Iraq Elections Update

"I would . . . really encourage people not to focus on numbers, which in themselves don't have any meaning, but to look on the outcome and to look at the government that will be the product of these elections."

That's an anonymous Bush administration quoted in The Washington Post working to lower expectations for the January 30 elections in Iraq. Whole story here.

Here's hoping the turnout is robust and the results seen as legitimate (the Post reports the Bush admin is pointing to a poll saying that 55 percent of Sunnis "intend" or "somewhat intend" to vote, though that's almost certainly overly optimistic).

I don't think a successful election will embolden the neocons or refresh Bush's interest in invading more countries (which is not quite the same as saying they/he have no interest in doing so). But as Contributing Editor Michael Young, the editorial page editor of Lebanon's Daily Star, writes in our February issue, regardless of one's position to the invasion of Iraq:

Why should Iraqi democracy matter? Because, as Bush has haltingly recognized, liberty is not solely an American or Western concept; because in the Arab context it will mean more security for the U.S.; and because many American and many more Iraqis have arleady died in an endeavor that can yet be salvaged, unless the conviction of defeat grabs us by the throat first.

The February issue is not online yet; it is available on newsstands. You can check out the cover, full table of contents, my editor's note, and one of the issue's feature stories, "Crime-Friendly Neighborhoods: How 'New-Urbanist' planners sacrifice safety in the name of 'openness' and 'accessibility'" by going here.

And go here for a great subscription deal.

Comments

[Warren]

“…an endeavor that can yet be salvaged…”

Sorry Michael but you are dead wrong. This is the Mid East we’re talking about. This “endeavor” was doomed from the get-go.

[SR]

Yes, use of the word “salvage” implies that there was something there to be recovered in the first place.

[Yaron]

as Bush has haltingly recognized, liberty is not solely an American or Western concept

“Haltingly” recognized? He’s made the concept of universal democracy and liberty a component of every one of his foreign policy speeches, post-Sept. 11. I don’t know where this is coming from.

Warren, I’d say it’s already a success. Ask an Iraqi if they’d rather live in the current situation or go back to the Saddam Hussein regime. I don’t think you’d find many takers for a return.

[SR]

BTW, a day or two ago someone was boasting in another Iraq thread that Rumsfeld was a great secretary of defense because he wasn’t keeping Bush out of the loop like Macnamara with LBJ. But look what the generally pro-Bush Financial Times reported today:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/38e990ca-64d4-11d9-9f8b-00000e2511c8.html

“One counterinsurgency expert said Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, had a ‘brutally accurate’ picture of the situation and the potential dangers. But a member of an influential neoconservative policy group, who asked not to be named, said such warnings ‘stop well short of the president’. He said Mr. Rumsfeld, criticised for the conduct of the war, had an interest in hiding the true picture from the president.”

[Pavel]

“Haltingly” recognized? He’s made the concept of universal democracy and liberty a component of every one of his foreign policy speeches, post-Sept. 11. I don’t know where this is coming from.

You can perfectly well have “universal democracy” be your goal, while thinking of America as the only original source for that freedom. This is the same kind of chauvanism the British displayed for hundreds of years.

It’s all very nice to talk about freedom being “God’s gift to every person in the world.” But for Bush, “freedom” is code for “American style democracy.”

[Yaron]

I guess I don’t have my decoder ring on… what would you say is an example of freedom that, to you, is not “American-style democracy”?

[gaius marius]

“I would . . . really encourage people not to focus on numbers, which in themselves don’t have any meaning, but to look on the outcome and to look at the government that will be the product of these elections.”

in other words, we’ve already screened all the candidates and assured ourselves that we will like the victor — so pay no attention to any discredit.

someone should recognize that sham elections are a product of totalitarianism, not democracy.

[gaius marius]

But a member of an influential neoconservative policy group, who asked not to be named, said such warnings ‘stop well short of the president’. He said Mr. Rumsfeld, criticised for the conduct of the war, had an interest in hiding the true picture from the president.

which is why he should have been canned in the first place. this is elementary management, and bush has proven himself an extremely incompetent manager. i wonder if he really attended any of the mba classes he was registered for.

[gaius marius]

He’s made the concept of universal democracy and liberty a component of every one of his foreign policy speeches, post-Sept. 11. I don’t know where this is coming from.

and robespierre made liberty the central component of his speeches as well, mr yaron. what of it?

Ask an Iraqi if they’d rather live in the current situation or go back to the Saddam Hussein regime. I don’t think you’d find many takers for a return.

if i may imagine the result of such a poll:

3% — go back to saddam
5% — stay with the americans
92% – fuck them both

[Rhywun]

Ask an Iraqi if they’d rather live in the current situation or go back to the Saddam Hussein regime.

Ask an eastern German or a Russian whether they’d rather go back to Communism. Increasing numbers say “Yes”. I bet huge numbers of Iraqis were left alone during the relative “quiet” of the Saddam regime and would prefer those days. I’m not making a judgment here – just pointing out how irrelevant that “Ask an Iraqi” argument is & wishing people would stop using it.

[Mike H.]

in other words, we’ve already screened all the candidates and assured ourselves that we will like the victor — so pay no attention to any discredit.

someone should recognize that sham elections are a product of totalitarianism, not democracy.

Mr. gm, somehow I doubt that the US government has screened and pre-approved all 6,000 candidates for office in Iraq. Furthermore, there’s more than just a few Islamists and *gasp!* Iraqi communists in the running.

It would seem that your condescending tone is misplaced in this instance.

[joe]

I can’t tell whether Reason authors actually torture the facts to fit their preconceptions more when writing about urban design, or if I just notice it more because of my familiarity with the subject. Either way, there are enough logical and factual errors, all pointing in the same direction, to make what could have been an interesting read into a frustrating experience.

In their determination to fit the facts into a system in which New Urbanism is equated with unsafe design, they make a number of factual and conceptual errors. First, the segregation of modes(creating pedestrian paths separate from the street system) is not a neo-traditional idea, but a mid-20th century Radiant City/suburbanist design feature that assumes the dominance of the automobile over the roads, and the need to remove pedestrians from was is presumed to be an unsafe place for them. New Urbanist design rejects the segregation of uses, defines streets as shared spaces in which cars and pedestrians accomodate each other, by making them safe and appealing to walk along. The pedestrian path example they open with is a case of retrofitting an auto-dependent neighborhood for pedestrian use, and doing it poorly, rather than an actual New Urbanist feature. Had the pedestrian route to the school and shopping center followed sidewalks along active streets lined with the front doors of houses, does anyone believe it would have been as accomodating towards anti-social behavior?

Ditto with the large “no mans land” public spaces – the authors attempt to define this as a New Urbanist design feature, when in fact it is a suburbanist/Radiant City design feature. While New Urbanist design puts a great deal of emphasis on public parks, the broad open spaces that characterized Pruitt Igoe (and modern subdivisions) are exactly the opposite of neo-trad design. A park isn’t a no man’s land; it belongs to the government (or some defined private organization), and the government’s responsibility for patrolling and maintaining it is clear – exactly the opposite of the “belongs to everyone/belongs to no one” open spaces that the authors, Jane Jacobs, the book “Defensible Space,” and New Urbanists decry. If you look at the broad green blobs in modern suburbs and mid-century public housing alike, and compare it to the clearly defined yards and playgrounds of older and neotrad neighborhoods, it’s clear which style promotes no mans lands.

Also, “Defensible Space” (great book) doesn’t merely advocate the replacement of public space with private space, as the authors contend. While it recommends doing so in certain situations, doing so is a context-dependent exercise, not a universal prescription. The book revolves around a classification of space as public (like a sidewalk), semi-public (like a front walkway), semi-private (like a front porch) and private (the interior of your house). The book advocates for the proper orientation of these elements and the clear delineation of where one ends and the next begins, but recognizes that there need to be all four types of space in a neighborhood, and that all can be made inherently safe through proper design. It also specifically advocates ensuring the safety of public spaces by making them more visible (the “eyes on the street” theory they authors deride).

In addition, the comment about buildings with multiple units off a shared entrance being unsafe is not a critique of New Urbanism, since New Urbanist design would militate for separate doors for each unit just as Defensible Space does.

The authors also mistake correlation with causation. They note, for example, that mixed use areas and areas with more multifamily uses have higher crime rates than single use, single family residential districts, which is true. However, in their determination to attribute this to design, they fail to note that such areas also correlate with lower incomes (since less wealthy people are much more likely to be able to find homes they can afford in these areas). Given the correlation between SES and crime, it is much more likely that the different neighborhood designs simply moved the same amount of crime around the region, rather than one area fostering crime that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred.

Finally, the statement that “some police chiefs” have bought into the “eyes on the street” model is misleading. In reality, all but the dumbest cops realize that actively used, clearly visible spaces discourage crime, while empty, concealed spaces promote it.

There were some intriguing observations in the article, and I don’t want to leave the impression that there’s no value to the piece. But either the authors, the editors, or both were way to willing to let logical and factual errors slip for the sake of ideological consistency.

[gaius marius]

somehow I doubt that the US government has screened and pre-approved all 6,000 candidates for office in Iraq.

perhaps not — but i’ll virtually guarantee that the election has been gamed by the white house so that no intolerable outcome is possible.

really — our designated boys in iraq control registration, advertising, polling places, ballot counting… i live in chicago. forgive me my suspicion, but this is a fixed election if ever there was one.

[joe]

“I would . . . really encourage people not to focus on numbers, which in themselves don’t have any meaning, but to look on the outcome and to look at the government that will be the product of these elections.”

Was this comment made in reference to Bush’s electoral defeat in 2000, or his claim of a 51% mandate in 2004?

[Mike H.]

perhaps not — but i’ll virtually guarantee that the election has been gamed by the white house so that no intolerable outcome is possible.

In that case, you have much more faith in the omnipotent abilities of the Feds than I, my friend.

really — our designated boys in iraq control registration, advertising, polling places, ballot counting… i live in chicago. forgive me my suspicion, but this is a fixed election if ever there was one.

They do? But I thought Iraqi registration mainly derived from existing lists for food rationing?

You seem to be ignoring the evidence at hand that suggests that the election has NOT been gamed in favor of a conspiracy theory of international intrigue? It’s all about Occam’s Razor, and the incompetence of the Feds to rig much of anything on so large a scale, all the while under the ever-present eyes of the vaunted “international community.”

Maybe I’m being naive, gm, but the “the elections are rigged!” claim has as much relevance to me as those who claimed that if we were unable to find WMD in post-invasion Iraq, that we would then just fabricate some for the cameras.

[joe]

Since urban design is, as well all know, far more interesting than events in Iraq, I’ll just assume you’re all jes yella.

😉

[gaius marius]

you have much more faith in the omnipotent abilities of the Feds than I, my friend.

lol — they are often capable of getting what they want, even if they aren’t artful about it, mr h.

They do? But I thought Iraqi registration mainly derived from existing lists for food rationing?

sorry — i mean candidate and party registration. and our kids do in fact control that pretty closely, i’m certain.

i certainly can be wrong. but if mayor daley controls elections here as he does, it strikes me a bit fanciful that the white house wouldn’t try, with so much riding on it, and with such complete control of the apparatus.

[Ken Shultz]

Why should Iraqi democracy matter? Because, as Bush has haltingly recognized, liberty is not solely an American or Western concept; because in the Arab context it will mean more security for the U.S.; and because many American and many more Iraqis have arleady died in an endeavor that can yet be salvaged, unless the conviction of defeat grabs us by the throat first.

Darn straight–here’s to success!

[Yaron]

and robespierre made liberty the central component of his speeches as well, mr yaron. what of it?

The point I was making was about the rhetoric.

[joe]

You know, I wanted to write something nice about the piece, so I started to reread it, and it just gave me more ammunition to denounce it.

The authors have the – what? ignorance? dishonesty? confusion? – to assert that Jane Jacobs (and her New Urbanist heirs) are somehow proven wrong about the inherent safety of mixed use, traditional neighborhoods, because Pruitt-Igoe was less safe than the MIXED USE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS around it. Jane Jacobs spent most of her book arguing against the Urban Renewal/Radiant City model exemplified by Pruitt-Igoe. She denounces similar “tower in the park” developments for promoting crime, and points to a number of cases where crime shot up after a traditional neighborhood was torn down and replaced by a Radiant City-derived tower.

[joe]

Here – the authors are correct that the ideas of Jacobs and the New Urbanists cannot be applied to suburbs as we know them. The design assumes a level of activity that required urban, or at least traditional, densities and mixtures of use. A walking path through a residential cul de sac will not have sufficient eyes on the street, because there aren’t enough people about at any time for the path to really be busy, and because the single-use desing of the street leaves large blocks of time where there is no one about.

[crimethink]

the Post reports the Bush admin is pointing to a poll saying that 55 percent of Sunnis “intend” or “somewhat intend” to vote,

That’s better turnout than in a lot of places in the US.

[crimethink]

joe,

Your attempt to hijack this thread will not succeed. Please return to your seat and enjoy the movie.

[Gary Gunnels]

joe,

We’ve seen the results of your ideology (e.g., the gulag, the killing fields, etc.) and I don’t believe we need any more of that.

[Gary Gunnels]

crimethink,

The 55% is not actual turnout however. Furtheremore, ask yourself, what if 75% of the 55% “somewhat intend” to vote? If that were the case then I wouldn’t have much faith that only a minority of non-Kurdish Sunnis will vote.

[joe]

Yes, Gary, the gulag began as a pedestrianization scheme, and the killing fields as an effort to promote public transit.

See, first we get people used to walking, then marching, then goosestepping, then BWA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAA!