Posted By MJ
For those who think that the election in Iraq is proof of successful Bush policy are, for all pertinent matters, wrong. The January 30 elections in Iraq really have very little to do with any sort of success or for that matter failure, particularly considering Bush policy. Now before I get all these crazy right-wingers calling me liberal and anti-American, just once think for yourselves and analyze the situation in Iraq. The elections have done very little in healing the country and they have done even less in changing the murderous situation on the ground. Since January 30, over 200 Iraqis have been blown up and scores of American soldiers with them. And we still don’t have any results from the elections either, even though we “presumably” know the outcome.
It must be noted that I’m not a late-breaking news sort of blogger. I think this “run with it” era is part of the reason why Iraq is in the condition that it is- the other part is because Bush totally screwed it up. I don’t like to blindly follow anything. As a historian I like to analyze and research and thoughtfully come to my own conclusions. Its not always fun. Sometimes it’s painful. And sometimes it feels like torment to scurry through so much material. I don’t watch a lot of television news. I mostly read, and typically it’s from all different kinds of viewpoints. One of my favorite political analyst and opinion editorial’s is George Will, hardly your Democratic spokesman. And likewise with Iraq, I don’t conclude anything because I don’t like George Bush or because Michael Moore says so, there is middle ground there people trust me.
Bush’s policy in Iraq was to disarm. Sure the spread of democracy was mentioned (mainly in Britain), but disarmament of Iraq was the policy at which we made our case for war to the UN and to the American people. Yes, other countries agreed that Saddam probably had the weapons, and they too were wrong. Bush’s plan was to march on Baghdad, liberate Iraq by removing and disarming it’s dictator and install the infamous Iraqi National Congress with Ahmed Chalabi as the leader. This was all done in order to make the region and the world a safer place by disposing of a tyrant and destroying WMD that could end up in the hands of terrorists such as Bin Laden- a cakewalk that was the plan.
We were to be treated as liberators and greeted in the streets as our soldiers passed out chocolate to Iraqi children. None of that happened. And the WMD did not exist either. So then, what entailed was an occupied country plunging into total chaos with no exit strategy for the occupiers whatsoever. The next step, or Bush policy, or lack thereof, was to promote democracy in a land where it had never bloomed before. Sounded great during his campaign stumps and looked even better on television. The grand plan became the Middle East should be made safe for democracy. Then without securing a single province, Bush pushed for elections.
The key is that the Middle East should be made SAFE for democracy. Iraq is not safe. By rushing the elections, Bush has chosen appearance over security. I will say again, elections are not democracy. Will these elections lead to a democratic Iraq? Maybe, but elections themselves will do nothing to bring about democracy (i.e., Russia, China, Saudi Arabia). These elections have not and will not create security, which is the most important issue facing Iraq today, far more important than any election. And without security there will be no democracy. Also, these elections have proved very little in creating legitimacy for the Sunni people. There was almost no turnout by Sunni’s and the majority of Sunni’s are calling the election illegitimate and imposed by Bush. Furthermore, the elections have caused greater divisions between the Shia and the Sunni populations, and will continue to do so until the Sunni’s feel viably represented in the new Iraq, which is the basis for the rule of the people.
Again, I’m not saying the elections were baseless and represent a failure on the part of Bush. I’m saying that they really haven’t accomplished anything at all, other than finally pushing Bush over that 50% approval rating. To say that the elections are proof that Bush has been right about Iraq all along is to deny the reality that is Iraq. I will agree, however, that these elections are a step in the right direction, even though I feel they were rushed. And if handled properly, which includes realizing that security must be next, many good things will come from it. All this will require even more long term planning, and a much greater comprehension from Bush and his advisors to the current situation in Iraq. All of which are something this administration has failed to demonstrate so far.
February 13, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would like to say a few things. Firstly to Jin's "elections are confusing and many Americans mistakenly thought it was an election for president"...well, that's alright, the Iraqis knew what the election was about, just because many Americans didn't know what the election was for, that isn’t necessarily reason to assume an ulterior motive. Secondly, Bush may be touting his approval rating, but I would graciously allow that, since the guy gets reamed for everything...what I find interesting is that Kofi Annan would like the give the credit for the elections to the UN...so the UN is giving its approval to the elections...isn’t that worth anything to anyone or has the UN finally lost its good reputation with everyone now?
ReplyDeleteNow about the Middle East being made SAFE for democracy, it’s an honorable wish, but I would like to hear how someone proposes to placate a population who hates the coalition occupation of its country. The elections were not rushed, in fact the coalition had been putting them off for a while now, Iraqi local governments and groups have been demanding elections since April of 2003. The elections were by no means perfect, however to paraphrase Rummy: you go to vote with the elections you have, not the elections you wish you had.
Yes, we would like things to go as “perfectly” as they do in America, but Rome wasn’t built in a day, and democracy doesn’t grow overnight. It’s a slow progress, and just because things don’t go exactly how we want them, we can’t label them as failures. Take Afghanistan for example: the Taliban is gone, but that country is by no means a democracy according to our standards. But look at the changes America has gone through over the last 200+ years, and how that took hard work and patience.
And finally as a little tidbit: when you have 60% of the population voting (more than in the US in most federal elections) that is a pretty damned good turn out and indication of their faith that this will have some major effect on their future [they wouldn’t be risking their lives just to up Bush’s approval ratings]. I wish the rest of us would start having a little more faith in things, and stop being such defeatists.
ValleyGirl thanks for reading. I must respectively disagree, however.
ReplyDeleteYou sum up my Middle East is not safe for democracy perfectly, but shy away when it comes to the elections.
Making the Middle East SAFE for democracy are Bush's words, not mine. And I'm arguing that Iraq is in no way safe or secure, which even in Bush's phrase, SAFE comes before democracy. Security is the main ingredient for any form of government.
Actually, opposition groups have been pushing for elections in Iraq since 1991. Ahmed Chalabi first called for elections in 1998. Bush's plan was not to hold elections while Iraq was occupied, we all know that didn't happen. Seeing no other way out of Iraq, Bush had to rush elections to form some sort of exit strategy, and he did it all without securing a single city.
Bush quit talking about WMD (much the same way he quit talking about Bin Laden) and started talking about Jefferson and Wilson and democracy. And my whole point, is that security should come before elections. When nearly 10,000 people are killed in order for Bush to impose a government, I think that is rushing it.
I in no way called the elections a failure either. I said that they are neither a success or failure. They have accomplished nothing to secure Iraq, which to me is more important than elections. You are correct to not label Afghanistan as a democracy either. But here in the states, most news coverage is that Iraq and Afghanistan, because they held some sort of free elections, are now democratic. They are both far from it.
Less than 55% of registered Iraqi's turned out to vote. In 2004 in America it was 70%. Over 60 Iraqi's were murdered on their way to the polls- over 200 since then. Again, security is the number one priority in Iraq, not voting. Also, the majority of Iraqi's had no clue as to what they were voting for. I talk to friends in Iraq almost every day, and not a single one had a clue as to what they were voting for. Most thought they were to select a new president, one even thought that they were voting to end the American occupation.
In today's headlines, it looks like the winners of the most seats in Iraq are going to be closely aligned with Iran and very strict muslim. It will interesting to see how Bush handles this. I would think the last thing we need is an Iraq with a majority support for a taliban style government.
Thanks again.
I totally agree with you about the security issue. In my opinion it is easier said than done, so I am curious, what is your suggestion for making the place more safe? What steps could be taken to increase security on one side, and placate the unhappy Iraqis on the other?
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree with your last comment: we don't want a Taliban style government getting to power in Iraq, however, we will have to accept that we can't impose our values on all levels. There is a JAG lawyer in Iraq who has a website, and he was talking about how they have a tribal law in Iraq, where tribal leaders can make agreements about things as serious as murder, disregarding the actual law. And he came to the conclusion that they couldn't and shouldn't completely replace that system, because it was comletely ignoring their culture. And he suggested that there should be some compromise, where certain situations could be dealt with according to tribal law, and more serious offences could only be dealt with in the courts.
And I think this is the same with the future government in Iraq. We certainly can't allow a Taliban-like government, but it definately won't be up to our levels of democracy. But this is natural, those freedoms need to be earned in order to be appreciated. And I think that we can only give them so much, otherwise we are just propping them up.
And yes, the Shiites won about 47%, but the secular Kurds won a lot too, and Allawi's government did well too. Don't get me wrong, I can see all the failings in these elections, and the imprending dangers. If the more moderate and secular parties are feeling particularly patriotic, things could turn out well...however, if the Kurds decide they want to secede...well, then it might become very uncomfortable in the south.
Anyways...just curious about what you meant about safe...ball's in your court.
When I say security, I mean the very root of the word, secure. When 60 people are murdered on election day, that is not security. When almost 10,000 are murdered during the run up to the election, that is not security. Security is when people are safe and the killing quits. What would have been wrong with securing Iraq before imposing elections?
ReplyDeleteIf you ask what would have made Iraq more secure, having a well defined and thought-out plan, that not only prepared for the occupation, but also the aftermath of the removal of a dictator would have been a good start.
Bush told us this war would be a cakewalk. It is obvious that he thought so, because he planned zilch for what has happened so far. Sending more troops, not brushing off our Allies in Afghanistan to where they might have felt welcome to join us in Iraq or actually learning from history and foreign invasions of Iraq. I could sit here and come up with a thousand ways to have made Iraq more safe.
The point is, Iraq is not the war that Bush promised it would be. And Bush's rush to war, and now rush to elections, have left Iraq in far worse shape than it need be. The fact that we are still referring to this as a war in February of 2005 is proof enough.
Democracy in Iraq stands no chance without security. But even more important than that, is that Iraq stands no chance without thoughtful planning. Now is our chance to make things right. That's all I want.
I supported this war. I didn't need the spread of democracy crap in order to support removing Saddam. I don't support what this has turned out to be, from Abu Graib to Ahmed Chalabi, to no WMD, to the thousands of innocent lives lost, to the greatest burden that has been put on our troops and their families. None of it is what Bush promised.
I'm a simple minded person. That's why I'm flabbergasted at what this has turned into.
Thanks for staying with me.
I believe the Washington Post writer who suggests the clerics won bigtime is over-reacting. The Kures are secularlists and have their own agenda to pursue. They most certainly will not be co-opted by the Shi'ite clerics.
ReplyDeleteIraq's future is in a state of flux and things could go either way. The elections show that not one group won a majority. The Shi'ites could use this opportunity to compromise and form coalitions or it could choose to ram its agenda down everybody's throats.
We don't know what will happend until we see what coalitions are formed. So yes, the elections do not by themselves have not determined Iraq's success or failure at creating a viable legitimate state.
Nevertheless, because no one was able to get a clear majority the new government will moderate its natural tone and make compromises with the very people necessary to keep them in power.
I love debates and I love the internet...lol.
ReplyDeleteOkay, let me put this out here right away so you know that I agree with you on many things: I thought this war was rushed and was also extremely distressed that the US had absolutely no “plan” for the occupation. I thought that after so many wars, the civil affairs arm of the defense department should have some kind of blueprint at least. I think that everyone thought that they would get into the country, kill a few bad guys, everyone would rejoice, and work together to forge a better future, and I agree that this was so unbelievably naive. And the messes that have happened since then, Abu Grahib, the killing of many innocents, the constant house searches, the fuel shortage in a fuel producing country, are just incredibly frustrating.
If we are to do a postmortem, I can mention so many things that we should have, or could have done. But what I was asking, is what could we do NOW make Iraq more secure? From your suggestions, the only one I can see that can currently be done is sending more troops. But from my understanding most people hate the Americans being there, the second point of the Shiites political platform is sending the coalition troops home. So, I am wondering, if sending more troops is better. Because, sure, you could send more troops, but then these are American troops providing the security for Iraq, which means, without American troops there is no security in the country. But are you thinking that there would be a certain level of American troops which would then completely eliminate the resistance and the terrorists by deterring violence and or rooting out the bad guys through Fallujah like sweeps? And during the following time of peace you could start the political process and then transfer security responsibility to the Iraqi security forces. I am not so sure about this: 1) the American presence in Iraq is the number one reason for the resistance, I think it would just be fanning the flames, 2) the elections were a continuation of a political process, planning the future constitution of Iraq, how long could one hold off on that? The one thing that all Iraqis have in common is that they want their country back, some are thankful for the American presence, some not. But they all want the occupation to end some time soon. And yes, the elections were bloody and Iraq before/after the elections is identical, but a process has been started: giving the responsibility of Iraq back to Iraqis.
The Iraqi National Guard and their police don’t seem to be up to the task yet, but they must also have trial by fire, otherwise they won’t understand what they are up against. I think the process is going as well as it can right now. Hopefully with the political process starting, the Iraqi resistance will get less support. Thus the Jihadists will be the main problem, but hopefully the Iraqis will support the US more in cracking down on them, and not cry unfair. I mean, you are a historian, and you know that had camera teams followed the US invasion into Europe, well, let’s just say, the popular support might have been lacking: in the summer long invasion of Normandy over 12,000 French civilians died, it was a bitter-sweet freedom for them.
About alienating our allies...yeah, that is a pretty interesting topic. A German friend of mine recently said that yes, it was a pity that Iraq was doing so poorly, but that Germany shouldn’t help repair Bush’s mistakes. Okay...I can see the logic of that on one side, however on the other, it literally means although they profess to want to see Iraq flourish, their desire to see Bush fail is stronger. Like Jon Stewart said after the elections: “what if Bush is right? I might implode on myself.”
Anyways...I hope this clarifies what I am saying: I don't disagree with you on that Iraq needs to be made more safe, I just don't see any way right now, that would be better than what we are doing now.
ValleyGirl, I think we agree more than we disagree.
ReplyDeleteYou ask what we can do to make Iraq safe "now." The reality is, the present situation in Iraq is the result of decisions made 16-20 months ago. So in order to make Iraq safe "now," we should have done some of the things I mentioned , or the things you call postmortem 16-20 months ago. Your question is probably better, and more accurate, if phrased: What do we do to make Iraq better 6 months from now?- because "now" is postmortem, and any decision made now will take months to conclude.
If we wanted to make Iraq safe now, a true and valid assessment of the situation would have been needed months ago. Bush failed to do that. And for that reason alone is why I think he totally screwed this up. I do not think just because things didn't work out the way Bush thought they would, he should be let off the hook. Clinton had a land deal that went sour in the 80s. That independent investigation which didn't start until 1993, eventually led to his impeachment. The investigation found absolutely no wrong doing in the land deal, but did uncover extra-marital affairs, which was something the investigation was not ordered to do.
Republicans can't have it both ways. President Bush has botched one of the most important foreign policy undertakings in history. I think Bush's actions and decisions leading to the war with Iraq are perfectly open to any debate that surrounds the current situation in Iraq.
The are many ways to make Iraq more secure in the next 6 months. One of the ways is to quit referring to those causing havok as terrorists. They are not terrorists, or a very, very small percentage are. They are insurgents plain and simple. They are Iraqi's that are just caught up in the chaos. Now that doesn't make it right, but using correct terms is something that is highly important when dealing with foreign policy. Not all people in Iraq that want the occupation to end are terrorists.
I have many friends in Iraq. I usually talk to a few of them about once a week. They totally support the occupation, and most don't want America to ever leave. I agree with them. I think we should open a permanent base like we did with Germany and Japan.
And if you really want to get technical, America still occupies Germany and Japan. Though, that's another debate.
I guess my main concern is that Bush lives for the moment. His decisions with Iraq absolutely reflect that. I'm not against using military force, I'm against half-assed preparations.
The people of Iraq deserve so much better.