrorist incidents, both of them the downing of Russian planes. One of those was admittedly by Chechens rebelling against Russian rule.

Are you attributing such acts to the war in Iraq?

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't believe that is true. Anti-US sentiment is quite strong there, so the candidates who want to stay in office will be cautious not to be too cozy with the west. Perhaps you are hoping that they will repeat anti-US slogans, but secretly keep us in the loop. Maybe so. It seems very doubtful to me.

Anti-US sentiment isn't nearly as strong as you seem to think. Furthermore, unlike in a dictatorships, democratically elected leaders don't gain that much by trying to deflect anger to external sources. If you're not performing, it doesn't matter if you blame it on the Americans, you won't get re-elected. And to actually perform well in office, they've got to cooperate with us, because we're still quite necessary to them. Will they criticise us? Sure, and that's not a problem. Will they have disagreements? That's OK too. But they are NOT going to chant "death to America", because they're not so stupid as to be unable to recognize that if they succeed in stoking such anti-Americanism from the electorate, that same electorate is going to demand tangible action to those ends, like telling us to leave. But since the government still depends on our presence, they cannot tell us to leave, which means they know they cannot stoke that demand from the populace. Iraq's interests lie in cooperating with the US, and democracy is rather good at making politicians act in those interests, not merely on passions.

From what I've seen so far, I am not at all convinced that Iraqis can agree on what the interests of Iraqis are. If they can stave off civil war it will be a bloody miracle.

I've seen endless predictions about civil war in Iraq. They haven't come true yet, and they seem LESS likely to come true now than they did a year or two ago. In fact, I suspect part of what we're seeing with sudden increased Sunni participation is the realization that the Sunnis NEED democracy to work and America to stay or they're going to get one hell of a bloody payback from the Shia. We have, in a sense, become the security guarantee to the Sunnis.

I'm not sure that is the only challenge. Perhaps a bigger challenge is to assure that they will accept anyone they elect.

Yes, you are correct about that. But it's looking fairly good so far: participation has been increasing, not decreasing, and that's a pretty good sign that confidence in the system is also increasing.

 

[Year Zero]

I seriously question the oft-repeated contention that the war in Iraq has increased worldwide terrorism.

Is Iraq part of the "world"? If so, has terrorism increased in Iraq? I'm tempted to say yes.

 

[Garrette]

Is Iraq part of the "world"? If so, has terrorism increased in Iraq? I'm tempted to say yes.

So the bombings are all conducted by terrorists? Not insurgents and not freedom fighters? Not an Iraqi populace yearning to cast off an American yoke? Not the beginnings of a civil war, either--Sunni against Shiaa?

---

Okay, the bombings are terrorism. Let's break them down qualitatively:

1. Those directed specifically against the US military: While admittedly higher than pre-9/11, that is because the US military is there where they are. Much the same as the US military is there in Afghanistan where we are also now the victim of increased terrorism due to the invasion. Yet somehow this is not an argument against that invasion.

2. Those directed against everyone else: If this is terrorism, how has the US presence caused it? Did the US cause the Sunni/Shiaa conflict? Or has the removal of Saddam simply removed the restraints on it?