[moki]

Congratulations to the Iraqi people, and our brave men and women who have helped make this happen. To the obstructionists, I say, keep standing on the sidelines of life.

News coverage of the vote

from: http://www.opinionjournal.com/weeken.../?id=110007411

.....

The New Politics of Iraq
Progress in Baghdad belies pessimism in Washington.

Saturday, October 15, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Millions of Iraqis will risk their lives today to endorse their new constitution, but it's a measure of American defeatism that the vote is already being dismissed in many quarters as a mirage on the road to inevitable civil war. On the contrary, we'd say the vote is further evidence that the Iraq mission still has every chance of succeeding.

The expected approval is certainly a triumph for Iraqi political leaders, who have been underestimated by everyone, including too often by the Bush Administration. Going back to the Governing Council, most Iraqi politicians have displayed both wisdom and a spirit of compromise. Yes, there have been feuds and acts of brinksmanship along the way. Name a government where there aren't such public spectacles, and you'll find a dictatorship.

Whatever its flaws, the new constitution is by far the most liberal in the Arab world. Parts of the draft initially displeased leaders of the Sunni minority, but Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish leaders bent over backward to win them over. Their compromise this week brought major Sunni endorsements, and the charter may now pass even in Sunni-majority provinces.

More broadly, today's referendum builds on the political progress of January's stunning parliamentary elections. Some 15 million Iraqis have registered to vote, a million more than in January. Most of those new voters are Sunnis who now see that their January boycott was a mistake because it left them with too little representation in Baghdad.

Assuming the constitution is approved, Iraqis will elect a new and permanent parliament in December. And because of different proportional voting rules, Sunnis are all but guaranteed a larger presence in the new legislature. The new body will also include a mix of Kurds and secular and religious Shiites that will make dominance by any one ethnic or sectarian group unlikely.

All of which confirms that the best way to bring Sunnis into the process was not to appease ex-Baathist or insurgent leaders, as some in the U.N. and U.S. wanted to do. The better move was to keep the democratic process moving and show the majority of Sunnis who don't want civil war that they have a stake in a new government. In retrospect, the tragedy is that the coalition waited a year after the fall of Saddam Hussein to begin this process.

The same goes for the long delay in building Iraqi security forces, whose improvement is another reason for optimism. In his interview with General David Petraeus, Robert Pollock provides more details on their readiness. But the salient point is that nearly 40 Iraqi battalions are now able to take the lead in anti-terrorist operations.

This does not mean they are the U.S. First Marine Division; no one else in the world is either. But Iraqi forces have taken the lead in clearing out and then staying to hold Tal Afar, a former terror stronghold near Syria. They have also fought alongside Americans in the recent offensive through the Euphrates River valley that is this war's Ho Chi Minh trail as an enemy infiltration route.

Yes, there are cases of desertion and infiltration, and an officer corps with battle experience will take time to develop. But the truth is that thousands of Iraqis are fighting and dying for their country, suffering about double the number of killed-in-action as coalition forces in the last 13 months. They are not sitting in the rear as American soldiers do the dirty work.

Their progress has meant that U.S. Iraq commander General George Casey felt he needed to seek only 2,000 more coalition troops to provide security for today's referendum, compared with 12,000 more in January. In short, after the early coalition mistake of training only Iraqi police and a "border" army, the operational and training plans that began in 2004 are beginning to pay off.

Beyond today's vote, the December elections are crucial in that they will produce a new (and non-interim) Iraqi government. Based on the record so far, the Iraqi factions and their leaders will find a way to form coalitions and move ahead. However, one risk is that Washington may so fear Iranian influence that it will clumsily seek to undermine the Shiite religious parties, or to promote its favorite candidate, former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi. We have nothing against Mr. Allawi, who has stayed loyal to the political process despite his drubbing in the January polls. But the last thing new Iraq leaders need is the perception that their election was tainted.

The other big danger is that U.S. media and political pessimism will further erode American public support for the war. The attitude among some can only be described as defeatist. When General Casey and other Defense officials testified recently before the Senate Armed Services Committee, their measured reports were drowned out by criticism and gloom.

In response to one such riff from Senator Hillary Clinton, General Casey put it this way: "Your comments on the insurgency, on the levels of violence, I recognize that that is what it appears, but that is what the terrorists and insurgents are trying to convey. They're trying to convey that they are winning, and they're doing it by murdering innocent Iraqis. . . .

"And it's a tough situation. But that's what a terror campaign is all about. And this is about political will. And as I said in my opening statement, they are attacking ours and the will of the Iraqi people. They're not winning in Iraq, and they will only win here if we lose our will."

[xenu]

Originally Posted by moki

Congratulations to the Iraqi people, and our brave men and women who have helped make this happen. To the obstructionists, I say, keep standing on the sidelines of life.

That's right. Let GWB invade any country he wants for the oil, and don't say a word against it.
Because as we all know, that's not only anti USA, it's anti democracy.

Good luck to the people of Iraq. Let's hope the future is less bloody than the recent past, and that democracy works.

And let's hope the brave men and women who have helped make this happen get access to even more porn after the election.

[Rolling Bones]

Originally Posted by moki

Congratulations to the Iraqi people, and our brave men and women who have helped make this happen. To the obstructionists, I say, keep standing on the sidelines of life.

News coverage of the vote

from: http://www.opinionjournal.com/weeken.../?id=110007411

.....

The New Politics of Iraq
Progress in Baghdad belies pessimism in Washington.

Saturday, October 15, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Millions of Iraqis will risk their lives today to endorse their new constitution, but it's a measure of American defeatism that the vote is already being dismissed in many quarters as a mirage on the road to inevitable civil war. On the contrary, we'd say the vote is further evidence that the Iraq mission still has every chance of succeeding.

The expected approval is certainly a triumph for Iraqi political leaders, who have been underestimated by everyone, including too often by the Bush Administration. Going back to the Governing Council, most Iraqi politicians have displayed both wisdom and a spirit of compromise. Yes, there have been feuds and acts of brinksmanship along the way. Name a government where there aren't such public spectacles, and you'll find a dictatorship.

Whatever its flaws, the new constitution is by far the most liberal in the Arab world. Parts of the draft initially displeased leaders of the Sunni minority, but Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish leaders bent over backward to win them over. Their compromise this week brought major Sunni endorsements, and the charter may now pass even in Sunni-majority provinces.

More broadly, today's referendum builds on the political progress of January's stunning parliamentary elections. Some 15 million Iraqis have registered to vote, a million more than in January. Most of those new voters are Sunnis who now see that their January boycott was a mistake because it left them with too little representation in Baghdad.

Assuming the constitution is approved, Iraqis will elect a new and permanent parliament in December. And because of different proportional voting rules, Sunnis are all but guaranteed a larger presence in the new legislature. The new body will also include a mix of Kurds and secular and religious Shiites that will make dominance by any one ethnic or sectarian group unlikely.

All of which confirms that the best way to bring Sunnis into the process was not to appease ex-Baathist or insurgent leaders, as some in the U.N. and U.S. wanted to do. The better move was to keep the democratic process moving and show the majority of Sunnis who don't want civil war that they have a stake in a new government. In retrospect, the tragedy is that the coalition waited a year after the fall of Saddam Hussein to begin this process.

The same goes for the long delay in building Iraqi security forces, whose improvement is another reason for optimism. In his interview with General David Petraeus, Robert Pollock provides more details on their readiness. But the salient point is that nearly 40 Iraqi battalions are now able to take the lead in anti-terrorist operations.

This does not mean they are the U.S. First Marine Division; no one else in the world is either. But Iraqi forces have taken the lead in clearing out and then staying to hold Tal Afar, a former terror stronghold near Syria. They have also fought alongside Americans in the recent offensive through the Euphrates River valley that is this war's Ho Chi Minh trail as an enemy infiltration route.

Yes, there are cases of desertion and infiltration, and an officer corps with battle experience will take time to develop. But the truth is that thousands of Iraqis are fighting and dying for their country, suffering about double the number of killed-in-action as coalition forces in the last 13 months. They are not sitting in the rear as American soldiers do the dirty work.

Their progress has meant that U.S. Iraq commander General George Casey felt he needed to seek only 2,000 more coalition troops to provide security for today's referendum, compared with 12,000 more in January. In short, after the early coalition mistake of training only Iraqi police and a "border" army, the operational and training plans that began in 2004 are beginning to pay off.

Beyond today's vote, the December elections are crucial in that they will produce a new (and non-interim) Iraqi government. Based on the record so far, the Iraqi factions and their leaders will find a way to form coalitions and move ahead. However, one risk is that Washington may so fear Iranian influence that it will clumsily seek to undermine the Shiite religious parties, or to promote its favorite candidate, former interim prime minister Ayad Allawi. We have nothing against Mr. Allawi, who has stayed loyal to the political process despite his drubbing in the January polls. But the last thing new Iraq leaders need is the perception that their election was tainted.

The other big danger is that U.S. media and political pessimism will further erode American public support for the war. The attitude among some can only be described as defeatist. When General Casey and other Defense officials testified recently before the Senate Armed Services Committee, their measured reports were drowned out by criticism and gloom.

In response to one such riff from Senator Hillary Clinton, General Casey put it this way: "Your comments on the insurgency, on the levels of violence, I recognize that that is what it appears, but that is what the terrorists and insurgents are trying to convey. They're trying to convey that they are winning, and they're doing it by murdering innocent Iraqis. . . .

"And it's a tough situation. But that's what a terror campaign is all about. And this is about political will. And as I said in my opening statement, they are attacking ours and the will of the Iraqi people. They're not winning in Iraq, and they will only win here if we lose our will."

Congratulations to the winners of the current and to the continuing civil war.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by xenu

That's right. Let GWB invade any country he wants for the oil, and don't say a word against it.
Because as we all know, that's not only anti USA, it's anti democracy.

Good luck to the people of Iraq. Let's hope the future is less bloody than the recent past, and that democracy works.

And let's hope the brave men and women who have helped make this happen get access to even more porn after the election.

It is truly beautiful.

Nevertheless, I feel this is totally overblown.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by xenu

That's right. Let GWB invade any country he wants for the oil, and don't say a word against it.
Because as we all know, that's not only anti USA, it's anti democracy.

Good luck to the people of Iraq. Let's hope the future is less bloody than the recent past, and that democracy works.

And let's hope the brave men and women who have helped make this happen get access to even more porn after the election.

If anyone had invaded any country for the oil, don't you think they'd have invaded some place where they could a) get a whole lot more oil over time (Iraq's underground reserves are no big shakes compared to Saudi Arabia or Venezuela) and b) gotten the oil rather quickly instead of having to deal with a bunch of "I'm making a statement by blowing up a bunch of innocent people" fanatics. Also c) said invader would have wanted to have all the oil to himself, and that's not happening with Iraqi oil, as it's going on "the market" and we're (the oil companies that is) getting what is legitimately bargained and contracted for.

I don't think invading Iraq when it was done was the smartest thing to do by a long shot, but it DAMN SURE wasn't to monopolize on their oil fields-not enough payoff there. It may actually have been intended to settle things down throughout the region and it remains to be seen if that is actually the case. At least it has concentrated fanatics in one region instead of all over the entirity of Southwest Asia and the Middle East.

[xenu]

Originally Posted by ghporter

If anyone had invaded any country for the oil, don't you think they'd have invaded some place where they could a) get a whole lot more oil over time (Iraq's underground reserves are no big shakes compared to Saudi Arabia or Venezuela) and b) gotten the oil rather quickly instead of having to deal with a bunch of "I'm making a statement by blowing up a bunch of innocent people" fanatics. Also c) said invader would have wanted to have all the oil to himself, and that's not happening with Iraqi oil, as it's going on "the market" and we're (the oil companies that is) getting what is legitimately bargained and contracted for.

I don't think invading Iraq when it was done was the smartest thing to do by a long shot, but it DAMN SURE wasn't to monopolize on their oil fields-not enough payoff there. It may actually have been intended to settle things down throughout the region and it remains to be seen if that is actually the case. At least it has concentrated fanatics in one region instead of all over the entirity of Southwest Asia and the Middle East.

Ever heard of China? They are going to need a lot of oil soon.

Yes the invasion was for oil. Bush wanted to ensure a continuing supply primarily for America, but also for the "west". Unfortunately his plan went wrong - mainly because he ignored the advice that said the invasion would go wrong. What is happening now was predicted with confidence well before the invasion.

Hopefully his incompetence hasn't ruined it for the Iraqi people.

Edit: Let's also not forget how much Halliburtan is making from this invasion.

[von Wrangell]

Have they found the WMD's yet? And since when did the US have the right to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians abroad for what they think they (the people abroad) want??

[OldManMac]

The invasion wasn't to grab Iraq's oil, per se. It was to make sure that the access to ME oil continued.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by KarlG

The invasion wasn't to grab Iraq's oil, per se. It was to make sure that the access to ME oil continued.

I'd say this has a serious amount of truth in it. An unstable Middle East, with bullies running countries and willing to use chemical weapons on their own people would be very hard to deal with...Oh, wait a minute...It WAS very hard to deal with! Without Sadam calling the shots in a very pivotal location, the entire Middle East is less subject to his tantrums and it's easier and more efficient to get oil from source to destination.

But 99% of the people that say "it's all about oil" seem to honestly believe that we're there to get Iraq's oil instead of being more about making the whole region safer, which makes it easier and safer to buy oil from a number of countries.

And having been the direct military supervisor of several people who were IN Iraq because of the invasion, I simply do not agree that any individual is there because of oil. Whether they want to be there or not, our troops are there because they're serving OUR country. Keep in mind that military power is an extension of political tools; it's the hammer one uses when the carrot and stick fail. The war is a POLITICAL issue, and we need to make sure that the tens of thousands of people there because they were ordered to go are not caught in the domestic political fallout-as many tens of thousands of troops were in the 1960s and 70s when they came home from Viet Nam. THE TROOPS did not cause or direct this conflict, and they did what they swore they'd do-follow orders. Be good to the troops, folks.

[RIRedinPA]

Whatever its flaws, the new constitution is by far the most liberal in the Arab world. Parts of the draft initially displeased leaders of the Sunni minority, but Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish leaders bent over backward to win them over.

I liked this line. Let the revision of history begin now.

Just last month when the Kurds and Shiite leaders wanted to make it all but impossible to have a no vote on the Constitutional referendum and only changed the voting rules after pressure from the UN.

More broadly, today's referendum builds on the political progress of January's stunning parliamentary elections. Some 15 million Iraqis have registered to vote, a million more than in January. Most of those new voters are Sunnis who now see that their January boycott was a mistake because it left them with too little representation in Baghdad.

This was a gem as well. Any Sunnis registering to vote (and post election results pretty much confirm this) were doing so to vote against the constitution. They feel that the decentralized nature of the government established by the constitution will deny them access to oil revenues and a voice in how the country is run. Which is why in the 2 provinces dominated by Sunnis the constitutional referendum overwhelmingly failed.

Call me a pessimists (and I know you will) but I see this less as a unifying factor for Iraq and more likely the next step in an upcoming civil war. The best example I can think of is the US election of 1860. Most of the leaders and members of the soon-to-be Confederate Army voted in that election only to not accept the results and decide to secede from the US.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ghporter

If anyone had invaded any country for the oil, don't you think they'd have invaded some place where they could a) get a whole lot more oil over time (Iraq's underground reserves are no big shakes compared to Saudi Arabia or Venezuela) and b) gotten the oil rather quickly instead of having to deal with a bunch of "I'm making a statement by blowing up a bunch of innocent people" fanatics. Also c) said invader would have wanted to have all the oil to himself, and that's not happening with Iraqi oil, as it's going on "the market" and we're (the oil companies that is) getting what is legitimately bargained and contracted for.

I don't think invading Iraq when it was done was the smartest thing to do by a long shot, but it DAMN SURE wasn't to monopolize on their oil fields-not enough payoff there. It may actually have been intended to settle things down throughout the region and it remains to be seen if that is actually the case. At least it has concentrated fanatics in one region instead of all over the entirity of Southwest Asia and the Middle East.

Can the US take on the entire world? Nope, hence why its on the open market and why Iraq was the target, it could get away with it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Any Sunnis registering to vote (and post election results pretty much confirm this) were doing so to vote against the constitution.

You underestimate the significance of the fact that the Sunnis are voting at all.

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Call me a pessimists (and I know you will) but I see this less as a unifying factor for Iraq and more likely the next step in an upcoming civil war. The best example I can think of is the US election of 1860. Most of the leaders and members of the soon-to-be Confederate Army voted in that election only to not accept the results and decide to secede from the US.

So many people are so sure that there will be a civil war that I would swear that they WANT one just to be able to say "SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!". It took America 11 years to come up with a constitution that we could agree on, why are so many people in such a hurry to condemn this Iraqi constitutional process after so short a time? They have got a LONG way to go. A successful election like this is a step AWAY from civil war, not towards it. Even the anti-Bush "this is a quagmire just like Vietnam" crowd, at least the ones who are educated, know that the only way really bring order to Iraq is politically. The people need to believe that they have a voice, that the new government will work and that we will be there to back them up no matter what happens and we will leave when the time comes. Every day they are more confident in this, not less.

THAT'S why this election is so significant. It is a sign of the INCREASING trust in the process and the success and relative peace of this election will further strengthen their trust and belief in this process.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by smacintush

You underestimate the significance of the fact that the Sunnis are voting at all.

Maybe, but if they are voting just to disrupt the system is that a positive or a negative?

So many people are so sure that there will be a civil war that I would swear that they WANT one just to be able to say "SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!". It took America 11 years to come up with a constitution that we could agree on, why are so many people in such a hurry to condemn this Iraqi constitutional process after so short a time? They have got a LONG way to go. A successful election like this is a step AWAY from civil war, not towards it. Even the anti-Bush "this is a quagmire just like Vietnam" crowd, at least the ones who are educated, know that the only way really bring order to Iraq is politically.

THAT'S why this election is so significant. It is a sign of the INCREASING trust in the process and the success and relative peace of this election will further strengthen their trust and belief in this process.

Well speaking for myself I don't want to see a civil war, especially just so I can vindictivally say a "I told you so". I don't doubt there may be some people out there like that but they are far and few between.

Comparing Iraq's start with America's start is apples and oranges. America's beginning has two significant facts associated with it - first, it was the culmination of a few centuries of Western thought centered on the rule of the people versus the notion of the divine authority of a king or other royal. Secondly, it was the first of its kind, it had no roadmap to follow and considering the odds against it eleven years is actually quite impressive.

Iraq has several large hurdles from a lack of the notion of Westernized democracy in their society, the lack of seperation of mosque and state, tribalism, centuries of warfare amongst the various factions. As for the time frame, with almost 250 years of various types of democracies around the globe to pick and choose from and with guidance from the founder of modern democracies one would hope that it wouldn't be an eleven year process.

As for the comment that to solve Iraq's problems will take a political solution not a military one the 'anti-Bush, anti-War, anti-whateverYouWantToCallUs crowd has been saying that from the start.

The people need to believe that they have a voice, that the new government will work and that we will be there to back them up no matter what happens and we will leave when the time comes. Every day they are more confident in this, not less.

How do you know? Once again the Sunnis only voted in droves to defeat the constitution, not ratify it. They are opposed to the idea of letting the Kurds and Shiites have semi-independent states, the notion that they will not share equitably in the oil revenues, that the armed forces are dominated by the Kurdish peshmerga and Shiite militias, etc. etc. What's happening is basically the tables have been turned on them and the ills they brought against the Kurds and Shiites are not being visited on them and they don't like it. I can't see them standing around and taking it or wanting to be part of a state where they have little power.

Maybe it'll all work out and it'll be a feather in Bush's cap. Then you'll get the chance to say "See, told you so'

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Maybe, but if they are voting just to disrupt the system is that a positive or a negative?

It is absolutely a positive. It is a sign that the Sunnis are viewing this, or at least starting to view this as the way to express their voice, and that they see democratic processes as the future of Iraq.

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

I don't doubt there may be some people out there like that but they are far and few between.

I think they are more plentiful than you realize, but this is just my opinion. Failure of this Presidents agenda in Iraq seems to be a number one priority to many.

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Comparing Iraq's start with America's start is apples and oranges. America's beginning has two significant facts associated with it - first, it was the culmination of a few centuries of Western thought centered on the rule of the people versus the notion of the divine authority of a king or other royal. Secondly, it was the first of its kind, it had no roadmap to follow and considering the odds against it eleven years is actually quite impressive.

I quite agree, you actually strengthen my point. It is way too early to be crying "FAILURE" and "THERE'LL BE A CIVIL WAR" every other day, especially with so many positive political signs starting to show themselves.

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

As for the comment that to solve Iraq's problems will take a political solution not a military one the 'anti-Bush, anti-War, anti-whateverYouWantToCallUs crowd has been saying that from the start.

But the political process to required the Baathists to be forcibly removed from control of the country.

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

How do you know? Once again the Sunnis only voted in droves to defeat the constitution, not ratify it. They are opposed to the idea of letting the Kurds and Shiites have semi-independent states, the notion that they will not share equitably in the oil revenues, that the armed forces are dominated by the Kurdish peshmerga and Shiite militias, etc. etc. What's happening is basically the tables have been turned on them and the ills they brought against the Kurds and Shiites are not being visited on them and they don't like it. I can't see them standing around and taking it or wanting to be part of a state where they have little power.

Short answer: I don't know.

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Maybe it'll all work out and it'll be a feather in Bush's cap. Then you'll get the chance to say "See, told you so'

I don't want to say "see I told you so". I would just like a little objectivity from everyone. The Bush supporters want to be too rosy, and the Bush opposition wants to be way too negative. All I'm saying is that despite the obvious mistakes made, they are on the right track NOW, and it is far from too late to make this turn out for the better.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by smacintush

It is absolutely a positive. It is a sign that the Sunnis are viewing this, or at least starting to view this as the way to express their voice, and that they see democratic processes as the future of Iraq.

I guess it depends on how you look at it then. Where the Sunnis just rejecting the constitution to send it back for another round of revisions or where they rejecting what the constiution stands for.

I quite agree, you actually strengthen my point. It is way too early to be crying "FAILURE" and "THERE'LL BE A CIVIL WAR" every other day, especially with so many positive political signs starting to show themselves.

There'll be no strengthening of the debate opponents points please. I think you missed my point - my point was that there are elements missing in Iraq that we had that enabled, overtime, to ratify a constitution and there are elements in Iraq that were not present in colonial America which would inhibit the ratification of a constitution.

But the political process to required the Baathists to be forcibly removed from control of the country.

That was not the reason given for war. We can save it for another debate but the primary reason, the reason that Congress signed off on, the reason that the majority of Americans supported, was the elimination of the WMD threat. Had Bush stood before Congress and the American people and said, Saddam Hussein and the Baathist are bad people, they torture and kill their own, they threaten their neighbors and they are keeping Iraq from becoming a democracy do you seriously think they would have supported sending our best and brightest to risk life and limb to remove the Baathist? And as we have seen, removing the Baathist left a political vacuum which it is being difficult to fill and will be at the cost of thousands of lives. It would have been better to have removed Hussein but leave the civil infrastructure under US control until a new one could have been implemented. (That's all hindsight of course).

I don't want to say "see I told you so". I would just like a little objectivity from everyone. The Bush supporters want to be too rosy, and the Bush opposition wants to be way too negative. All I'm saying is that despite the obvious mistakes made, they are on the right track NOW, and it is far from too late to make this turn out for the better.

I tagged that with a smiley. I don't think we live in an era of objectivity but rather divisivness. For whatever reason Bush is a lightning rod. Perhaps politics has always been this way and we're all just more in tune to it because of the hyper media and internet. I do agree with you that it is far too early to call the end game on this. My belief right now is more pessimistic on Iraq, I see their future similar to that of the former Yugoslavia, which broke up along ethnic lines. By having a weak central government and strong, semi-independent states I see that less as the next step towards a unified Iraq and more as a step towards the Balkinization of that country.