 |
April 04, 2006Zinni......on MTP yesterday. RUSSERT: The president’s dream is democracy, around the world and the Middle East. What happens to countries like Iraq, countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or in the Palestine area when Hamas is elected? Does democracy necessarily bring about a desired result from America’s security interests? Yes, it's not just wagging purple fingers around, alas. Don't get me wrong. I believe the elections in Iraq were important coalition successes, and the Iraqis who participated were deeply courageous. But there's so much more involved in creating a successful democracy, as Zinni reminds us.
Comments
''Yes, it's not just wagging purple fingers around, alas. Don't get me wrong. I believe the elections in Iraq were important coalition successes, and the Iraqis who participated were deeply courageous. But there's so much more involved in creating a successful democracy, as Zinni reminds us.'' You know when someone has thrown reason to the wind and fully embraced bullhorn ranting when the Straw Argument is wheeled out for a good thrashing. Unless, Greg, you'd like to reveal who among the Coalition leadership believes merely that ''an election equals democracy.'' Posted by: chip at April 4, 2006 06:00 AM | Permalink to this comment
A sample size of one counts as anecdotal, not statistically significant. I recall results from one Chicago-area Democratic primary election a few years back: the candidates with the most "American-sounding" names ("Jones", "Smith") won over candidates with ethnic names ("Kowalski", "Levi"). Only after these candidates had won the election did people discover these two were devoted members of the extremist (as in equal-opportunity paranoid) Lyndon LaRouche camp. Moral: you can't assume that the majority of the electorate makes good choices all the time. Electorates excel at throwing the bums out -- and in Iraq, the bums have barely started to establish themselves. Posted by: Solomon2 at April 4, 2006 06:03 AM | Permalink to this comment
but why is it news, why do we need reminding of this? That democracy is much more than mere voting should be obvious to anyone with an undergraduate degree in history, which is just about everyone involved in IR etc - so why is this news? Am I the only one who was watching MTP and dying to see Zinni sit down across the table from McCain for an hour and argue this mess out in concrete terms - to rise above the idiotic talking points which the political process is now hopelessly enslaved to? Why couldn't that have happened? Well, we all know why that couldn't happen, which is why I guess what Zinni said actually sounded like cutting edge stuff. It's god damn surreal. Posted by: saintsimon at April 4, 2006 12:18 PM | Permalink to this comment
Where have you commenters been? Whenever the White House tries to tell us what a success story Iraq has been, it's "elections, elections, elections." Rule of law first ... democracy a distant second at best. Iraq has the latter (maybe) but not the former. Posted by: Anderson at April 4, 2006 02:55 PM | Permalink to this comment
Unless, Greg, you'd like to reveal who among the Coalition leadership believes merely that ''an election equals democracy.'' Perhaps GD got that impression from the frenzied way that Bush, Rice, et al pump up all the little trappings -- ballots, constitutions, etc. The administration loves the forms and symbols. If they happen to be hollow -- who cares? Posted by: sglover at April 4, 2006 02:56 PM | Permalink to this comment
Wasn't there a big to-do at the last SOTU address with teary eyed and purple stained politicians carrying on for the cameras? A whole movement started to dye your fingers purple in a show of solidarity on Iraqi election day? Breathless op-eds after each election about how democracy has arrived, and the insurgency vanquished in the face of popular will? In truthe, the over-emphasis on elections has been relentless. In fact, to this day, you get highly influential pundits on the Right crowing about how Bush has "liberated" and brought "democracy" to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. It is they who conflate elections with democracy. And, although it is tiresome and unfortunate to have to rebut such inanity, this misinformed and pervasive rhetoric requires refutation. If it is so obvious, why have so many people carry on like it isn't? It is a true feature of the Bush administration's dizzying rhetoric that the people observing the reality of the situation, which diverges from Bush admin party line, get blamed for stating the obvious. Kind of like all the chiding anti-war voices get for discussing the difficulties we are encountering in Iraq. "Of course it's been difficult, war is always difficult why [insert war] took [x number of years] and [insert democracy] took [x number of years] to develop," the arguments go. Yeah, but it was the Bush administration saying before the invasion that we would be down to 30,000 troops by August 2003. That there would be no insurgency. That we didn't need Shinseki-like troop strength because there was not a history of ethnic/sectarian strife in Iraq. If it is so obvious now that wars are inherently difficult and time consuming, and that democracies take decades to create, why not in January 2003? On that last point, both Bush and Wolfowitz (and other no doubt) downplayed the risks of internecine Iraqi fighting. But now Bush lectures us all about how Saddam's rule exacerbated pre-existing tensions along ethnic/sectarian lines and that such is the nature of Iraqi society. Some might say, "Obviously this is the case." But if you pointed that out before the war, do you think Bush would have agreed? Posted by: Eric Martin at April 4, 2006 05:38 PM | Permalink to this comment
Well, you know, stuff happens. The jungle of Iraqi society is a kind of a democracy: the majority probably has the most powerful militias (backed increasingly by the state organs), so a sort of a majority rule will probably result from the struggle. They might have even elections, Iran does. Things are fine, they are getting better, and they will be fine and getting better till January 2009. Repeat three times: things are fine in Iraq. Posted by: llwyd at April 4, 2006 06:02 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Well, you know, stuff happens. The jungle of Iraqi society is a kind of a democracy: the majority probably has the most powerful militias (backed increasingly by the state organs), so a sort of a majority rule will probably result from the struggle. " Which suggests the next iteration of disinfo for the Bush shills -- Iraqis are more free to practice their Second Amendment rights than Americans! Posted by: sglover at April 4, 2006 07:03 PM | Permalink to this comment
eric its natural that theyre going to point to the best and most tangible things that support their point. But there is more going on. At least in Afghanistan theres been real debate about the direction of society. Theres been a real increase in the rights of women. A growth in the rule of law. Iraq has had other elements of a liberal society growing as well, most notably a fairly vibrant press. At the same time as we note the illiberal elements in Iraqi society, it seems fair to look at the liberal elements. The elections were also important as markers. the January election occured even though the insurgency tried to stop it. The fall election managed to get Sunni Arabs to the polls and participating. Posted by: liberalhawk at April 4, 2006 08:13 PM | Permalink to this comment
Iraq has had other elements of a liberal society growing as well, most notably a fairly vibrant press. You mean "vibrant" in the sense of, trembling about whether they're gonna be found beheaded in a ditch for posting an offensive byline? I guess that's a kind of vibrancy.... And everything I read tells me that the bulk of your "elements of a liberal society", the professional and educated classes, are hightailing it out of there, to Jordan, or anywhere they can, as soon as they can. But, I know, purple fingers, etc. Victory's just around the corner, yeah! Posted by: sglover at April 4, 2006 08:39 PM | Permalink to this comment
LH, I think you're right about most of what you said, but I don't think we're necessarily disagreeing on those parts. Perhaps you were eliciting a clarification, which I will attempt. Some thoughts: But there is more going on. At least in Afghanistan theres been real debate about the direction of society. Theres been a real increase in the rights of women. A growth in the rule of law. I don't want to downplay the progress, because there has been progress. Removing the Taliban was a positive. But the changes you mention are all too often as much attributable to the removal of the Taliban than some democratic transformation (rights of women for example, were bound to get better regardless). Removing the Taliban made room for progress regardless of democratic change. At the same time, there has been actual democratic change as well. More democratic change is absolutely crucial though. And, it's not a democracy until we achieve that. And we're a long, long, long way off. Not that you disagree necessarily. Iraq has had other elements of a liberal society growing as well, most notably a fairly vibrant press. At the same time as we note the illiberal elements in Iraqi society, it seems fair to look at the liberal elements. Progress on some fronts for sure. Backward movement on others - (for example, unlike Afghanistan, the rights of women have actually deteriorated). I also know that scores of Iraqi journalists have been murdered over the past three years. So free and vibrant, but also taking heavy casualties. And intimidated. And sometimes, bribed - by everyone from the Pentagon to the various political parties. Also, the elections were positive events. I'm not taking that away. But my point was not that elections are meaningless. Just that they have been exaggerated or conflated with the desired end product. Lots of places have elections and then go on to horrific bloodshed and/or illiberal despotism. I'm more interested in the follow through than the first movements. Listening to the voices I cited above, you would think it was already...mission accomplished (apologies). And honestly, the more people are led to believe that Iraq and Afghanistan are already democracies, the less likely they'll want to continue pouring hundreds of billions of dollars in to make them...democracies. So in the present instance, the rhetoric has the double-drawback of being both dishonest and detrimental to the cause in the long run. Generally, you should at least get one or the other. Posted by: Eric Martin at April 4, 2006 09:10 PM | Permalink to this comment
But one should always be suspicious when military powers claim to be doing weaker states favours by occupying them. From http://tinyurl.com/zdx49
"And honestly, the more people are led to believe that Iraq and Afghanistan are already democracies, the less likely they'll want to continue pouring hundreds of billions of dollars in to make them...democracies." We've discussed that before - does emphasizing the glass is half empty, make people more inclined to fill it, or to give up. I continute to disagree with your rhetorical strategy - it may work with elites, but AFAICT, the more ordinary Americans here about how FUBAR Iraq is the more their inclination to wash their hands of the matter is. Posted by: liberalhawk at April 4, 2006 09:42 PM | Permalink to this comment
" I saw a scene in Basra, one of the elections, where a woman ran in so excited about voting, and then she asked the poll tender, “Who do I vote for?” And he told her she—he couldn’t tell her, but he had to read a list to her of 169 parties. She was confused. When he hit number seven that said the Islamic party of something or other, she said, “That’s the one.” I mean, is that democracy? " Evidently we didnt have democracy in Brooklyn in 1972 either. I had to tell a woman how to vote for Humphrey in the Democratic primary, since candidate names werent on the ballot, only delegate names. Zinni needed take my word for it - read Teddy Whites books on the 1968 and 1972 elections. Im no fan of Rumsfeld, but I find it frustrating when people hold Iraq to standards we couldnt have met until quite recently. And yes Eric, security is key. As Bill Roggio points out, the insurgency has shifted to Baghdad, from Anbar,etc. Baghdad is where the bloggers are from, where the press and international community watch whats happening. So the battle of Baghdad must be won. But politics also matters. The biggest "illiberal" aspect of Iraqi politics, since the January elections, is the groups into ethnic blocks. Well the biggest one, UIA, MAY be on the point of breaking up, as we speak. I would think thats very big news. Posted by: liberalhawk at April 4, 2006 09:48 PM | Permalink to this comment
We've discussed that before - does emphasizing the glass is half empty, make people more inclined to fill it, or to give up. I continute to disagree with your rhetorical strategy - it may work with elites, but AFAICT, the more ordinary Americans here about how FUBAR Iraq is the more their inclination to wash their hands of the matter is. Fair enough, though neither strategy appears all that promising. At least if the alternative to telling the truth is to rose-tint everything with last throes tripe and other assorted drivel to the extent that people become completely jaded. Which is what I think has happened more than anything. The pendulum swings back too far when people feel manipulated. Telling the truth carries its risks, but panglossian musings are equally dangerous if not more so. The best approach would probably be to tell the truth, and then focus on how the situation could and should be ameliorated. The Bush administration hasn't really taken the first step in that equation. But politics also matters. The biggest "illiberal" aspect of Iraqi politics, since the January elections, is the groups into ethnic blocks. Well the biggest one, UIA, MAY be on the point of breaking up, as we speak. I would think thats very big news. Well, I guess some women in Iraq might disagree with you on what the biggest "illiberal aspect" is, but I'd just as soon table that. Otherwise, it is indeed very big news, and news that I have covered in my various blogospheric outlets. But even if the UIA breaks up (good in my book - tentatively), much will depend on what happens in the aftermath. Nevertheless, I have called these developments a cause for cautious optimism. An oft used phrase these days, huh? As for Roggio's theories, I'm not 100% convinced that all the focus has shifted to Baghdad. The usual hotspots in Anbar are still pretty hot. And some of the cooling off is as much due to our withdrawal from certain cities as anything else. We are clearly taking on a more defensive, hunkered down and less forward leaning posture. Even Tal Afar is not immune to violence, and that's the biggest success story. My advice on such observations is to allow for a certain amount of time to elapse before sounding the horn of triumph. I mean, are we really supposed to believe that Fallujah isn't a problem anymore? Ramadi? Samarra? More important, that they won't be if and when the various insurgencies decide to light them up? Posted by: Eric Martin at April 5, 2006 12:07 AM | Permalink to this comment
Spreading liberty and freedom all over the Middle East was not part of the deal. Hussein was an existential threat of epic proportions. When the world and half this nation told us the President of these United States was, at best WRONG and at worse LYING....we told the world and half the nation to go screw themselves and went with our commander-and-chief. Bush screwed us. Made us look like fools. Bush is not an honorable man. And the nation will suffer for it.
I saw a replay of Zinni on C-SPAN's call in program last night, definitely the most impressive of the anti-war spokesmen. I agreed with at least 85% of his arguments. I notice a lot of the preening anti-Bush commentors are pooh-poohing the pro-war sides' celebration of the purple finger elections. I'm positive if the elections had been a flop you would not be arguing that it was not so significant. The main reason the high turnout is important is because it symbolises that the vast majority of Iraqis are willing to confer legitimacy on a government installed/supported by those minions of Halliburton wearing American uniforms. If the insurgency had any level of popular support [i.e. as they did in the Sunni areas during the first election] we would not have seen people risking retaliation in order to try to make this experiment work. Posted by: wks at April 5, 2006 01:09 AM | Permalink to this comment
Where is that government, wks? Posted by: CaseyL at April 5, 2006 01:48 AM | Permalink to this comment
OK, I know how we could put Iraq on the right track! The best way to get Iraq right would be to star bombing Iran. If we start bombing Iran, Iraq will become free! Bush knows what’s going on, bomb Iran!
Funny that you should bring up bombing Iran, Uncle Sam: From Joe Cirincione, TNR: "For months, I have told interviewers that no senior political or military official was seriously considering a military attack on Iran. In the last few weeks, I have changed my view. In part, this shift was triggered by colleagues with close ties to the Pentagon and the executive branch who have convinced me that some senior officials have already made up their minds: They want to hit Iran." From the Telegraph: "It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is 'inevitable' if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme. ....A senior Foreign Office source said....'If Iran makes another strategic mistake, such as ignoring demands by the UN or future resolutions, then the thinking among the chiefs is that military action could be taken to bring an end to the crisis. The belief in some areas of Whitehall is that an attack is now all but inevitable.'" Kinda boggles the mind, eh? It'll be like Iraq all over again: a decision to attack that's already been made, with meaningless diplomatic initiatives for cover, with no debate about consequences - hell, with no public debate at all and no consultation with Congress... a fait accompli with no plans other than "bombs away!" (And timed, of course, for maximum domestic political effect... and, possibly, as the excuse to roll out even more draconian domestic "security" policies.) Total insanity. And there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. Posted by: CaseyL at April 5, 2006 03:24 AM | Permalink to this comment
See, we bombed Japan and Cambodia and liberty spread! So let's start bombing Iran, and Iraq will behave. Posted by: Uncle Sam at April 5, 2006 03:43 AM | Permalink to this comment
a quick note to ask liberal hawk and wks to please email B.D. at belgraviadispatch@hotmail.com thx p.s. agree w/ eric martin's penultimate graf on Anbar. Posted by: greg at April 5, 2006 04:12 AM | Permalink to this comment
I notice a lot of the preening anti-Bush commentors are pooh-poohing the pro-war sides' celebration of the purple finger elections. I'm positive if the elections had been a flop you would not be arguing that it was not so significant. I don't see much to preen about here. There isn't a lot of join in saying "I Told You So". It's still a disaster. But OK, what the hell. I Told You So But You Wouldn't Listen. Pretty thin satisfaction. Anyway, you're right about the elections. It isn't any big victory that we were able to stage them, but it would have been an even bigger defeat if we hadn't be able to. I'm sure you can see lots of other situations where that's true. Like, it isn't a big victory if a company puts out its annual report and announces that an independent accounting company has approved their books, but it's a big deal if they don't put out an annual report or they fail the audit. As it was, remember that the big campaign item was getting the americans out, exactly like the big campaign item here in recent years has been fighting terrorists. The biggest criticism people could make of an iraqi politician was "He's soft on getting the americans out". If they don't get the americans out before the next election we're going to see a lot of disenchantment with this iraqi government.
The main reason the high turnout is important is because it symbolises that the vast majority of Iraqis are willing to confer legitimacy on a government installed/supported by those minions of Halliburton wearing American uniforms. First, it should be noted that the Sunnis voting in the last couple of elections/referendums were not voting to "confer legitimacy" on the government. Quite the opposite. In the referendum, they voted, overwhelmingly, to REJECT the draft of the constitution. In the subsequent exercise in December, they voted along communal lines to try to gain a foothold in a government that they felt was illegitimate due to their previous exclusion. If they are excluded again, and the constitution remains unaltered, most will likely view this version of the government as illegitimate as well. The Shiites and Kurds are, obviously, for the time being, in favor of the government. That being said, the Kurds have made rumbles about Jaafari, as have some Shiites. The Kurds are always a breath away from turning their backs on the process if things don't go their way sufficiently. Conversely, Sadr has made noises about rejecting the forcing out of Jaafari. In other words, it is possible that many in Iraq will not view the next govt. as legitimate depending on how things work out. If the insurgency had any level of popular support [i.e. as they did in the Sunni areas during the first election] we would not have seen people risking retaliation in order to try to make this experiment work. Actually, the largest bloc of the Sunni insurgencies supported the last two rounds of elections. They urged their followers to vote (first against the constitution, then for Sunni candidates) and threatened the Zarqawi/takfiri/salafist groups with retaliation if the latter caused problems. These nationalist/Baathist insurgents actually provided security at polling places around Anbar to ward off Zarq's gangs. As mentioned above, they wanted to gain a foothold in the govt. Part of a bullets and ballots approach. The hope was/is that if the Sunnis could be included in the political structure and given a share of the economic spoils in a meaningful way, at least some strains of the insurgencies might abandon the bullets in favor, exclusively, of the ballots. Then we could isolate the Zarq gangs and stabilize the situation. As of yet, that has not happened. But your characterization of the relationship of the insurgencies with the elections leaves out too much of the story.
As Bill Roggio points out, the insurgency has shifted to Baghdad, from Anbar,etc. Baghdad is where the bloggers are from, where the press and international community watch whats happening. So the battle of Baghdad must be won. This actually suggests that the Djerejian Plan (massively redeploy coalition forces to Baghdad in an attempt to lock it down and quell the violence there) would be another iteration in the endless game of Whack-a-Mole. It might be an especially important mole to whack, but it seems probable that the insurgency would simply relocate, again. Whether the Shiite irregulars could pursue their characteristic handcuffs-and-head wounds style of politics as well elsewhere is an open question. Posted by: Jim Henley at April 5, 2006 05:15 PM | Permalink to this comment
"First, it should be noted that the Sunnis voting in the last couple of elections/referendums were not voting to "confer legitimacy" on the government. Quite the opposite. In the referendum, they voted, overwhelmingly, to REJECT the draft of the constitution. In the subsequent exercise in December, they voted along communal lines to try to gain a foothold in a government that they felt was illegitimate due to their previous exclusion. " They accepted that voting was worth it as a way of changing the constitution, and of gaining some power. Partial legitimation, Id day
"The Shiites and Kurds are, obviously, for the time being, in favor of the government. That being said, the Kurds have made rumbles about Jaafari, as have some Shiites." As have most of the Sunnis as well. " The Kurds are always a breath away from turning their backs on the process if things don't go their way sufficiently. " I dont share your pessism wrt the Kurds.
They accepted that voting was worth it as a way of changing the constitution, and of gaining some power. Partial legitimation, Id say Yes. But so? They also continue to use guns and bombs. Recognizing that voting might be useful to achieve your ends does not signify enough of a shift unless there is a concomitant abdication of violent means. Voting is cheap, easy and risk free. If you don't like the results, you can keep fighting. Many insurgent/warring groups have used both means in tandem - ie, the IRA in the 1980s and 1990s. But as you point out, Jafaari is under pressure from a coalition that INCLUDES the Sunnis. I don't think that is the main thrust behind the pressure on Jaafari for many involved to be honest. For us, and SCIRI, I think it has to do more with marginalizing al-Sadr. Also for us, keeping Jaafari's socialist tendencies out of Iraq's oil industry (not necessarily unworthy objectives mind you). Also, if, as is expected, SCIRI gets the prime ministership instead of Jaafari, then a party other than SCIRI would likely get the Interior Ministry which could be a positive development in terms of militia infiltration in official forces (SCIRI's Badr Corp, trained and armed by Iran, have been all over Interior from the jump). While the Sunnis clearly dislike Jaafari (likely blaming him for Interior's irregulars), they might not be pleased with the alternative either. If Jaafari is replaced with a SCIRI candidate (Abdel Mahdi is the name most frequently discussed), I don't see how this is going to lead to broader inclusion of the Sunnis unless SCIRI changes one of its key positions. SCIRI, unlike Jaafari, is committed to the establishment of semi-autonomous regions in the southern Shiite areas. The Kurds like this (and hence prefer SCIRI to Jaafari) because it would further solidify the Kurdish position on semi-autonomy. But to the Sunnis, this is anathema because they would be boxed into the oil-poor center region while the oil-rich regions in the north and south were carved up by the Kurds and Shiites, respectively. So getting rid of Jaafari, while positive, might not solve the Sunni conundrum. I dont share your pessism wrt the Kurds. It's not pessimism per se, just an observation of the strong desire on the part of most Kurds to form their own state. The polling data on this is overwhelming. I'm not saying they will necessarily act on this popular desire, but if things got too restrictive in Baghdad, I think they would bolt. Posted by: Eric Martin at April 5, 2006 08:42 PM | Permalink to this comment
That story would bother me more if it wasn't how 90% of voters in the U.S. vote too. Elections are the essence of democracy, but are really just the visible tip of the iceberg: the democratic process is much bigger than just voting. Now we see the jockeying over government positions, the consensus building on policies, the haggling over details, the fights in the free press which itself is gleefully taking sides, etc., that comprise the unseen bulk of what makes democracy work better than the alternatives. Posted by: TallDave at April 5, 2006 09:01 PM | Permalink to this comment
How many of the Shiite population will follow him if he defies majority will, we dont know. I think we can guess. The militias are not popular, nor are they a serious military threat. Remember those 500:1 kill ratios last time Sadr tried to make himself a military power? The IA will chew his people up and spit them out, and the IA is much better liked than the militias. Posted by: TallDave at April 5, 2006 09:05 PM | Permalink to this comment
Eric, Well, keep in mind two things regarding the Kurds: 1) They LOVE America 2) The reason they love America is because they've been kicked around by every major power around them, and America is the only reason they have any semblance of autonomy They may want an independent Kurdish state, but they know it would be suicide to declare one without explicit American support. I'm guessing we'll see a trade-off: staying part of Iraq in exchange for U.S. military bases, which the Kurds desperately covet. Posted by: TallDave at April 5, 2006 09:13 PM | Permalink to this comment
Now we see the jockeying over government positions, the consensus building on policies, the haggling over details, the fights in the free press which itself is gleefully taking sides, etc., that comprise the unseen bulk of what makes democracy work better than the alternatives. What we see (one more time) is a lot of factions squabbling over who gets personal control over the Ministries of Shooty and Explody Things (Interior and Defense) and the Ministry for Printing Money (Oil). The reason why parties are so hot to get their hands on those particular ministries has nothing to do with "democracy" and everything to do with the alternatives (robbing and killing). I'll also offer a Unified Theory of Deadlock: There's so little progress toward a new government because it benefits the people currently sitting in seats of power to keep right on sitting there. The ministers are still signing checks and giving orders and feathering their beds. The real business of Iraq's government, advantaging its officials and not making too much bother about the presence of American troops, can go on with or without an agreement. Indeed, an agreement risks relative disadvantage for some folks now sitting pretty. (Mr. Jabr, I am looking at you. Right now, Straw and Rice feel a lot more urgency about getting a new Iraqi government of record formed than most Iraqi officials do. Posted by: Jim Henley at April 5, 2006 09:15 PM | Permalink to this comment
TD, Agreed. But they love Kurdistan more than America. They will stay with Iraq as much as possible, especially to appease us. But if push comes to shove in a meaningful way, they will leave. Already, their love of America has not prevented them from forming their own foreign ministry (odd for a region of a larger nation) and signing oil exploration deals with foreign powers in complete circumvention of the national government. Not to mention their own military forces - with the express rule of not allowing government forces other than pesh merga on Kurdish soil. Not that I blame them, mind you. Nevertheless, if they are allowed to continue this type of near-autonomy, and are given Kirkuk, I think they'll stay. But if Baghdad tries to impose itself on the Kurds in a serious way, we'll see who they love most. Keep in mind, the Kurds have not exactly been reluctant to take "suicidal" decisions in the pursuit of nationalism. They crossed Saddam when they knew the likely result. Elections are the essence of democracy, but are really just the visible tip of the iceberg: the democratic process is much bigger than just voting. Agreed. Though, I think, this was my argument all along. Now we see the jockeying over government positions, the consensus building on policies, the haggling over details, the fights in the free press which itself is gleefully taking sides, etc., that comprise the unseen bulk of what makes democracy work better than the alternatives. Well, let's wait and see how this plays out. Jockeying for power can happen without a positive outcome. In fact, most civil wars start that way. As for the free press, as I mentioned upthread, they are free and also being murdered and intimidated in alarming numbers. Not to mentioned bribed. Take this article from Knight-Ridder:
Now, with 35 dead in the last year and 55 wounded, they're planning to devote a newsroom wall to remembering departed colleagues. Al Iraqia, Iraq's public broadcasting network, must surely be among the most dangerous places to work in the world. [...] How dangerous is it to work for the network? Even on hot days, soldiers who guard the station cover their faces with ski masks, out of fear that they'll be identified by enemies of the station and hunted down after work. Sahar al Ibrahimi, a TV reporter, has moved her family to escape what she describes as "terrorists' attacks and threats." [...] Death isn't limited to reporters. In recent weeks, two children's radio programmers were murdered after revealing where they worked at a fake checkpoint. A station manager and his driver were shot to death as they approached the station in March. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/14261905.htm
Eric, But if push comes to shove in a meaningful way, they will leave. And enter the loving embrace of the Turks, with genocide kisses? Doubtful it will come to that quite that violent a shove.
Saddam wasn't a superpower ally that they were spurning. He was just another enemy of their aspirations. Of course the Kurds want independence in an ideal world. But this is the best they've ever had it, and America the best friend they've ever had. There are numerous sources of contention with Baghdad, but they're not insoluble through the political process. And the Kurds have too much to lose now. As for the free press, as I mentioned upthread, they are free and also being murdered and intimidated in alarming numbers. It's tragic, but it's rare that that doesn't happen in transitional democracies. Heck, look at our own history; John Adams had journalists thrown in jail, and lynchings weren't uncommon. Iraq's press is less safe but probably freer than Russia's. The essential fact remains: there is a free Iraqi press, and its free enough to hold the government accountable. For example, there are numerous radio call-in shows that do nothing but complain about the gov't.
What we see (one more time) is a lot of factions squabbling over who gets personal control over the Ministries of Shooty and Explody Things (Interior and Defense) and the Ministry for Printing Money (Oil). The reason why parties are so hot to get their hands on those particular ministries has nothing to do with "democracy" and everything to do with the alternatives (robbing and killing). Reporting suggests that in fact numerous checks and balances are being set up (the NSC for instance, and more deputy ministerships and Presidential powers) for that very reason, and that there is wide agreement on those measures. The main source of contention seems to be personnel. Posted by: TallDave at April 6, 2006 04:53 PM | Permalink to this comment
There are numerous sources of contention with Baghdad, but they're not insoluble through the political process. And the Kurds have too much to lose now. This sort of begs the question TD. I specifically said that if they can solve their problems through the political process, they'll stick around. Of course the Kurds want independence in an ideal world. But this is the best they've ever had it, and America the best friend they've ever had. Also, if America continues being a friend (translation: continues to enable the near-autonomy of the Kurds), then, again, they'll stick around. But if their desires are not being met through the political process, and America doesn't intervene to preserve their status quo/additional goals, then they will leave. At that point, snubbing us will not cost as much since they aren't getting what they want out of the relationship in the first place. Can you really, honestly, imagine a scenario in which the Kurds would remain a part of Iraq to appease the US if a Shiite dominated government takes Kirkuk, demands the disbandment of the pesh merga, garrisons government troops in Kurdistan and begins to compel all manner of other indications of fealty to the national government? What would their relationship with us get them if they had to give in on those issues? And enter the loving embrace of the Turks, with genocide kisses? Again, they crossed Saddam when they knew the likely result. Why wouldn't they treat the Turks as "just another enemy of their aspirations"? Also, it should be noted, that the Kurds are aware of Turkey's EU aspirations and the fact that an invasion of Kurdistan would kind of sour that deal. The Turks may very well decide that this is an acceptable cost if the Kurds go independent, but the Kurds might be willing to bet otherwise. Or at least take their chances. The main source of contention seems to be personnel. Not sure what that means exactly. If you mean that each group is concerned about their personnel remaining in charge of vital interests, then, yeah, it's all about personnel. But if you're suggesting that the Sunnis are happy with SCIRI controlling Interior as long as it's not Bayan Jabr, then I would disagree. For individuals withing groups, though, then it would also be more about personnel. Jabr's rivals within SCIRI would probably like a crack at his position. Posted by: Eric Martin at April 6, 2006 07:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Keep in mind, the Kurds have not exactly been reluctant to take "suicidal" decisions in the pursuit of nationalism. They crossed Saddam when they knew the likely result" er, i dont see that. I think each time they crossed Saddam, they thought they had a pretty good chance of winning. And besides, I dont think even a shiite govt that wanted to restrict their autonomy somewhate would be as threatening as Saddam. Saddam was, afterall, a pan arab nationalist, for whom the very existence of the Kurds in Iraq was a provocation. The Shia, OTOH, might simply want a compromise on the role of the pesh merga and their relation to the national govt, on the exact status of Kirkuk, etc. And btw, if the complexities of Jerusalem can be negotiated, I dont think Kirkuk is incapable of solution. Posted by: liberalhawk at April 6, 2006 10:27 PM | Permalink to this comment
Re Jabr actually eric, from what I can gather it seems theres something of a consensus that Jabr goes, and that a Shia will succeed. I believe theres been a name of a successor circulated and its not that controversial. Which is why theyre talking about finalizing everything BUT the name of the PM first. Thats the real stumbling block. SCIRI wants Jaafari out, and SCIRI plus the Kurdish-Sunni-Allawi block have the votes to do it, but SCIRI doesnt want to break the UIA, and wants cover in case Sadr hits the mattresses. It looks like its gonna take Sistani to directly intervene. Posted by: liberalhawk at April 6, 2006 10:32 PM | Permalink to this comment
And btw, if the complexities of Jerusalem can be negotiated, I dont think Kirkuk is incapable of solution. Do you have some reason to think Jerusalem can be negotiated?
er, i dont see that. I think each time they crossed Saddam, they thought they had a pretty good chance of winning. OK, but they could operate under the same theory when dealing confronting the Turkish threat or when calculating the costs of angering us - which was the context of my statement. In the latter case, they know we're not going to attack them, so it's not even an issue really. And besides, I dont think even a shiite govt that wanted to restrict their autonomy somewhat would be as threatening as Saddam. Saddam was, after all, a pan arab nationalist, for whom the very existence of the Kurds in Iraq was a provocation. The Shia, OTOH, might simply want a compromise on the role of the pesh merga and their relation to the national govt, on the exact status of Kirkuk, etc. I don't think it's a question of who is doing the restricting as much as the nature of the restrictions themselves. Again, my point all along has been that if the restrictions are minor, and/or if the Kurds decide they can address them through the political process, they'll probably stick around. If the restrictions are serious and they feel shut out, I don't think the Kurds accept them simply because they come via the Shiite authorities and not Saddam. And btw, if the complexities of Jerusalem can be negotiated, I dont think Kirkuk is incapable of solution. I never said it was. That being said, there is a fair amount of ethnic cleansing going on as we speak that might complicate things further. I suppose you could call it retaliatory ethnic cleansing, but it is what it is. And like JT, I don't draw comfort from the Jerusalem analogy. actually eric, from what I can gather it seems theres something of a consensus that Jabr goes, and that a Shia will succeed. I believe theres been a name of a successor circulated and its not that controversial. Yes. Jabr has been effectively lame ducked for a while. I think everyone, other than Jabr, is ready to see him go (good riddance). Part of the cause for support from the Sunnis, though (AFAICT), is the fact that the new Interior minister will NOT come from SCIRI (SCIRI gets the PM slot instead). So my point above about Sunnni aversion to SCIRI controlling Interior remains. Nevertheless, it all depends on the eventual replacement - be he from SCIRI or otherwise. Not his party affiliation necessarily, but his performance. What worries me is that people might assume that Interior's sins stem from Jabr the person and not the dynamic of insurgent violence, poor security and associated militia infiltration and empowerment. If the general dynamic is not fully appreciated or accounted for, the new boss could end up looking a lot like the old boss. And the Sunnis, who might be optimistic about the change of leadership at this time, will reverse course. Because the Sunnis are playing ball right now on these matters to try to secure the best possible terms. But even if they, for the sake of this effort, roll with the notion of a Shiite party other than SCIRI controlling Interior, they might realize eventually that the Shiite alternative also leaves much to be desired. Let's hope not. Which is why theyre talking about finalizing everything BUT the name of the PM first. Thats the real stumbling block. SCIRI wants Jaafari out, and SCIRI plus the Kurdish-Sunni-Allawi block have the votes to do it, but SCIRI doesnt want to break the UIA, and wants cover in case Sadr hits the mattresses. It looks like its gonna take Sistani to directly intervene. Intriguing stuff. We'll have to wait and see. But my admonition above re: Jabr/Interior applies equally to the new PM. I don't trust SCIRI much at the end of the day. And the fact that so much of this plan rests on their enlightened rule worries me. I'm still waiting for Sistani to step in - or not. You'd think the opportunity to finish the pinch on Sadr would motivate him. Then again, I think he is extremely wary of any attempt to divide and dilute the UIA. That's why I think that there's also a chance that he might intervene by telling SCIRI to back off. Again, we'll see. Posted by: Eric Martin at April 6, 2006 11:40 PM | Permalink to this comment
Sure. Like all you folks know who all 200 folks on a typical presidential election yr ballot are. Like the circuit court judge race in District 127, or the county clerk race for umptyfratz county. GEN Zinni wants what he can't get in the US of A. So does every liberal who thinks the world revolves around Star Trek foreign policy and James Bond intelligence collection. Just make the world so. If anything over the last five years was easy, we would be asking the Girl Scouts to do it. Just because it is hard, doesn't mean someone doesn't need to try to fix it. I don't care anymore whether it is the best way. Because for the 20 years before 9/11 nobody did anything about radical Islamists killing us because we are "Great Satanists". Anyone who calls Evil, tyranny, oppression, and misery what they are, AND then actually does something about it, is Leading, not lying. If all of these evil regimes are so worrisome, why won't you support doing something about them. The World was full of "do-nothing-to-hurt-us, just-make-Hitler-go-away" folks in 1936. Seventy years later, those who remember the "Do Nothing" monkeys are dead, and the sacrifices they made to free the world 8 years later are forgotten. You gents keep on living with the blinders on. I'm supporting someone who will do something about threats to the Free World and my family. Get out of the way and let us do our job, or die quietly without asking for our help when your head is severed from your neck by the dull Islamic knife. Subsunk Posted by: Subsunk at April 8, 2006 01:20 PM | Permalink to this comment
Subsunk, it sounds like you think we should have fought in WWII earlier. It's hard to do alternate history. When we ask "How would history have gone if things were different?" the answer has to depend on what we decide by fiat was different and what results we expect from those differences. And there's no way to rerun history and test it. Still, my own guess is that we got into WWII at about the right time. Our army was moribund. The tanks that we mostly hadn't built yet turned out to be cheesy little matchboxes compared to russian and german tanks. Our infantry didn't get very good training and was never comparable to german infantry. If we'd rushed things and gone into europe earlier, there's a strong chance all it would have accomplished was let us participate in Dunkirk. And then there are the geopolitical concerns. As it turned out, the russians were the bigger threat. Lots of americans thought they were the bigger threat before the war. It would have been stupid for us to waste our strength beating down the nazis and then watch the communists roll over us. It made sense to do little tests -- like north africa against Rommel's supply-starved troops -- and improve our tactics and equipment as much as we could manage, and wait to attack europe until the russians were already winning. That way we came out on top. So I'm not at all sure it makes sense to blame the people who didn't want us to attack in 1936. True, the german army wasn't nearly as strong then. But we were far less prepared. Maybe some early defeats would have strengthened our resolve. Or maybe not. But we could expect early defeats. This attitude of "Do something, I don't care what, just do something about the problem" is a killer. I mean, it gets you and your family killed. Sometimes there'a a place for it. "Do something, even the wrong thing." Sometimes that keeps the enemy from getting the initiative. OK when it works. But getting pinned down in arab countries isn't denying the enemy initiative at all. Right now our enemy has something like 0.0001% of the muslim population on their side, and they're trying to get more. And you idiots want us to do everything we can to get them their recruits. It's crazy. If we'd done it in WWII it would have cost us. I don't doubt we'd have won in the end, but likely the cold war would have gone longer; we'd have come out weaker and the USSR would be stronger. It costs us now. Like WWII, we have the luxury of noticing carefully what we need to do before we commit ourselves to a world war. We might manage without a world war this time. And that would be a very good thing if we can do it. If we tire ourselves out fighting muslims what are we going to do about china?
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
Lugar States The Obvious, Yet Again...
Water-Boy Central In-House Note Self-Parody Watch Awesome Humor on the Hill! Not Sure It's Making Us Safer, But It's Certainly In the National Security Interest... Anyone at 1600 Penn. Part of the "Brain Trust"? Hey, Just A Casual Lift to Tikrit... Comedy Central: Georgia & The Revolutionary Guards... "See What Might Develop Out of That"
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Columnists
Anne Applebaum
Tony Blankley David Broder David Brooks Roger Cohen Jackson Diehl Maureen Dowd Thomas Friedman Bob Herbert Fred Hiatt Jim Hoagland Richard Holbrooke David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Nicholas Kristof Paul Krugman Howard Kurtz Sebastian Mallaby Robert Novak The Reliable Source Frank Rich Mark Steyn John Tierney John Vinocur Washington Whispers George Will
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice
Archives
September 2007
August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
