Some Came on Crutches…

The scene in Iraq, via Reuters:

Some came on crutches, others walked for miles then struggled to read the ballot, but across Iraq, millions turned out to vote Sunday, defying insurgents who threatened a bloodbath.

Suicide bombs and mortars killed at least 27 people, but voters still came out in force for the first multi-party poll in 50 years. In some places they cheered with joy at their first chance to cast a free vote, in others they shared chocolates.

Whole account here.

In another story, Reuters is estimating turnout at 72 percent, "a figure that--if confirmed--would enhance the legitimacy of a national assembly that will choose Iraq's new leaders." That account here.

Comments

[Brad]

To see those people who have been oppressed for so long go out and risk death to vote. Watching all those men and women walking to the polls-out in the open defying the terrorists. I felt a bit embarrassed by the Americans who didn't bother to get up and go vote in our last election.

It makes me think about how our citizens sacrificed so much to vote for their first time after our revolution. It makes me think about the blacks in the deep south risking death to exercise their new right to vote.

And I think about the U.S. Troops who sacrificed all to allow them and us to enjoy liberty. Our troops did not go there to conquer but to help these people find freedom. And every vote that is cast helps move our troops that much closer to coming home.

All freedom-loving people are walking along side these brave Iraqis as go to the polls. How can anyone who loves liberty not be proud of these folks.

[Eryk Boston]

Wow, you mean the mere presence of a police officer wasn't enough to frighten people who spent generations in fear of authority figures? We should be embarrassed by this.

[Ira Weatheral]

This is great news. While there have been abuses and mishandings in the war, there would have been abuses under any despotic system, but at least these folks got to vote.

[SR]

The 72% figure is from a lone election official who didn't explain the methodology: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Iraq%20Turnout

The Electoral Commission of Iraq is backing off that number: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html

"The Independent Election Commission of Iraq clarified an earlier estimate of a 72 percent turnout in Sunday's election, saying that the 'figures are only very rough, word-of-mouth estimates gathered informally from the field.'"

[Pavel]

This is the scheduled historic event that pundits have been preparing to spin for the last several months. So I'm going to be skeptical of any analysis of events for a while.

That said, it does seem that much like Puff Daddy, the insurgent's Vote And Die campaign is failing to have the desired effect.

[Ken Shultz]

Three cheers for the good people of Iraq.

[Andrew]

What? Nobody showing up yet, to explain how the quagmire just got worse?

Since this is uncontestably a positive event, I expect that in time joe will have an analysis to show that it was all due to happen anyway, without any input from the US under the leadership of Bush and his Trotskyite advisers - yep, Saddam would be in jail, and the Iraqis would be holding multi-party elections in January 2005...shoulda just kicked back and let it happen.

Somebody paid a lot of money to supply joe with those analytical skills.

[gene]

Successful Election--a resounding YES! Love it when the pundits are proved wrong one more time. I am so very tired of negative reporting. Read the Oregonian this morning. Cartoons that show bodies all over the ground with arrows pointing to the voting booth, negative reports that have nothing to do with actual happenings. Must have set the type early and decided to print them anyway cause that is what the news pundits predicted.

[thoreau]

Andrew, you'll get no complaints from me. If this turns out to have the impact that we hope it has, I'll gladly eat some crow.

[john]

It seems as though the Sunnis hardly showed up at all. Having a large proportion of the country find the government illegitimate isn't exactly a good thing. Of course, we can always just bomb the fuckers into submission 🙂

[tarran]

Don't get too excited, the percentage is the number of registered voters who actually turned up. CNN reports that the total number of ballots cast is 8 million out of a population of ~63 million. Figure if two thirds are eligible to vote then the turnout is around 20% of eligible voters.

My guess is that the majority of Iraqi's will not view the constitutional body as being truly representative. Thus we will continue to see an increasingly capable insurgency with passive support of the population.

[Native NYer]

The US seemed to work OK even when minorities were disenfrancised. Works better now that the political process is more inclusive, but still the sunnis are only a quarter of the population, right? With the next vote (that's the trick, there needs to be a NEXT vote) more sunnis will opt in just to gain power.

[Ken Shultz]

I agree with thoreau.

I've been hoping to be proven dead, flat wrong for a very long time.

[matt]

Gene,

Did you miss the part where suicide bombers killed 35 people?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=QFSAXDMWCMBY4CRBAEOCFFA?type=worldNews&storyID=7476195

[Twba]

Tarran, Iraq's population is estimated at 25 million and about half are minors. 8 million voters is pretty high percentage.

[Cyrano]

Matt,

Did you miss the part where Iraqis didn't let those suicide bombers scare them away from the polls?

[Dave]

Some Iraq population figures. Around 40% of the people are under 18 so 8 million is probably around a 60% voter turn out.

Population:
24,001,816 (July 2002 est.)
Age structure:
0-14 years: 41.1% (male 5,003,755; female 4,849,238)
15-64 years: 55.9% (male 6,794,265; female 6,624,662)
65 years and over: 3% (male 341,520; female 388,376) (2002 est.)

from nationbynation.com

[J. Goard]

Pavel has a good first reaction. I'll withhold my personal assessment of those whose opinion on something of such life-and-death importance to Iraqis is motivated by the desire to stick it to a few other Americans on some debate show.

I sure hope that the electoral system is addressed in great detail, and I hope that American planners/advisors are willing to admit that ours sucks, that the UK's is better, and Germany's way better for accurately reflecting minority voices (mixed metaphor :> ).

[tarran]

Ooops! My bad. The 63 million figure came from my obviously faulty memory, and I didn't bother checking any sources. In my original post I was going to make a crack about clueless journalists who don't check their sources. Good thing I deleted it huh? 🙂

Apologies to anyone I led astray. 🙁

[Mike H.]

I too am reserving judgement, but hope like hell that it's a "resounding success."

Either way, though, damn. I think we can all agree that of the people who did go out and vote, men and women, they have extremely big balls. This is truly awe-inspiring to me.

[Jim Walsh]

No offense, but some of youse guys are really annoying me. I can imagine some of the get-out-and-vote types crowing in 1932: "Gosh, ain't it wonderful how the Germans are turning out to vote out all those Weimar Republic jerks! By the way, who is this Hitler fellow, anyway?"

Before we all start jumping up and down like a bunch of vote-monkeys, why don't we wait just a while and see how it all shakes down. And while you're at it, take another look at those pictures of American body bags, and ask yourself if it all was worth it.

[matt]

Cryano,

Did you miss this part of gene's comment:

"I am so very tired of negative reporting. Read the Oregonian this morning. Cartoons that show bodies all over the ground with arrows pointing to the voting booth, negative reports that have nothing to do with actual happenings."

I don't know exactly what The Oregonian printed since I don't live in Oregon. But the fact remains 35 people have been killed so far (excluding the suicide bombers). Those deaths are "actual happenings" whether you chose to acknowledge them or not.

[John]

There appears to be 25 deaths and 71 wounded or 100 total casualties on a day when over ten million Iraqis voted. That is .00001% of voters being harmed by the insurgency. In addition, the turnout rate appears to be over 70% overall and 60% in Salah al Din, and 65% to 95% in Baghdad, the two of which which comprise most of the Suni triangle. Turn out rates were no lower than 50% anywhere in the country. Yet, Robert Fisk calls the election a bloody farce. John Kerry says on Meet the Press this morning that there is no way the election can be legitimate when there is rampant violence and large sections of the country cannot vote. Every news story leads with the same line, "Iraqis vote amid violence or a spate spate of attacks." .00001% is a spate of attacks?

As far as the "was this really worth it" crowd, if you don't think making two decent democracies out of two of the worst run hell holes in the world (Afghanistan and Iraq) and providing hope for a decent life to over 70 million people is worth it, then you pretty much belong to the fuck'em if they are not American school of thought or the European variation, just keep them in line and let us make money off of them school. If that is the way you want to be fine, but I think we can do better than that. After 9-11 we have to do better than that.

[rob]

Would 70% of americans ever vote for any election? Dont we hover around 50% as a nation? My precinct (MN) is usually over 80%. If there was even a bomb threat in this country, nobody would go to the polls. These Iraqis are braver than I. Kudos to them.

[mike]

SR is right, the 72% figure is definately bogus. Most real "estimates" i've seen are more in the 40-50% range, which is still impressive considering the threats of violence and that this is the first election there in over 50 years. The REAL problem is that most polling stations in the heavily Sunni areas were practically DESERTED all day. This could mean:

a) nothing, and the daily dolldrums of small scale but deadly insurgent attacks continues.

b) insurgent ranks swell with Sunnis who feel disenfranchised and that the new gov. is an illegitimate puppet of the U.S.

c) Sunnis as a population rise up in uproar over their disenfranchisment in the new gov. and begin a civil war.

[kuros]

"Did you know that the "ration" card of year 2005, that allows you to take sugar, flower and few other things too, which have been the main resource for Iraqi families' food since early nineties, will not be given except for those who will vote?
When you go to the voting center they give you a paper that allows you to take the card from the ration shop in your neighbor!"

http://secretsinbaghdad.blogspot.com/

[John]

Why is the 70% bogus? News outlets like the BBC, hardly pro American, are giving it. Mike, are you on the ground counting? Why is a few anticdotes about Fallujia indicitive of the entire Suni Triangle. What evidence do you have about the 70% figure other than wishful thinking?

[kwais]

There was fighing through much of the night last night. And there were some big explosions. And tonight there was also fighting and explosions.

But today it seemed like everybody and their brother voted. I saw all races vote, to include Sunni Arabs. Every Iraqi that I know voted. Granted this is all anectdotal, and that doesn't mean that much. I would guess that 70% is low.

There definately was a general feeling of elation in the air. People were proudly showing there blackened fingers showing that they voted. I am guessing that a lot of bad guys were caught trying to pull shit.

[cdunlea]

I too hope this turns the corner in Iraq. However, before we all start popping the champagne, it's worth noting that in the Sunni minority areas, the strongest supporters on the insurgency, turnout was pathetically low; in Tikrit, for example, the BBC is reporting fewer than 400 votes cast.

My guess? The Shi'ite majority wants things to improve fast and will grasp any method to strengthen the new regime and get us out of there; the Sunnis aren't buying it. I guess I'm in the "wait and see" camp.

[joe]

"What? Nobody showing up yet, to explain how the quagmire just got worse?"

Andrew, there are plenty of episodes I can point to in the news every day to demonstrate how the quagmire is getting worse. When you're an Iraq dove, you don't have to spin events that look good for the other side. Contrast this with, say, "the Flypaper Theory."

This a great event. As a wise man said, what happens over the next few days will very likely determine the outcome of the entire Iraqi adventure.

I hope to God I've been wrong about this whole. I hope Iraq turns into Orange freaking County, and I look like an idiot.

I hope Shiite Iraqis don't use their win to put their boot on the neck of the Sunni populace. I hope the Sunni and jihadi insurgencies don't get a flock of new volunteers, but whither in the light of a broadly-legitimate election. I hope George Bush steps up and demonstrates a level of leadership, diplomacy, strength, and generosity that gets a president onto Mt. Rushmore and locks in his party's majority for a generation.

I've got a bottle of amber right here. Here's hoping, Andrew.

[Dynamist]

It seems that simply holding an election with genuine choice is an historic event, worthy of my applause and awe. The merit is in the choosing far more than in the choice made.

Spin it as one will, but recall the underlying fact that millions of people exercised an essential right of self-determination.

I do not believe we have standing to judge the sacrifice of the dead. They are beyond our capability to measure. All I have is gratitude for their contribution.

[joe]

A writer in Time magazine said of Russia a few years back, "It's not the first election that matters, it's the second." Look at Russia.

But, you can't get to a second election without the first.

[Jesse Walker]

Fools rush in where pundits love to tread.

[thoreau]

FWIW, I think that what happened today is a very wonderful, promising and historic event. I hope that it lives up to its promise and delivers a free, stable, peaceful, and more prosperous Iraq.

If it does, any gun owner on this list who shoots a crow can bring it to my apartment, where I will personally marinade it, roast it, and eat it while you watch.

[thoreau]

And I'll smile as I eat that bird, for it will mean that things worked out well!

[John]

This true. One election does not make a country, but you have to have one to have too. Also, Russia, while not going as well as hoped is hardly lost. People need to remember, Iraq is a grevously wounded nation. Its not going to be fixed overnight and its never going to be America. There are always going to be problems, at least for the forseeable future. But it is a lot better than it was.

[Richard]

I find it interesting to see how many people draw a line in the sand on the number of deaths in Iraq today. On an average day, anywhere from 42 and 60 people are murdered in the US. Did anyone hear about how many voters were turned away from the polls by murder in the US last year? No. We don't know how many of these murders are revenge based, terrorism, or even if the murderers were Iraqis. Amazing what passes for intellectual thought these days.

[Mo]

Let me echo thoreau and the other doubters here in saying that I'm thrilled to be eating crow wrt the election now. If this is a sign of things to come then it will all have been worth it. joe is right, the next election matters just as much as this one, but this is a great historic event. Huzzah for the Iraqi people.

The best thing about being a pessimist is that you're either right or pleasantly surprised.

[Junyo]

I said a couple days ago that no matter how things went the rationalization of how it was actually bad/wrong/making the situation worst would begin immediately. Damn I'm good. Keep in mind kids, there's a certain point when you're no longer arguing against the process but against the end product.

"And while you're at it, take another look at those pictures of American body bags, and ask yourself if it all was worth it."
Mr. Walsh, how about you stand among the graves at Colleville-sur Mer or St. James and ask that question. Or ask it of the millions of people gassed, murdered, and sport-raped by Baath henchmen. Or the generation Iranian widows and orphans created by the old regime. Or the people that went to the polls under the protection of American guns and under the threat of beheading for doing so. But educate me. Exactly how many American lives is an Arab life worth? How about an Arab living in a country with a representative government, what's that get me? Just give me some conversion figures so I can do the math.

[thoreau]

joe, you need to go to the Stossel thread from Friday. You'd undoubtedly enjoy it.

[Mr. X]

The only evidence that Chicagostan is a "democracy" is that its government denies tampering with the vote count the way most other Third World governments do.
It would be quite remarkable if Karzai had let himself lose given that Karzai prohibits private ownership of TV and radio stations and newspapers and that opposition parties were given no air time. All political parties have to be registered with the Ministry of Justice, and the government requires them to pursue its own version of Islam. Members of unregistered political parties are arrested. Someone arrested for speaking out can expect no mercy, as Afghanistan's kangaroo courts have no juries, prisoners are tortured to produce confessions, Karzai's packed the Afghan Supreme Court from 9 judges to 137, there's no real limit on the length of pretrial detention, defendents aren't always permitted to retain council, the National Security Court operates secretly on a secret set of rules. There's a domestic spying agency that operates independently of this kangaroo court system and arrests, detains, and interrogates Afghans on its own. (Source: James Bovard, *The Bush Betrayal*, pp. 241-242).
In addition to news reports about how the election supposedly went well, there were newspaper articles that conceded that the red dye that was supposed to prevent repeat voting rinses off easily. Besides, if an Islamic theocracy is so radical that it has separate polling places for men and women, is it really reasonable to expect that it would allow a candidate who favors separation of church and state or equality before the law to win the vote count?
It is certainly brave of Iraqis to risk their lives just to stand in line for hours and then vote, but if this is like most other things in the Third World that appear to be elections, Allawi will make sure his Iraqi List gets a lot of seats whether it gets a lot of votes or not.
The reason elections are important is not because they make governments legitimate or because they let people elect their leaders, but because they give the people a check on government power. Jim Walsh is right that if maintaining the form of an election makes a political system a democracy, regardless of how much voter intimidation there is and regardless of whether the government that's elected is itself willing to conduct peaceful elections, Hitler was democratically elected.

[Andrew]

joe and thoreau

glad you're prepared to enjoy your crow...but let's dwell for a moment on what you would have been wrong about (if you prove to be wrong)

A.) you have been betting AGAINST democracy - you have been pumping for a theory that people (or wogs, anyway) always care more about something - turning the lights on, following the creed of their cradle, realizing their ethnic hatreds, or erasing some perceived slight to the national ego - MORE than they care about the dignity of being their own masters in just and only that sense that democracy allows people to be their own masters.

You were wrong. You saw that people often care violently about those other things...but I would submit, mostly when the option of self-rule was off the table (or appeared to be). You can mobilise folks for that other crap only when they despair of being free- and that is a damned important point re the point of spreading freedom.

B.) Leadership means having the balls to be willing to invest a thousnd or ten thousand soldier's lives on a good shot at the prospect, under conditions of uncertainty. If you can't find it in yourself, you have no business running this society.
Maybe France. Chirac can draw the line at a dozen or so soldiers in Ivory Coast, Haiti or Bosnia...because it's all Guallist hot air anyway.

Bush and his ex-Trot advisers are after bigger game.

[thoreau]

Andrew, why must you pour piss over my crow? I was marinading it in the sweet taste of democracy, and now you insist on pissing all over it by misrepresenting my position.

Besides, the crow will take some time to cook. We won't know how it turns out until we see this government in action for at least a few months. (Some might insist that it takes at least 2 election cycles to see how it turns out, but I'm being generous and only requiring a few months.)

Anyway, you misrepresent me by saying:

A.) you have been betting AGAINST democracy - you have been pumping for a theory that people (or wogs, anyway) always care more about something - turning the lights on, following the creed of their cradle, realizing their ethnic hatreds, or erasing some perceived slight to the national ego - MORE than they care about the dignity of being their own masters in just and only that sense that democracy allows people to be their own masters.

Um, I have never underestimated the desire of Yusuf Al Shmoe (Arabic for Joe Schmoe) to be his own master. I have never underestimated the inherent decency of the Iraqi people.

What I have questioned is whether that's enough to bring about a fairly honest government that will be strong enough to suppress the insurgents/terrorists/whatever-term-one-prefers yet weak and humble enough to submit to checks and balances and resist the worst forms of kleptocracy that we usually see in the Middle East. There are powerful forces that have a vested interest in the violence, and other powerful forces that have a vested interest in creating an illiberal government. Massive turnout in a free election is a necessary step toward bringing those forces under control, but it is not sufficient.

A day with a lower-than-expected death toll is CERTAINLY a good start, but not terribly surprising in light of the stringent security. If the violence continues to abate, and if the new government submits to checks and balances, delivers a constitution that mends some of the divides in Iraqi society (via widely accepted agreements on issues of local self-rule, oil, etc.), then will I remove the crow from the oven and eat it with gusto.

So, to summarize, this is an excellent step in the right direction, and I hope that things continue like this, but the verdict is not yet in.

And before you accuse me of back-pedaling, I specifically said above:

I hope that it lives up to its promise and delivers a free, stable, peaceful, and more prosperous Iraq.

If it does...

[Mr. X]

Self government is control of your own life, not control of other people's lives. Representative government doesn't promote self government unless voters tend to want to be free and elect rulers who protect people against the use and threat of force but otherwise leave people free to control their own lives.
Even if the vote count resembles the actual vote, the government that emerges from this will probably be a Muslim theocracy like the one that's in power in Iraq right now.

[joe]

Apparently, Andrew doesn't have to know whether this will work in order to know that it has worked.

[thoreau]

Another thought. You write:

Bush and his ex-Trot advisers are after bigger game.

Are you alluding to the domino theory of democracy? I hope to God that you are right on that. If so, it will mean we don't have to invade many more countries in the Middle East.

And while I'm willing to praise any ex-Trotskyite who sees the error of his ways and rejects central planning and big government, I'm curious why you feel the need to use this adjective to describe Bush's advisors. Do you consider prior affiliation with communism to be a good thing?

[joe]

Perhaps, thoreau, Andrew's affinity for Trotskyites is related to his belief that opposing a huge, bloody crusade for a noble end is that same thing as opposing that end.

[kwais]

Joe and Thoreau,

Eat your crow now already. There was already a freen and fair election, and there was mass participation.

There is still terrorism in Iraq, but they have not managed to achieve anything. They did not stop people from voting as was clearly their goal. They have managed to slow progress in their country, but they have not stopped it.

As far as the jury not being in yet. What? The jury is never in. The jury is not in for the US either. But we can look and say "we have done good so far". And we can look at Iraq and say the same.

What is wrong with you guys? Yes we still could fail. Yes the end of the world could come tommorrow, but right now we are doing pretty good.

[thoreau]

At the risk of immitating a certain posting style, I just reread something above and I have to ask Andrew one more question.

When you write:
...you have been pumping for a theory that people (or wogs, anyway)...

What is a "wog"?

[thoreau]

kwais, this is hardly the first time in the history of the world that there's been an election after the end of an unelected regime. Some of those elections have led to experiments that are still going strong after more than 200 years (e.g. the US). Others have led to, well, not so nice scenarios in relatively little time (e.g. plenty of places after the end of colonial rule).

I see no reason to not wait a few months. Geez, most historians would probably say you need to wait at least 2 election cycles, and I only want a few months.

For the record, I think this is a good start, and I'm sharpening the knife that I'll use to carve that crow, and preparing a few side dishes.

I'm willing to arm-wrestle kwais for the wish bone! 😉

[kwais]

So the election was not good enough for you?

[joe]

kwais, there was a "freen and fair election" in Germany in the early 30s, as well. The purpose of this mission (the latest one, anyway) was to establish democratic, human-rights-respecting government in Iraq. One election, heavily boycotted by several of the most significant grouops in the country, in the midst of an ongoing insurgency/civil war/terror war, does not a system of democratic governance make.

It could well be a step in the right direction, but let me ask you (and Andrew):

Compared to the day Bush stepped on the aircraft carrier, do you feel more certain that things are going to go our way, less certain, or about the same?

[kwais]

Does crow taste good? I have eaten a lot of different birds (I think including bat) and none of them tasted bad.

[thoreau]

So the election was not good enough for you?

I thought elections were merely a means to an end, the end being (hopefully) the establishment of accountable and limited governments that will maintain security and order without squashing freedom. Freedom, after all, is supposed to be the antidote to terrorism. Elections are step 1 toward freedom (and a very important step, might I add!) but I want to see results.

If I were really nitpicky I'd say that the experiment won't be complete until the US leaves, since only then will we know if Iraq has become a stable, functioning, and self-sufficient country. But I'm only asking for a few months.

Tell you what: I'll render a verdict on May 17 (my birthday). It's a little more than 3 months away, which seems like a good timetable.

Mark your calendars!

[thoreau]

joe, I'm still waiting for you to make an appearance in this thread.

[kwais]

Joe,
The fact that Hitler was elected is an argument for constitutional limitations on government power (specially the right of citizens to keep and bear arms). The fact that Hitler was elected is not, as I see it, an argument that people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[John Al Qari]

I voted for Iyad Alawi's list before I voted against it.

[joe]

kwais,

"There is still terrorism in Iraq, but they have not managed to achieve anything. They did not stop people from voting as was clearly their goal."

Actually, their goal was to stop SUNNIS from voting. There doesn't seem to have been very much electoral violence in the Shia south or Kurdish north. In this goal, they appear to have succeeded.

The argument you SHOULD be making is that the democratic process is going to go forward and become established as the political norm regardless, not the counterfactural claim that the insurgents and terrorists didn't manage to suppress the vote. If turnnout in Chicago was 90% in all of the majority black and Latino precincts, but 5-20% in the majority white precincts, after months of terrorism aimed to suppressing the white vote, would you be arguing that the election was an obvious success, without even seeing the poll results or the way the population responded to them?

[kwais]

Joe,
"Compared to the day Bush stepped on the aircraft carrier, do you feel more certain that things are going to go our way, less certain, or about the same?"

To me I would say that I feel better. But to remember exactly how you felt in the past is not an easy task. I think that at the time of his aircraft carrier appearance, I still had some doubts of the outcome overall, because I was afraid of Iraq becoming a neo-Israel. I am fairly sure that Iraq is on its way to freedom and prosperity now.

[joe]

kwais, no one's arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Everyone here agrees that the election was a good thing - the argument is over how good, and how significant, a good thing it is.

What the election of Hitler demonstrates is that the fact that an election is held does not automatically lead to freedom and democracy and security, especially if that election is held in the midst of a national crisis and an atmosphere of escalating violence.

[joe]

"I am fairly sure that Iraq is on its way to freedom and prosperity now."

For lack of a better term, inshallah.

[kwais]

Thoreau,
"If I were really nitpicky I'd say that the experiment won't be complete until the US leaves, since only then will we know if Iraq has become a stable, functioning, and self-sufficient country."

I kind of agree with you, and I hate to bring up that we are still in Germany, Japan, and Korea. I would like to see Iraq able to handle itself without us, and if we need a base there for whatever future threat, to have that option too.

[thoreau]

kwais-

Good point about Germany, Korea, and Japan. Fortunately, at some point our role in those countries switched from fighting insurgents to managing external security threats (North Korea, China, and the Soviets). Maybe it's better to ask whether the Iraqis will be able to manage their internal security without our help in the near future, or to pass judgement once that day comes.

[kwais]

Joe,
So the election was a good thing. If there is not another that would be a bad thing. But today there was an election and it was a good thing. Today I did not have cancer that was a good thing, if tommorrow I get it that wouldn't be a good thing.

I am going to bed now it is 3 something am here.

[Junyo]

...there was a "freen and fair election" in Germany in the early 30s, as well. The purpose of this mission (the latest one, anyway) was to establish democratic, human-rights-respecting government in Iraq.
The Hitler bromide is very old, and incredibly tedious. Freedom, which progressives tend to forget, includes the freedom to make mistakes. If the US constrained the choices to insure a moderate outcome, compelled people to vote when they didn't choose to, or drafted their constitution for them, that wouldn't be freedom, that would be a nicer master. At a certain point if you believe in freedom you have to understand that people are smart enough to exercise in their best interest, or that they will pay the consequences of not doing so. But freedom with guardrails isn't actually freedom if someone else installs the guardrails.

One election, heavily boycotted by several of the most significant grouops in the country, in the midst of an ongoing insurgency/civil war/terror war, does not a system of democratic governance make.
Yeah, actually it is, the start of one anyway. There always seems to be this disconnect that people should be able to make consequence free choices. World doesn't work that way. The Sunnis had every right to vote, if they choose not to exercise that right the consequence is they probably won't be a well represented as they might've. But it works that way in every democratic country on the planet; choose not to vote, don't get represented. Was there coercion involved? Sure was but not by the state, but by murderers that the Sunnis have been playing against the middle. They gambled and lost, and hopefully they'll have learned their lesson by the time the next election rolls around.

[joe]

It's useful to note the difference between what kwais is saying and what Andrew is saying. Kwais argues that holding this election is an important step towards achieving the democratic and humane governmance that Iraq so sorely needs, that it makes it more likely that we'll achieve our goals. Andrew, on the other hand, is arguing that holding this election proves that we have achieved those goals. Kwais is claiming that a weight got dropped on his side of the scale, while Andrew is claiming that his side has definitively been proven right by today's events.

So when things turn bad in the next weeks or months, I expect to see kwais arguing that we have a responsibility to stick it out to achieve our goals, and I expect to see Andrew arguing that our job is done - we already achieved democracy, don't you remember the election? - and whatever is going wrong is the Iraqis' problem.

We'll see.

[cdunlea]

"The fact that Hitler was elected is an argument for constitutional limitations on government power (specially the right of citizens to keep and bear arms). The fact that Hitler was elected is not, as I see it, an argument that people shouldn't be allowed to vote."

Hitler was not elected, but selected, as Chancellor by the legitimate government as a way to restore public confidence in a rapidly deteriorating situation. This means that Hitler had a strong public following and was hardly a fringe candidate. In other words, anyone wanting to take his rifle and start a revolt would be doing so against the overwhelming will of the German electorate. Or did the fact that there was minimal resitance to the Nazi regime, even in the face of tyranny, pogroms, secret arrests and a disastrous war elude you completely?

I'm not even heating the oven for my crow right now, folks. An election means nothing. Ukraine has had elections but few before the most recent one meant anything. Hell, Saddam held elections too; doesn't mean they led to good government. South Vietnam held elections in 1960; by 1967 the country was a shambles because the insurgency, not the NVA, crippled the government. Let the new Iraqi government show real progress, ie. being able to fight the insurgency on its own while restoring order and services to the people, and I'll change my tune. Not before.

[joe]

Junyo, I think you missed the point of the Germany analogy (sorry if learning from history bores you. Suck it up.) And you also seem to have missed my answer to exactly the same objection when Andrew raised it.

The fact that Hitler got elected doesn't prove that elections are bad. It proves that holding an election does not mean the country has achieved stability, democracy, human rights, security, or any of the other things defined as this war's goals.

Elections are good. This election was good, though how good, we won't know for quite some time. Perhaps it will start the process of embedding democratic practices and values within Iraqi culture, as they are within ours, and secure a peaceful and democratic future for those poor people.

But I wouldn't go coverting little Junyo's college fund into Iraqi T Bills quite yet.

[thoreau]

But I wouldn't go coverting little Junyo's college fund into Iraqi T Bills quite yet.

You know, I've been wondering if we could come up with a market-based indicator of Iraqi stability, and joe of all people has come up with it!

Let's look at the credit rating for Iraqi gov't bonds. Well, as soon as the Iraqi gov't issues bonds instead of getting its cash from Uncle Sam.

[Ruthless]

As an anarchist, I can't get excited about elections.
If this PR victory for Dubya were a sign he'd have the good sense to use it to get the US out quickly, then I'd get excited.

Could the Iraqi people have been responding like an audience to a long speech: applauding at "So, in conclusion..."?

Give me a few more days before preparing my crow. I want to consult with Justin Raimondo at minimum.

[Junyo]

The fact that Hitler got elected doesn't prove that elections are bad. It proves that holding an election does not mean the country has achieved stability, democracy, human rights, security, or any of the other things defined as this war's goals.

I prefer to draw valid lessons from history joe. You assume that there is such a thing as a "stable" country. Hitler was elected and with the approval of the people sysematically eroded stability, democracy, human rights, and security (checks and balances only work if someone activates the process). If the proof of a stable country is that "it" can't happen, then there has never been a stable country in the history of mankind. If we plan on "...embedding democratic practices and values within Iraqi culture, as they are within ours..." then we should do them a favor and nuke them now. Our principles are so well embebbed that half the country thinks forced wealth redistribution and disarmament of the average citizen is a good idea, and the other half thinks that racism and religion are good principles to govern by. Government constantly seeks to erode freedom, and the one saving grace of democracy is that it gives the people a regular chance to slap it down when it exercises that impulse. The only real stability is the belief of the electorate that when they slap the government down it will listen, and the belief that waiting for the next election is better for all concerned than blowing something up. Once the Iraqis fully understand both of those points, they've got as much democracy as we have. And I for one think they understand a lot more than people give them credit for.

And I have been thinking about grabing some of the Iraqi bonds that them advertise on Blogads. What about the one of the event futures markets, start an issue on a second election?

[Junyo]

I'd just like to thank everyone who reads my posts for looking at them despite my failure to proofread. I was diagnosed with DDP syndrome (Dumbass Doesn't Preview) a couple of years ago, and it's just been getting worse. But doctors are working on a cure.

[Andrew]

joe and thoreau

1.) I like the part about the Trots because I get a lot of shit about it. If even half the deep analysis put into proving the Trot connection was a sinister influence, is someday put toward proving they were a positive influence in the administration...then I suppose my peculiar past will take on cachet!

(I always was sickened at the way the most odious Stalinists could glide into cushy spots on either the Establishment or Post-Radical Lefts, whichever they preferred...and even continue to pursue old sectarian vendettas - maybe one reason ex-Trots go all the way Right?)

I did NOT say the case was proven yet...I put a caveat right at the beginning of my most substative post "if you are proven wrong"

I did say that the heart of the matter is whether people care more about democracy, or other things.

"wogs" are benighted non-Europeans: an insulting term.

Hitler never commanded a majority - the collapse of the Weimar Republic was a capitulation by political elites.

[thoreau]

I like the part about the Trots because I get a lot of shit about it.

You do realize that "the trots" is a slang term for diarhea, right?

You get a lot of shit about the trots...

heh heh... 😉

[Dynamist]

I'll take this opportunity to observe that the goal, as I understand the Bush doctrine, is to eliminate a source and base for terrorism. Establishment of some kind of representative government in Iraq is a step toward this end. The flag-draped coffins represent a sacrifice not in the name of democracy abroad, but to reduce the probability of Americans being murdered.

For those who can't be happy about Sunday's events, I suggest bitching about the wisdom of attempting to protect Americans by killing foreigners.

[T]

Isn't this really something of a non-event? Holding an election is all very nice, but let's remember, this remains an occupied country with an 800lb. gorilla breathing very closely down it's neck. It's all very well to elect a government, but how do you figure a government that has no real authority or autonomy is an example of self-determination?

Wake me up when the troops leave. Until then, it matters little if the Iraqis elect a president, crown a king, or appoint a CEO, Iraq still remains a satrap of the Empire States of America.

[Andrew]

FYI

"Trot" and Trotsky-ite are offensive terms coined by Stalinists. Trotskyist was the correct nomenclature for those who followed Lev Davidovitch.
I have sometimes wondered at the Trot/neo-con connection. One thought: Trotsky's Permanent Revolution hypothesis was a kind of Domino Theory too. Also the Left Opposition adhered to an anguished loyalty to a Soviet experiment that consumed them...much as neo-cons are routinely shit on and out by the administration they have served so superbly!

You guys still have your scare scenarios: thoreau still plunks for the Shiite theocracy, and joe (who last year was hailing the Suni-Shiia Alliance) has swallowed the Nation's ethnic war video-crack.

On one, I'll venture the fairly safe prediction that ten days from now it will be indisputable that the only folks in Iraq more marginalised by this election than the Sunnis, were the theocrats of any persuasion.

On two? Yesterday Ron Bailey had everyone carving up Iraq, because the borders were drawn bycolonialists, and don't correspond to anything in the history of Sumer or the Saffayids, right?

Of course, those borders have been around longer than most Iraqis have been alive, and the three-way division everybody was grooving on has never existed as anything apart from a bulge in Ron Bailey's pants.

Meanwhile, Iraqis have participated in a national election (they previously fought off Iran in a national war) and I'll venture that seperatist parties (all flavors were available) did worse than the theocrats.

I don't see any Kurds or Shiia calling for the blood of the Sunni. (Not even Bani-Sadr). It is interesting that Sunni resistence is NOT a theme in insurgent propaganda. Matter-of-fact, since 9-ll no jihadis have been pressing a Sunni-vs-Shiia theme. This could only be because they don't believe it will play well...and in this one respect, I would assume they know their business.

joe, the Sunni sat out this election. So what? They were going to lose heads-up and it is a bit early to decide how to market their swing vote. If the Shiites and Kurds set up a democracy, the Sunni get it for free. They could have helped by pitching their vote in today, but perhaps they know their neighbors well enough to know everything is going to be OK? ...and meanwhile there is all that intimidation, you know.

That Sunni voters stayed home today doesn't mean anyone is coming to get'em - what do you conquer in Ramadi? dusky maidens, date palms and grey little donkeys? -or that their going to bust out with the resistence, two guns blazing.

[thoreau]

Andrew, I truly hope that you are correct in your predictions.

[pragmatist]

Are there any real live historians here? Me, I admit I'm an ametuer, read lots but it's not my profession.

The future of Iraq depends, more than anything else, on the quality and calibre of the leaders that Iraq can produce. There's ample instances in history where "the people" actually wanted what was good and right for them, but there was no leader capable of delivering it for them. Look at South Vietnam for an excellent example.

A strong political leader must have a unique set of personality traits in order to succeed. We can talk all day, but political philosophers rarely have the right combination of traits.

I too hope Iraq fights the good fight from now on. But the US cannot manufacture leadership where there is none. Slam the US for having supported "puppet monster" gov'ts in other countries in the past, if you will (and I can well appreciate the sentiment). But understand too why it happens.

Don't be surprised if that ends up happening in Iraq, before it's over and done. And lest it cause you anguish, keep in mind the history of Taiwan. In the long run, Uncle Sam's plans haven't always failed.

Of course, they haven't always worked, either.

Me, I don't got no crow. I just got my credit card ready to mail order a crow trap, in case I need it. Because I've got serious doubts about Iraq having the necessary calibre leadership, in their current generation.

Nonetheless, I say to hell with all the pundits. The fact that the Iraq elections happened is none short of an amazing good thing. Cheers to that.

[joe]

Andrew,

I can see the question of separatism and partition going either way. It's just too soon to tell. I love this, though: "joe, the Sunni sat out this election. So what?" It's almost funny, excpet for all the people getting killed. I guess we'll find out.

Yugoslavia's borders existed for longer than most of its inhabitants were alive. You do

Junyo,

You're freaking out about the Hitler reference. You're looking around for a holocaust. Meanwhile, I'm making a point about tyrants in general.

"If the proof of a stable country is that "it" can't happen, then there has never been a stable country in the history of mankind."

If, on the other hand, the proof of a stable country is the absence of running gun battles on the streets of the capital, there have indeed been a number of stable countries, and Iraq is not one of them.

[raymond]

They did not stop people from voting as was clearly their goal.

That's not quite true, is it.

Leadership means having the balls to be willing to invest a thousnd or ten thousand soldier's lives on a good shot at the prospect, under conditions of uncertainty.

And tens of thousands of civilians'.

But never one's own.

"Leadership", then, means subscribing to the notion that uncertain ends justify horrendous means. God protect me and those I love from "leaders".

[Rick Barton]

Bush said that if the winners of the election asked our troops to get out of their country, he would accede. We can only hope that they haven't been paid not too, and that do ask our government to leave and end this war that we were neoconned into via outrageous lies. There's a lesson for us in the Iraq war. It's something that libertarians and conservatives have been telling us for years:

GOVERNMENT IS NOT TRUSTWORTHY

[Rick Barton]

It's time for our government to adhere to the words of John Quincy Adams:

"America... does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is well- wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

It's exactly the legacy and echoing of that sage advice in the minds of the American people that made it necessary for the neocons to manufacture lies about WMD and "connections" in order to foist the Iraq war on them.

[Dave]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank the folks at A.N.S.W.E.R., Moveon.org, Michael "the terrorists who cut off women's heads for providing medical care are heroes like the Minutemen" Moore and company for their unswerving support of the Iraqi elections. Not to mention the "Human shields" who bravely returned to Iraq last week in order to use their bodies as protection for the polling places, thanks to your encouragement an Arab country was able to hold true democratic elections for the first time in ten thousand years of civilization. Given the chance to show your true colors, you stepped up to the plate and held the banner of freedom and democracy high.
Actually, you can all go F yourselves and ponder the fact that while the Iraqi people and American troops were truly putting their lives on the line for freedom, something you (and I) will probably never do, you were out there calling to keep their oppressors in power because..uhhh...Bush is a jerk or something. I'm sure when the kids released from Saddam's children's prison look back at your marches in 15 years, they'll understand where you were coming from and maybe even relate to the horrible things Bush did to ruin your life. Here's wishing you a decade of nitpicking every success the Iraqi people carve out for themselves, followed by a lifetime of proclaiming how this was all going to happen anyway (just like the Soviet Union!) and wondering how many times you'll have to say it before you believe it. Keep on sneering from the sidelines, you should be real proud.
By the way, the people of Iran and Syria are counting on you to prevent elections in their countries, don't let them down.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Wake me up when the troops leave.

T., why don't you wake us up when your brain starts working again.

[Andrew]

joe

for the better part of two years you have been touting the recipes of (variously) "More Toops / Less Troops / No Troops / Different Troops / The SAME Troops In Baby-Blue Helmets".

It is good to see that the day following elections you have come to appreciate the merit of them.

Yugoslavia? And if there had been multi-party elections in Croatia or Bosnia, Serbia or Kosovo, could all the killing have happened?

Troops have been in the region for a decade...a slow quagmire, but more recently bloodless thanks to elections.

Now that the strongmen have gone (thanks to "Democracy imposed at gunpoint") the killing has stopped.

What took so long? The UN. The EU.

Democracies don't implode into ethnic strife. Democracies don't succumb to sectarian violence. People care enough to die for that crap, when they don't have freedom to live for.

[Junyo]

Joe:
Not freaking about the Hitler reference, just tired of it being trotted out every time someone wants to argue against the concept of democracy. And by "it" I wasn't referring to a Holocaust (although that would be included by implication) but to your list of things a valid government should achieve. "It proves that holding an election does not mean the country has achieved stability, democracy, human rights, security, or any of the other things defined as this war's goals." If we take the US as being the best example of a functioning democracy, exactly when did we achieve a perfect standard (or even good)regarding human rights? Back during the 1800's with slavery and genocide against the Indians? the 1940's when we were interning native and naturalized Japanese? How about the 1960's when we had to use Federal troops to send little black kids to school? And you could question those other qualities just as easily.
If, on the other hand, the proof of a stable country is the absence of running gun battles on the streets of the capital, there have indeed been a number of stable countries, and Iraq is not one of them.
Then I think we have two different measures of stability. Mine is the probability that the country will cease to exist as a coherent political entity. By that measure Iraq took a big step, because they showed the world and the Sunnis that the majority of them are commited to making this work and can't be intimidated. This moves them away from the risk of civil war (which is the biggest threat) because the Sunnis can do math. If they don't participate they lose, if they keep fighting they lose bigger. Civil order will get better, especially if the 'insurgents' can now be properly labeled as 'bandits' and 'murderers'; but it's not a prerequisite for a stable country.Israel is stable in that it's not going anyway anytime soon. But it's not particularly free of explosions and/or gun battles. Hell, visit DC. By the "absence of running gun battles in the capitol" standard America isn't a stable country. Stability of that kind is an illusion, and even more so in a country where people have more freedom of action and choice.

[joe]

"Now that the strongmen have gone (thanks to "Democracy imposed at gunpoint") the killing has stopped."

The killing has stopped? The strongmen are gone?

Then we can bring all the troops home tomorrow?

Yipee!

Junyo, Iraq was a coherent political entity when Saddam Hussein was running it. Having once argued that the mission was justified because it would bring peace and humane governance to a benighted people, you're now arguing that the continuation of existing levels of violence would qualify as "mission accomplished?" Talk about dumbing down.

As for Washington, try to find a day in the past 10 years when 20 or more people were killed there. There have been a dozen or more such days in Baghdad in the past two years.

[the Great Prophit]

As the Great Profit Mohammed, I could have told ya'll this was going to happen. In fact I probably did, at some point in all my ramblings. I knew my Shia children would eventually find the guts to assert themselves, and boy did they! Although I can't remember which relative founded which sect, I don't really care anymore. I just want all humans to live together in peace. And those 73 virgins, well, they're virgins for a reason, Fugly!

[The Great ProphEt]

After all these years, you'd think I'd be able to spell my name!

[joe]

"Democracies don't implode into ethnic strife."

Ours did, in the mid-1800s. As a matter of fact, it was an election that was the precipitating event to the civil war.

[rst]

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

Yeah, if only we had left Europe to her own devices in the early 40's. Would have saved a shitload of American lives had we never gone to Normandy. Oh well, so much for non-interference.

Sage advice indeed, from a man who would not survive to see the Civil War permanently scar the face of our democracy.

Bush said that if the winners of the election asked our troops to get out of their country, he would accede. We can only hope that they haven't been paid not too

Smart money is on "they don't want us to leave" Rick. As quick as you may be to presume that our military is universally hated, governments the world over enjoy the fact that they get high quality military protection that they don't have to pay for.

[Rick Barton]

These elections came despite the administration's attempts to, instead of elections, impose "caucuses", indirect elections with participants vetted by the American government.
It was pressure brought by the Shia religious community headed by the Grand Ayatollah Sistani that led to these direct elections and the provision of the winners writing the constitution.

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043

[Rick Barton]

Yeah, if only we had left Europe to her own devices in the early 40's

It's not hard to do body counts that wind up with far less carnage and less deprivation of liberty if we had allowed the Soviets and the Nazis to rip each other up. Although the Russians deserve most of the credit, our intervention helped crush the tragedy of Nazism but it preserved the tragedy of Soviet communism.

Sage advice indeed, from a man who would not survive to see the Civil War...

That's not germane to the advice.

[Rick Barton]

Smart money is on "they don't want us to leave" Rick they get high quality military protection that they don't have to pay for.

Some of that high quality military protection:

http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444

[R C Dean]

The fact that Hitler got elected

isn't a fact. Hitler was never elected to anything. Do a little research, people.

[joe]

His party won the largest share in a parliamentary election, RC.

[Mojoe]

So glad you're thoughtful enough to link your "We hate George Bush and anything he proposes" websites Rick. They really add to debate and discourse.

[kwais]

ProphEt,

Abu Bakr is the one that ended up leading the Sunni's and Ali is the one that ended up leading the Shias. They had a battle and Abu Bakr won if I remember correctly, shortly after you died.

Also I don't know how you are writing emails, because according to the Islamic religion, you, unlike Jesus, did die.

[Rick Barton]

Mojoe,

Truth is where you find it. The facts in this matter are pretty clear. The administration did not want direct elections and they only came about via pressure by the Shia folks. Raimondo has it covered as well:

"Iraq Election: Sistani's Triumph
A victory for the Ayatollah ? and a possible exit strategy for the U.S."

http://antiwar.com/justin/

[thoreau]

As for Washington, try to find a day in the past 10 years when 20 or more people were killed there

Um, 9/11? I know, the Pentagon is actually in Virginia, but still.

Don't get me wrong, I think your basic point is a solid one, but you asked for a day meeting certain criteria and I found it.

To all the hawks who are upset that we aren't quite as elated as you: For the record, my basic point has been that the election was a wonderful and important event, but the project still has to meet a number of crucial tests before I declare it a success. Your insistence that I declare victory right now reminds me of liberals who want to declare a social welfare program a success the moment the first beneficiary finds work, instead of waiting to see if the program remains robust and efficient.

[thoreau]

Thoreau comparing hawks to lefties?!?!

Oh no he di-int! 😉

[rst]

Although the Russians deserve most of the credit, our intervention helped crush the tragedy of Nazism but it preserved the tragedy of Soviet communism.

It also liberated Auschwitz. You don't get something for nothing.

Some of that high quality military protection:

antiwar.com! Bwahahahahaha! Sorry my browser can't load the page, I'm not wearing enough patchouli.

Anyway, at risk of getting too technical, quality is not the absence of defect. What speaks more to quality is that in our military, Grainer (sp?) will hopefully be in Leavenworth for a long time. In the opposing military, Grainer might have gotten a medal for, say, beating a Jew to death.

[kwais]

Not that anyone cares but:

Here are the races in Iraq:
Arab, Kurd, Turkmen, Assirian.

Here are the religions:
Shia, Sunni, and Christian.

Most every one in Iraq is a member of one of BOTH those groups.

Most of the Kurds are Sunni, Most of the Arabs are Shia. Most of the problems are from the Arabs that are Sunni. Because they were somewhat like what the white S. Africans were, and they are angry at losing that privelidged position.

I guess when you say Sunni vs Kurd, the fact that the Sunnis are also Arabs is implied, but it still irritates me. It is like saying white vs christian.

[kwais]

Thoreau,

Despite the way I may sound sometime, and despite the fact that I love my job. I am very skeptical or weary of deploying US military might. But I do think that this is maybe the most worthwile cause in which US force has been applied.

This time is a much more defendable use of our military than; Somalia, Vietnam, The Balklands, Haiti. Some of the above mentioned were favorite liberal, left causes.

So when I hear people talk about it being a failure and how insignificant the election was, I get a little miffed. Specially specially when many of those people supported Bill Clinton despite his many blunders in the Balklands, and the fact that his only policy in Iraq was to starve kids and constantly bomb the country. And that he ordered the bombing of a medicine factory to take the publics attention of a sperm stain in a dress. To then vilify Bush and the US for what I think has been thus far a very good effort.

When I lived in Baghdad I walked across a mass grave every day. Yesterday millions proved by voting and risking terrorist attack that they do indeed yearn for democracy. Lastly I do believe that not acting in Iraq would have indeed endangered US life.

[Junyo]

Having once argued that the mission was justified because it would bring peace and humane governance to a benighted people, you're now arguing that the continuation of existing levels of violence would qualify as "mission accomplished?" Talk about dumbing down.
Now you're just thrashing around. You've been accusing supporters of intervention of calling/waiting for some magic bullet momment for months, but you appear to be the one fixated on it. I defy you to find a statement of mine anywhere that uses the phrase "mission accomplished" and that's not a quote of someone else. War supporters typically reference the examples of Germany and Japan, where we're still there half a century after the end of official hostilities. And I don't, nor have I ever claimed that we're done at point X (if I have, point it out and I'll admit my error); I'm simply arguing within the increasing narrow conditions that you wish to impose on the situation that a stable country can exist with a certain amount of lawlessness, and that a stable country was part of your criteria for accepting that this was a success.

As for Washington, try to find a day in the past 10 years when 20 or more people were killed there. There have been a dozen or more such days in Baghdad in the past two years.
So now it's not running gun battles, now it's 20 or more people killed in a day. There's not a whole lot of point in discussing objective metrics when you're free to move the goalpost at will, is it?

[thoreau]

kwais, I really do hope that everything works out well there. Honestly. And I really do think that yesterday was a very big and positive step in the right direction. But history has too many examples of elections leading nowhere for me to declare that success is inevitable at this point.

Indeed, I think that historically informed vigilance is a better guide to action than the euphoric optimism that some posters are clearly high on.

[kwais]

Thoreau,
I don't know that it will work out either. But, it was worth trying. Already today, millions of Iraqis are better off, already today the US is better off, and fighting a cleaner more honest war, than if we had continued with the old policy.

Maybe the jihadis find a way to get nukes into our country tomorrow. Maybe Iraq falls apart because the various races and religions can't get along. But today we are doing the right thing, and today it seems we are moving in the right direction. And yesterday was a great day for Iraqis.

[Adam]

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHA!

[native NYer]

wog=western oriental gentleman. Term used by the English for the arab populations in their territorial mandates.