Why the Iraqi election is a waste of time

[Sauron]

Before I proceed to my main point, I just want to point out that Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney has finally made it to a war zone:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121800474.html

Cheney Makes Visit to Iraq
Vice President Praises 'Remarkable' Turnout by Voters

By Jonathan Finer and Naseer Nouri
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, December 18, 2005; 3:51 PM

BAGHDAD, Dec. 18 -- Vice President Cheney, seeking to build on political momentum from Iraq's nationwide elections last week, made his first visit here in more than a decade Sunday, praising what he called the "remarkable" turnout by voters Thursday and telling troops that the country had "turned the corner."

After getting five deferments during the Vietnam war, he finally manages to haul his fat, gin-soaked ass out to Baghdad. I'm sure he couldn't wait to finally get back into the air conditioning.

Anyhow, the Administration is trying to pump up the elections in Iraq as proof of the success of their "democracy in the Middle East" planning. But as events have shown, the Bush administration predictions have little to do with Mideast realities, as most experts in Mideast policy know.

High voter turnout needs to be examined in the light of motivations. As a recent Mideast expert at the Univ. of Michigan, Juan Cole, pointed out on "The World", one has to take into account the reasons *why* people went to the polls.

* The Kurds went to the polls to preserve an independent Kurdish state in the north - something that they have had (courtesy of the no-fly zones) for about ten years now, and something which they have said is not negotiable;

* the Shi'a, relying upon their numerical superiority and living off years of pent-up humiliation, went to the polls in the hopes of setting up an Iranian-style Islamic state and finally getting revenge on their Sunni captors;

* the Sunnis went to the polls to stop the Shi'a and buy time for the homegrown insurgency. They have no problem using multiple means to achieve the same end. The model of the IRA is pivotal here: Sinn Fein became the political wing of the liberation movement, while the IRA dealt with military issues.

At the bottom line here, one has to realize that history is a cruel mistress. The British were in Iraq for thirty eight years. At the end of that time, there was still no democracy in Iraq, and no market-based economy. And that was during a time when the United Kingdom was able to plan on the scale of decades. How much less should our expectations be for the United States, which can only plan on the scale of annual quarters or at most years, and insists on wrapping things up (ready or not) in time for domestic elections?

There is nothing hopeful in these elections. If the Bush administration had actual Mideast experts as advisors -- instead of former petroleum executives and expatriate buffoons (Zalmay Khalilizad, Hamid Karzai, Ahmad Chalaby) -- then they might realize this. But their antipathy towards bad news makes that all but impossible.

[alphamale]

Sourpuss, we've heard the left wingnut predictions all along. The army gets stuck in the desert for a week because of a sandstorm, and the LME makes it's first blather about a quagmire. Libloonies said the "arab street" would rise up if we invaded iraq - wrong again. Y'all said elections wouldn't be held - wrong. Every step of the way, you've said this wouldn't work and that wouldn't work - more wishful appeaser thinking than reality.

[Adam]

Sauron, while I semi-agree with your main point, I dunno if you can generalize like that. From everything I've heard and read, neither of the three major ethnic groups acts or votes as a monolithic bloc.

You're pretty much dead on in you last paragraph, in that countless opportunities to smooth the transition between Saddam's government and a democratic government have been pissed away by poor planning and a failure on the part of the administration to rely on experts rather than ideologues and political cronies, but I don't know that I'd say the situation is hopeless. I think there's some hope to be had in recent polling data from Iraq indicating that a decent majority seem to have some faith in the political process, and a similar majority want the US out. I think it indicates that, to some extent, the Iraqi people (such as they are...maybe the citizens of Iraq would be a better term) want to govern themselves. We'll see, though.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Sourpuss, we've heard the left wingnut predictions all along. The army gets stuck in the desert for a week because of a sandstorm, and the LME makes it's first blather about a quagmire. Libloonies said the "arab street" would rise up if we invaded iraq - wrong again. Y'all said elections wouldn't be held - wrong. Every step of the way, you've said this wouldn't work and that wouldn't work - more wishful appeaser thinking than reality.

Ya know, those predictions have been remarkably prescient...back when Rumsfeld was saying weeks or months (but certainly not years!) I was saying 5-6 years before we moved out of the role of Iraq's occupiers. We're going on three so far, and the most radical plans I've heard being seriously considered call for us to be mostly out by the end of 2006, so my armchair prediction is, if a little over the mark, way the hell closer than the rightwingnuts who cheerled us into this mess.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by alphamale

Sourpuss, we've heard the left wingnut predictions all along. The army gets stuck in the desert for a week because of a sandstorm, and the LME makes it's first blather about a quagmire.

It *is* a quagmire. We're stuck over there.

Blah said the "arab street" would rise up if we invaded iraq - wrong again.

In point of fact this did happen. The "Arab street" did rise up, and took the form of the homegrown insurgency in Iraq.

Y'all said elections wouldn't be held - wrong.

Not true. We said elections would be a pointless sham. So far we are correct.

Every step of the way, you've said this wouldn't work and that wouldn't work - more wishful appeaser thinking than reality.

Nope. Just liberals doing what they do best - accurately predicting the political landscape!

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Nope. Just liberals doing what they do best - accurately predicting the political landscape!

Well, that's total crap. If it were true, a liberal would occupy the White House.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Well, that's total crap. If it were true, a liberal would occupy the White House.

Not if the liberal prediction says "money and corruption will be unstoppable allies of the Republicans".

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Not if the liberal prediction says "money and corruption will be unstoppable allies of the Republicans".

Who actually predicted that? I mean, I think most of us know (or suspect, anyway) that the current Republican leadership is even more entangled in corrupt government-for-hire practices than the typical American government, but I don't know that many of us liberals actually predicted that this would make them unstoppable in 2004.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by Adam

Who actually predicted that? I mean, I think most of us know (or suspect, anyway) that the current Republican leadership is even more entangled in corrupt government-for-hire practices than the typical American government, but I don't know that many of us liberals actually predicted that this would make them unstoppable in 2004.

This was the big worry inside the beltway - and on most of the progressive blogs. To wit, that the same voting irregularities that surfaced in Florida would resurface, which is why the progressive blogs were watching Diebold with a careful eye months/years before the 2004 election.

There was also the realization that the Rove strategy of cutting off traditional sources of Democratic funding for elections was going to be a severe problem for the Congressional candidates.

[TomJoe]

Originally Posted by Sauron

Not if the liberal prediction says "money and corruption will be unstoppable allies of the Republicans".

Hindsight is always 20/20.

[Sauron]

Originally Posted by TomJoe

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Except this isn't hindsight. I (and several others) predicted this in foresight.

Example: one of the things that I kept telling people in 1999 and 2003 is that, statistically speaking, the single most reliable indicator of who will win an election is the amount of money being spent by both sides. It was not a perfect predictor of the outcome. However, when sampling all the available predictors, money has the highest accuracy rate.

[Sauron]

And right on time. Hate to say "I told ya so", but -- Islamic Republic of Iraq, anyone?

http://nytimes.com/2005/12/19/intern...rtner=homepage

Early Results Show Religious Groups Leading in Iraqi Vote

By EDWARD WONG
Published: December 19, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Dec. 19 - Early voting results announced by Iraqi electoral officials today indicated that religious groups, particularly the main Shiite coalition, had taken a commanding lead, with more than half of the ballots having been counted.

The secular coalition led by Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister, had won only meager support in crucial provinces where it had expected to do well, including Baghdad.