The OC Blog Back Issues Our Mission Contact Us Masthead
Sudsy Wants You to Join the Oregon Commentator
 

Democracy, HOORAY!

72% Turnout in Iraq. To all those who protested taking out a mad tyrant, to those fucking racists who think that Arabs are not ready for self-governance, and to all those who see the UN as the only bastion of world legitimacy despite its complicity in Saddam’s crimes and condonement of genocide in Rwanda a decade ago: A kindly fuck you.

  1. JS says:

    …to those fucking racists who think that Arabs are not ready for self-governance…

    Who are these people that think that “Arabs” aren’t ready for self-governance? I’ve heard President Bush make much this statement (minus the “fucking”) several times.

    Isn’t this demagoguery? Aren’t these “racists” just strawmen?

    Isn’t this the same bullshit as Andy saying, “It boggles my mind you think that an oppressed people, when given the chance for freedom, will choose against it.”

    It might make it easier for Bush apologists to reconcile criticisms if they believe everyone who disagrees with them is a racist, but isn’t it dishonest?

  2. Anonymous says:

    well you quoted that article, so i believe im right in assuming that you agree with it. Of course the Iraqis have a choice, and they have made thier choice, but they need help reaching thier goal. A volunteer army, a new police force, and a whole new philosophy on how to live your life need to come about before full democracy can take place. If you agree with the 3 senarios suggested by kos, then i believe your wrong. There will probably be tension for some time between the groups, but that doesn’t mean they can’t peacefully coexit and have everyone have a chance to be successful, just like in the good ‘ol USofA 😉

  3. JS says:

    It boggles my mind you think that an oppressed people, when given the chance for freedom, will choose against it.

    What the hell are you talking about? Where did I say anything like this? Andy, when you have something interesting, constructive, or intelligent to say, come on back and try again.

    Additionally, I don’t think it’s clear that the Iraqi people even have a “choice” regarding freedom within the context of the current, horrible security situation.

  4. Ian says:

    I think it’s a mistake to focus on the political ramifications of the elections just yet. The election choices and voting turnout, while adequate, weren’t enough to conclusively prove that Iraq can build a strong, working democratic republic. In my mind what was important was the ability of American and Iraqi security forces to keep a relative peace in most areas. I am of the belief that security is a prerequisite to having a stable political and economic environment, and this election seems like a big step towards that.

    This was an important win in a battle that is part of a much greater war. The still-volatile security situation in much of Iraq and the questions surrounding how the Shi’ite leadership will act (particularly regarding Iran and the Sunni triangle) are important, uncertain issues. Don’t declare victory or defeat just yet.

  5. Andy says:

    JS, that synopsis you copied and pasted is complete conjecture and honestly bullshit. It boggles my mind you think that an oppressed people, when given the chance for freedom, will choose against it.

    ohh, and btw, the cold war was the longest peacetime during the last century.

  6. JS says:

    But didnt the images of hundreds of men AND WOMEN lined up for the first real vote since I think 1954, but I could be wrong mean anything? Doesnt this overshadow the elections shortcomings? Can you find anything positive to say about it?

    Obviously, the fact that Iraqi men and women lined up to vote on Sunday was more good than bad. Unfortunately, because the overall situation in Iraq is so messed up, the relative benefit of Sunday’s election is approaching “trivial”.

    You have to consider the costs involved in carrying out this pseudo-democratic election. $200 billion and 1400 lives paid by the US. Anywhere from 20,000-100,000 innocent lives paid by Iraqis.

    Where were these “democratic elections” before the Coalition came along? Were those the easy ones where you only had one party to choose from? Where Saddam would win 97% of the vote? Was that representative democracy at its finest?

    Don’t you think this comparison is so extreme that it’s irrelevant? If you compare ANY election to the shams orchestrated by Saddam Hussein the election in question will always look fantastic.

    And if you think this election was worth the cost, there are several dozen countries waiting to have pseudo-democratic elections backed up by $200 billion and 1400 lives all paid by the US.

    This war wasn’t sold to the American people as a pro-democracy-in-Iraq effort.

    I know you guys hate/dismiss him, but I’ll give Kos the last word…

    So listening to the latest rash of “mission accomplished” talk in the wake of the elections, it’s striking how the other side has convinced itself that we have spent $200 billion and over 1,500 US and allied lives so that Iraqis could vote…

    Iraq wasn’t about WMDs. It wasn’t about a torturing, murdering regime (since we’ve done a great job of giving Iraqis more of the same). It was about GOTV.

    Anyime a people get to vote, it’s a great thing. But voting in and of itself means little. In Iraq, it means that Shiite dominate over the Sunnis is now somewhat institutionalized. It means that Iraqis will bid American troops a fond farewell, and turn to guns when the occupiers stay put. It means that these newly elected individuals will now face a wave of assassinations. It means an Iraqi government too weak to protect the machinery of the Iraqi economy. Miles of oil pipelines cannot be protected.

    So best case scenario, you have a cold-war detente between Iraq’s three main factions, a restless Turkey, a restless Iran, and a restless US occupation, all bundled up in a low-intensity insurgency in the mold of Northern Ireland. (Back in the rose petal days, the neocons were dreaming of an Israel-friendly Chalabi-led Iraqi regime.)

    Mid-case scenario, we have a Middle Eastern Colombia — a semi-functioning Democracy under siege from a whole host of paramilitary groups. Lots of assasinations, lots of territory outside effective government control, and a government held hostage to the forces of violence.

    Worst case, more of the same. 100+ US and allied dead per month (which, incidentally, is approaching the level of casualties suffered by the Soviets during their Afghanistan invasion and occupation). A failed state, breeding ground of future terrorists, and a crucial region destabalized by endless war and religious fanaticism.

    But since the reason for the invasion was apparently GOTV, then mission accomplished! Or something like that…

  7. Pete says:

    Actually, that Mother Jones article was pretty good. A lot of the predictions were wrong, but that was true across the board. I dont think anybody actually thought this thing was going to work as well as it did. (Though Im skeptical of the 72% of registered voters numbers)

    (Tangent: At the end of the article the author promotes his forthcoming book Baghdad Bulletin: The Real Story of the War in Iraq–Reporting from Beyond the Green Zone. Sounds interesting. Theres another book like this out by a Nation reporter whose name I forget. But how many “real story” books should we expect to see in the coming months? Are these going to be the new “Sean Hannity/ Michael Moore” NYT bestsellers? Will any of them be better than Generation Kill by Evan Thomas? Were any Popular Mechanics reporters allowed in the Green Zone? How about an exclusive from WizardThe Guide to Comics? Or High Times? When will we get the * real * story? )

    Im still not sure what this proves though. Yes, the candidates didnt have much of a chance to promotes themselves or their ideas before the election. Yes, the Sunnis basically boycotted the election. Yes, yes, yes there are dozens of legitimate complaints about the whole election proecess.

    But didnt the images of hundreds of men AND WOMEN lined up for the first real vote since I think 1954, but I could be wrong mean anything? Doesnt this overshadow the elections shortcomings? Can you find anything positive to say about it? Would it have been different if Kerry was in office?

  8. Pete says:

    Alright… I’ll read your Mother Jones stuff if you read that Hitchens article I posted earlier in this thread. But I cant leave without commenting on this:

    If anyone deserves credit for pushing “democratic elections” in Iraq, it’s Iraqis.

    Where were these “democratic elections” before the Coalition came along? Were those the easy ones where you only had one party to choose from? Where Saddam would win 97% of the vote? Was that representative democracy at its finest?

    Your taking a strange position here JS. Certainly you agree that a “democratic vote” only works if you have the ammunition to back it up. Those Iranian elections are a perfect example. The voters “overwhelmingly chose reform candidates but were thwarted by the entrenched reserve strength of the theorcracy.” (Hitch)

  9. JS says:

    Can we not acknowledge that even if things haven’t been going swimmingly lately, a show of democracy in Afghanistan, in Palestine, in… Iraq, is a hopeful sign for the future.

    Yeah, but what is an adequate “show of democracy”? Juan Cole contends that the 1997 elections in Iran and the 2002 elections in Bahrain and Pakistan were all more “democratic” that what we’ve just witnessed in Iraq. How democratic is Iran today? How about Pakistan? Are they even moving in the right direction?

    Furthermore, the fact that Bush and his cheerleaders view this as a “major victory” for this administration is a joke. If anyone deserves credit for pushing “democratic elections” in Iraq, it’s Iraqis–specifically Grand Ayatollah Sistani and the thousands of protesters demanding free elections he mobilized in Jan 2004.

    As Juan Cole contends: “So if it had been up to Bush, Iraq would have been a soft dictatorship under Chalabi, or would have had stage-managed elections with an electorate consisting of a handful of pro-American notables. It was Sistani and the major Shiite parties that demanded free and open elections and a UNSC resolution…But the Americans have been unable to provide them the requisite security for truly aboveboard democratic elections.”

    Yet I digress. Here’s The Iraq Election Primer courtesy of Mother Jones. Too bad the mainstream media hasn’t presented more in-depth info or analysis on the election other than “great turnout” and “success”. Here you will find more info about Iraqis not knowing who the candidates are and parties not releasing candidate lists. Hence, an anonymous “democratic election.”

  10. Timothy says:

    Juan Cole…heh.

  11. Pete says:

    What are they voting for? It’s the occupation, stupid!

    “We must vote, it is our only hope,” says Ahmed, a Shiite in his mid-20s. “Even if we are killed, it is the only way we can fight to get our country back. The Americans can’t leave now or there will be even more fighting, but if we have a government, maybe …” He trails off and shrugs. “What can we do?”

    From Salon (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/29/vote/index1.html)

    And are you going to be quoting Hayek all the time now? That Reason subscription is really getting to you.

  12. Pete says:

    Link didn’t seem to work… try this…

    http://www.slate.com/id/2112895/

  13. Pete says:

    Hitch:

    The Vietnam/Iraq babble is, from any point of view, a busted flush. It’s no good. It’s a stiff. It’s passed on. It has ceased to be. It’s joined the choir invisible. It’s turned up its toes. It’s gone. It’s an ex-analogy.

    CH has touched on this topic about a dozen times before. In fact, he could have a book out on it before I’m done typing this. But the point is a good one. If you’re going to nitpick about a few ballot irregularities in a country that hasn’t had a free vote in decades then Iraq will always be a failure to you. Though is it safe to say you don’t see this as a free election JS? (Or Kos? Or Chomsky? Or… Jon Stewart?) I’m sure this will be Chapter 16 in the newest edition of the People’s History of the Imperialist States. Can we not acknowledge that even if things haven’t been going swimmingly lately, a show of democracy in Afghanistan, in Palestine, in… Iraq, is a hopeful sign for the future.

    Nah… you’re probably right. Stop the Violence! Bring the troops home!

  14. Olly says:

    Hi JS,

    Sorry if we seem a bit distracted around here; there are institutional survival issues that are keeping people a bit busy.

    Your statement “The Iraqis didn’t even know the names of the candidates they were supposedly voting for,” reminds me of what seemed weirdest about yesterday: everyone was talking about the turnout which, yes, is important… but I didn’t see any analysis of who they were actually voting for. Reminds me of that Hayek quote about “talk[ing] far too much about democracy and far too little about the values it is supposed to protect”.

    Having said which, I’m not sure how to take the line I quoted. Do you mean that they were voting for parties rather than individuals? Be interested to see a link. (I saw the Vietnam story on Kos but a brief skim didn’t reveal anything else.)

  15. JS says:

    Democratic election? The Iraqis didn’t even know the names of the candidates they were supposedly voting for. What kind of “democractic election” is anonymous?!

    According to Juan Cole, there were even some angry politicians late last week who found out they had been included on lists without their permission.

    Lastly, this clip from the New York Times dated September 3, 1967. Unfortunately, an election deemed a “success” by the Bush Administration and the mainstream media doesn’t actually mean that Iraq is well on it’s way to becoming a model world citizen.

    U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote
    Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

    by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times

    WASHINGTON, Sept. 3– United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam’s presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

    According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

    …A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson’s policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment when he met Premier Ky and General Thieu, the chief of state, in Honolulu in February.

    The purpose of the voting was to give legitimacy to the Saigon Government, which has been founded only on coups and power plays since November, 1963, when President Ngo Dinh Deim was overthrown by a military junta.

  16. Casey says:

    I love the racist jab, as that is the real reason why people have concerns about the legitimacy of Iraq’s first step toward “democracy” (it will hopefully be a constitutional republic, though democracy sounds a lot better). By the way, what was the turnout in the “Sunni Triangle” again?

  17. Anonymous says:

    Hold off on the victory dance. We’re not out of the desert yet.

  18. Sho says:

    Thanks for the link to the book Olly. I put it on hold at the Gresham library, so I’m finally going to read it. I will also definitely have to see Hotel Rwanda soon.

  19. Timothy says:

    Olly: yes, the US, Canada, and all of the 1st world were also at least busily ignoring the issue. “Acts of genocide” my ass. The best line in the whole film is Nick Nolte’s character looking at Don Cheadle’s character and saying, “you’re not even niggers, you’re Africans.” That about sums up the attitude the western world took then and is taking now in Sudan. It is, quite frankly, sickening. Not to mention the French actions in the Ivory Coast, god.

    Not that I think any of that changes the good we are doing and have done, but “never again” really seems to mean “never again to white people in Europe.”

  20. Olly says:

    (And as it points out, the UN is far from alone in – to put it as harshly as possible – “tacitly condoning” the Rwandan genocide. Someone of a mind to do so could construct a pretty compelling indictment of the actions taken or not taken by the US and EU, too. Of course, the French probably come out of it the worst, since they were providing tactical and military support to the genocidaires for most of the time…)

  21. Olly says:

    Obligatory follow-up: We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families is required reading. I’m not sure if the movie was directly based on it, but the Don Cheadle character certainly figures prominently. Just a wonderful, harrowing book.

  22. Timothy says:

    Are the lefty blogs as predictable as I think they’ll be?

    Incidentally, I saw Hotel Rwanda this weekend, and it only made me detest the UN more. It was a great film, by the way, very powerful. Everyone should see it.

  23. Pete says:

    Great post Tim. This has really made my day. Take a look at the lefty blogs though. I think a lot of people (the Kos crowd in particular) were actually rooting for chaos and disorder. The more deaths the better. That may be overstating it a bit… but maybe not?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.