The rightie blogs are dancing in triumph while the leftie blogs are listing the problems. I don’t know enough about them to say anything one way or the other.
What do we know at this point? Who benefits? Did Nader play the spoiler, again? Have at it in the comments.
Bill from INDC
Very positive participation, especially because Sunnis engaged in the political process. Successful engagement could kill the largest part of the insurgency. However, early returns show Shiites picking up a larger portion of the seats, so some Sunnis are complaining about election fraud and demanding an investigation/audit. Need to see how it plays out, but if the government can keep the Sunnis engaged politically with the same enthusiasm they showed for the election itself, we may have a ballgame. Overall, I’m optimistic.
Paddy O'Shea
As has been stated elsewhere, the Shi’ite Fundamentalists have won a clear majority in the new Iraqi Parliamant. Their first order of business will be to honor their promise to those who voted for them and ask the US to pack up its military to leave. This will allow them to fulfill one of the main objectives of their agenda, strategic alignment with their Shi’ite brothers in Tehran.
The Sunnis will not enjoy these developments and the insurgency will continue as if the elections never took place.
And, irony of ironies, once we are out of there Iraq will then be able to turn to Iran for military help in quieting the passions of their warlike Sunni brothers.
This was a terrible defeat for Rummy, Cheney and their tapdancing emcee George W. Bush. It is one that could very well spell an ignominious end to our involvement there. That the right sees the election of our enemies as being somehow a victory only further exposes the weakness of their position. They are so deeply invested in their own spin they’ve lost touch with reality.
Associated article, which is a reprint from The Guardian in the UK:
http://indiamonitor.com/news/readNews.jsp?ni=9786
jg
Elections took place. Clap louder dude.
Cromagnon
So far the real winner appears to be Iran… The Iranian leadership is probably laughing at King George as we speak
In the meantime, American Soldiers will continue to be killed at the rate of 2.35 a day with over 100 wounded per week in order to support an Islamic Fundamentalist regime, one of whose leaders (Al Sadr) is directly responsible for the deaths of many American Soldiers. Go figure…
Meanwhile back at home in the Royal States of America, King George continues to thumb his nose at the American People… but then again, we are just reaping what we have sown
ppGaz
Paddy has it about right. Iraq is a large shoe (Iran) waiting to drop, and the drop happens on the day when our force level there is no longer, by itself, a deterrent to upheaval. That’s why some of us (you know, reality based types) have been telling you for years that this thing is a clusterfuck. We can stay there with a big force and maintain the violent, chaotic status quo forever. Can you say Beirut? But that isn’t practical. The American people aren’t going to continue to subsidize this mess, so we have to leave.
It’s what happens after we leave that determines the outcome of this adventure. And that means one very simple thing: The US has no control over the future of Iraq, and that being the case, Iraq is not likely to turn out to be a success with respect to our interests.
Everything that happens between now and Iran-Iraq Solidarity Day is just American political churn, and food for bloggers.
Paddy O'Shea
Cro: But can’t you imagine the speeches Bush will make after the glorious return of our troops from Iraq? The victory parades, the endless crowing from the right about how democracy took hold in Iraq, and that we no longer needed have our troops stationed there? Bush the triumphant architect of a New World Order?
Of course, in the real world people will quietly discuss the rise of Tehran and its final triumph in its decades old quest to dominate Iraq.
And that we shelled out half a trillion dollars leavened with the blood of thousands of American military casualties won’t matter to our so-called conservative patriots.
Bill from INDC
Man, what a bunch of children commenting on this blog. No willfully distorted predispositions here, no sir.
demimondian
I think that the government in Iraq has a decent shot at being able to quell some of the Sunni unrest. The Sunni dominated coalition got 35 seats. The Kurds got about 45 seats. The Shia got 110 seats. (That leaves about 40 seats unaccounted for; they’ll be parcelled out among the other parties in the election. About 20 of them appear to be headed for Allawi’s party.)
That means that the Sunni got about 20% of the “Ethnically associated” seats, which is roughly a number in proportion to their population. (In fact, the three “ethnic” coalitions are all roughly proportionally represented.)
Jaybird
Bill, At least no one mentioned Israel (yet).
Paddy O'Shea
Bill: Would you care to discuss your position on this?
Here’s a place to start: The dominant Shi’ite majority in the new Iraqi Parliament has pledged to its supporters that they will ask for the removal of U.S. troops. Other factions have expressed their willingness to support this initiative as well, including (irony of ironies) the Sunni fundamentalists. The same Sunni fundamentalists who did such a fine job crushing our chosen boy Ayad Allawi in these elections.
How will Bush deal with this situation?
ppGaz
Translation: “I got nothin.”
A bunch of guys with radical (neocon) ideas gin up a war based mostly on their own egos….and we have silence.
Some other guys point out the grotesque flaws and discontinuities in their fanciful model, and you are all “what a bunch of children.”
And the lyingsackoshit righties whine about “discourse” around here. You guys couldn’t do discourse if your fucking lives depended on it.
neil
More disturbing seems to be these claims of fraud. I read somewhere that they’re widely believed by the losers — if true, this would be extremely bad for the US. The perception that we came in to prop up a corrupt Shi’ite theocracy will not help us.
jg
People have known since the first Gulf War that if you knock over Saddam you are setting up Iran to run the table in the middle east. I’m sorry your clapping has prevented you from seeing this basic scenerio. Even Cheney was against knocking off Saddam when he was SecDef. You break it you own it. Here we are. Hoping an election will mean anything.
Eural
Let’s take a look at the results so far shall we?
The parties/coalitions which seem to have overwhelming support are all Shi’ite with strong Iranian leanings many of whom formed the base of terrorist attacks throughout the 1980’s and 90’s (like Dowa and the SCIRI). They support stronger ties to a greater Islamic/Shi’ite “empire” and are rabbidly anti-American.
The parties/coalitions which seem to have overwhelmingly lost were all US supported/secular (Allawi and Chalabi).
So twenty years ago the fundementalist in Iran were contained in a desperate war fighting a secular Iraq (backed by the US). Today, the Iranians are getting a huge stake in Iraq thanks to the blood and gold ($500 billion) of the US. Islamic fundamentalism is stronger and expanding while US influence is weaker and (aside from strict military force) contracting.
Yet, Bushites shout for joy over elections. Notice there’s never any mention of the actual details concerning said elections. Wonder why?
jg
This was all done to knock over a state that was into terrorism. Only Iraq wasn’t much into terrorism, Iran is. Now we’ve removed the only secular gov’t in the middle east and gave more power to the country that is actually the one all the pre-war Iraq descriptions fit. Is working to develop nukes, is a sponsor of terrorism (Hammas), constantly threatening the US and the west and is on the same side of the jihadi movement as Osama. Well done George. I’m glad you weren’t president during thte cold war, we’d all be chugging vodka right now.
demimondian
Hold on here, folks. There are several questions that needs answers, and I’d like to think them through carefully.
(1) Was there fraud in the election?
(2) Fraud or no, are the results reasonable? Does the outcome make general sense?
(3) Which, if any, of the three parties involved believe that that there was fraud?
(4) Will it be possible to mollify any upset parties?
(5) (First really big question) Will an elected government eventually take power, amid general acceptance of its legitimacy? After some horse-trading, will everybody accept a set of results similar to the current ones?
(6) If a government does take power, will it tilt towards Iran?
(7) (Key qustion two) If it tilts towards Iran, will there be enough votes to prevent the new Iraq from becoming an Iranian client state?
Here are my current guesses. If you disagree, tell me why.
(1) Yes.
(2) Yes. The outcome is broadly reasonable: the parties are roughly represented in proportion to their popular support.
(3) The Sunni insurgents will repudiate the results.
(4) There will be a debate between the insurgents and the accomodationists within the Sunni over the next few weeks. I think the balance tilts towards the accomodationists in the end.
(5) Yes, although I expect the horse-trading to include an explicit guarantee non-alignment with Iran as a part of the stabilization package.
(6) Yes.
(7) Yes.
This is a very hopeful reading of the tea-leaves, however. If the horse-trading doesn’t include such a guarantee, or if the Sunni can’t be brought in, then (4) will fail, and civil war will follow.
ppGaz
The thing is, Demi, that your “4” is not known until the American damper is removed. No government there will have even token legitimacy until it can stand without being propped up by us.
So, once you remove the rev limiter (our forces), the thing is on its own. And we have no control from that point forward. We are spectators.
If this were Vegas, what odds would we give for an outcome that is stable, friendly to our interests, and qualifies as a liberal democracy? What would we base our odds-making on?
I’ve actually seen the “discourse” in here steer toward “Well, it worked in Japan” and crap like that. As if 2000 years of history proving that Iraq has nothing in common with postwar Japan is suddenly moot.
danelectro
iraq is meaningless if the u.s. forfeits the rights guaranteed to it’s own citizens.
Paddy O'Shea
Interesting article from Martin Van Creveld, the renowned Israeli military historian whose books are required reading for officers in the US military, the only non-American to be so honored.
Why Iraq Will End As Vietnam Did
http:www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/crevald1.html
And I will recommend to anyone who cares Van Creveld’s “The Transformation Of War.” Written in 1991, and very relevant to the George W. Bush disaster in Iraq.
Zifnab
Honestly, I think people are seriously jumping the gun on some of their predictions. “Oh, everyone participated! The nation is saved!” “Oh no, there are complaints from the Sunnis! The insurgency will rip the nation apart!” “Groundhog saw its shadow, six more weeks of winter!”
Elections in and of themselves don’t really solve anything. It’s the guys you elect that do the heavy lifting – or drop the ball. Our nation didn’t magically reset itself on January 1st, 2001 when Bush took office. Neither will Iraq. It’ll take years and a number of tipping points before we can accurately gauge the final effects of the current Iraqi Parliment. No one has been saved or damned until then.
Paddy O'Shea
Trying it again:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/crevald1.html
demimondian
As I see it, point 4 is the optimistic reading of the tea leaves. Here’s the point:
(1) The Sunni have shown that they can run an effective insurgency. The Shia are aware of that fact. The Sunni insurgency will become more widespread and effective if the government falls.
(2) Neither the Sunni, the Kurds, nor the secularists want Iraq to be an Iranian client state. The probability of Iraq emerging as Iranian client state rises quickly if the government falls
Thus, there’s a natural partition of the country into two roughly equal halves, each of which want a government to stand. I expect, as a result, for the two parties to work out a deal to play for time. The obvious way to play for that time is to constitute a government.
At the end of the day, a properly constituted elected government is in the United States’ interest, even if it doesn’t like us in the short term. To see that, look at India and South Africa.
Uberweiss
The similarities are amazing aren’t they?
Eural
That may be the wisest comment I’ve seen on a blog in a long while.
T. Miller
The candidates that have been favored by the Bush Administration have not fared well. Allawi’s party will have a few seats, and Chalabi appears to have none. So we won’t be dealing with the familiar faces who have spent so much of their time in Washington.
demimondian
Zifnab — you’re right, of course. That’s not important.
All nations stumble from crisis to crisis. The question is always whether they can hold things together well enough to buy time to solve the crises, not whether they face each crisis with the perfect solution. Right now, the US faces the rise of a neo-fascist nativist movement hiding under the colors of religious extermism. To my mind, that’s a crisis. Do you expect us to solve the underlying issue immediately?
I certainly don’t. I expect the forces of accomodation on the right to step up and slow things down enough to isolate the fascists, and push them out of power. I expect them to do that because it isn’t in their interests for the fascists to win, and because I expect them to know that.
The same thing obtains in Iraq. I don’t expect a fundamentally US-friendly regime there. I do expect the emergence of two, roughly balanced, internal powers. That’s all a democracy needs; the rest is theirs to solve.
ppGaz
I tip my hat to your optimism, although I don’t share it. For me to get to that point, as described by you here, I have to put on my Dr. Pangloss hat and think in terms of the best of all possible worlds …. you know, the world that the Right lives in. “If it weren’t for the fact that Iraq has turned into a fascist Islamic theocracy and hates us and sits on one of the world’s largest oil reserves … we can really appreciate how they have managed to get their electricity back on 24 hours a day.”
That sort of thing. But here’s the deal: Bush has put the stake in the ground. He’s the one that said, not more than a few days ago, that “victory” is when Iraq can serve as a beacon of freedom in the region, showing the way for other countries to clean up their acts and be nice to us at least until the oil runs out, after which we don’t really give a flying fuck what they do … okay, the last part is mine, but the first part is his. That’s his vision of victory.
Excuse me, but that vision is based on nothing but fantasy, magical thinking and a brain fucked by alcohol. It’s just ain’t likely to happen.
jg
Scary words. Justification for spying on innocent civilians.
we have to spy on you. we know what’s best for you.
searp
I have always been confused by our aims in Iraq. They seem to be something less than a client state, but something more than just letting go. Until our aims are properly formulated so that I can understand what we’re doing there (“spreading hope” doesn’t count) I don’t support being there.
Put another way: explain to me why I should care one bit more about an Iraqi election than I do about a Bolivian election. I guess at this point we have a lot more invested in Iraq, but why did we make the investment?
The Other Steve
Says the guy from DC with his beltway predispositions, and a blogroll which contains only blogs which all think the same way as the New National Review.
Yeah… you sure got the moral highground on all of us.
*snort*
jg
OIL. The Iraqis are well aware that we wouldn’t give a shit about anything Saddam did to them, ever, if they weren’t sitting on a lake of oil.
Now watch as so called conservatives start spouting liberal crap about spreading democracy.
demimondian
ppG — it seems to me that what you’ve just said is the line we on the left should follow: “Bush himself layed out what success means:
We need to work towards that goal — because we know that in working towards that goal, we will not be giving Bush the victory he wants to claim.
In the short term, Iraq is not going to be a beacon of freedom. In the short term, it is going to be led by a neo-fascist cabal. In the short term, that is going to be a destabilizing force in the Middle East. We can — and should — remind people of that fact.
Thing is, we can do that without giving up on the long term truth that the state need not be dominated by the neo-fascist cabal, and that it need not always be destabilizing.
The Other Steve
Honestly, that’s a good thing. It’ll force the Washington beltway insiders to learn how to deal with other people outside of their comfort zone.
The Other Steve
Now why did I blockquote my own words?
ppGaz
That is a long term truth in a way, but it’s in the realm of the hypothetical. Theoretically, long term, it is possible. Look at the strides that Lebanon has made.
However, Iraq is not Lebanon. It’s hugely bigger … too big, really. And too diverse.
Another thing we have to keep in mind is that our capacity to influence an outcome there is very, very limited. We’ve given the appearance of some control so far … at enormous and unsustainable cost. As soon as we pull back the costly support, the thing is going to spin off like a whirling dervish and who knows what ugly gyrations it will endure before it comes to rest?
Nothing wrong with that. That’s the reality of the situation they’re in. What’s wrong with all this is that we are sitting here pretending that we can somehow shape and direct this into something we want … something that sounds good in a campaign speech, or on a GOP website. That idea is just fucking nuts. It isn’t grounded in history. It’s just based on daydreaming by some very, very nutty people. People like Kristol and Wolfowitz. These guys had brain farts, and here we are.
demimondian
ppG — you’re confusing tactics with strategy. Step back from the question of whether the whole “bringing democracy to Iraq” plan was as stupid as it was, and ask yourself two questions.
(1) What strategy, right now, is best for the United States as a whole?
(2) What tactics should I/we pursue towards that strategy which are most likely to hold the idiots who got us into this mess responsible for their mistakes?
In my opinion, a Dr. Pangloss approach is the only one the succeeds. It’s isn’t in the United States’ interest for Iraq to be an Iranian client state. I certainly don’t want to see that. I’m looking for a strategy which avoids that catastrophe, yet does not give Bush an out for having been right, when he demostrably was wrong.
ppGaz
That depends on what you want, balanced against what you think is doable. When do the balance, it comes out this way: Withdraw now. Staying put is just postponing the inevitable. It’s an arguable point, of course.
Well, I believe that in the long run, getting rid of this incompetant government — ours — is the number one priority. Until then, we’re screwed.
Well, as I have tried to convey above but probably failed to do so because I am prone to talking too much … I don’t think avoiding that bad outcome is under our control. We can postpone it, but not forever.
As for Bush, I advocate keeping him a separate issue. His many failures and malfeasances are doing him in, slowly but surely. He dies the death of a thousand stings. This year was a disaster for him. Go back and read the papers from December 2004 and look at what he was saying … he was going to “advance his agenda” and so forth. Yeah, right, he managed to take the popularity of Social Security reform from 60% plus down to 27% in about 90 days’ time just by talking about it. He’s his own worst enemy. Give him rope, and he will tie himself into knots with it.
TallDave
LOL You nailed it Bill. Fortunately, the voters have realized it too, so we don’t need to worry about their opinions being taken seriously.
I’m just glad the Iraqis finally have some semblance of freedom, imperfect as it is, and hope for a better future. Forward freedom!
ppGaz
Onward, Christian Soldiers!
Bring it on!
Mission accomplished!
Here we go, another thread about to be fucked over by the Bushhowlers.
I suppose Darrell will be next.
TallDave
Oh, and I find all the caterwauling especially amusing since
So no one really knows much of anything yet.
As for Iranian influence, I doubt the Iraqi voters are begging their leaders to imitate or ally closely with a failed state that 80% of Iranians don’t like.
If the current leaders don’t govern well, they’ll be voted out in a few years. That’s democracy, as the lefties here have learned to their chagrin.
ppGaz
Dave apparently thinks that Iraq has turned into the Madison County Board of Supervisors.
TallDave
Poor Gaz, undermedicated and overpartisan as always. Wherever he appears, sane discussion quickly departs.
Paddy O'Shea
The United States suffers a strategic defeat in the Iraqi elections, and the likes of Little Davey laugh.
Can we say traitors?
ppGaz
No wonder you gave up on your blog.
Too bad that you gave up on it about a year after everyone else in the world did, though.
BlogReeder
That’s hitting below the belt, isn’t it?
Paddy O'Shea
What the Connie Treason Clique as typified by Little Davey sees as “victory” in Iraq:
Iraq Sunni Party Says Rebels Intensify Violence
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/DPAS-6KAMFC?OpenDocument
Paddy O'Shea
Iran’s Victory Revealed In Iraq Election
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/12/21/EDGU6GAM691.DTL
jg
Except at home where terrorism paranoia has taken over and people are in favor of losing freedoms in favor of security.
Paddy O'Shea
Iran Wins Big In Iraq’s Election
http://www.atimes/Middle_East/GL20AK01.html
ppGaz
That’s a little clothing-specific, isn’t it?
Besides, I think he wears suspenders.
StupidityRules
Lines
TD has been neutered so many times in these and other forums that I doubt anything has had time to regrow.
What I wouldn’t give to have a George Will type righty here (I never thought I would say that). At least you can tell when George Will is going to go nuts (religion) vs when he’s sane (many constitutional issues). TD and Darrell, however, just queer threads by screaming and changing directions. Its like a chinese fire drill, except not funny.
StupidityRules
Sometimes stupidity happens…
BBC has a bit about how the seats are allocated.
Good thing they didn’t choose electoral votes (both for the country and for the US since it would have given the Shia way too much power.)
But
…
Is that really something that belongs in an electoral law? And how long until they’ll remove it?
tbrosz
It’s a little early to trumpet either victory or defeat. The next year is going to be critical in Iraq, and nobody reasonable would have thought otherwise.
We gave Iraq a chance at freedom, where before they had no chance at all. It’s not the same thing as a guarantee, and we’ll see if there even is a second real election down the road. Polls in Iraq have consistently shown that most of them don’t want a rigid “sharia” type of society, and half the voters are women. Whether that helps will depend on the honesty of the electoral process.
Anyone complaining about where Iraq is going has to also explain why they think the status quo in Iraq would have been better. Sanctions, no-fly zones, and tyranny. What do you think Saddam would be doing right now as Iran is building atomic weapons next door?
Lines
Thats an absolute, and therefore, absolute crap. Every country can be “liberated” and it doesn’t even require democracy. It requires that unselfish people govern and that only non-selfish people govern.
Saddam could have gotten hit by a truck or assassinated by one of his own guards, the possibilities for change in Iraq were endless and didn’t require the “shock and awe” campaign that did neither.
When George Bush Sr (the smarter Bush) declined on a full invasion of Iraq, the State Department was backing him up with the well thought out description of what Iraq would be like after the invasion. Damn, Bush Sr. actually hired people that were intelligent and didn’t spoon feed him. There were many scenario’s tossed around, and none of them resulted in a favorable outcome for America.
Well guess where we’re at? It appears that no matter what happens in Iraq, its not going to be favorable to America.
Oh, and those liberated from their lives during the invasion? I’m sure they would have prefered the status-quo.
Cromagnon
Saddam would be continuing to write novels and generally be lost in his own little world. Meanwhile Iraq would be completely contained via no-fly zones at no cost in lost lives and very little cost (comparitively speaking) to the America tax-payer.
Paddy O'Shea
Iran Wins Big In Iraq’s Elections (redux)
http://www.atimes.com/Middle_East/GL20AK01.html
So… where did our fine examples of the Snickering Degenerate Right go?
Don’t they wish to discuss these issues?
I’m sure they have some very important things to say, and bring with them counterpoints that will require same careful refutation.
Not.
Uberweiss
This really doesn’t have to much to do with the topic at hand but I am starting to get really sick of hearing about Iraq. If the reason we went to war there was to liberate the people of Iraq because they really needed our help, I am going to have to throw the bullshit flag on that on. There are so many other places in the world that needed our help way before Iraq did. What about the people of Africa? They are starving, dying of AIDS, and targets of mass genocide. Yet the people of Iraq need our help more? The other reason that we went to war with Iraq was because Saddam posed a threat to the safety of Americans, yet we have no proof that he actually posed a threat to us. What about North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. Do they not pose a bigger threat to us? I’m not saying that the people of Iraq didn’t have it bad and didn’t need some help from us, but isn’t there countries that could use our help so much more? Aren’t there countries who pose a bigger threat to our way of life and our safety? We went to war because big daddy Bush hated Hussein. That is the only damn reason that over 2,000 brave soldiers have died, because of some stupid vendetta. If we are going to use our power for good then maybe we should do something about the situation in Africa. Sorry, I had to get that off my chest before my head exploded.
demimondian
If alive, he’d be quaking in utter terror, but, more likely, dead.
Instead, 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, and Saddam is making public hay at a trial. The Iranians now have a realistic shot at taking over Iraq. Our resources are spread too thin to threaten them persuasively that they really shouldn’t do that.
Tell me again what this war has done to further America’s interests again?
tbrosz
I’m sorry, do you know something about Saddam’s health or that of his sons that the rest of us missed?
And what would Saddam “quaking in terror” be likely to do?
BlogReeder
Finally! Someone from the left with an answer to this!
So, the answer is that Saddam would have been killed (I assume, maybe old age?). From a different group than the Shiites because we know what happened to an earlier uprising.
And he would have been more afraid of Teheran then Washington. Fascinating.
Don’t you mean 30,000? You’re not making up that are you?
demimondian
Yes — that dictators usually wind up suffering fatal incidents when their neighbors start being better armed than they are. The rest of us knew that because we’ve like, you know, looked at the facts.
And what would Hussein, quaking in terror, do? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. He’d continue to make noise, and his advisors would continue to tell him the things that made him happy, until enough of them lost patience, and murdered him.
tbrosz
When discussing leaving Saddam in power, can we try to stick to reality?
There is absolutely nothing to indicate that Saddam’s dynasty would somehow have “evaporated” if we had left it alone. There are mass graves filled with Iraqis who tried change on their own.
Do some people have their memories erased every year or so? What happened to the sanctions that we were told were killing thousands of Iraqis a month? Granted we would be losing few American military that way, but to say that Iraqi civilians would have been better off under Saddam is to try and rewrite history.
Geez, to listen to liberal opinions of Saddam now, you’d think we’d invaded Switzerland.
Lines
BlogReader, you’ve finally shown, beyond a doubt, that you know nor knew nothing about Iraq and Saddam.
Saddam wasn’t afraid of the US, because he felt that as long as he didn’t piss us off again, he was safe from the US. But what was made clear was that the US was not protecting Iraq from outside forces. Iran could easily have marched in and done exactly what we attempted. His false front of having WMD’s and seeking nuclear weapons was most likely NOT for the benefit of the US, it was to hold Iran at bay.
If you continue to swim in ignorance, though, you’re going to turn out like Darrell and TallDave, screaming at the sky and pushing a shopping cart, wondering where your life went.
Lines
So tbrosz, the only way to end those sanctions was to bomb the shit out of the country?
Wow, remind me never to ask you to pull a thorn out, I’d end up without a limb.
tbrosz
Lines:
How would you have dealt with the sanctions?
Can I remind you about the Kay and Deulfer WMD reports, both of which stated that Saddam intended to resume WMD work as soon as the sanctions were gone and the heat was off?
Not to mention how well the “oil for food” program worked?
Sorry. Whatever shape Iraq is left in after this war, the status quo was not a good place to be either for Iraqis, or the security of the rest of the world.
demimondian
No, I’m neither making the figure up, nor ignoring what the president said last week.
I meant 100,000. There’s been exactly one scientific study of the mortality rate due to military activity in Iraq. It was published in The Lancet on October 29, 2004. It used the standard mechanism for estimating the marginal number of deaths amond civilians in a war zone, documenting both the number and the cause of those deaths. The authors found that (a) there were something on the order of 100,000 extra deaths due to military activities in Iraq, and (b) those deaths were genuinely accidental and unintended.
The 30,00 figure is based on estimated ratios between civilians and comabatants. In this war, those ratios appear to have been wrong — the weapons being used are significantly more lethal to civilians than those used in other wars recently.
Lines
Diplomacy might have been a good thing to try, but thats not a strong point for Republicans. Its always “my way, or the dead way”.
BlogReeder
Well, I am working on my backstroke.
I think Saddam was afraid of the US but he just put on a front. I don’t see how he could have been afraid of Iran. There’s no megalomaniac in charge there (or wasn’t until recently).
demimondian
Waiter, what’s that BlogReeder doing in my soup?
Hussein had fought the Iranians before.
BlogReeder
But that was a war of opportunity. Remember 1980 was right after the Iran revolution. He saw them as ripe for the picking.
demimondian
And they hated him forever after that. The only thing protecting him from them was that they were afraid of him — let any one of the scientists defect who knew that however much he wanted to restart his program, he just simply couldn’t, and Hussein was history in short order.
(Remember, that’s the other thing Duelfer found: that Hussein’s capacity to recreate his WMD program had deteriorated along with the program itself. He had a decade’s worth of work to recreate. Meanwhile, the scientists who’d backed that work could move next door to a country which was already building up an effective WMD program. And remember the Werner von Braun came to work for the US.)
BlogReeder
So we know the scientists in Iran are the same that were in Iraq?
I still don’t get how you can be confident that it would have all just worked out OK if we just let Saddam be. He was a loose cannon. He would have helped the jihadis. (I can speculate too)
Since Carter, fanatical Islam has been getting worse. Just think of this administration as the pendulum swinging the other way. We tried ignoring them for 20 years. Did that help? After 9/11, the lefts first reaction was to squeal “why do they hate us??” They told us why they hate us, they wanted to show the world we were paper tigers.
Lines
You think this is a pendulum that is swinging OUR way? You think the radical Jihadi’s are going to start suddenly disappearing and going home? Are you really that fucking ignorant, when every security and terrorism expert has been saying that the GWOT has only created more terrorists and that radical Islam is becoming more of a norm than a small faction?
Holy shit, you have got to be a parody of an ignorant dumbass, no one could possibly believe what you wrote.
BlogReeder
You’re rootin tootin right it is. Let’s see, we’ve got 2 countries turned to constitutional democracies. I’m afraid your friends won’t find any sanctuary there. Now if we turn to a third country, you better believe we’ll have some credibility before we even have to do anything. Carter couldn’t muster that kind of respect.
Lines
Hahaha, thanks for the good laugh, BlogReeder, I almost took you seriously there for a second.
jg
Shouldn’t speculation be based on fact. The jihadis goal is the removal of all secular rule in the middle east. That means Saddam must go. Why would he help them do that? I admit he gave high fives to anyone who pissed off us or Israel but he wasn’t down with jihadis.
demomondian
No, we don’t know the scientists in Iran are the same as the ones in Iraq. A more subtle reader, though, would have asked “Why on Earth would Iran accept scientists who had clearly worked against them for ideologcal reasons?”
I’m sorry to have been unclear. (And I’m stopping there. My teacher once made me write “I will not snark when I say something nice” five hundred times on the blackboard. It left permanent scars, I’m afraid.)
demimondian
Where the heck did demomondian come from?
blogReeder
Sure, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. He was helping the Palestinian terrorists. Might be a short skip and a hop to agree to help the jihadis.
I thought you were implying something.
Scientists are scientists after all.
“Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down, that’s not my department. Says Werner Von Braun. “– Tom Lehrer.
Graham Shevlin
One point that most people are continuing to overlook is that Iraq has never become a country in the sense in which most of us in the West think of a country – an entity with established, secure borders, with a high degree of social cohesion, stable public institutions, and a system of government supported by the majority of its population.
Iraq was created in the post-WW I carve-up of the Middle East by the great powers and war victors. It was amalgamated from three dissimilar provinces and ethnic groupings. Vile monster though Saddam Hussein was, he actually held Iraq together by sheeer murderous force of personality. This is analagous to Josep Tito’s record of holding together the patchwork of enthnic groupings in The Area Formerly Known as Yugoslavia. We know what happened there after Tito passed on.
The mark of success is not one set of elections, no matter what the BushCo spinmeisters would have you believe. Long-term, these elections may not matter a rat’s ass if the 3 main ethnic groups cannot even agree on which way is up, and how many legs a human possesses…if the groupings inside The Country Currently Known As Iraq cannot (to use an old phrase) agree that what unites them is more important than what divides them, then Iraq As We Would Like To Know It will not have a long-term future. It will lurch rapidly past failed state status to disintegration.
Fixating on election turnout statistical pissing contests misses many of the bigger picture issues.
BlogReeder
You have a point. But your hatred of Bush has blinded you to the phrase about him “wanting a free Iraq”. Your fixation on Iraq and what it is or isn’t, is skewing any appreciation that this could be a good thing.
Barry
tbrosz Says:
“It’s a little early to trumpet either victory or defeat. The next year is going to be critical in Iraq, and nobody reasonable would have thought otherwise.”
Walking slowly backwards, these neoconmen. First is was smoking gun mushroom clouds and ties to Al Qaida. Then it was liberation, secular democracies which loved Israel, then it was the first election, now it’s the second, with a guerrilla war raging, and our enemies winning that election.
I’ve learned the hard way, that when people play this game, cut them off. Their liars and frauds; believing them is asking for hurt.
BlogReeder
Barry, I don’t remember the mushroom cloud. Saddam did have ties to al-Qaida, that was but one of many reasons to get rid of him. What is it about Israel that get you guys in such a tizzy? Isn’t that great that they can still hold elections while being threatened by terrorists? Or should the Elections have waited until it was completely settled down? What election results are you looking at that has Abu Musab al-Zarqawi winning?
Graham shevlin
BlogReeder’s posting makes no sense. Whether or not I might hate Bush is an irrelevant ad hominem. Absent any rigorous definition, a “free Iraq” is a meaningless slogan. If Iraq disintegrates into warring ethnic factions, arguing that it is “free” will become an empty rhetorical exercise. You could argue that Serbia and Bosnia are “free” but that doesn’t make them into functioning nation states.