[Curios Meerkat]

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.ph...ws/edlone.html

Iraq: This election is a sham

Salim Lone International Herald Tribune
Friday, January 28, 2005

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.

For the only time in memory, electoral candidates are afraid to be seen in public and are forced to campaign from underground cells, with many afraid to even link their names to their faces in the media. There are no public rallies where voters might glean some information about candidates' positions. As one voter told CNN, he would prefer to vote for George Michael, since he knows more about the singer than about any of the candidates running for office.

Those sages interminably repeating that the success of the election will be determined by the level of the turnout do not understand Iraq, or for that matter, elections.

Most of us accept that the United States, as sole superpower, will enjoy a certain leeway in how it operates internationally. But the comprehensive discarding of the regime of checks and balances to preserve international peace and security when it comes to resisting destructive U.S. policies poses a threat to the world and to the United States itself.

The wonder is that the United States, fully aware that holding this election would unleash an altogether new level of violence, chose to push ahead with what was bound to further destabilize the country and intensify hatreds that will take decades to heal.

The ultimate irony is that despite its enormous cost in human life, physical destruction and deepening hatreds, this election will in no way make life easier for the Americans, the Allawi dictatorship or Iraqis. That was the view of most Iraqi, Arab and Muslim analysts at a fascinating closed-door international consultation organized in the fall by the middle-of-the-road Oxford University Center for Islamic Studies. They argued at a minimum for the election's postponement.

At a time when even many developed sovereign governments cannot be trusted to hold free and fair elections without deep outside scrutiny, elections under hostile occupations should be forbidden, since they have no other purpose than to further entrench the occupier's interests.

It was clear to those of us in Baghdad right after Saddam Hussein's fall that no long-term American project there, let alone the brutish attempt to cow Iraqis through massive use of force in civilian areas, would succeed. The limited self-governance plan was particularly a non-starter because of the transparent control the United States exercised over the process in order to ensure the emergence of malleable Iraqi leaders.

In any event, virtually no Iraqis, not even those benefiting from the American presence, see the superpower either as a friend or as a promoter of human rights and democracy. Each U.S.-dictated self-governance milestone has therefore backfired, just like the current election has, generating wider support and bloodier attacks by an insurgency that has grown more effective in thwarting American ambitions.

The first devastating attacks on the foreign presence in Iraq, for example, came soon after the United States selected in July 2003 the first Iraqi leadership body, the Iraqi Governing Council: The Jordanian mission and then, soon after, the UN's Baghdad headquarters were blown up, killing scores of innocents.

Despite its search for greater legitimacy for its preferred Iraqi leadership, the United States has studiously avoided the UN Security Council, since it knows most of its members abhor what is being done to Iraq (but have found it easier to keep their counsel and let this adventure self-destruct).

The United States has instead chosen to work with individual representatives of the world body who deal with Iraq. The first such involvement, when the late Sergio Vieira de Mello headed the UN mission in Iraq, was the most effective.

Vieira de Mello was able soon after the invasion to persuade L. Paul Bremer 3rd, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, that he should appoint an Iraqi Governing Council rather than an advisory body. Even then, the anger over the composition of this council, and for UN support for it, was palpable in Iraq.

Nearly a year later, in another bid for UN support, George W. Bush repeatedly assured the world that the interim government would be picked by Lakhdar Brahimi, the special representative of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who spent weeks in Iraq consulting dozens of domestic groups about who they felt should lead the country. But on the day the interim government was to be appointed, a deal was struck by the Americans, behind Brahimi's back, to appoint the CIA-linked Iyad Allawi as prime minister.

Brahimi was not even consulted about this appointment. As a result, Annan's current special representative, Ashraf Qazi, has kept a low profile about the U.N. role in the elections, which essentially has been a technical one. But even this latest involvement, about which the organization had little choice, does not exactly undercut widespread Muslim perceptions of UN subservience to the world's sole superpower.

In the end, the problem in Iraq is not this "election" but a profoundly flawed U.S. policy that relies exclusively on the use of force. Despite its awesome power and the spending of billions of dollars to win over impoverished Iraqis, the United States has won little popular support in the country.

Even if it were possible under the Bush administration, a change in the American approach would accomplish little, so completely discredited is the superpower within Iraq (and in the Middle East and the Islamic world).

The only hope for peace in Iraq now is the United States agreeing to exit Iraq in exchange for an international force and mission under UN auspices, which would from the very outset indicate to Iraqis that its sole purpose was to help them become genuinely democratic.

Even then, peace after the bloodbaths will take years to achieve. Which is why a beginning must be made now for the United States to extricate itself from Iraq.

(Salim Lone was 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. This comment was distributed by Global Viewpoint for Tribune Media Services International.)

[Zimphire]

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Ditto�

[ebuddy]

Naturally, I'm concerned. I sincerely hope things go well and I watch with some concern. We, in the U.S. can't produce more than 60% voter turnout and we're not concerned of being fired at.

[Spliffdaddy]

If this Iraqi election is a sham - what do you call their last election?

[Sherwin]

'Tis funny. I saw many interviews with normal Iraqis today and all of them said they'd vote and praised allah and The Prez for giving them the opportunity.

That's real Iraqis saying that - not some anti-Bush loser sitting at a desk in Geneva.

[f1000]

[Curios Meerkat]

A more "honest" sham - at least back then they knew voting wouldn't unseat their baathist president.

Allawi (the baathist, terrorist cia man) will continue being the prime minister - Saddam without mustache, but with fewer powers than the mayor of Baghdad.

People that will be able to vote will do so without knowing the name or the program of the candidate they are voting for; there are NO independent observers in Iraq, NO free press, NO freedom of movement... the whole world knows this is a sham, but the US media only admits it in their international editions (like the IHT editorial above, or the Newsweek international).

The occupiers have killed, tortured, maimed and eliminated more families than Saddam did.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally posted by Curios Meerkat:


The occupiers have killed, tortured, maimed and eliminated more families than Saddam did.

[Curios Meerkat]

The lame "Saddam did it much more than we do" couldn't last forever.

Exit apoligism, enter denial.

[Curios Meerkat]

Heavily-armed troops jump out and begin searching homes as loudspeakers blast in Arabic: "On Sunday you should go out to vote. Vote to give freedom to Iraq. Vote to save Iraq."
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...28101409990004

[deej5871]

Originally posted by f1000:

You know, I went to the site that that image is hosted by (claytoncramer.com), and I've decided that I don't like that guy. He stopped buying stuff at Amazon.com (along with getting rid of their ad on his site), all because they sold a certain book on their site. Amazon replied to an email from him, telling him they didn't approve of the material in the book (their editor even gave a review which is "highly critical of the ideas expressed in ... [the] book"), but they would still sell it because they would consider removing it to be a form of censorship. I have to agree with Amazon here. Just because they sell the book doesn't mean they agree with it's content. [/Waaaay off-topic]

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by deej5871:


You know, I went to the site that that image is hosted by (claytoncramer.com), and I've decided that I don't like that guy. He stopped buying stuff at Amazon.com (along with getting rid of their ad on his site), all because they sold a certain book on their site. Amazon replied to an email from him, telling him they didn't approve of the material in the book (their editor even gave a review which is "highly critical of the ideas expressed in ... [the] book"), but they would still sell it because they would consider removing it to be a form of censorship. I have to agree with Amazon here. Just because they sell the book doesn't mean they agree with it's content. [/Waaaay off-topic]

The reason they sell the book is to make money.

[Joshua]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's historic election day is nearing its close with the independent election commission reporting a 72 percent nationwide turnout by mid-afternoon amid attacks and threats of attacks to disrupt the vote.

Link

[jbartone]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Link

This is excellent. A good day for Iraq.

[Sherwin]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4201561.stm

Unbelievable. Just voted. The feeling is great. No pre-marked ballots. No one ordering us to select a group. No intimidation. Dignified. I could go on forever. Turnout is high in my area, a mixed Sunni-Shia area. This is the first step. World watch out we are on our way to total freedom.
Louay Al-Tahan, Baghdad, Iraq

[ebuddy]

That's incredible. CNN reporting the possibility of 72% voter turnout. WOW!!!! We could learn something from this. I wonder what the actual number will be when all is tallied. 'Tis a good thing indeed and much smoother than I had anticipated!

[jbartone]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
That's incredible. CNN reporting the possibility of 72% voter turnout. WOW!!!! We could learn something from this. I wonder what the actual number will be when all is tallied. 'Tis a good thing indeed and much smoother than I had anticipated!

I believe that is 72% of all registered voters (14 million or so) though...but it's still pretty amazing, considering how many threats and how much violence they've had to endure.

[Joshua]

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by jbartone:
I believe that is 72% of all registered voters (14 million or so) though...but it's still pretty amazing, considering how many threats and how much violence they've had to endure.

Absolutely. Let's see if the Sunnis boycotted and/or feel disenfranchised. Still, kudos to all that braved threats to vote,

[chris v]

Wow, I hope this works. One can at least dream that the election wil confer a legitimacy on the Iraqi government that will spread far and wide enough to quell support for the insurgency, and then we can BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.

[Millennium]

So in other words, we have to build a better Iraq before there can be democracy, but we have to have democracy before we can build a better Iraq. The classic chicken-and-egg situation. That doesn't make an honest attempt at democracy a sham.

Kudos to the brave people who voted today. Your courage will not bein vain.

[barang]

Elections don�t make democracies. Democracies make elections. - E. Black

Good Quote, Curios Meerkat.

[olePigeon]

OK, Debby Downer time. Although I think this is really neat, please remember that Bush & Co. purposely mislead the American people into supporting a war for the wrong reasons. This election doesn't change that, and whenever it's brought up the conservative base ignores it. It's cliche, but can't be held more true than ever: "the ends never justify the means."

I'd also like to point out that a Democracy seldom works in a Theocratic nation. A Shiite is going to be elected as "President," pass some laws, alienate the other religious sects, and we'll have another Saddam Hussein. In 10 years we'll be going to war with Iraq again to "liberate" the people from a tyrannical dictatorship.

[SimeyTheLimey]

[Mithras]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
I'd also like to point out that a Democracy seldom works in a Theocratic nation. A Shiite is going to be elected as "President," pass some laws, alienate the other religious sects, and we'll have another Saddam Hussein.

A couple of responses:
1. I agree that this election is definitely a good thing.
2. I don't think a theocratic government will emerge in Iraq. I could of course be wrong, but the leading Shia coalitions have made it clear they intend to have a "no turbans" government (their words).

In 10 years we'll be going to war with Iraq again to "liberate" the people from a tyrannical dictatorship.

3. Except that we do not go to war to liberate people from dictatorships. That's not what we did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq the first time, Granada, Vietname, Korea, etc. We will go to war again if "we" think "our" interests are threatened. Period.

[Mithras]

Simey, would you keep the photo spamming in the photos thread?

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Simey, would you keep the photo spamming in the photos thread?

No way -- those are GREAT photos!

Personally, I can't wait to hear what percentage of votes were cast by women.

Maury

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
No way -- those are GREAT photos!

Personally, I can't wait to hear what percentage of votes were cast by women.

Maury

I am waiting to see what the Sunni turnout was. Should be interesting.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
OK, Debby Downer time. Although I think this is really neat, please remember that Bush & Co. purposely mislead the American people into supporting a war for the wrong reasons. This election doesn't change that, and whenever it's brought up the conservative base ignores it. It's cliche, but can't be held more true than ever: "the ends never justify the means."

I'd also like to point out that a Democracy seldom works in a Theocratic nation. A Shiite is going to be elected as "President," pass some laws, alienate the other religious sects, and we'll have another Saddam Hussein. In 10 years we'll be going to war with Iraq again to "liberate" the people from a tyrannical dictatorship.

I'd like to point out that whoever sold you your crystal ball for predicting the future got the better end of the deal.

You don't know that in ten years time we'll find a tyrannical dictatorship. I don't believe that people give up their freedom so easily once they've had a taste of it. The next round post election is to write the constitution, set term limits, means of holding regular elections, so forth to specifically prevent such tyranny.

As for the means never justifying the ends, I'm afraid that doesn't ring true. There is such a thing as a just war.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Simey, would you keep the photo spamming in the photos thread?

Not spam. Commentary. "A picture is worth a thousand words."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mithras:
Simey, would you keep the photo spamming in the photos thread?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
OK, Debby Downer time. Although I think this is really neat, please remember that Bush & Co. purposely mislead the American people into supporting a war for the wrong reasons.

Although it is true that no WMD were found, there is as yet no evidence that the Bush team knew about this. Without that, there is no misleading. We were caught up in a tragic mistake, but thus far there is nothing to prove that it is anything more than that.

I'd also like to point out that a Democracy seldom works in a Theocratic nation.

Very, very true. However, Iraq is not a theocracy, nor was it under Saddam (a fact in which he took pride, but which alienated him from Osama bin Laden).

A Shiite is going to be elected as "President," pass some laws, alienate the other religious sects, and we'll have another Saddam Hussein.

That, my friend, remains to be seen. Although it's more than likely that we'll see a Shiite President, there is no way to know how things will proceed from there.

Either way, this is not to elect an Iraqi government, per se, but to elect the national assembly which will write the permanent constitution for Iraq. The rest comes later. It makes little sense to elect a President before the rules for doing such have been set into stone.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Mithras:
3. Except that we do not go to war to liberate people from dictatorships. That's not what we did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq the first time, Granada, Vietname, Korea, etc. We will go to war again if "we" think "our" interests are threatened. Period.

Yes, very right you are, but I was putting it in terms so that the conservatives and/or Republicans would understand. They don't like the idea of America going to war to protect our interests (mostly financial) and not because we wanted to spread Democracy and good cheer to the western-civilization-loving Iraqis.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Yes, very right you are, but I was putting it in terms so that the conservatives and/or Republicans would understand. They don't like the idea of America going to war to protect our interests (mostly financial) and not because we wanted to spread Democracy and good cheer to the western-civilization-loving Iraqis.

As long as you think those two are mutually exclusive, you're the one that isn't understanding.

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Not spam. Commentary. "A picture is worth a thousand words."

Bookmarked.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by Millennium:
So in other words, we have to build a better Iraq before there can be democracy, but we have to have democracy before we can build a better Iraq. The classic chicken-and-egg situation. That doesn't make an honest attempt at democracy a sham.

Kudos to the brave people who voted today. Your courage will not bein vain.

Who is "we"?

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Joshua:
As long as you think those two are mutually exclusive, you're the one that isn't understanding.

I must've missed it somewhere. Before we invaded and occupied Iraq, can you show me where Bush & Co. said we were doing it to set up a Democracy?

[Curios Meerkat]

Originally posted by Millennium:
So in other words, we have to build a better Iraq before there can be democracy, but we have to have democracy before we can build a better Iraq. The classic chicken-and-egg situation. That doesn't make an honest attempt at democracy a sham.

NO. In other words, elections need to be credible - and a media spectacle does not equal credibility. Iraqis should be able to choose their leaders trough elections, which was definitively not the case today.

As for the honesty - you have to be kidding me: last year Iraqis demonstrating for elections were suppressed by tanks - The US objected that they couldn't use UN food ration cards for registration, as Sistani suggested. But in the end that is exactly what they did.(JC). Fallujah had its own candidates - but they were not allowed to run because "they don't believe in democracy" (Colin Powell) - and then they got bombed to "pave the way for elections"; how many people ended up voting in Fallujah?

Where are the pictures of Ramadi, Mosul, Baquba? (And before you tell me that's only a minority - those "4 restive provinces" hold ~50% of Iraq's population)

Iraqis voted for unnamed candidates with unknown programs expecting them to end the occupation, expecting a different leadership. In the next weeks they'll notice that nothing has changed, the occupation troops are still there, the Saddam henchman/car bomber/cia asset Allawi is still in charge... But the occupation will now have the legitimacy of "elections" to continue its bloody "anti-insurgency" campaign.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Although it is true that no WMD were found, there is as yet no evidence that the Bush team knew about this. Without that, there is no misleading. We were caught up in a tragic mistake, but thus far there is nothing to prove that it is anything more than that.

The WMDs was a whole fiasco with failures on both sides. No one to blame but ourselves. What really, really pissed me off is when Bush & Co. purposely mislead people into thinking Iraq was responsible (by part or in full) for September 11th. That is the single, most unforgiving part I have with this administration. It is so difficult to take anything at face value from Bush & Co. (and not necessarily just them, I'm sure the deception had participation from both sides.)

Now I see these pictures of happy Iraqis, voting again (most of them for the first time) and it just pains me that Bush & Co. are being propped up like a bunch of conquering heros like it was their who agenda in the first place.

Now people are already forgetting how we got there because the end is so "happy."

It's funny that in my mind I keep drawing parallels to Star Wars. Building the army to "protect" the Republic, only to have the people enslaved by their own defenses.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
It's funny that in my mind I keep drawing parallels to Star Wars. Building the army to "protect" the Republic, only to have the people enslaved by their own defenses.

It isn't funny, it's sad.

Life is not an entertaining space opera from the 70s based shamelessly on earlier better films.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
I must've missed it somewhere. Before we invaded and occupied Iraq, can you show me where Bush & Co. said we were doing it to set up a Democracy?

February 26, 2003 in a speech from everyone's favorite bogeyman the AEI:

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. (Applause.)

You can read the rest here. He goes on to talk more about the power of a free Iraq, particularly how it might help lead to the establishment of a free and democratic Palestinian state.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Joshua:
February 26, 2003 in a speech from everyone's favorite bogeyman the AEI:

<snip>

You can read the rest here. He goes on to talk more about the power of a free Iraq, particularly how it might help lead to the establishment of a free and democratic Palestinian state.

Oops, you're right, but I phrased my question wrong. In any event, it still proved my point. In the long list of reasons for going to war with Iraq (starting in 2001), Democracy was only mentioned shortly before we actually went to war in March. Seems to be literally an afterthought.

"UN defiance... WMDs... terrorists... terrorists... capability for WMDs... terrorists... and, did we forget anything? Oh yeah! Democracy. That's why we're going in there. Right. Because of Democracy...

...

... and terrorists."

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by vmarks:
It isn't funny, it's sad.

Life is not an entertaining space opera from the 70s based shamelessly on earlier better films.

Doesn't mean there aren't lessons to be learned from them. You should watch a few George Romero films, maybe it'll teach you a few things about ignorance.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Doesn't mean there aren't lessons to be learned from them. You should watch a few George Romero films, maybe it'll teach you a few things about ignorance.

And you would do well to watch Krystof Kieslowski's The Decalogue
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cus...KIKX0DER&s=dvd

You could just as well say that High Plains Drifter is a metaphor for America, painting the city red, renaming it Hell and burning it to the ground in order to save it- but you'd be wrong.

It's a movie.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Doesn't mean there aren't lessons to be learned from them. You should watch a few George Romero films, maybe it'll teach you a few things about ignorance.

Yeah, right, like you calling Africa a country.

[MindFad]

Sham? I thought this was a thread about we'pons o' mass derrr'struction.

As big a sham as the election here in the Homeland�?

Congrats to the Iraqis who feel like they're making difference. Hopefully the country and its people rise to steady feet.

I still don't feel this day was worth the measures taken to arrive here.

But still, a big purple thumbs-up to ya'll.

[Dave Brasgalla]

So, did George Michael win or not?

[Dave Brasgalla]

[Dave Brasgalla]