Iraq-raq-on!

January 26, 2005 10:13 AM

As Iraqis go to the polls on Jan. 30, it will be a daunting first exercise in democracy.
posted by furtive (31 comments total)

The BBC also has an interesting election log.
posted by loquax at 10:17 AM on January 26, 2005

For those too lazy to pick and choose, a brief overview of each link:

go: A Reuters article on how only 1/4 of Iraqi exiles have registered to vote.

polls: A link to "The Iraqi election 'bait and switch':
faulty poll will not bring peace or US withdrawal" a study by the Project on Defense Alternatives.

daunting: An MSNBC article discussing the key dilemmas faced by possible outcomes of the election.

exercise: An article from the Daily Star discussing how many of the candidates in the election have not been properly seen and heard.
posted by furtive at 10:20 AM on January 26, 2005

I think this sums up the future of Iraq quite well:

"If the U.S. military stays too long, it generates greater political resentment and armed resistance, in Iraq, the Middle East, and the world. If the U.S. Army departs too soon, it risks unleashing a civil war and possible partition of Iraq, which spells trouble for the entire region. If Washington pulls off an orderly and clean election, it will create a Shiite-dominated, Iran-friendly political system that frightens many Sunni-run or secular Arab neighbors (as Jordan's America-friendly King Abdullah II has already said publicly). Some in this region also worry about post-election tensions between Iraqis and Iranians, given the historical sensitivities between Persian and Arab Shiites."

Although I'm not sure what the definition of civil war is and why what is happening now doesn't count as one. To quote Sondheim: "This is the world I meant, why didn't you listen?" (I meant as in, "I warned about").
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 10:41 AM on January 26, 2005

And don't forget, the administration is already making excuses and tempering expectations for the elections. "The insurgency is not going away as a result of this election. In fact, perhaps, the insurgents might become more emboldened," Powell said.

Hmm... emboldened.
posted by Arch Stanton at 11:26 AM on January 26, 2005

I don't know what's going to happen next week when the election does take place but I will be very, very glad that I'm not going to be working at any of the polling places.

I'm sure ShrubCo will declare the elections a resounding success no matter the outcome.

I also find it very curious that they seem to think an election will fix things. It's not going to fix or resolve anything, the election will make someone else the top target in the country until the insurgents murder him. And whoever steps up to take their place.
posted by fenriq at 11:31 AM on January 26, 2005

There is no positive end game scenario for this illegal invasion.

But, hey, contractors are making loads of money!
posted by nofundy at 11:34 AM on January 26, 2005

Heh, funny thing...the words "fix" and "election" remind me of this company that makes these electronic voting machines.
posted by RockCorpse at 11:35 AM on January 26, 2005

The pre-election violence is getting horrendous. Here's a brief overview of what happened yesterday alone, before most of us in the States even had lunch (Baghdad is 8 hrs ahead of NYC):

-11 Iraqi police killed by insurgents

-1 Iraqi senior judge assassinated and his driver wounded

-1 videotape released of an American hostage with a gun to his head

-1 Iraqi district council member shot and killed on his way to work

-1 son of an Iraqi translator working with U.S. troops shot and killed

-Multiple shots fired by police on insurgents handing out leaflets promising to "wash the streets with the blood of voters" and their families

-1 five-year-old daughter of an (aforementioned) police officer killed along with her father

-3 staffers from the Communications Ministry wounded in a drive-by shooting

-1 senior official in the Iraqi Communist Party kidnaped

-1 school to be used as a polling station sprayed with machine gun fire (no injuries)

-1 U.S. soldier killed by a roadside bomb and 10 others killed in a Bradley Fighting Vehicle accident.

-1 gate blown off of a secondary school and multiple shots fired on Iraqi and U.S. forces responding to the explosion

-8 Chinese hostages flown out of Baghdad for home after being kidnaped for five days last week, released when Beijing promised to discourage citizens from traveling to Iraq.

-Widespread abuse of detainees by Iraq's U.S.-trained security forces reported by Human Rights Watch, saying international police advisers, largely funded by the U.S. government, "have turned a blind eye to these rampant abuses" (adding to the constantly growing anti-U.S. sentiment.)

-Another $80 billion dollars needed for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan this year announced by Bush, although the Army said Monday that the troop level in Iraq will stay the same at 120,000.

-ETC!

posted by Shane at 11:48 AM on January 26, 2005

Shane - what's your source for all that info? I have been looking for somewhere that tallies this sort of thing on a day-by-day basis.
posted by salad spork at 11:54 AM on January 26, 2005

Shane, nice rundown on a single days events. The amount of violence that doesn't even make the news is scary.

It will only get much, much worse.

I do hope that Bush will admit that this was a huge mistake eventually. I'm not holding my breath but I'd like to see it happen. Hey, Condi admitted that mistakes were made, not what they were but that mistakes were made, that's a step in the right direction.
posted by fenriq at 11:55 AM on January 26, 2005

Iraq should dissolved, and the land split among the Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds (Turkey be damned) giving each group their own nation. Everyone would be better off if given control of their own state. Hopefully the result of the occupation of Iraq will be the creation of highly autonomous provinces with a mostly impotent federal government. The sunnis and the shias will slaughter each other when given the opportunity (ex: Iran-Iraq war), so if Iraq becomes a full fledged democracy the tyranny of the majority will serve to persecute the sunnis. Make no mistake: a democratic Iraq will not be a secular Iraq, and vice versa. Personally, I don't understand what was so bad about the Baathists. They wanted a secular, left-leaning arab superstate. What's so wrong with that? Arabs/Persians, when secular, are an intelligent and reasonable bunch. It's too bad a few bad apples had to spoil their image.

This would all be so much easier if it weren't for all the oil. Then again, if it weren't for oil we'd be paying them as much attention as we gave to Rwanda, the Sudan, etc.
posted by mullingitover at 11:55 AM on January 26, 2005

You guys have it all figured out.
posted by Witty at 12:00 PM on January 26, 2005

That's right. Now if only I could convince the population to give me absolute power, I could solve all the world's problems.
posted by mullingitover at 12:06 PM on January 26, 2005

Shane, nice rundown on a single days events. The amount of violence that doesn't even make the news is scary.

Exactly, heh! Those are just the obvious reported events, the "highlights."

Shane - what's your source for all that info? I have been looking for somewhere that tallies this sort of thing on a day-by-day basis.

Thanks fenriq and salad spork.

Links are on yesterday's entry on my blog.

It's kinda hilarious, I found one Yahoo news item that got carried away listing yesterday's events, then I got carried away on Google, amazed, looking for more, including the ridiculous extra Iraq $$ request of Bush and the CBO budget/deficit estimates, all somewhat related.

There is no positive end game scenario for this illegal invasion.

But, hey, contractors are making loads of money!
posted by nofundy at 11:34 AM PST on January 26

Exactly. It's odd that Bush is requesting so much additional $$ for Iraq while the troop count (considered far too little by many, adding to the danger the existing troops face) will remain the same. And troops are still relatively poorly equipped, so where is the additional $$ going? Private defense contractors in Iraq, most likely, meaning more gov't/corporate ties and corruption.

Also, the deficit in the CBO budget estimate yesterday ended up at well over $400 billion, and Congress REFUSES to include war budget in these estimates, even when it knows Iraq will continue for at least a year or two (and probably much longer) (source: NPR yesterday.)The excuse is that war costs cannot be estimated, or somesuch nonsense. So the record deficit estimate doesn't even include Iraq, LOL.
posted by Shane at 12:08 PM on January 26, 2005

(Oops, CBO budget estimate should be deficit estimate in the CBO budget estimate...)
posted by Shane at 12:12 PM on January 26, 2005

mullingitover: Are you sure "different races/sects" always ought to have different countries? If the groups are in conflict now, won't the conflict only intensify if they're all given separate nations and armies?

Maybe I'm way off, but it seems to me that this is a case somewhat parallel to the American civil war. There, it was necessary to forestall secession because, as Lincoln understood, two separate countries stationed just opposite to each other would be in conflict perpetually. It hasn't been easy for north and south to slowly come to terms, but it's necessary, I think; and it's much easier to forestall a war when there aren't two nations to do it.

Try as we might, we can't remove all the minorities from the society and give them different countries. All democratic countries have to learn to be respectful of those among them who have less power; better sooner than later, and better within their own borders than across borders and probably by way of warfare.
posted by koeselitz at 12:18 PM on January 26, 2005

erg... "...easier to forestall a war when there aren't two nations to start it."
posted by koeselitz at 12:20 PM on January 26, 2005

Regardless of the outcome and how this whole mess started, I do wish the people of Iraqi the best with this election. It'd be wonderful if they could get to the polls without getting killed by insurgents, and get the government they want which will represent them. It's a pipe dream, but it's what I can hope for.
posted by Vaska at 12:21 PM on January 26, 2005

The Daily Show had a really great little bit on this, and I actually learned something from it - they aren't electing any kind of president/central figure. Interesting......
posted by odinsdream at 12:21 PM on January 26, 2005

By the way-- is this where I should put this?-- the tag for "withdrawal" is misspelled above as "withrawal." Just so you know.
posted by koeselitz at 12:24 PM on January 26, 2005

We also lost 31 Marines in a helicopter crash. The crash appears to have been caused by weather. (We've lost at least 33 helicopters since the start of the war, and at least 20 of those were shot down.)

I have been looking for somewhere that tallies this sort of thing on a day-by-day basis

Today in Iraq is good for that. Iraq Coalition Casualty Count tracks military fatalities (1418 US military fatalities to date, and 85 so far this month) and wounded. Iraq Body Count tracks Iraqi civilian deaths (at least 15,493 so far).
posted by kirkaracha at 12:31 PM on January 26, 2005

Thanks, kirkaracha. Great resources. IraqBodyCount also has that neat counter you can put on your own website. I really need to put one back on mine.

By the way, oil nearly hit $50/barrel yesterday and today ($49+). I believe this, along with $50+ last Oct/Nov, is a record not seen since the '70s oil embargo. Regardless, it's incredibly high.
posted by Shane at 12:47 PM on January 26, 2005

mullingitover, that idea has some real practical difficulties. Which ethnic group gets the richest oil fields? Who gets the developed cities? Who gets stuck out in the desert? What's to be done about the many, many areas where the populations are completely intermingled?

This isn't to say such a thing can't be done, but in most scenarios it would devolve into, at the very least, a Sunni-Shiite war pretty darn quickly.
posted by kyrademon at 12:52 PM on January 26, 2005

Wow, thanks for posting all this stuff. I never woulda found it on my own.
posted by Doohickie at 1:01 PM on January 26, 2005

Liberals/democrats are the only real force that can even *begin* to temper this disastrous foreign policy venture. Bush has already said those troops' lives (today's loss) is the "price needed for freedom" (I'm paraphrasing but awfully close) and we know that's not true but no one really can say anything.....because the people spoke and Kerry was a terrible candidate/politician.
posted by narebuc at 1:04 PM on January 26, 2005

Again, the problem right now with American policy is that if Iraq is a success, the administration will replicate this plan elsewhere with its failures and all. If Iraq continues to be a complete disaster, then we're pretty much all screwed anyway with lives lost, the reputation destroyed, and the billions lost.
posted by Arch Stanton at 1:39 PM on January 26, 2005

Shane, again, thanks for the info, the links and thoughts. I especially like the IraqBodyCount one and will be adding the ticker to my political blog.

Arch, it will depend on how they define "success". Recall how long ago Bush announced in uberlame staged photo goodness, "Mission Accomplished"? Seems someone forgot to tell the insurgents.
posted by fenriq at 1:48 PM on January 26, 2005

Arch, "if Iraq is a success?"

Erm, read less Small Penis Urinal and Weakly Standard, and have a gander at this.
posted by telstar at 2:36 PM on January 26, 2005

koeselitz: You're totally right. I was going off the beaten path with my trail of thought. At the same time, with what you're saying, are you in favor of a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine?

kyrademon: You're also dead on. That's why I said this would all be so much easier if it weren't for all the oil.

I think the only realistic long-term goal will be an Iraq with provinces, giving each ethnic group a province with a large amount of regional autonomy. However, I think we're really just fucked in Iraq. The Iraqis don't like us, and ultimately our efforts to install a puppet government will fail. Given the opportunity, most of Iraq would be a bellicose theocracy, ala Iran. Our only hope to prevent Iraq from turning is a perpetual occupation. I think we've got a tiger by the tail in this case. All I could think during the invasion was, "Does Bush envy Sharon? Does he want his own, massive West Bank?"
posted by mullingitover at 3:39 PM on January 26, 2005

"If the U.S. military stays too long, it generates greater political resentment and armed resistance, in Iraq, the Middle East, and the world. If the U.S. Army departs too soon, it risks unleashing a civil war and possible partition of Iraq, which spells trouble for the entire region." Too true...

Too long is shorter than too short....know what I mean?
posted by lathrop at 6:15 PM on January 26, 2005

mullingitover: "... with what you're saying, are you in favor of a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine?"

I don't know. For a long time I was; Israel has always been, to my mind, a great nation, no matter what one thinks of Ariel Sharon, who's only been prime minister since 2001 anyhow; it is a strong democracy in a region where strong democracies are needed. Israelis have in the past believed, I think, that it was in their hands to do a great good and bring a kind of security to the areas around them. They still could, I think; but Palestine might not be the place to start. What's more, they finally have enough security (I hope) to pull back a bit without coming under extreme risk. I believe that's why Sharon is doing what he's doing; although I don't know, as I'm not an Israeli, nor do I watch the news as closely as I should.

"All I could think during the invasion was, 'Does Bush envy Sharon? Does he want his own, massive West Bank?'"

You sort of hit the nail on the head for me here, although I suspect we largely disagree. Sharon doesn't even want his own West Bank; there's been only one reason for the past fifty years for Israel to hold on to a scrap of land in Palestine-- it's barren and war-torn. That one reason is security: Israel's very existence has been threatened, by nations that would've acted with U.N. complicity if they had destroyed her, since her very inception.

Iraq is the same for Bush. It is a useless territory, wasted by dictatorship. Only a very stupid businessman seeks profit at the cost of world peace; I don't believe Bush is that stupid. But the simple fact is that we face the same dangers Israel faces; I think Bush knows that. In Arab lands, there is now a strong backlash against the west, a backlash based not, as some would have us believe, on past oppressions, but on a disdain for secularism and modernity which is frighteningly understandable in perspective. (We should note well that Islamist militants speak in the same tones of Europe and the United States.)I think that Bush believed that, even if our forces did nothing more than rid the arabs of the horrible dictator that was Saddam Hussain, it would be a great deed, and one necessary in these times when everybody talks about the freedoms of foreign nations yet is unwilling to fight for them.

As I say, I believe that these are the thoughts that are running through George W. Bush's head right now. I don't know if they're right; but they seem so to me, at least as far as they go.
posted by koeselitz at 4:26 AM on January 27, 2005