Daily Kos

The Iraq Election: Defining Success

Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:23:02 AM PDT

Is the Iraq Election a success? The early reporting is that there is good turnout among the Shia and Kurds.  Does this qualify as success?:

Iraqis voted in their first democratic election in nearly half a century Sunday with many observers saying the day appeared to have yielded higher turnout than expected and less violence than feared. Insurgents killed about two dozen people, including a U.S. Marine. But the level of mayhem by forces striving to disrupt the process was less than predicted, especially in Baghdad where turnout surged during the day amid signs of enthusiasm for voting even in some Sunni areas.

Success?

As expected, turnout appeared to be very uneven around the country, with the majority Shiite community and Kurdish areas participating in the election to a much greater degree than the minority Sunnis. Voting continued in early evening in some places even after polls officially were to have closed. Carlos Valenzuela, the United Nations' chief election adviser in Iraq, told CNN that he believed that overall turnout was considerably "better than expected." That assessment was echoed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said, "Every indication is that the election in Iraq is going better than expected." Rice conceded, however, speaking on ABC's "This Week, that "it's not a perfect election" and added, "there are going to be many, many difficult days ahead."

The days ahead. Precisely. This Election is simply, in my estimation, an exercise in pretty pictures. Why? Because Elections are to choose governments, not to celebrate the day. Are the people elected capable of governing Iraq at this time? Without 150,000 U.S. soldiers? Or even with them? I have been accused of gloating by people right HERE because of my focus on the continuing violence. But my focus has been on the realities of governing a land in chaos, in the midst of civil war, with 150,000 U.S. soldiers the only force with the ability to provide security. And this is 2 years after the invasion.

I hope I'm wrong on this. I think I am not.

Update [2005-1-30 12:18:49 by Armando]: Watching Rice on CNN makes me realize this Administration still has no clue. I don't think I'm wrong on this.

  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 489 comments

  •  It's a triumph (4.00 / 4)

    of the fine art of defining down success. But I'm glad that hundreds of Iraqis didn't get killed today, as I really thought they might.

    The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

    by sidnora on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:25:53 AM PDT

    •  True (4.00 / 6)

      "But I'm glad that hundreds of Iraqis didn't get killed today...

      This is a good thing.  The problem is, the election doesn't do one iota to ensure that they are not killed tomorrow.  Or the day after.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that.  Or the day after that. etc. etc.

      •  Exactly (none / 1)

        I feel for the Iraqis, but this is simply unfair to our soldiers.  If nothing else, we should just give the Iraqi's three seperate states.  It might not be pretty, but it lets the troops come home.

        Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

        by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:38:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Absolutely correct (4.00 / 3)

          I've been a proponent of a multi-state plan ever since the US began its occupation and pretense toward moving Iraq to "democracy."  It seems sheer lunacy not to give regional powers to each of the populations who are asking for them -- and fighting for them.

          "The insurgency" isn't one big coalition trying to get the US out of Iraq; it comprises myriad groups fighting for regional authority as well as some foreigners coming in to fight the Great Satan.  So much strife could have been avoided if the White House understood the sociopolitical dynamics in place in Iraq.

          But on the other hand, I think the US chose a "one Iraqi state" system deliberately to maintain a state of chaos in the country.  I know, it's cynical, but my cynicism has had a pretty good workout in the past four years.

          •  I agree (none / 1)

            The multistate solution was definitely doable.  The only reason it didn't happan was because it didn't fit into the neoconservative grand strategy for transforming the Middle East.

            Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

            by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:58:41 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Uh (3.66 / 3)

              What about Turkey? They never seemed very comfortable with a new Kurdistan right next to the portion of Turkey with a large Kurdish population/problem. I am no fan of the Bushists, but to claim that the three state solution didn't fit into the Neo-con thought process as the ONLY reason for the lack of action is, in my opinion, not correct or fair.

              Don't blame me....I voted for Kodos! Neo-Cons don't die....they just go to the private sector to regroup

              by coheninjapan on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:16:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Disagree (none / 1)

                The turkey thing has always been way overblown.  If they'd wanted to make it happen they could have.  I could think of plenty of scenarios where it could work.  In view of the current situation, do you really think it wouldn't be better.

                Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

                by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:19:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  In the first place (4.00 / 3)

                  Who are we to decide what the country should look like. In the second place Turkey will not allow an independent kurdistan because they fear an uprising among the Kurds in Turkey. In the third place the largest oil fields are in Kurdistan. Allowing Kurdistan to become an independent entity would deprive the rest of Iraq of a major source of income, which they desperately need at this time.    
                  •  We are going to decide the future of Iraq (none / 1)

                    one way or another.  Period.  We could leave a small force in Kurdistan to guarantee the peace--"peacekeepers"?  Then, for the most part, everyone else goes home.  In a few years, after Turkey accepts how things are, we take them home too.  The multistate solution is doable with a little thought and definitely preferrable to the current situation.  Just have to think instead of swallowing everything you read in the IR columns.

                    Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

                    by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:30:17 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Turkey is a nato partner (none / 0)

                      And I don't believe the current adminstration has the diplomatic skills to pull it off.

                      The Turks have been prety good at fighting of US bulying. This is a very sensitive isue with Turkey.      

                      And what will happen to shi's? they probably will realign themselves with Iran. I don't think that is the solution this adminstration is looking for.    

                •  It (4.00 / 4)

                  is not overblown, and it is a HUGE issue in that region.

                  Turkey does not want a Kurdish state, and no, it wouldn't be better.

                  The Kurds are the largest minority in the world that does NOT have their own country, and they have populations in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and other neighboring areas.  

                  None of the existing countries in that area want to see a Kurdish state created, and creating one will cause futher political turmoil in what is increasingly becoming an unstable region.

                  Read up on the history of the Kurds and Turkey, this issue is not way overblown.

                  AfterHoursStamper.blogspot.com

                  by SanJoseLady on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:57:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  We have to do something different (none / 0)

                    This is the best choice available.  We could make it work.  If we established a relatively small US presence in Kurdistan and guaranteed the stability of the situation, we would still be involved, yes, but not to the extent we are now.  We could pull out most of our forces--which is the most important thing to me, personally.  I think it could be done--and it would be a lot better than the situation we're in now.

                    Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

                    by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:23:08 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That (none / 1)

                      is exactly how we got into this Iraq mess, determining that "we" know what is best for everyone involved.

                      Do I personally think the Kurds should have their own country? Yes.  Do I think it will ever happen?  No.

                      What would be "best" is for Iraq to become a nation that is truely ONE nation (though I don't see that happening either), instead of the three it really is right now.

                      We would end up being far more "involved" than you realize, as it is not just about the Kurds and Turkey, it would involve the whole region.  You think things are bad now?  Create an independent Kurdish nation and all hell breaks loose.  

                      It wouldn't be better than now, it would be worse.  As has been stated:  the northern part of Iraq has oil, as does the south and NOT the middle.  If the kurds are allowed to create their own nation, the shiites will want to do so as well, in the south, which leaves the Sunnis in the middle with no natural resources to speak of, as well as being squeezed from both sides.  

                      Please read the history of the region and you will see that your "solution" just isn't what it appears.

                      AfterHoursStamper.blogspot.com

                      by SanJoseLady on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 01:44:36 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm well enough aware of the history of the region (none / 0)

                        Are an expert on Turkish history?  Unless you have detailed knowledge of the situation, I just don't see your point unilateerally ruling out such an option.  From where I stand, it's common sense.  Either we act to get our boys out of there or we leave them there to die for the next 5-10 years.  Sorry, I'm not playing that game.  I was Marine squadleader. I know what these guys are feeling.  

                        Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

                        by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:03:18 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  No (none / 0)

                          I am not an "expert" but have recently taken a class in Middle Eastern politics, as well as having read a number of books on the subject.

                          While your intent is to get our tropps out of the area, doing what you suggest would have the exact opposite effect.

                          Again, I ask you to read up on the area before you make assertions of "common sense."  

                          I may not have been a Marine sqaudleader, but I do know that doing what you propose is sure to leave our guys there to die for eternity.

                          Just, please, use some "common sense" and read about the history and current political situation of the Kurds.

                          No one is unilaterally ruling out the Kurds oneday having their own state, what is being ruled out is the United States creating that nation (Iraq was created by the British, and look what a great job they did.)

                          AfterHoursStamper.blogspot.com

                          by SanJoseLady on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:38:20 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  If no civil war leading to (none / 0)

                    separate states, then you have the option/likely realy of bringing a Saddam style strongman back to power.  Maybe that is why the more knowledgable Bush I stayed away from toppling Saddam.

                    Hey, it is one or the other unless true divine intervention comes about, IMO

          •  Not that simple... (none / 1)

              The "multistate solution" was just as bad as a unified Iraq. The Sunni part of Iraq happens to be the one without oil, for instance, and Turkey is HUGELY against an independent Kurdish state.

              Splitting Iraq would have required forcing the Shia and Kurdish states to give money to the Sunnis in return for their lack of oil, and some method of appeasing Turkey.

              The first might have been doable, but Turkey would have invaded the moment we left.

            •  So this situatin is better? (none / 1)

              Are you kidding?  We could easily guarantee the Kurds safety by leaving a small force in Kurdistan.  Everyone else gets to come home.  As I've said above--its definitely doable and far preferrable to the current situation.  It just requires a little thought--something too many people don't do in international relations--especially the Bush adminstration.

              Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

              by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:26:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No. (none / 1)

                  We could. But what would Turkey do? They wouldn't let us resupply our troops through Turkey, so are you up for constantly driving convoys through Shia and Sunni Iraq? Because I doubt they'd love us enough to secure the routes.

                  So that solution involves isolating American troops with no way to easily supply or extricate them. Lovely.

                •  I'm sure we could find a way to resupply the troop (none / 1)

                  The point is which way is better.  IMHO, this is a better option.  Turkey will go along with it if we underwrite the security of the situation.  Something like--oh I don't know--Germany after World War II.  ITs better than having our troops in a war zone for the next 8 years, don't you think?

                  Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

                  by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:40:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No.. (none / 1)

                      No they won't. They're not worried about invasion from a Kurdish state. They're worried about their own Kurds revolting and joining with the new Kurdish state, effectively removing a big chunk of Turkey.

                      Turkey views a Kurdish state as -- in effect -- taking a significant chunk of Turkey with it.

                      And underwrite their security? How? Send our troops into the nastiness of a Turkey/Kurdish war? Fight Kurdish insurgents?

                      It's the same damn thing as staying.

                    •  Well I think your exaggerating the potential (none / 1)

                      problems, but I we'll just have to agree to disagree.  Thanks for the interesting conversation.  :)

                      Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

                      by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:53:14 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The untried.. (none / 0)

                         The untried always looks better than the tried and failed, I admit.

                          But the problems with the three-state solution are just as bad as the single-state solution.

                          It's not like we're the first people to try to make Iraqi unified.

                  •  Yuo dont understand the situation (none / 1)

                    AT ALL.

                    A kurdish state would be THE most destabilizing thing in the region. WORSE than Israel.

                    Be CLEAR, turkey has a HUGE Kurd population, which would seek to immediately annex a huge part of turkey to join to become part of a new Kurdistan.

                    Since Turkey is close to being allowed into the EU, this kind of destabilizing event would prevent that, ensuring that Turkey would move mountains to prevent it.

                    furthermore, Iraq doesnt divide nicely into 3 seperate geographic areas AT ALL.

                    Kirkut, would he HIGHLY constests for its oils fields (and is going ot be) The baghdad area is a absolute mix of all three groups, and could not be divided.

                    A Sunni region would be left with no access to oil, little access to the coast, next to Iran (who are Shiite).

                    Even Liberal experts on the region, such as Jaun Cole thing the whole idea of annexation would be a disaster.

                    Anyone who suggests such an idea is either playing down the complexity and problems with it significantly, or is ignorant of the geopolitical situation.

                    I suggest before getting into a back and forth here, those who propose such a plan should go do some greater in depth reading.

                    •  This is assuming a lot of naunce on the part of (none / 0)

                      the Bush administration, but here's the solution.  Work in concert with NATO and the EU and leave a force in Kurdistan to guarantee Turkey doesn't do that.  I have a very hard time imagining Turky attacking US forces.  

                      Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

                      by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:28:36 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Turkey (none / 0)

                        Turkey can stop it, because over a 1/3 of Turkey is Kurdish. That's the problem.

                        Its the annexation of TURKEY that's the problem, not Kurdistan. The US wouldnt be IN turkey, it would be civil war, potentially, political insecurity for sure, and terrorism ala basque sepratists.

                        It isnt Kurdistan that needs protecting, its turkey from itself.

                        Kurdistan would surely (i think) support the annexation (unless they could be persuaded not to somehow) that is how war between Turkey and the Kurds in Kurdistan would come about. Thats only the secondary consideration.

                        The US would then be right between 2 allies. Pick a side or leave em go at it ?

                        •  We have to make a choice here (none / 0)

                          We can do what we can--and there are a few things we can do--maintain as much stability as possible in the region.  But I don't think we should continue in the situation we're in.  I think we should take most of our troops home as soon as possible.  This is the best way to do it.  Iraq is virtually governmentless.  Turkey has a long established government and is far likelier to survive any any instability that should occur.  At a certain point we have to take care of our people.   I understand that point of cleaning up the mess we made, but these soldiers didn't make this choice.  They've been screwed and deserve to be sent home.  If we work with our allies and Turkey and the Kurd, I can imagine some solutions to the problems your talking about.  But this isn't working.  We need to do something new.  Its not a perfect option, but if we work hard enough, I think it can work.  It won't be perfect, but what is?

                          Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

                          by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:46:50 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  what allies? (none / 0)

                            You are talking about Europes back yard. At this point Europeans aren't realy that concernd about the safety of US soldiers. You chose to get into this mess. I doubt the european union will be
                            willing to help the US instead of supporting Turkey.    
                            •  I'm not denying it would be tough with these (none / 0)

                              guys in office.  A lot of this is wishful thinking of course, virually requiring a change of leadership.  But if it comes down leaving our guys in Iraq for another 4 years to die, I'd have to say let's try it for their sake.  If the Kurds pull out as the shia'hs and sunnis descend into choas, we'll be in the same boat anyway--only worse.

                              Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

                              by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:33:00 AM PDT

                              [ Parent ]

                              •  I understand that you want these soldiers out (none / 0)

                                I just believe that any solution which can be interpreted by the Bush adminstration as a succes will only lead to more agression, and in the long run cause more deaths, including US military. I think Europe should start showing some backbone and stop assisting this administration in what it is doing to the Iraq's, Americans and the rest of the world.      
                          •  My solution (none / 1)

                            Have the newly elected Iraqi government negotiate wit hthe insurgent political leadership, to descale the violence in exchange ofr a greater seat at the national political table.

                            ie have the shiites give up some of that 60% majority to the sunnis, and also cede more autonomy to the Kurds.

                            that's the play I expect to be called in the coming weeks and months. it MIGHT work.

                            •  Yeah, and while your at it (none / 0)

                              how about talking Israel into negotiating with the Palestinians to descale the violence in exchange for a greater seat at the national political table? It is a lot easier for us to say such things here when we aren't involved in the situation.
                    •  Kurdistan (none / 1)

                      There are other reasons why an independent Kurdish state would be problematic, namely Iran and Syria.  Bashir al-Asad has been busy repressing his own Kurds since the US invasion.  He has killed over 600 and imprisoned many hundreds more in the last two years. The Syrian Kurds would get help from an independent Kurdistan.  The situation is very similar in Iran but on a smaller scale.  We must also remember that Turkey and its Kurds have had a very fragile ceasefire since the mid ninties.  Before this the Kurdish language was completely banned in Turkey. Many young Kurds can't even speak it.  The very word "Kurd" was also banned.  The Kurds were officially referred to as people of the mountains. Most of their political leaders were imprisoned or killed by the state.(And remember the Turkish Army still has enormous influence and can threaten any turkish government.  These countries also fear the influence that Israel would have in Kurdistan  There are already  significant numbers of Israeli clandestine forces there.  They helped train the peshmerga and the security services. Syria and Iran would not tolerate a "fifth column" in their backyard. Meanwhile we must remember that the Kurds are no saints.  The two main political groups are similar to the corrupt warlords of Afghanistan.  Also it was the Kurdish troops of the Ottoman Empire (on orders from the Sultan and later the Young Turks) that carried out the two Armenian Genocides of the 1890s and 1915-17. Kurda were some of the most effective and ruthless troops during the Ottoman era. Many Arabs have good reason to fear the Kurdish fighters.
                •  That's why Syria is next... (none / 0)

                  then we can drive our convots across it from the Mediterranean!  Or even Israel!

                  "The truth is only an excuse for a poor imagination"

                  by las casas on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 12:14:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  One Qualification (none / 1)

              The traditionally Sunni portion doesn't have oil.  But with Saddam's forced relocation of peoples, Mosul--right on the dividing line of the traditional Sunni areas, and quite rich in oil--is now full of Sunni, Kurds and Turkomen.  That's a volitile stew for major violence should there be a forced or hasty attempt to split Iraq into three.  

              Mosul will be the Srebrinica or Vukovar or Mostar of civil war Iraq, but unlike those areas, it sits atop massive amounts of oil.  

              The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

              by DHinMI on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:26:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  *snort* (none / 1)

                   Mosul? Where the Iraqi civil war is in full swing? Where the Kurds are busy kicking the Shia and the Sunni out?

                  I suppose we could give them to the Sunni, but that'd just start the Civil War a bit quicker.

                  Easy solutions generally aren't easy or solutions.

                  And Iraq seems to be a place with no solutions.

                •  Huh? (none / 1)

                  What's the snort for?  What in my comment did you disagree with?  And where did I profer any solution, much less an easy one?

                  Was that intended as a response to somebody else?

                  The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

                  by DHinMI on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:39:05 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No.. (none / 1)

                      Not aimed at you. Just at the situation. Giving Mosul to the Sunnis wouldn't work, because the Kurds are busy -- as the only ethnic group in Iraq we trust enough not to shoot if they're armed -- kicking the Sunni and the Shia out.

                      Fact of the matter is, our incompetence has pretty much precluded any options whatsover.

                      The Kurds won't allow -- and we can't force them, unless we want to face a Kurdish insurgency -- us to give the Sunni parts of their traditional territory. They fought Saddam tooth and nail over it, and he had a MUCH bigger army than we do.

                      The Sunni won't accept being turned into virtual beggars, and it's obvious we don't have the forces to deal with them either.

                      Turkey, of course, will not support ANY solution that results in an independent -- or even pseudo-independent -- Kurdish state, and we'd need them to supply any troops in that area of Iraq anyways.

                •  No one's saying its an easy solution (none / 1)

                  just a better one. You prefer having 150,000 of our soldiers tied down in the middle of a mounting civil war.  Think outside the box.

                  Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

                  by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:42:14 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yeah (none / 1)

                      It's not a better one. It's just as bad, except for different reasons.

                      It'll just start the Civil War quicker, and ensure Turkey is involved too.

                      Thinking outside the box is all well and good, but you seem to think a "different solution" is obviously going to be "better".

                      This one won't be. It'd be worse, I think, because in addition to an unstable and violent Iraq, we'd drag Turkey into it as well. Better to withdraw entirely and let the Iraqis fight it out then force Turkey into civil war as well.

            •  The oil fields of Iraq (4.00 / 2)

              Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

              by BarbinMD on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:31:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I think that there is ONE problem... (none / 0)

            ...with the multi state soulution.  How do you divide up the oil fields? Aren't they in the extreme North and South?  What happens to the Sunnis in the middle of Iraq?  That issue is enough to start civil war!

            Don't get me wrong.  I think Iraq is most naturally three nations, but one should be aware of the real cluster ---- fixing this mess will be.

            "Accepting the inevitable"

            by waztec on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:58:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Except for one thing (4.00 / 2)

          No oil in the center of the country.  Would the Sunnis/Baathists, who've held sway for so long, who after all are the population opposing a peaceful state, accept that much smaller pie?

          That was the one huge, gaping hole in the calculations all along:  It was not just bad person Saddam and couple henchmen against the good people of Iraq.  That's a pretty large clique of people who fed at the trough, and used to resorting to violence to hold power.  That's why, two years later, it still ain't no cakewalk.

          •  Exactly (none / 1)

            In the end, though no one seems able to get a handle on it--even the Bushies--this is all about oil--for everyone.  If it wasn't for our need for an ever growing GDP, this situation wouldn't exist.

            Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

            by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:22:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly (none / 1)

            I repeated your thinking. I should have seen your post, but I did not read down.  Oops! It is Sunday, however, and I am not required to be perfect at home like I am at work.  

            "Accepting the inevitable"

            by waztec on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:02:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Two words...Refugee Crisis... (4.00 / 5)

          There are Shia Arabs in predominantly Sunni Arab areas, many Sunni Arabs in predominantly Kurdish areas, and many other minorities in Kurdish areas.  Divide up the country, and you will have the worst refugee crisis since the India-Pakistan divide (Hindus in Muslim areas and vice versa).  Imagine you live in a Sunni village south of the border.  You and your family, no, your clan, your entire village, are going to have to pack up and move unless you want to be in a state dominated by those who do not have your best interests at heart.

          Two more words: economic resources.  There is little oil in the Sunni Arab-dominated Central Iraq.  We would be creating a new Syria, except weaker, smaller, and with even less purpose.  

          Although I must say I feel the Turkey-Kurd thing is overblown in this case.  Even the independent-minded Kurds are making it a point to say that they don't want any of Turkey's land or population.  And the Turks are trying to be on their best behavior until 2009 (when they start being "considered" for EU Membership, a process that will take even more time), and unless the Kurds start encouraging sepratist behavior, the Turks will probably leave an independent Kurdish state alone.

          •  But what if the only alternative... (none / 1)

            is giving the state to one party that doesn't have the interests of the minority at heart?  Then, the minority doesn't have the option of moving to a more sympathetic region - they simply have to cope as best they can with the situation.  And given the political ideologies of many arabs, there is always a possibility of ethnic cleansing.  If the state were broken down along historic lines, there would be some disruption, but then the countries could settle down to hating each other without wiping out any ethnic groups.  
        •  Would never work (none / 1)

          Under international law the US has no legal right to unilaterally divide Iraq into three states. The rest of the world would simply not accept it. It would not work. This idea is so DOA that it's astonishing that it has gotten as much ink as it has in the US.
          •  I'm not suggesting the US unilaterally do it (none / 0)

            I only undertake actions of that sort via the UN.  There is a fair amount of precedents for doing this.  Hell thats where we're going in Isreal.

            Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

            by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:08:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Very bad idea indeed (none / 0)

          Juan Cole wrote a very convincing yet short piece on why partitioning Iraq is an extremely bad idea. I can't think of it going well at all.

          Downsides of Partitioning Iraq

          Some readers asked me why I was so against partitioning Iraq.

          It is because it would cause a great deal of trouble to us all, not least Iraqis. Iraq is not divided neatly into three ethnic enclaves. It is all mixed up. There are a million Kurds in Baghdad, a million Sunnis in the Shiite deep south, and lots of mixed provinces (Ta'mim, Ninevah, Diyalah, Babil, Baghdad, etc.). There is a lot of intermarriage among various Iraqi groups. Look at President Ghazi Yawir. He is from the Sunni Arab branch of the Shamar tribe. But some Shamar are Shiites. One of his wives is Nasrin Barwari, a Kurdish cabinet minister. What would partition do to the Yawirs?

          Then, how do you split up the resources? If the Sunni Arabs don't get Kirkuk, then they will be poorer than Jordan. Don't you think they will fight for it? The Kurds would fight to the last man for the oil-rich city of Kirkuk if it was a matter of determining in which country it ended up.

          If the Kurds got Kirkuk and the Sunni Arabs became a poor cousin to Jordan, the Sunni Arabs would almost certainly turn to al-Qaeda in large numbers. Some Iraqi guerrillas are already talking about hitting back at the US mainland. And, Fallujah is not that far from Saudi Arabia, which Bin Laden wants to hit, as well, especially at the oil. Fallujah Salafis would hook up with those in Jordan and Gaza to establish a radical Sunni arc that would destabilize the entire region.

          Divorced from the Sunnis, the Shiites of the south would no longer have any counterweight to religious currents like al-Dawa, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and the Sadrists. The rump Shiite state would be rich, with the Rumayla and other fields, and might well declare a Shiite Islamic republic. It is being coupled with the Sunnis that mainly keeps them from going down that road. A Shiite South Iraq might make a claim on Shiite Eastern Arabia in Saudi Arabia, or stir up trouble there. The Eastern Province can pump as much as 11% of the world's petroleum.

          So Americans would like this scenario why?

        •  First question (none / 0)

          Where do you draw the borders ?

          Look at these two maps :

          First Iraq is not divided in three neatly delimited areas:

          http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_ethnoreligious_1992.jpg

          And the Kurdish issue does not involve only Turkey:

          http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_dissident_areas_1992.jpg

          Second question: Who decides ?

      •  I couldn't be more aware of that. <n/t> (none / 1)

        The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

        by sidnora on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:51:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  EXCEED EXPECTATION!!! (none / 1)

      WOW,

      Condi Rice does NOT dissappoint. SHe does her cheerleading supremo and lying to public on first week of her job!

      CONGRATULATION OBAMA and everybody who is voting for Condi. Here is your first LIE!!!

      and ..She is going to keep lying and misleading the public with more and more brazen made up facts...

      ---------------
      Rice Says Iraq Elections Exceeds Expectation

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48759-2005Jan30.html

      Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

      by fugue on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:13:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right (none / 1)

        The only way this would have exceed expectations is if the Sunnis turned out.  The fact that they didn't is a very bad sign.  Its a virtual guarantee that the insurgency is that future of Sunni participation.   Once again, I really think its time to start planning a multi-state solution.

        Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

        by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:17:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Almost nobody in Iraq wants a multistate solution (none / 0)


          The Kurds don't want to be cut off from the customers of their oil, most of which is pumped through Shi'a or Sunni areas.  The Sunnis don't want to be isolated in a desert.  The Shi'a aren't that keen to expel the Sunnis, who dominate the professions.  
      •  Condi Ought To Read This (4.00 / 2)

        Condi ought to read this OpEd from the Int'l Herald Tribune to find out what a successful election requires, by a person who might know a thing or two about it:

        Iraq: This election is a sham
        by Salim Lone - an adviser to Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN envoy to post-invasion Iraq who was killed in 2003 in a bomb attack on the UN compound in Baghdad.

        GENEVA--Very early in the occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration recognized that a democratic Iraq, even a stridently anti-Saddam one, would not countenance the strategic U.S. goals the war was fought for: controlling the second-largest oil reserves in an energy-thirsty world, and establishing military bases required for undertaking the political transformation of the Middle East to serve American interests. A long-term occupation to secure these ambitious goals was no less tenable.

        So even as the Americans proclaimed their mission as one designed to introduce democracy and human rights in Iraq, they fought against demands for early elections even from putative allies like the Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. They also maneuvered to put into place a self-governance and electoral plan that, through carefully circumscribed United Nations involvement, they thought would ensure that the hand-picked Iraqi leadership would enjoy some legitimacy, with the elections scheduled for Sunday providing an added boost of Shiite support.

        But as this blood-stained election shows, the complete breakdown of this plan has been one of the most colossal U.S. policy failures of the last half-century. Indeed, this is not an election that any democratic nation, or indeed any independent international electoral organization, would recognize as legitimate. Continue

        Know all your enemies. We know who our enemies are. Stop Eminent Domain Abuse. End Corporate Welfare

        by BrooklynBoy on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:19:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Credit, where due (4.00 / 2)

      UN Election Expert Avoids Limelight of Iraq Poll
      Fri Jan 28, 7:13 AM ET

      http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=urn:newsml:reuters.com:200 50128:MTFH51929_2005-01-28_12-13-27_BAK440706:1

      BAGHDAD (Reuters) - If Iraq's election comes off on Sunday -- a big if -- it will be thanks in no small part to a savvy, softly spoken Colombian from Bogota.  Carlos Valenzuela, 47, has spent 13 years organizing elections in hotspots around the world for the United Nations ( news -web sites ). He has been helping to plan an election in a divided country, where up to 14 million people could vote in a day -- one of the biggest logistical challenges for Iraqi authorities since Saddam Hussein was overthrown in April 2003.

      And doing so before, during, and after many of his UN colleagues, including the beloved Secretary-General's Special Representative for Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mellom were killed in the Baghdad bombing, in August, 2003. He is a hero.

      AMERICA NEEDS OUR VOICE. Where in the World will you Vote? www.VoteFromAbroad.org

      by lfin on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:03:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  On Balance (3.80 / 5)

    Of course this a success.  Even if it were merely pretty pictures, this would be a success.  Yes there is a long road ahead.  But you can't take away from the Iraqis what they've done today.  In fact I think, instead of nitpicking on this, we should be applauding, loudly.  The more of this we do, the more likely it is our soldiers will return home sooner, and safer.  They outperformed in Iraq, so why shouldn't they outperform on security?  The better they do, the harder it is for the neocon crowd to justify why they are still sounding our sons and daughters to their graves over there.  So yes, it was a success... no can we start withdrawing?
    •  Sorry I don't agree (4.00 / 2)

      I think this is the thinking that's killing our soldiers.  This has been an exercise in insanity from the very beginning.  This election is just the latest hail mary pass.  Any rand corperation analyst will tell you that insurgencies usually take as much as 10 years to clear up.  We need to get our soldiers out of there.  They shouldn't have been responsible for this situation from the beginning , and I'm just not willing to leave them there to die in perpetuity.

      Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

      by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:35:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Timetable for Leaving (4.00 / 3)

        Resolution 1546, Section 12:

        "12. Decides further that the mandate for the multinational force shall be reviewed at the request of the Government of Iraq or twelve months from the date of this resolution, and that this mandate shall expire upon the completion of the political process set out in paragraph four above, and declares that it will terminate this mandate earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq;

        Paragraph 4 is the election.  Twelve months is Jun '05.  I will be sending this to my elected representatives often in the next few months.  Fish or cut bait.

      •  Not sure (none / 0)

        How this is an argument against what I'm saying.  I'm saying that the election is a great thing, and should be used as an argument FOR withdrawing troops ASAP.
    •  Nitpicking? (3.83 / 6)

      You think this is nitpicking?

      Hardly.  It's looking past the platutudes being tossed around this morning on the cable news shows and asking what it means for the future.  Armando is correct that the real issue is what kind of job the new government does.  But let's step back a bit from even that statement?  

      What's the new government going to look like?  Will anyone even be able to form a coherent government, or will it make Italy in the 1970's look like Japanese parliamentary inertia?  And even more important, and quite separate from the fact that a new parliament will have been elected and a government will possibly have been formed, the most important question is this: Will the goverment have any legitimacy with enough sectors of the Iraqi people for it to keep the country from further chaos and possibly civil war?

      Elections are only one step, especially in a national parliamentary system with little federalism.  And if turnout was very low in Sunni areas, or significant portions of the population who may have wanted to were unable to vote, how much legitimacy will the government have?  If they don't have sufficient legitimacy, all our troop training will be for naught, becuase the civil authorities will not be able to exercise any control over the military and police.

      The election is a step, and its nature will give indications as to the likely successes or failure that lie ahead.  High turnout in Shia and Kurd areas tell us little.  Low turnout and violence associated with the elections in Sunni areas, if that proves to have been the case, will tell us lots.  And what it will indicate will not be good.  

      The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

      by DHinMI on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:23:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  the question is (none / 0)

        could this election, as it has played out, lead to a stable secure country? I agree with your doubts, but I don't think we can say one way or the other with certainty. In my humble predictive powers, I'd say that this election is a possible step for improvements to take place. In other words, this election as it happened could be one of the milestones of success. Given that the alternative was a final nail in the coffin, this election is a lot more successful than it might have been.

        Of course the questions you ask are paramount. Who exactly is winning, will they govern, will they be respected. But the elections weren't going to sort those questions out anyway.

        All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

        by SeanF on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 09:52:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed That We Can't Say With Certainty (4.00 / 2)

          In the first couple hours after the 2000 election, it would have been difficult to know what a flawed election we had just had (and would continue to have for about another fifty days).  The polls have been closed for only a couple hours, so yes, it's tough to say.  I agree with that, but then you went on to say something about a nail in a coffin and that in fact the election was a success.  I think you should have stuck with your first point, especially for today.  If there was very low turnout in the Sunni areas and lots of folks couldn't even vote, I don't think the election itself was a success, even if everything else turns out OK.  

          As to whether the elections were going to sort out the issue of legitimacy, you're correct.  But legitimacy will be harder to secure if the elections themselves aren't seen as legitimate by the Sunni.  I'm afraid they won't see the elections as legitimate, and they're probably correct in that view.  So, while it won't sort out the other problems, it could exacerbate already existant tensions, and impede efforts at solutions.

          The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

          by DHinMI on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:12:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the nail in the coffin line (none / 0)

            meant only: if the election had gone so badly that we knew already, hours after it was over, that it was a disastor, that would be the definition of failure. THe fact that we don't know means it could have been much worse.

            ...talk about dumbing down success! And yes, the credibility issue is the big one, although I feel this issue is also not yet resolved.

            All extremists are irrational and should be exposed

            by SeanF on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:20:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Legitimacy (none / 0)


            I wonder how legitimate an election would be here in the United States if McCain won the Republican primary and our Religious Right decided that no Christian could vote for him, much less anybody else on the ballot.  

            (Also note that the Iraqi election took place on paper ballots...)  

      •  Yes this is a step. (none / 0)

        And yes it is a success for Bush's propaganda war.

        This above all: to thine own self be true...-WS

        by Agathena on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:08:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Also important to remember (4.00 / 3)

        that the main task of the new government that is to be "elected" will be to draft a constitution.  For that task it is imperative that minority representation exist.  

        Minority representation, minority representation, minority representation.

         

        Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

        by a gilas girl on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:40:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I am bewildered (none / 0)

        Is this a reply to my comment?  Not sure... if so, of course there are practical concerns at play.  But rather than the US figuring all those out, why don't we let the people who live there figure it all out?  And why don't we also leave so there are no more excuses for the insurgency to appear popularly inspired?
    •  Democrats Should Applaud Elections (4.00 / 5)

      I'm with you.  Intimidating voters and bombing polling places is Ku Klux Klan tactics.  Democrats should offer them no comfort.
      •  There is much to applaud (none / 0)

        The election could have been much, much worse. There could have been lower turnout and more people killed. But the election could have been better. There could have been higher turnout and higher Sunni turnout.

        -4.00, -5.33 "We don't watch any talking heads or any politics. We watch "SportsCenter" and argue about that."--Barack Obama

        by 4jkb4ia on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:05:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  "Iraqi responsibility" (none / 0)

        Ordinary Iraqis are using this election to say that they are sick of the whole situation, on both ends (maybe?) It means that they want to rule their own country. Rice may take this encouragement to get us to pull back a little.

        -4.00, -5.33 "We don't watch any talking heads or any politics. We watch "SportsCenter" and argue about that."--Barack Obama

        by 4jkb4ia on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:08:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agree (none / 1)

      It is a day of success amid a sea of failures, and we should be glad for it. To say "pretty pictures" seems to imply that the hope displayed will not be genuine. I think the hope will be real, however irrational it may be in the face of the security problem. My hope is that their hope will eventually be rewarded.
  •  The key question to ask yourselves (2.31 / 19)

    It's good to be skeptical about this but I continue to get the sense on the Left that people really want things to go badly. All commentary ends with "I hope not" or "I hope all goes well" when many people need to simply admit that they would love for this to fail so that they could point the finger at Bush and finally show him up. Even I fall prey to this since I so dislike Bush but I'm trying really hard to look at the cup being half full and I ask myself this simple question, which all members of the Left should ask themselves: would you be willing to trade great success in Iraq for the fact that Bush would be lauded as a visionary for the rest of your lives? Try it. You know what the right answer is but it hurts.

    J.S.

    http://voicesofreason.info

    •  Hmmm (4.00 / 2)

      I think your sense is wrong.

      What most people here are expressing is 1) well-justified skepticism and cynicism about this administration's ability and intent to actually do something good for the Iraqi people, 2) well-justified skepticism and cynicism about any claims made by this administration, and 3) a strong suspicion that what's actually going on is a PR stunt.

      I must also note that I think your assertion smacks heavily of typical right-wing talking points.  If you're here to incite and troll, you won't get very far.  If you're honestly confused, I suspect you re-evaluate.  Kossacks have much good reason to be pessimists about this deal.

      •  Err (none / 1)

        should be "suggest" you re-evaluate.

        I think you're likely on the up-and-up, but please.  There are so many reasons to think that, even if this election turned out to be a smashing success and liberal democracy flourished henceforth in Iraq, the war and occupation have been spectacularly bungled, that I don't think there's much need for people "on the Left" to hope for disaster in this instance.

        Bush is a gift that keeps on giving to liberals everywhere.  There's no reason to think he'll be lauded as a hero for all time, regardless of how things turn out.

      •  confused? troll? (none / 0)

        J.S. speaks of feelings that any thoughtful person opposed to the war must struggle with.  To even suggest a troll rating is reactionary.  I for one do not want to see America ever do again what it's done in Iraq.  The most certain insurance that we will not would be the total failure of what we've done in Iraq.  But to hope for that is to hope for misery, death, suffering, etc. for the Iraqi peopole. The Bush administration has been a profound spiritual challenge for me, perhaps the most difficult I've faced (not that my spiritual difficulties are as mportant as the death or suffering of a single person), for this reason.  I want to pray for what's best for the Iraqi people and I want to pray for what's best for the world.  A neocon would say "No problem, pray for success in Iraq," but for those of us who think that an American attack on a sovereign country that has not attacked us or our allies is a very bad thing, it's not that simple.  Just what do we pray for?
        •  I disagree (none / 0)

          I've spent many years arguing politics online, in many forums, so I don't cry "troll" lightly

          I didn't mention the possibility of J.S. being a troll because he/she "spoke of feelings of a thoughtful person".  I did so because 1) he/she expressed an opinion of many "on the Left" that could have been quoted verbatim from those on the right, including freepers, and 2) his/her tone implied that people here just couldn't face the fact of Bush's greatness.  That's a pretty unusual combination coming from a legitimate poster.  In fact, I thought the original post was fairly inciting.

          Perhaps this was a false alarm, and based upon J.S.'s other postings in other forums, I think that's a good bet.  Nonetheless, I do think his/her original post misinterpreted the sentiments of posters here today.

          •  thought control (none / 0)

            If a freeper might think it, then you can't think it.  Got it.  I was confused at first about who's calling the shots here.  For a minute I thought it was us.
            •  You can think anything you want (none / 0)

              ...and I didn't claim otherwise.  

              But you don't have the right to expect everyone to agree with you, or accept your position.

              Or, for that matter, to refrain from calling you a troll, if that's really what you are.

              Please don't be overdramatic.

              •  Heh n/t (none / 0)

                Everybody dies alone.

                by Armando on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:54:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  over dramatic (none / 0)

                I suggested that calling someone a troll for writing something you disapprove of is an over-reaction, and you call that over dramatic?  Or was it my reaction to your suggeting that troll calling is an appropriate reaction to anyone who says something that might sound like something said by a freeper?
                •  First of all... (none / 0)

                  ...I did not call anyone a "troll".  Second, I did not and would not do that simply for "writing something I disapprove of".  I noted that the original poster might be trolling because the content of the original post looked like something a troll might write.  Namely, it looked to be something a wingnut might post merely to get a reaction.

                  As I've also stated, I think I was probably wrong on that score, judging by other things the poster has written elsewhere.  But I don't apologize for suspecting that he or she was trolling here, based on the original post alone.  It was, in fact, rather inflammatory, and IMHO badly mischaracterized the sentiments and the motives at dKos regarding the Iraqi elections.

                  Honest-to-goodness trolling does happen at dKos, you know, and it wastes everyone's time.  That's why there's a rating system that includes "troll" and "super-troll" as options...

                  •  responding to trolls (none / 0)

                    I've been on sites pestered with trolls baiting readers on abortion, etc.  I've suggested pledging as a response--that is that each person responding to an abortion obsessed troll pledge to donate $5 to their local Planned Parnthood clinic each time they respond.  That way, something good actually comes of feeding the troll and the troll himself/herself gets twisted in knots about baiting others to respond.  As  for the comment you originally responded to, I've seen a lot of kossacks on yeterday's open threads struggling with similar uncertainties, though maybe not in such provocative language.  But I've seen a lot more provocative language passing for civil discourse on this site, not intended to challenge the prevailing wisdom, but rather to silence uncertainty and wavering.  I'm not thinking of your post in that category, which was pretty civil even if it did play the "troll" card.  My criticism of that was really an afterthought; the substance of my feelings was what I'd hoped would matter.  In that I miscalculated and so will shut up.
                    •  I hope you don't (none / 0)

                      shut up, that is.

                      I may disagree with you regarding this one thing, but you don't give up easily and it seems to me you want to advocate the free exchange of ideas.  It's pretty tough to argue against that :)

                      •  Thanks (none / 0)

                        I was reading David Brock's Republican Noise Machine last night, and he compared the rationale for right-wing talk radio to the rationale for all jazz or all country stations.  People who tune in for jazz don't want to have country intrude, etc.  Even as he was deploringthis rationale pushing its way into the shpere of plitical speech, I was thinking to myseld that my own favorite stations are those that play good jazz ("Fables for Faubus"), good country ("There's a dark and a toubled side of life . . ."), good rock (But PowerCo couldn't cut Sun down/She was welded to the eagle's beak"), good reggae (Funky Kingston!), good hip-hop (The Miseducation of . . .), etc.  None of this means I want to see freepers on dKos--check the word "good" above--but that I want to see the full exchange of thoughtful ideas.  I'm glad we're on the same page about that.  Differences in rhetorical sensibility shouldn't obscure common interests.  (My own rhetorical sensibility derives in part from having lived long enough to have said a lot of things I wish I hadn't.  The word, once uttered, can never be recalled.  I've learned that the hard way too many times.  Maybe even this time!)
    •  You are demented then... (3.75 / 12)

      "Would you be willing to trade great success in Iraq for the fact that Bush would be lauded as a visionary for the rest of your lives? Try it."

      Ok.  Let's see.  The premise of your question is simple.  First we must assume that these elections will somehow make Iraq a 'great success'.  After 100,000+ dead.  After the torture chambers at Abu Ghraib.  After American soldiers dying in the thousands and crippled in the tens of thousands.  After the good name of our country dragged through the sewers around the world.  After Bush lied his way into an unnecessary war of aggression.  After the chaos and violence and a whole new generation of terrorists visited upon this land where civilization began.

      After all this, you wish us to assume for the sake of argument that these elections could somehow undue all of this and thus render George. W. Bush a 'visionary' for the rest of our lives.

      Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to play your demented game.  The conclusion does not follow from the premise.  Non-sequitur.

      •  Someday this hell in Iraq is going to end (none / 0)

        No war goes on forever, and someday, somehow, this one will wind down and end.  People will stop getting killed, our soldiers will come home.

        But this is not a sign of success, it just means that it's finally over.  In no way does this vindicate this administration's policy of pre-emption in the face of very shaky evidence, and in no way does it vindicate all the atrocities committed during the war.

        The Vietnam war did not finally become right when it ended, and neither will this one.

      •  Point taken (none / 0)

        Anyone fair will know that it is the Iraqis who took the opportunity which George Bush handed them and then spectacularly screwed up.

        -4.00, -5.33 "We don't watch any talking heads or any politics. We watch "SportsCenter" and argue about that."--Barack Obama

        by 4jkb4ia on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:10:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I agree that its hard not to (none / 0)

      give in cynicism, but let's not self-flagelate ourselves to the point where we start giving these guys free passes.  This election, as tool for ending the insurency, is a joke and we would be failing to do our jobs if we didn't point that out.

      Out of the night that covers me, Black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be For my unconquerable soul.

      by Descrates on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:42:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Opportunity Costs (4.00 / 3)

      The question isn't whether their is some good outcomes in Iraq - the question is at what cost?

      1400+ US troops + 100,000 Iraqi deaths + $200 Billion dollars = Shia state not allied with U.S.

      Is that worth it? What could have been accomplished with that money and loss of life (besides reelecting Bush)?

      •  Exactly exactly exactly exactly (none / 1)

        This is exactly the point to be making to the right.  If we had a magic wand to take out all the bad people in the world, hey go for it.  We don't.  Sure I'm glad for improvement in the lives of an oppressed people, sure I'm proud when my country can do good.  But not at any cost.  

        Where better could we have used that money?  Start with a real, longterm solution to the world's energy needs.

    •  Oh this is your difficult question? (none / 0)

      Geez, and I thought you were sincere above.  This is not a comment seeking an honest reaction - you look to provoke.

      Everybody dies alone.

      by Armando on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:54:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not much of a reply (none / 0)

        This could be boilerplate for a reply to any question, from any point of view, for anyone on any side of any question.  If you've got ninety-nine people saying "exactly" to what you've said, spend a little more time on the one that's hesitant.  If growth is going to come from anywhere (if growth is needed of course), it'll come from there.
        •  Are you kidding me? (none / 0)

          Well what's your answer to the question Mr. Reasonable? See I don't think it is a reasonable question.

          Everybody dies alone.

          by Armando on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 04:37:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  See? (none / 0)

            I've given my response to J.S.'s question above on this thread, which you've assured me elsewhere you've read, so I won't repeat it here.  But I will say that if you're going to be a prominent voice on a site that's taken as representative of the left, you've got to lift your rhetoric up a notch or two. For instance, what does the word "see" contribute to your respsonse to me?  "See I don't think it is a reasonable question" doesn't differ from "I don't think it is a reasonable question" except in tone.  And what is the tonal difference?  You can say you don't know, or that you didn't intend any tonal difference, or that adding "see" is more forceful, but none of these would really get at the actual difference.  I think you'd agree that the left cannot out stupid the right and it cannot out lie the right.  Neither can it out bully the right, because bullying has at its heart violence and suppression and dominance, the core values of the right.  At the core of the left is love.  If that doesn't shine through on this site, then this site is just a holding tank for those who will eventually wind  up with the right.
            •  Well (none / 0)

              I think the question on its face is unreasonable.  I don't think it requires an explanation.  Read the question and it would tell you - you know what I object to - why are you acting so cute?

              As for what a front pager should be - well, I am one, and unless kos changes his mind will be one.  I am being who I have always been. You object to me being a front pager - I understand that - many do.  But that decision has been made.  Take it up with kos.  You're wasting your time with me.

              Everybody dies alone.

              by Armando on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:52:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  wasting my time? (none / 0)

                I have no issue with Kos about you. You are a front pager.  I assume you became one through your abilities to speak for the left and will continue to be one.  Your abilities, though, admirable as they are, may not yet be fully formed.  "Cute," for instance?  Is that the best word you could come up with for what you don't like about my comments?  (Mark Twain once observed that the difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.)
    •  The elections are good but... (4.00 / 2)

      that doesn't really mean a whole lot.  I don't think that it is a question of whether the glass is half-full or half-empty any more.  The glass is nearly empty, and although the election may bring it up higher, it doesn't fill the glass up any substantial way.  At best, we're talking 1/4 or 1/3 full IMHO.

      And, to be honest, while I don't think you're trolling, I find your insinuation that people secretely want the Iraq war offensive and dangerous.  I'm a soldier, so I of course want for us to be succesful and be able to pull out.  I just don't think it can happen for a very long time.  

    •  If the Iraqis (none / 1)

      actually achieve self-determination, so much the better.  I agree with Kerry that the best way for the U.S. to demonstrate a good faith interest in a self-determining Iraq would be to immediately start drawing down the troops [regardless of the security situation, because we have to start somewhere and sometime].

      However, I don't believe that self-determination was ever part of the equation for bushco [even if they put on some "elections".] Bushco is not finished stealing the Iraqi oil, and is apparently ready to move onto other nearby countries to get their oil.

      I don't believe for 1 minute that bushco will be relinquishing its stranglehold on Iraqi assets.  As long as Iraq is being exploited, either as a military base for further U.S. aggression or as a playground for the Halliburton-war-profiteering types, there will be an insurgency, regardless of any elections.

      As to your comment about about a "visionary" bush, bush potentially could have been hailed as a visionary had he supported or promoted efforts for U.S. energy independence, demonstrating some willingness to put the country's interests ahead of his business cronies' interests.  Instead, he sided with his cronies and chose to steal oil from its owners.  

      Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

      by dfarrah on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 08:59:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]