But you must agree that yet another 'corner' has been turned.

Hey, Shakes'Sis!

Ambassador Gerald Helman writes about how Iraq demonstrates the administration's new-world-order, boot-up-yer-ass foreign policy (my words, not Helman's).

Now, I know "new world order" is a religiously and emotionally loaded phrase... but, I can't help thinking that those who want more money and power wouldn't hesitate to take advantage of other peoples' motivations.

"I continue to be amazed and impressed by the Iraqis who risk bodily harm to cast a vote, and wonder what the hell is wrong with Americans who can’t be bloody bothered."

Too right.

I can't help thinking that those who want more money and power wouldn't hesitate to take advantage of other peoples' motivations.

So cynical. That never happens...does it?

No god bless the people of Iraq.

It will be interesting to watch the Democrats crawl off the limb.

I'm amazed by those Iraqis too, although I think the comparison with American (non)voters is inaccurate. Voting in Iraq can logically be seen as a legitimate way to have influence on the government. When they get to the point where big money and fraudulent voting machines become mainstays of the political process, I suspect we might see a drop-off in participation.

Of course, with all those weapons floating around, they might be less willing to put up with this crap than us fat-and-happy 'mericans might be.

Just sayin.

If we pull out now, who will defend the Burger King we've built in the Green Zone?

Seriously, I'm impressed by the number of Iraqis who risk life and limb to vote.

From everything I’m reading this morning, the Iraqi elections had a high turnout, including strong Sunni participation

Quuuaaaaagmiiiire!

Unwiiiiinaaaable!

Al & Mike -

One election does not a victory make. Let's perhaps wait till the results are known and the new government is seated. I understand you guys have taken a beating lately, but try to keep your hopefulness from obscuring reality.

While this is certainly a good sign - the outcome is still going to be a shiite-dominated theocracy.

So, Iraq had elections.

Big deal.

Iran has elections too. And their holocaust-denying elected president is buying Russian anti-aircraft missiles, building nulcear weapons, and calling for the destruction of Israel.

In 10 years, tell me why Iraq won't be posing exactly the same problem that Iran is posing today? Tell me why we won't have Bungling Bush to blame for it?

Quuuaaaaagmiiiire!

Unwiiiiinaaaable!

...well, we've been on the Korean peninsula for half-a-century. No reason to expect any less from Iraq.

...will the "reverse-domino" theory work? Well, Israel's been a democracy in the Middle East for fifty years and there's been no "blossoming." No reason to expect any less from Iraq.

...I remain dubious of Dubya.

Spencer Ackerman has another nice piece on the New Republic site this morning detailing the latest evidence that this election is simply the official starting gun for the Sunni-Shiite civil war -- this time centered around statements to that effect from the biggest Shiite and Sunni political organizations:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w051212&s=ackerman121405

Not to worry too much, though: it promises to be every bit as much of a landmark for democracy as the 1860 US Presidential election.

Iyad Allawi, by the way, is now saying the same thing. (You may remember him: former Prime Minister in the provisional government?)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10456753/

Bush has called for "Total Victory"! I guess we'll have to wait and see what that is( A lot of us won"t be around but our kids or grandchildren may find out)!

Regardless of who is elected or who is not the one thing it appears all the Iraqis will be voting for is

America must leave Iraq now!

But, what they don't realize is that Bush & Co. will probably spin this as

We won!

and then the real kicker

So, now we will be able to safely stay in Iraq forever!

Ain't it a hoot?

One election does not a victory make.
One election? So much for keeping up with the news.

Tell me, how many elections does it take? Always one more than they've had?

So, Iraq had elections.

Big deal.

More proof that the extreme left wing simply doesn't care about democracy.

This is another historic day. The high turnout shows how wrong all the negative anti-war spin from the MSM really is. Enormous progress has been made in Iraq, and as long as extremist white-flag wavers like Dean, Pelosi, Kerry and Murtha are kept as far as possible away from anything having to do with this country's foreign policy, we will succeed.

it promises to be every bit as much of a landmark for democracy as the 1860 US Presidential election.

Any comparison with American hostory has to be taken in the context of military occupation. We carried out our revolution and our civil war without the "help" of an occupying and controlling military force.

Tell me, how many elections does it take? Always one more than they've had?

Until the first election during a Democrat administration. Duh.

Ah, yes that "Watershed" election of 1860. Peace and prosperity for all. Well received by all.

Tell me, how many elections does it take?

The minimum standard -- one that does not demonstrate a firmly established democracy by any stretch -- is at least one peaceful transition of power between a government elected under a system to a new government, preferably one not the chosen successor or of the same party or coalition as the prior government -- elected under the same system.

I guess Dean declared defeat too early.

This really is good news for advocates of withdrawal, unless we continue to have losers like Dean undermining serious proposals like Murtha's.

elected under the same system

What does "system" mean? A different constitution? When a country writes a new constitution, does that mean it is not a democracy for until the second election after passage of the new constitution?

Actually, I continue to be impressed with the Americans who defy their unfair voting system to spend hours queueing to vote. It's my own British countrymen whose apathy I'm ashamed of. We have no problems (read: excuses) at all, we stroll into a quiet polling station and cast our votes. You poor bastards have to spend, effectively, fifty dollars or more of your time (many of you can ill afford that, either) to use the few machines your corrupt masters have allocated to you.

Owen:The Iraqi war, as part of the war on terror IS lost. Nothing can really stop terrorist training camps in Iraq focused on getting their pound of flesh.

And at worst, we could see Iraq is a directly hostile nation.

Besides. All it takes is one accusation of election fraud, and all this positive stuff is lost.

our civil war without the "help" of an occupying and controlling military force.

The "south" was separated into several military districts during the euphamistically-called reconstruction... which took several decades to transmogrify into reintergration.

I continue to be amazed and impressed by the Iraqis who risk bodily harm to cast a vote, and wonder what the hell is wrong with Americans who can’t be bloody bothered.

Iraq has an electoral system that, I believe you will find, is designed specifically promote and support a wide array of viable parties to represent the interests in a diverse population, rather than the duopoly promoted by the US electoral system. Further, the perceived threat of actual death if the election goes the wrong way in Iraq is probably harder.

So, Iraqi voters have both greater immediate fear from bad election results than American voters and are more likely to have viable options that reflect their actual preferences. Is it any surprise they are more likely to vote, for reasons that have nothing to do with the personal merits of the voters themselves?

What does "system" mean?

It means "system".

A different constitution?

A different Constitution may, or may not, work a change in the system as relates to the succession of governments. Democracy vs. nondemocracy isn't the only feature of a Constitution. Further, a Constitution may not determine the electoral system at all, or may not actually exist in a fixed form.

When a country writes a new constitution, does that mean it is not a democracy for until the second election after passage of the new constitution?

The empirical conclusion that it remains a functioning democracy should probably be considered tentative until that point with substantial changes to the system of choosing governments, though the fact of long-established democracy and democratic values and an analysis of the nature of the changes in the system may in some cases warrant a high degree of confidence that that test will be successfully met.

Juan Cole had this to say today:

The LA Times probably reflects the thinking of a lot of Americans in hoping that these elections are a milestone on the way to withdrawing US troops from Iraq. I cannot imagine why anyone thinks that. The Iraqi "government" is a failed state. Virtually no order it gives has any likelihood of being implemented. It has no army to speak of and cannot control the country. Its parliamentarians are attacked and sometimes killed with impunity. Its oil pipelines are routinely bombed, depriving it of desperately needed income. It faces a powerful guerrilla movement that is wholly uninterested in the results of elections and just wants to overthrow the new order. Elections are unlikely to change any of this.

The only way in which these elections may lead to a US withdrawal is that they will ensconce parliamentarians who want the US out on a short timetable. Virtually all the Sunnis who come in will push for that result (which is why the US Right is silly to be all agog about Fallujans voting), and so with the members of the Sadr Movement, now a key component of the Shiite religious United Iraqi Alliance. That is, these elections lead to a US withdrawal on terms unfavorable to the Bush administration. Nor is there much hope that a parliament that kicked the US out could turn around and restore order in the country.

I tend to agree with the poster (several above).

If the election helps quell the insurgency, then it only quiets the critics, and emboldens Bush to hang around as long as he likes. Any pull-out talk in recent months has been completely driven by his dismal approval ratings.

We didn't get in to beat Al Qaeda (no link), or to eliminate WMD's (proven false), or to instill democracy (never a pre-war justification given to either the U.N. or the U.S public).

(Oil?)

What does "system" mean? A different constitution? When a country writes a new constitution, does that mean it is not a democracy for until the second election after passage of the new constitution?
Posted by: Al on December 15, 2005 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

As war-victors, we should have dictated a constitution, like we did for Japan, and then given them a mechanism to change it (like our own). Best of both worlds. The constitution they came up with sucks. It does not equate to "freedom" in any sense of the word that most reasonable people would use. And it will make the terrorism problem worse. And it will multiply the Iran problem twofold.

And we're not going to be leaving Iraq any time soon. The minute US troops leave, the Shiite militas start butchering Sunnis. I guarantee it. Iraq needs a real security force, that's multiethnic. They need a fucking draft with no exceptions or special treatment for spoiled rich kids like Bush got.

I'm all about the gay stuff?

The "south" was separated into several military districts during the euphamistically-called reconstruction... which took several decades to transmogrify into reintergration.

The "south" still doesn't seem very integrated to me. It seems more like we accidentally left them in the 19th century.

It will be interesting to watch the Democrats crawl off the limb.

so, has the Mission been Accomplished ? if not, tell us the conditinos under which it will be accomplished, some ways of meaningfully measuing progress towards that point.

if you can't do that, STFU

As war-victors, we should have dictated a constitution, like we did for Japan, and then given them a mechanism to change it (like our own). Best of both worlds. The constitution they came up with sucks. It does not equate to "freedom" in any sense of the word that most reasonable people would use. And it will make the terrorism problem worse. And it will multiply the Iran problem twofold.

I wouldn't say that all this is true on its face; while the Constitution has some worrisome provisions, they are mostly directly contradicted by other provisions. Assuming that a stable government can be established -- which is a question largely independent of the text of the Constitution -- a lot of what the Constitution means will be developed by practice under it, just as for our own Constitution.

That's not to say there may not be long-term problems in there, but I think the fundamental shrot-term problems Iraq faces dwarf the textual problems with the Constitution and are likely to render them irrelevant.

Juan Cole had this to say today:

Is that the same Juan Cole who thought that bin Laden moved up the date of the 9/11 attacks to retaliate for the "Jenin Massacre" (which, of course, occurred after 9/11, in 2002)? Yep, he's a reliable analyst of Middle Eastern affairs. *snicker*

The constitution they came up with sucks. It does not equate to "freedom" in any sense of the word that most reasonable people would use.

Prove that.

so, has the Mission been Accomplished ? if not, tell us the conditinos under which it will be accomplished, some ways of meaningfully measuing progress towards that point.

if you can't do that, STFU

Actually cmdicely gave a nice rendering of success. If you haven't read it, STFU and do so.

It means "system".

Well, then, since Iraq basically has the same "system" now as it had for the january elections (change in constitutions from the TAL to the October constitution notwithstanding), then it seems that the government elected by today's election (which will undoubtedly be different that the Jaafari government now in place) will meet your minimum criteria.

*snicker*

That's the same reaction I have to your opinions!

The Americans had this ace up their sleeve, they have 150,000 combat troops. The implied benchmark was, "vote us out and we start leaving."

It is the desire to end the occupation a main driver causing high turnout among the Sunni.

What does tell us? You put the American Army somewhere, and tell folks to vote them out, folks will do that. It kinda works.

The reason it works, is because there is no underlying ideological world view that is in conflict over there, except for Jihadi. In other words, no insurgency. This is not communism vs capitalism. It is people with short term greivances. Iraq is no more a supporter of the Jihadi world view than any other country in that region. There is no ideological conflict.

I have four pertinent questions:

(1) Did we invade and occupy Iraq at a cost of $200 billion and 2,100 American lives to ensure they could hold democratic elections? (if so, please provide a link to the news story)
(2) Why do American conservatives want to slash spending on domestic programs that benefit the poor, but not bat an eyelash over spending massive amounts of American taxpayer money on helping Iraq?
(3) Where in the Constitution does it say that the U.S. Congress can appropriate one nickel for foreign elections?
(4) Where's Osama, George???

"Ah, yes that "Watershed" election of 1860."

Yes, that prick Lincoln and the Republican party. Seriously, in the midst of civil discord, to form a new party only diminishes that party in later decades.

Lincoln and the Civil war, followed by Grant created what we now know as Big Government Republicanism. Had we just cooled our heels a decade longer, we would have had the Republicans of limited government, and the Bush, Reagan crowd never would have haunted us.

"Ba'athist insurgents to protect Iraq elections" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/11/uirq.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/12/11/ixportaltop.html

... "(Ba'athist) guerrillas in the volatile Anbar province say they are prepared to protect voting stations from al-Qa'eda fighters."

I'm totally depressed about the situation in Iraq.
It looks like they are going to vote, get a government and all this will do will make Bush look good.
It's much easier to convince my right-wing co-workers that Iraq is a mess when Americans are dying by the dozen each week and the Iraqis just squabble. But when they vote and look like they are enjoying it (damn those purple fingers), it gives me the willy-nillies.

I love Howard Dean and everything he stands for.
I still believe that victory in Iraq is impossible, but I fear that the American people will not agree with him when they see this kind of voting, and this will make our electoral chances in 2006 and 2008 diminish.

I think we Democrats could take over one (or if all goes really badly, two) of the houses next November, but only if the situation in Iraq really deteriorates.

Go insurgents!! Kill lots of Americans!! Make sure Al-Jazeera shows lots of gore!!! Maybe then we can win a few House and Senate seats.
Seems like a good tradeoff to me.

Another day, another election.

I'm very happen that the Iraq elections are a success! Al is practically declaring the WOT to be won and over. I guess we can bring the troops home immediately.

Power and Interest News Report on the subject:

What to Expect in Iraq After the December 15 Elections

Short answer: more of the same, if not worse.

we keep turning all these corners over there, and they can't help telling us everytime we do, what they leave out is that they see Iraq as a myriagon.

Hey, congratulations on this big time guest spot. Despite your great writing and blogging abilities, I can't help but think I deserve most of the credit, though.

yes..

Mission Accomplished
Time to bring em on home George!!

Another item of note is:
Much less violence today than on normal days in Iraq (where an average of 80 Iraqis are killed in bombings EVERY SINGLE DAY).

Whatever we're doing TODAY in Iraq to secure this country, we should be doing EVERY DAY. And if we cannot sustain that level of security with the number of troops - THEN WE FUCKING NEED MORE TROOPS.

Hey, OBF, how are we supposed to have more troops in Iraq when John Murtha says they should all be redeployed to Okinawa?
How are troops in Okinawa going to keep the security situation in Iraq under control?

It is an important day for the Iraqi people, who in my mind, are the ones who are going to make this experiment succeed or fail. At this point, they seem determined to succeed.

King George's "Total victory" rhetoric is idiotic because there will be no ticker tape parade.

The only hope for the insurgency I think, is a civil war. So they will do all they can to make that happen. They don't care about elections.

Iraq is a place US troops will be in for decades to come, no doubt, as we try to prop up what is sure to become a failed state.

Its a hopeful day for Iraqis, but I always ask myself, is it worth 2300+, 17000+ wounded, 50K dead Iraqis?

I supported the war but wish Bush had gone in with the UN and the world's help.

Yeah, Sven Hedin, I know what you mean.

I feel the same way.

I hate it when Bush looks good. Damn, did you see where he was back up to 50% approval in some polls.

I hate that. I feel much happier when things are going really badly in Iraq and his poll numbers were in the mid-to-high 30s.

Whatever we're doing TODAY in Iraq to secure this country, we should be doing EVERY DAY.

Giving the country a one-day event where even the insurgents are probably wanting to see how it turns out to decide how to move next probably isn't something you can do every day.

Whatever we're doing TODAY in Iraq to secure this country, we should be doing EVERY DAY.

You mean we should ban all vehicles PERMANENTLY? What a silly idea.

Does this turnout include the truckloads of forged ballots?

Does this turnout include the truckloads of forged ballots?

Turns out that story was just a MSM lie.

Hey, are you supposed to post stuff that can be spun to help Bush? I mean Kevin would never post this kind of stuff. The usual stories are: why we are losing, why we need to pull out, we are torturing innocent jihadis, we are abusing innocent civilians, if we do kill al Qaida it's no big deal, etc...

Prove that.
Posted by: Red State Mike on December 15, 2005 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.christiansofiraq.com/men82605.html

"One election does not a victory make."

That's right! There's hope for defeat yet.

Turns out that story was just a MSM lie.
Posted by: Al on December 15, 2005 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Like the WMD?

Have you lame ass wingnuts ever read Robert Conquest? Ever even heard of him? His take on what is required for democracy is the real conservative view. And the rational view.

You mean we should ban all vehicles PERMANENTLY? What a silly idea.
Posted by: Al on December 15, 2005 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

If you were sitting in an Iraqi hospital, enjoying the pungent aroma of rotting flesh from your stumps after having limbs blown off in a car bombing attack while you were waiting in line for a job at a police station, you'd think it was a good idea.

"Short answer: more of the same, if not worse."

That's the hope at least. Gotta have something to look forward to for Fitzmas...

I admit to having an irrational hatred of Bush which I try to control when posting. But at this point I don't see Iraqi success as a sign that Bush foreign policy was correct. The success is a result of the military's push back against the "Mission Accomplished" mindset of the Admin.

Iraq has been completely mishandled and that has cost lives. Consider how Bush has changed, from "Mushroom clouds" to "intelligence was bad."

Finally, Iraqi policy is based in realism, not cowboy slogans. Bush was forced into that thinking by his poll numbers and the military. Unfortunately, 2300 guys paid with their lives.

But that could be considered irration hatred of King George, who in my minf, BTW, looks greatly humbled. A good sign.

That's not to say there may not be long-term problems in there, but I think the fundamental shrot-term problems Iraq faces dwarf the textual problems with the Constitution and are likely to render them irrelevant.
Posted by: cmdicely on December 15, 2005 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

The other problems, the chaos, the corruption, the lack of working infrastructure, the Iranian influence, that's all "just part of the democratic process" - just birth pains - to the Republicans.

The security issue is one we simply have to agree to disagree on, because the Republicans don't see it as a problem. All they're seeing is purple fingers.

But you can't argue that Freedom is On the March with that constitution in place. Freedom is on the March - but that march is a full retreat from Iraq.

Reposting: I was thinking about all of this "turn the corner" nonsense and just wanted to run through the various ways we have "turned the corner" over the past couple of years. Feel free to add more.

1. We turned a corner when Baghdad fell. That it fell so easily and quickly was "proof" that the Bush administration had been right all along and that this really was going to be a cakewalk.

2. We turned a corner when Saddam's sons were killed. This was supposed to be proof that the U.S. meant business and this was going to intimidate the insurgents. Plus, they were undoubtedly leading the insurgency, so their loss would leave the insurgency leaderless.

3. We turned a corner when the insurgency bombed the UN headquarters in Iraq. This was supposed to be a sign of how desperate they were and how they were nearly at the end of their rope.

4. We turned a corner when Saddam Hussein was captured. This was going to be another big blow to the insurgency, since Saddam was, theoretically, leading it, and even if he wasn't, he must have known something about it, and even if he didn't, it still was very symbolic and would take the wind out of their sails. [When Howard Dean told the precise and predictable truth that we were no safer, he was excoriated by war supporters, using much the same language now being used against Murtha.]

5. We turned a corner when we handed over sovereignty to the Iraqi interim government. This was supposed to show everyone that we really weren't there to occupy the country and when the insurgents realized this, they'd drop their attacks. Or maybe it was that when the Iraqi people realized this, they'd go after the insurgency themselves. I'm not too sure, really.

6. We turned a corner when the insurgents started going after Iraqi security forces. Since the insurgents were now attacking other Iraqis, the idea went, that showed how "desperate" they were. [The fact that this was actually the first signs of a low-scale civil war didn't seem to have occurred to the war supporters.]

7. We turned a corner when we launched a full-scale assault on Fallujah. This would show the insurgency that we meant business. We'd kill 'em and drive 'em out of their stronghold and be all manly and stuff and they'd simply whimper and cower down in fear.

8. We turned a corner when we re-elected Bush. And yes, I'm serious. There actually were a few war supporters who quite seriously argued that if Bush were re-elected, the insurgents would just give up and go home.

9. We turned a corner when the Iraqi people voted in January for the transitional assembly. The insurgents were "desperate" to prevent that election, since it would mark the beginning of the end for them in some [unspecified] way. And since they hadn't prevented it, that was a sign that they really were through.

10. We turned a corner when the U.S. launched "Operation Lightning," a joint exercise with Iraqi forces to take back control of Baghdad to make it more safe. Nearly 50,000 troops and police were involved and (depending on which news source you believe) anywhere from 800 to 1700 people were arrested. A relative cessation of terrorist activity in Baghdad for a few weeks after the operation was trumpeted far and wide as a sign of complete success.

Unfortunately, the operation more resembled the "rounding up of the usual suspects" scene from the movie "Casablanca" than it did a serious counter-insurgency, with the overwhelming majority of those arrested quietly released in the weeks following, and with violence quickly returning to its former levels.

11. We turned a corner when a new Constitution was approved, this despite the fact that it was guaranteed to piss off the Sunnis, that it enshrined Islamic Law into the Constitution, that it essentially split the country into three autonomous regions, and that it was nothing like what the Bush administration had wanted and had predicted.

12. We turned a corner when that new Constitution was approved, even though the Sunnis overwhelmingly rejected it, further inflaming the deep divisions already present.

13. And we will turn another corner when the Iraqis vote in national elections again.

There were other things that weren't quite corners, too, including Basra. Now Basra was supposed to be a model city -- pacified, quiet, under control -- the model of what all of Iraq would one day be. Alas, Basra was pacified and quiet solely because the Shiite militias had taken over almost complete control of the city, with the British unable to exert much influence and with the police chief admitting that he was not in control of his own men.

In every single one of these instances, one or more of the war supporters on this blog and elsewhere trumpeted the "turning the corner" meme and scoffed at our skepticism, accusing us of "wanting Bush to fail" and "ignoring the many good things happening" and "not supporting our troops" and all those other mindlessly partisan statements that have been tossed around here and elsewhere. And in every single one of these instances, the skeptics were shown to be correct, while the war supporters had to wait for the next "corner" to turn to go through the same ceremony again.

Now maybe these elections truly will mark the turning of a corner, but why on earth should I believe it when none of those other "corners" meant diddly-squat to the insurgency, to the violence, or to the future and security of Iraq?

Good gawd, it's nothing but a troll clusterfuck in here.

Here's a clue for the trolls-- you weren't invited here, your presence isn't welcome here, and all you do is hang around so you can be rude and condescending to complete and total strangers. I know you like to think it's your opinions we don't like but that really isn't the problem-- it's your attitudes. Considering everything I can't help but wonder how extraordinarily popular ya'll must be in real life.

Seriously, don't you have something more interesting or productive to do with your lives? You're not going to convince anyone here of anything, this is not a place people go who don't already have strong opinions. You really are just wasting your life-- if you support the war so much why aren't you over there?

Here we go again.

Another BIG EVENT which is the TRUE SIGN of REAL PROGRESS in Iraq.

And we're all supposed to pretend that, yes, we feel inspired beyond the power of words to express in the belief that something deeply wonderful has just now taken place in Iraq, and that we are, of course, of course! rooting for democracy and the Iraqi people.

Can't we just shoot this stupid charade through the neck and dump it in a shallow grave somewhere?

I mean, look, the problem has NEVER been whether Iraqis would come out to vote in numbers. The problem is in Iraq is the INSURGENTS. If there were no insurgents, nobody would even much care how many people happened to vote, and to what purpose, because there would be peace and harmony enough.

Does anybody in their right mind believe the insurgents will go away after this, or that they will diminish in strength? Absolutely nothing we have seen in the past has had that effect, right? Why should this election?

A month from now, and six months from now, and as long as American troops exist in their current strength, essentially the same number of Americans will be killed. The Iraqis will continue to be largely unprepared to do battle with the insurgents themselves.

And as we withdraw from Iraq, the insurgents will begin to target more exclusively the levers of power in Iraq. because it is power they are interested in -- the power they feel is their right by history and capability.

Truly, how else can this turn out? Why do we have to pretend it's going to take another route? Why do we have to engage in the false cheer of toasting an election that has virtually no prospect of materially altering this future?

But it seems that the Iraqi themselves aren't concerned about the crap that splashes about in the blogosphere and pretends to be rational thought; they insist upon voting. They live in the true reality-based world.

A few words of unsolicited advice to those individuals who seem to be expressing regret at the apparently smooth Iraqi electoral process:

- Americans, of every political persuasion (liberal, moderate, conservative) should be hopeful that Iraq becomes a stable, self-sufficient democracy. However, let us never forget that in the United States, the ends should never, ever justify the means.

Even a favorable outcome does not justify the lies, subterfuge and innocent blood that have been used to get us here. We are all poorer, literally and figuratively, because of the criminal in the White House!!!

frankly0 -

Stop making sense. It hurts the wingers feelings.

At first, I couldn't get behind Murtha. The defeatist tone was too overpowering. Democrats already had enough problems with that image. But I was reminded of his intentions: the safety of our fighting sons & daughers.

The CiC (along with Congress, in a perfect world) has the responsibility for their safety and well being. When Murtha heard the President totally abandon that responsibility in 2003 by issuing his hyper-macho "Bring 'em on" challenge to the insurgents, he knew the safety of our troops would be up to someone else.

Stephen Kriz wrote: "A few words of unsolicited advice to those individuals who seem to be expressing regret at the apparently smooth Iraqi electoral process"

Nobody here, or anywhere else, for that matter, has said anything like this. We do not "regret" that the Iraqi electoral process is running smoothly with high participation rates, assuming that such is indeed the case. We are simply skeptical that it will make any real difference to the state of affairs in Iraq.

Thus far, the war supporters here and elsewhere have been unable to come up with any real evidence that anything will change in Iraq, other than simply repeating the same old stuff that's been repeated (and proved wrong) during past similar events.

"Americans, of every political persuasion (liberal, moderate, conservative) should be hopeful that Iraq becomes a stable, self-sufficient democracy..."

"We are all poorer, literally and figuratively, because of the criminal in the White House!!!"

The message I got, from one Iraqi voter at least, is that: you should "go to hell".

Oh, and PaulB, nice one as well.

Of course, listing facts is no defense against faith, as we relearn ever day.

Excellent. Can we go home now?
Mission Accomplished and Total Victory is Ours.

Found Bin Laden - Nope
Found Zawahiri - Nope
Found WMD - Nope
Vanquished Al Qaeda - Well, they weren't in Iraq prior to us coming and they may have gotten some training
Found Zaquarwi - Nope, but we did make him famous by coming to Iraq
Victory in War on Terror - Well, there's only about 5% "terrorists" in Iraq and they are only there because we are.
Thwarted Hussein Threat - Well, he wasn't a threat more like an impotent little despot

Geez, don’t they know that our soldiers are listening…and the enemy is, too?

It isn't a "corner" being turned, it's a "benchmark". As you undoubtedly know, most places that have peaceful voting in Iraq today have no American soldiers providing the security.

For a day, enjoy the election, third peaceful election this year in Iraq, just the latest benchmark, and quit with the bitchy despondency. You can go back to crabbing tomorrow. Tomorrow you can tell us how Lieberman is benighted, if not positively delusional, and how Dean is on the mark; for today, take the advice of the Jefferson Airplane and "just let it happen".

good grief: let us never forget that in the United States, the ends should never, ever justify the means.

The ends do not justify every means, but surely what justifies the means has to be the ends. What else? a feel-good sense of symbolic superiority? Do you really think that anything has ever been accomplished only by pure motives and pure people?

Does anybody in their right mind believe the insurgents will go away after this,

No

or that they will diminish in strength?

Yes

Absolutely nothing we have seen in the past has had that effect, right? Why should this election?

Because Sunnis are participating this time.

A month from now, and six months from now, and as long as American troops exist in their current strength, essentially the same number of Americans will be killed.

No. yes, if they continue in their same roles, but no if they move to remote bases to provide backup.

The Iraqis will continue to be largely unprepared to do battle with the insurgents themselves.

The insurgents are the Iraqis.

And as we withdraw from Iraq, the insurgents will begin to target more exclusively the levers of power in Iraq. because it is power they are interested in -- the power they feel is their right by history and capability.

When 60+% of Iraqis vote, they obviously feel they have some say in the future.

Truly, how else can this turn out? Why do we have to pretend it's going to take another route? Why do we have to engage in the false cheer of toasting an election that has virtually no prospect of materially altering this future?

Well, is going to materially alter the future one way or another. Could be the final pause before full civil war. Could be something else. But the idea you appear to have that full Sunni participation changes nothing...I just don't agree. It appears the Sunnis don't either.

I'm betting that because of the successful elections that violence in Iraq will completely cease as of midnight tonight.

PaulB wrote: "Nobody here, or anywhere else, for that matter, has said anything like this. We do not "regret" that the Iraqi electoral process is running smoothly with high participation rates, assuming that such is indeed the case. We are simply skeptical that it will make any real difference to the state of affairs in Iraq.

Point taken.

Sometimes listening to Bush supporters, you really do just get the sense that they believe that all the world's problems can be solved by clapping your hands loud enough. If we fail in Iraq, somebody wasn't clapping their hands hard enough, and I'll bet it was a Democrat!

For people who want to pretend they're big tough guys, the are the sappiest sentimentalists of all, who grow all weepy when you talk about democracy, and freedom, and dying in war, and the flag, even if they don't exhibit the slightest understanding of the real meaning of any of these things. They just get creepy and excrete bodily fluids when they talk about such matters.

And here they are again, demanding that we all join them in a big cheer for democracy, when we know the team is down five touchdowns with a minute to go.

Really, these creatures are just icky.

All it takes is one accusation of election fraud, and all this positive stuff is lost.

The unifying theme of Political Animal has got to be despair. Not only is "the glass" always empty, but it's always in the process of emptying further.

Here's a clue to the Bushies.

YOu want to impress me with progress in Iraq. It's simple. SHOW ME A TRUE DIMINISHMENT IN THE STRENGTH OF THE INSURGENCY.

If and when you show THAT, then you've shown peace and harmony and real democracy in Iraq might be possible. If you can only show me stuff that somehow, in your minds, you've convinced yourself will lead to peace and harmony and real democracy in Iraq, then you have shown me NOTHING.

frankly0, didn't Cheney or some Bushie say you can't measure success in Iraq based on the number of insurgent attacks?

To me success is today's elections. Insurgent attacks are not a measure of success. So even if the attacks continue, success has been achieved. Time to get the heck out of there.

Yea papageorgio, I do feel some despair when my country has been "led" so far astray that an American President has to declare "We don't torture"... and no one believes him.

When 60+% of Iraqis vote, they obviously feel they have some say in the future.

Er, no, that doesn't follow. When 60% of Iraqis vote, they obviously (presuming rationality) believe that there is some chance that their voting will have some effect on their future that warrants the cost of voting in time and any marginal risk involved, for sure.

That's not the same as believing they actually have a say, its merely believing that the chance that they might justifies the cost of voting.

YOu want to impress me with progress in Iraq. It's simple. SHOW ME A TRUE DIMINISHMENT IN THE STRENGTH OF THE INSURGENCY.

I can't, but I CAN MATCH IT WITH AN EVEN GREATER INCREASE IN THE NUMBERS OF VOTERS THAT THE INSURGENCY HAS ATTEMPTED TO DETER THROUGH INTIMIDATION, AND IN THE GROWTH OF IRAQI ARMED FORCES THAT THE INSURGENCY HAS ALSO ATTEMPTED TO DETER THROUGH INTIMIDATION.

When 60% of Iraqis vote, they obviously (presuming rationality) believe that there is some chance that their voting will have some effect on their future that warrants the cost of voting in time and any marginal risk involved, for sure.

Do you really think that's how it occurs? They do the calculus, weight risk -v- benefit, flip a coin weighted appropriately, and vote?

That fails to explain the celebrating by participants, fierce pride in the purple fingers, etc., etc. There is clearly an emotional content to their acting.

Here's a nice list of quotes from Al Jazeera on why they voted.

AND IN THE GROWTH OF IRAQI ARMED FORCES

You're using the plural. Did they manage to sign up and train a second guy?

papageno wrote: for today, take the advice of the Jefferson Airplane and "just let it happen".

When did the Jefferson Airplane give that advice? I've been a big Airplane fan since the first time I listened to Crown of Creation in 1969, one of the greatest rock albums of all time, and I'm very familiar with the lyrics to all of their songs, and I don't recall that line.

As for despair, you can't get much more "despairing" than the lyrics to the last song on the Crown of Creation album, about nuclear war:

Everything some day will be gone except silence
Earth will be quiet again
Seas from clouds will wash off the ashes of violence
Left is the memory of men
There will be no survivor my friend
Dead center
Deep as death
All the idiots have left

-- "The House at Pooneil Corners"

All this opprobrium for the phrase "Turn a Corner" is truly striking.

Especially in light of the fact that the words deepening, worsening, increasing (and several others, I'm sure) are joyously repeated. You know, like when the MSM reports on the "increasing toll of US casualties" or "worsening violence in the Anbar province" or some such?

It's almost as though the one rhetorical flourish is okay because you're rooting for it. But the other is not okay because it doesn't fit your pre-determined world view.

Never fear, LLL's! Perhaps tomorrow will be bad in Iraq and you can return to your regularly scheduled programming.

I'll tell you that I think a MUCH more positive development in this whole fiasco also happened today.

Bush is (finally) turning reconstruction over to the State Department, instead of the Pentagon. Something might actually get done now.

A small sampling of Bush's cult of personality, which seems to find silver linings everywhere (with a simple rebuttal at the end):

"It will be interesting to watch the Democrats crawl off the limb."

Posted by: Mike K on December 15, 2005 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

"Well, is going to materially alter the future one way or another. Could be the final pause before full civil war. Could be something else. But the idea you appear to have that full Sunni participation changes nothing...I just don't agree. It appears the Sunnis don't either."

Posted by: Red State Mike

"For a day, enjoy the election, third peaceful election this year in Iraq, just the latest benchmark, and quit with the bitchy despondency. You can go back to crabbing tomorrow. Tomorrow you can tell us how Lieberman is benighted, if not positively delusional, and how Dean is on the mark; for today, take the advice of the Jefferson Airplane and "just let it happen".

"The ends do not justify every means, but surely what justifies the means has to be the ends. What else? a feel-good sense of symbolic superiority? Do you really think that anything has ever been accomplished only by pure motives and pure people?"

Posted by: papageno

[Can you point to an example in human history in which democracy was succesfully installed by a foreign invader in a country that has never previously known it? Just one.]

"The unifying theme of Political Animal has got to be despair. Not only is "the glass" always empty, but it's always in the process of emptying further."

Posted by: papageno

"But it seems that the Iraqi themselves aren't concerned about the crap that splashes about in the blogosphere and pretends to be rational thought; they insist upon voting. They live in the true reality-based world."

Posted by: Zhombre

The rebuttal:

"Shiite parties also had urged a large turnout. Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, told Shiites to support candidates who defend their principles — a veiled warning against turning toward secular politics."

Talk all you want, this is the reality in Iraq.

Got fundamentalist theocracy?

As I said about the Afghan elections last year:
The elections are a simulacrum, the outward appearance of the democratic condition. They are a talking points success. They exemplify no organized state and inject no democratic form into functional institutions.

But that is not quite right for Iraq because the Iranian-allied majority will be the winners.
Words like “election” and “constitution” imply stability, cooperation, and organized government; they are words that provide the context of hope for the viewing audience. The purple fingers are an operatic leitmotif. But they have no connection to the Hobbesian world that is Iraq.

The voters are turning out because the factions are competing for hegemony or against it. Sistani has given clear instructions to his followers to turn out and not to split the vote so he can secure the dominance of the religious United Iraqi Alliance. (Unfortunately Sistani can’t vote because he is an Iranian citizen)

Listening to the cheerleaders of George Bush’s excellent election you would think the Iraqis were voting for Jeb, or at least Allawi.

frankly0,

I don't think many conservatives are worried about impressing you. Today was merely another in a line of election victories for Republicans. Iraq is well in it's way to becoming a prosperous and strong democracy. Their military has made tremendous progress the last year and will by the end of 2006 crush the insurgency. Today showed the total lack of popular suppport for them.

They will make more noise but influence nothing.

Got fundamentalist theocracy?

The UIC fundies will only get 40% of vote max.

Got negotiating, coalition building with give and take, and backroom dealing?

frankly0 wrote: "YOu want to impress me with progress in Iraq. It's simple. SHOW ME A TRUE DIMINISHMENT IN THE STRENGTH OF THE INSURGENCY."

It's not quite that simple, actually. If the insurgents have been diminished because of the increased use of death squads, the increased influence of Shiite militias, the increased use of authoritarian tactics by the central regime, is that truly a sign of progress?

That's why it's worth asking questions about the true state and nature of the Iraqi troops and security forces. Whom are we arming? How are we arming them? How are we training them? To whom are they loyal? What is their conduct as they carry out their missions? What missions are they being given and who is assigning those missions to them?

If all you can say is that the Iraqi security forces are growing or that the insurgency is diminishing, you haven't said nearly enough. To truly get at the reality, you have to go beyond the Bush administration's sound bites to what is actually happening on the ground in Iraq.

papageno wrote: for today, take the advice of the Jefferson Airplane and "just let it happen".

When did the Jefferson Airplane give that advice?

I think papa's getting Airplane mixed up with former Texas gubernatorial candidate William Clements. ("bad weather is like rape: if it's inevitable, sit back and enjoy it.")

I would like to get past your incorrect use of the word 'whom' in your first attempt at its use, above, PaulB.

Then I'll listen to your pronouncements about the security forces and the insurgency.

You know what I'm concerned about? That the Shi'ite religious coalition is essentially balanced against everybody else.

It's not considered very likely -- but not impossible, either -- that the Shi'ite religious coalition (forget what it's called, but it's led by Madhi) gets a gnat's moustache of a majority.

This happens, and the Sunnis have little chance to amend the constitution. They have no bargaining chips to pry the ruling coalition apart with.

I'm very happy for the Iraqi people today. I think *all* of us wish them the best. But if the religious Shia win, I think that spells the beginning of civil war for real ...

Nobody else wants a Shi'ite theocracy imposed throughout the country.

Bob

Birkel, rather predictably, wrote: "All this opprobrium for the phrase 'Turn a Corner' is truly striking."

Is it? Why so? We've heard the phrase over and over and over again and each time we've heard it in the past, it was shown to be completely false. Why were you not capable of dealing with that fact in your post?

"Especially in light of the fact that the words deepening, worsening, increasing (and several others, I'm sure) are joyously repeated."

Ah, so you're a mindreader now? How nice for you. And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly?

"You know, like when the MSM reports on the 'increasing toll of US casualties' or 'worsening violence in the Anbar province' or some such?"

Assuming, for the sake of argument, those are actual quotes (they do not appear to be), do you have any evidence that would contradict either statement, in the appropriate context, of course?

"It's almost as though the one rhetorical flourish is okay because you're rooting for it."

Really? And your evidence for this is ... what, exactly? And your point is ... what, exactly?

"But the other is not okay because it doesn't fit your pre-determined world view."

You mean like writing a post that completely ignores all of those other failed "corner-turnings," offers no evidence of any kind, and simply smears those who disagree with you with a stream of ad hominem attacks? That kind of "pre-determined world view?"

Birkel, rather stupidly, wrote: "I would like to get past your incorrect use of the word 'whom' in your first attempt at its use, above, PaulB."

ROFL... Actually, it's quite easy to do this, Birkel. Your inability to actually deal with the substance of what I wrote is entirely predictable and entirely hilarious.

"Then I'll listen to your pronouncements about the security forces and the insurgency."

No, dear, actually, you won't. Because you simply cannot deal with anything that contradicts that little "pre-determined world view" you've created.

Wow...talk about a pathetic response....

This is a crappy election. It proves nothing, except that Bushitler got everything wrong again.

Until you wake up to that simple fact, just STFU! Got that? Just STFU!

Al Gore is my President!

Dario

PaulB:

Well Paul, you *did* use "whom" incorrectly.

gf

All this opprobrium for the phrase "Turn a Corner" is truly striking.

Especially in light of the fact that the words deepening, worsening, increasing (and several others, I'm sure) are joyously repeated. You know, like when the MSM reports on the "increasing toll of US casualties" or "worsening violence in the Anbar province" or some such?

Yeah your right. It wouldn't have anything to do with the REALITY that US casualties are increasing and violence in Iraq is worsening. While we've turned many a corner with no change (except for the increasing casualties and worsening violence)

Do you really think that's how it occurs?

I'm talking about the logic of your statement that 60%+ voting is a basis for concluding a particularly belief is widespread. I'm not talking about anything else.

That fails to explain the celebrating by participants, fierce pride in the purple fingers, etc., etc.

Which, if you had said, "when 60% of Iraqis celebrate the elections, etc., etc.", might be relevant to something, but then I'd be charging you with false premises rather than (or perhaps in addition to) faulty logic.

There is clearly an emotional content to their acting.

I'm not sure what "emotional content to their acting" means, whether it refers to an emotional motivation to their action, or an emotional response to having acted or whatever else. But since I didn't say that there was not an "emotional content", but was addressing that your claim of widespread Iraqi belief in a particular factual condition that was allegedly evidenced by the fact of voting turnout, not any claim about the emotional content , I don't see the point of that complete non-sequitur.

dano347 seems to have said:
"Can you point to an example in human history in which democracy was succesfully installed by a foreign invader in a country that has never previously known it? Just one.] "

Nothing like trying to limit your sample set...

Does Japan not qualify?

OK, back up to our original exchange.

RSM: When 60+% of Iraqis vote, they obviously feel they have some say in the future.

CMD: Er, no, that doesn't follow.

I think it does. I think people vote because they think it has an effect, and don't if they don't. Could be just me thinking.

Got negotiating, coalition building with give and take, and backroom dealing?

Right. Because, as we all know, "Islamofascists" just love the give and take of politics. Look, if that's what happens, great. Really.

But when you have Sadr's militias in there as a political force, it's no different than if you suddenly started gushing about how Hezbollah only got 40% of the vote in Palestine. It's cool. They'll just horsetrade like anyone else.

You guys shriek in terror over the great caliphate threat, how Iraq is the central front on terror, but then crow in glee that "only" 40% of the people there actively support the hardliner Islamists who have the full support of the totalitarian Iranian mullahs — you don't really follow your own logic. What are they but profoundly and utterly anti-democratic?

"Democracy" only works when you actually believe in perpetuating it, not using the system to undermine it — and there are plenty of historical examples to back this up.

I'm interested to understand why you think that religious parties in Iraq are doing anything else but biding their time before ultimately destroying the democracy that's being propped up by US guns.

Unless you think that hardline, fundementalist Islamists have suddenly grown fond of secular government, in which case, what are we fighting against in the War on Terror?

I think people vote because they think it has an effect, and don't if they don't.

I think that people are considerably less binary than that.

"Can you point to an example in human history in which democracy was succesfully installed by a foreign invader in a country that has never previously known it? Just one.] "

The U.S.

Grammar Fascist wrote: "Well Paul, you *did* use 'whom' incorrectly."

Yup. It's one of those grammatical rules that I occasionally have trouble with. That, of course, has nothing to do with the substance of my remarks, as dear little Birkel knows all too well. Anytime someone highlights a grammatical error or a typo as reason to ignore someone's post, they are simply revealing the bankrupt nature of their own arguments.

"Just let it happen"

From the album, Jefferson Airplane Takes Off, released Sep 66.

It is on the song, "Don't slip away" by M.Balin and A.Spence.

(break)
"Don't slip away, oh no don't slip away,
Now that your here, we should,
Just let it happen,
Now that your here."

noltf:

I understand what you're saying (and please don't use me as an anti-Islamic straw man; I'm the last thing from it) but I think you're wildly conflating flavors of Islam.

There's a big difference between the conservative Shia spiritually led by Sestani and the nimrod Sunni Salafists. I don't think there's much support for the latter even among the Sunnis in the heart of Anbar.

I think the religious Shia want a conservative Islamic state, but not an Iran-style theocracy, exactly -- although it will certainly look anti-democratic if you're a northern city-dweller. The Sadr people appear more rhetorically extreme -- but they also despise Iran and are probably more politically malleable because theirs is more properly-speaking a social than a religious movement.

I, too, fear theocratic tendencies, especially if the Shi'ite religious coalit