Hopefully al-Maliki will get reelected and our draw down can be continued.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article7053236.ece
QuoteMarch 7, 2010
Millions of Iraqis defy bomb and rocket attacks to vote
Oliver August, Baghdad
Millions of Iraqis braved a wave of violent attacks today to vote in an election seen as a crucial test of the country's fledgeling and fragile democracy less than six months before United States combat troops leave the country.
Long queues were reported at many polling stations including in Sunni towns that mainly boycotted the 2005 parliamentary elections, despite a series of bomb blasts and rocket and grenade fire that killed at least 38 people.
But as Western governments described the vote as a success, officials privately voiced fears that the turnout would be less than early expectations and that Iraq's new government would lack the strength to make the country secure enough for American troops to withdraw. A Western diplomat who closely observed the voting said: "Fraud was our main worry originally but turnout looks even more tricky now. We must have a credible election to proceed."
For Iraq and for the US, the vote is make or break. An inconclusive election and the rise of a weak prime minister could trap Baghdad in a cycle of violence and instability, and with it the US President. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is the frontrunner but faces strong competition from both secular and sectarian candidates, including Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister who leads an alliance of prominent Sunnis and Shias.
The Obama Administration has said that it will withdraw all US combat troops by late August to free them up for Afghanistan — but only if the situation allows it. An election lacking credibility will undermine support for democracy in Iraq and weaken its next government to the point where militia fighting could return.
This morning insurgents launched rockets aimed at the Green Zone, home of the Prime Minister and the Government, and attacked polling stations with roadside bombs around the country.
Most Iraqis interviewed by The Times in polling stations said that they were not frightened by the mortar and bomb attacks and were voting in defiance of the violence. But many more outside said that they have not voted and were worried about security.
In a statement the American Government acknowledged the difficulties it faces in Iraq. President Obama said: "I have great respect for the millions of Iraqis who refused to be deterred by acts of violence, and who exercised their right to vote today. Their participation demonstrates that the Iraqi people have chosen to shape their future through the political process."
The British Government echoed Mr Obama's concerns. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said: "The determination to vote has been significant, but the violence and loss of life shows the extent of the challenge faced by the Iraqi people. We condemn all terrorist attacks without reservation."
It was Iraq's second full parliamentary election since the American invasion and the first in which Baghdad was back in overall charge. An Iraqi government official said: "We fear that the explosions and mortars will have a negative effect on election turnout. People in Baghdad are used to this but they still worry. That makes the election vulnerable."
The Iraqi Government was clearly concerned after this morning's barrage of mortars and bombs, restricting traffic even further than was originally planned. Journalists were prevented from reaching bomb sites, reducing the amount of coverage the attacks received in the local media.
Later in the day, when fewer than expected voters showed up, the Government lifted a vehicle ban intended to keep car bombs off the streets of the capital. After weeks of being told that they had to walk to polling stations, voters were suddenly encouraged to drive to cast their ballot.
The Western diplomat said: "If Iraqis don't have a sense that the next government speaks and stands for them, then they are likely to turn away from the democratic political process. When they see only chaos they are more likely to accept the return of a strongman ruler."
Hopefully it won't go all Afghanistan.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 07, 2010, 05:22:53 PM
Hopefully al-Maliki will get reelected and our draw down can be continued.
Hopefully, if Maliki is wins, he'll throw Allawi and the secularists a bone. That's a faction that must be fostered.
What do you like about Malaki Tim? Only positive point I can find is that he has finally learned how to shave.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2010, 06:36:23 PM
What do you like about Malaki Tim? Only positive point I can find is that he has finally learned how to shave.
Things have been going quite well under him, why change it?
The whole situation is a Class A clusterfuck.
Apart from the fact that the political situation is totally polarized, with factions spawning from other factions, there is the problem that NOBODY in the area wants a stable Iraq.
Iran likes its influence on the shi'a and wants to keep it like that.
Syria prefers a weak Iraq, as it removes a potential rival.
Saudi Arabia sees that chance to make its wahaabit sect more influential amongst the Sunnis. Not to mention that the Iranian bogeyman is useful to keep the other smaller states docile.
Turkey fears a compromise will allow the Kurds more autonomy.
The Kurds don't want a stronger Iraq, as it may make Baghdad more assertive.
Israel prefers to see the Muslims fight each other.
There isn't really much to help, really... only the US wants some compromise, but everybody agrees that the Americans don't understand the situation.
The Baath'its were the cream of the crop of Iraq and they've been pushed out. That leaves Iraq with its less bright/more corrupt as its leaders. The former top iraquis are simply... "disappointed with the American 'democratization' process", as one of them told me [several took refuge in Portugal].
Not to mention that only now the officers of the older army will be reinstated. The disbanding of the armed forces was THE dumbest thing the US administration could had ever made.
Quote from: citizen k on March 07, 2010, 06:21:12 PM
Hopefully, if Maliki is wins, he'll throw Allawi and the secularists a bone. That's a faction that must be fostered.
Allawi was/is a Baath'ist that fell out of favour with Saddam and is the best bet to get Iraqs' best back. The problem is that the anti-Baath/pro-Maliki supporters hate Allawis' guts, while Allawis' supporters don't get along with most of the other factions.
Bush supported Maliki. So I hope his opponent wins.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2010, 06:36:23 PM
What do you like about Malaki Tim? Only positive point I can find is that he has finally learned how to shave.
How is that a positive?
A former top official is disappointed? Stop the presses!
Quote from: Maximus on March 07, 2010, 10:16:48 PM
How is that a positive?
That 5 o'clock shadow used to make him look like a Hana Barbera villain.
Quote from: garbon on March 07, 2010, 10:17:20 PM
A former top official is disappointed? Stop the presses!
More accurately, the whole country is a mess and the conditions were created so that very few now have interest in seeing the Iraqi nation rise again as a stable state.
In other words, the US pretty much destroyed Iraq for the forseeing decades, and the Iraqis can only hope (with little conviction) that something will improve in the future.
Quote from: Jaron
Bush supported Maliki. So I hope his opponent wins.
Al-Maliki is an example of what happens when a politician tries a national route for Iraq. He first rose to power based on sectarianism (he's a Shi'a), but has recently tried to create a more generalized powerbase, especially reaching out to former Baath'ist generals and other Sunnis.
The result? In the South many Shi'a parties who backed him have cut their support and formed a coalition close to Iran, and in the North al-Maliki's Kurdish allies saw the rise of a dissenting leader, who founded a new party which has enough backing to defy both existing Kurdish parties.
You can't reforge a nation in these circumstances. Elections alone will never ever decide anything, that's not what saves a shattered nation, especially because chunks of the nation have opposing agendas and all the other nations around it don't want Iraq to be solid again.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 07, 2010, 08:37:38 PM
Apart from the fact that the political situation is totally polarized, with factions spawning from other factions, there is the problem that NOBODY in the area wants a stable Iraq.
(snip)
One can deconstruct things to prove the exact same thing about Russia, Iran, etc etc.
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2010, 08:53:40 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 07, 2010, 08:37:38 PM
Apart from the fact that the political situation is totally polarized, with factions spawning from other factions, there is the problem that NOBODY in the area wants a stable Iraq.
(snip)
One can deconstruct things to prove the exact same thing about Russia, Iran, etc etc.
Certainly not Russia - it's political situation is anything but polarized. In fact there is a pretty total unification under Putin, and any opposition that is allowed to exist politically is doing so at the Kremlin's whim.
Big surprise that Martim thought the Fascist leadership of old Iraq was the "cream of the crop".
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2010, 05:19:37 PM
Big surprise that Martim thought the Fascist leadership of old Iraq was the "cream of the crop".
Or that the new leadership must therefor be more corrupt than the old. That almost isn't even possible.
Quote from: grumbler
One can deconstruct things to prove the exact same thing about Russia, Iran, etc etc.
Russia has a government. It can be in many countries' interests to make Russia weak, but there IS a government in Russia to oppose this.
Same for Iran.
Iraq's government was wiped out, and nothing resembling a true goverment has come out. The governments that come out of the elections are jokes, collections of utterly opposing antagonists, many at the pay of foreign powers, few have the national interest in mind. And those that do have such ideas quickly lose support.
Iraq today is but a amalgam of quarreling factions, none of which has the power to prevail. The only thing preventing the country from being partitioned is the fact that the other powers fear the others gaining too much - and that it wouldn't look good for the US.
But by itself? It is a broken state, and one that cannot repair itself in the way it is allowed to operate.
Quote from: Razgorovy
Big surprise that Martim thought the Fascist leadership of old Iraq was the "cream of the crop".
Actually, it should be.
But excuse me, I would like to ask you how many Iraqis, supporters of the old and new regimes, do you know, exactly? Have you compared them with each other?
Because I have. The Baath'ists were in power in Iraq for 35 years (well before Saddam) and they created the basis of a secular state.
For all the years the Baath Party was in power, most intellectuals grew around it, as well as its middle- and upper-classes. The vast majority of the literate people were Baath. Not all agreed with Saddam when he came to power in 1979 - many left the country for Britain. But they remained secular and non-sectarian. Allawi is an example of this.
Writers, scientists, entertainers, teachers... the overwhelming part of these were all Baath.
Now, you MAY just be kind enough to remember that, until the invasion of Kuweit, the Saddam regime was the dear of the West and the US liked it a lot - heck, one of my Baath'ist friends is married to an American woman (which, incidentally, used to write for American publications and be quite respected. But since Saddam became a 'Bad Boy', US publishers now refuse her articles, claiming that they're 'biased' [i.e. do not reflect the official US propaganda]).
Many were even educated in the US, and held important jobs both in the US and at the United Nations.
Now, by simply banning them, the US allowed the other factions to have free reign to quarrel over Iraq, and very few of them had the sophistication or the education of those who ruled the nation for many years.
As a result, Iraq was simply thrown to the dogs. There is no intelligentsia to take hold. One is trying to develop, but sectarian politics (inflamed in a not small portion by the US, but also by Iran and Saudi Arabia) will keep it from truly rising for decades, at the very least.
Non-baathists often mean well, but they lack enough finesse to do things without a proper organization. And such organizations do not exist as such in Iraq. There are political movements that lack the know-how, and the organizations that are in place are often supported/funded by other powers. No truly national party capable of credibly holding power over the entire country exists.
Quote from: grumbler
Or that the new leadership must therefor be more corrupt than the old. That almost isn't even possible.
Grumbler, Iraq
doesn't have a leadership.
The Kurds basically rule themselves, the Sh'ia only obey the Laws they want, the Anbar province is like a military zone and Baghdad is a sort of zombie city where Death can come from anywhere. The 'government' that is supposed to 'rule' is created after endless months of bickering between literally dozens of parties, and the PM holds very little power. Whatever the cabinet decides, after endless negotiations, it is only enforced where the US troops are, where it has kinda loyal militias, or where for local convenience the local factions decide to accept.
That is one of the reasons why al-Maliki is trying to bring back 20,000 former Baath officers. They are the only ones secular enough and with sufficient experience to create Army units that might, eventually, make Iraq a cohesive nation. For only through a credible military force can such a diverse nation exist as such.
And that is why most other parties will oppose it firecely. For many reasons, there is little interest for them in a united country.
Oh, and there is one thing all Iraqis of all ideologies agree on - the Americans simply DO NOT understand the situation. Not even a little bit. The US is basically wading in a self-created dream that bears litte resemblance with reality.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 08, 2010, 06:56:51 PM
The governments that come out of the elections are jokes, collections of utterly opposing antagonists, many at the pay of foreign powers, few have the national interest in mind. And those that do have such ideas quickly lose support.
The technical name for that is a parliamentary government with proportional representation.
QuoteThe vast majority of the literate people were Baath.
[Yi] Stats please [/Yi]
QuoteNon-baathists often mean well, but they lack enough finesse to do things without a proper organization. And such organizations do not exist as such in Iraq. There are political movements that lack the know-how, and the organizations that are in place are often supported/funded by other powers. No truly national party capable of credibly holding power over the entire country exists.
Yes, "finesse" is definitely the word that comes to mind when thinking of the governance style of Saddam, Qusay, Uday and the rest of the Tikriti gangsters.
Let's face it, they didn't even make the trains run on time and the uniforms sucked. That pretty much uses up the last remaining justifications for fascism.
QuoteOh, and there is one thing all Iraqis of all ideologies agree on - the Americans simply DO NOT understand the situation. Not even a little bit. The US is basically wading in a self-created dream that bears litte resemblance with reality.
The American mind is unsophisticated and unable to contain the mighty river that is your wisdom.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment
The technical name for that is a parliamentary government with proportional representation.
Think of a US where 80% of Congress admired and recieved money from Russia, China and India.
Think of a US where the South self-ruled itself and refused any Federal interference in its internal affairs.
Think of a US where whole regions had opposing religions, took them extremely seriously, and their leaders actively encouraged fights with the others.
Think of a US where no party got over 10% of the vote, and whole coalitions perhaps 20%.
Think of a US where the Democrats and the Republicans had been banned, and the only political formations are associations made on the run by amateurs.
Think of a permanently deadlocked government.
Think of a US where US troops could not safely be in about half the country.
Think of a US where terrorists could roam the territory, and where you never knew where a bomb would go off.
Think of the area between Washington DC and New York as a warzone, were one could die at any moment.
Think of all the best people in the country leaving, for despair or fear of their lives.
Would such a US have a prosperous future?
QuoteThe vast majority of the literate people were Baath.
You could - and did not - go far if you were not Baath. And forget higher education.
(a bit like in my country, where universities block people based on their political preferences, but even then it was a lot worse).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment
Yes, "finesse" is definitely the word that comes to mind when thinking of the governance style of Saddam, Qusay, Uday and the rest of the Tikriti gangsters.
Let's face it, they didn't even make the trains run on time and the uniforms sucked. That pretty much uses up the last remaining justifications for fascism.
1. The Baath were not fascists, more like secular nationalists. One of the reasons why, you know, the US liked them so much during the 70s and 80s and held Iraq as an example for the Middle East.
2. A Nation isn't made just of the top group that leads it. Otherwise I'd judge the US strictly based on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in many important places - lawyers, teachers, writers, composers, journalists - that make the core of what a nation is.
Quote
The American mind is unsophisticated and unable to contain the mighty river that is your wisdom.
No, you just refuse to accept that sometimes you are doing more harm than good and, above all, that the solutions you always advocate may not eventually be the right ones for all places at all times.
Martim 1, Joan 0 :yes:
To be honest I don't talk to a lot of Iraqi refugees, but if I did my first question would be: "How the fuck did you get in my basement"?
I know one Iraqi refugee.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 08, 2010, 07:23:32 PM
No, you just refuse to accept that sometimes you are doing more harm than good and, above all, that the solutions you always advocate may not eventually be the right ones for all places at all times.
That is what I tell MM all the time. His posts may be erudite and technically correct, and even witty, but his posts are doing more harm than good, because he just makes Portuguese posters post even more incomprehensible drivel here. He need to be more like that poster Joan Robinson, who always advocated solutions that were eventually the right ones for all places at all times, and who seldom sparked the dreaded porkchop diatribe.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 08, 2010, 06:56:51 PM
... and Baghdad is a sort of zombie city where Death can come from anywhere.
I think one post-Baath Iraq positive is that it's a more vibrant democracy than when under Saddam.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fd.yimg.com%2Fa%2Fp%2Fap%2F20100306%2Fcapt.e29779d8d45b481eabebb779b7bfbcc8.mideast_iraq__bag128.jpg&hash=741a84fb677bbfb415c7912da41622d67a7101ea)
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 08, 2010, 07:23:32 PM
Think of the area between Washington DC and New York as a warzone, were one could die at any moment.
Baltimore and Philly? Well........
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 09, 2010, 12:12:27 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 08, 2010, 07:23:32 PM
Think of the area between Washington DC and New York as a warzone, were one could die at any moment.
Baltimore and Philly? Well........
:D
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on March 09, 2010, 12:12:27 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 08, 2010, 07:23:32 PM
Think of the area between Washington DC and New York as a warzone, were one could die at any moment.
Baltimore and Philly? Well........
Nice :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 08, 2010, 08:15:42 PM
To be honest I don't talk to a lot of Iraqi refugees, but if I did my first question would be: "How the fuck did you get in my basement"?
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2010, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 08, 2010, 07:23:32 PM
No, you just refuse to accept that sometimes you are doing more harm than good and, above all, that the solutions you always advocate may not eventually be the right ones for all places at all times.
That is what I tell MM all the time. His posts may be erudite and technically correct, and even witty, but his posts are doing more harm than good, because he just makes Portuguese posters post even more incomprehensible drivel here. He need to be more like that poster Joan Robinson, who always advocated solutions that were eventually the right ones for all places at all times, and who seldom sparked the dreaded porkchop diatribe.
Eggplant. EGGPLANT. Only HVC is given the porkchop title, by my divine grace.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 09, 2010, 07:21:24 AM
Eggplant. EGGPLANT. Only HVC is given the porkchop title, by my divine grace.
:lol: Better let the Portuguese know, and good luck with enforcing that.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 08, 2010, 07:23:32 PM
No, you just refuse to accept that sometimes you are doing more harm than good
I accept that but it is too late to change careers now.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 09, 2010, 07:21:24 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2010, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 08, 2010, 07:23:32 PM
No, you just refuse to accept that sometimes you are doing more harm than good and, above all, that the solutions you always advocate may not eventually be the right ones for all places at all times.
That is what I tell MM all the time. His posts may be erudite and technically correct, and even witty, but his posts are doing more harm than good, because he just makes Portuguese posters post even more incomprehensible drivel here. He need to be more like that poster Joan Robinson, who always advocated solutions that were eventually the right ones for all places at all times, and who seldom sparked the dreaded porkchop diatribe.
Eggplant. EGGPLANT. Only HVC is given the porkchop title, by my divine grace.
:yeah:
Quote from: HVC on March 09, 2010, 11:52:33 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 09, 2010, 07:21:24 AM
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2010, 09:12:35 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 08, 2010, 07:23:32 PM
No, you just refuse to accept that sometimes you are doing more harm than good and, above all, that the solutions you always advocate may not eventually be the right ones for all places at all times.
That is what I tell MM all the time. His posts may be erudite and technically correct, and even witty, but his posts are doing more harm than good, because he just makes Portuguese posters post even more incomprehensible drivel here. He need to be more like that poster Joan Robinson, who always advocated solutions that were eventually the right ones for all places at all times, and who seldom sparked the dreaded porkchop diatribe.
Eggplant. EGGPLANT. Only HVC is given the porkchop title, by my divine grace.
:yeah:
Remember, what has been given can be taketh away.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 09, 2010, 03:08:22 PM
Remember, what has been given can be taketh away.
I was hoping the no takesies backsies rule was in play :(
Quote from: HVC on March 09, 2010, 03:10:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 09, 2010, 03:08:22 PM
Remember, what has been given can be taketh away.
I was hoping the no takesies backsies rule was in play :(
I am: Indian Giver :homestar:
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 09, 2010, 03:18:38 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 09, 2010, 03:10:39 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 09, 2010, 03:08:22 PM
Remember, what has been given can be taketh away.
I was hoping the no takesies backsies rule was in play :(
I am: Indian Giver :homestar:
I thought HVC was a pork chop, not an Indian. :huh:
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 09, 2010, 07:21:24 AM
Eggplant. EGGPLANT. Only HVC is given the porkchop title, by my divine grace.
:huh:
I must have hit some sort of cultural wall here. I am afraid I do not follow the line of reasoning.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 09, 2010, 05:40:49 PM
:huh:
I must have hit some sort of cultural wall here. I am afraid I do not follow the line of reasoning.
It's a languish thing. For some reaons here Eggplant means Portuguese instead of Italians. I fought the good fight to ensure accuracy in racial slurs , but in the end i failed :lol:
Quote from: HVC on March 09, 2010, 05:45:40 PM
It's a languish thing. For some reaons here Eggplant means Portuguese instead of Italians. I fought the good fight to ensure accuracy in racial slurs , but in the end i failed :lol:
Eggplant is supposed to mean Italians? Why? :huh:
Quote from: HVC on March 09, 2010, 05:45:40 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 09, 2010, 05:40:49 PM
:huh:
I must have hit some sort of cultural wall here. I am afraid I do not follow the line of reasoning.
It's a languish thing. For some reaons here Eggplant means Portuguese instead of Italians. I fought the good fight to ensure accuracy in racial slurs , but in the end i failed :lol:
Actually, it is a US thing, I think.
Eggplant also (I am pretty sure) means Sicilians, not Italians in general (and I think it is used by Italians as an insult to Sicilians, in the US).
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 09, 2010, 05:49:05 PM
Quote from: HVC on March 09, 2010, 05:45:40 PM
It's a languish thing. For some reaons here Eggplant means Portuguese instead of Italians. I fought the good fight to ensure accuracy in racial slurs , but in the end i failed :lol:
Eggplant is supposed to mean Italians? Why? :huh:
It is used as an insult for Sicilians, to imply that they have African blood. Dark skin, in other words, like an eggplant.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2010, 05:54:20 PM
It is used as an insult for Sicilians, to imply that they have African blood. Dark skin, in other words, like an eggplant.
:yes:
See http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=_svnsF5OLbI&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=_svnsF5OLbI&feature=related) for instance. Only good scene in that entire movie.
Legbiter! :woot:
Good to see you, dude!
Here, here! :cheers: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35806883/ns/us_news-education/
Quote
It's Up to Iraqis Now. Good Luck.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: March 9, 2010
Of all the pictures I saw from the Iraqi elections last weekend, my favorite was on nytimes.com: an Iraqi expatriate mother, voting in Michigan, holding up her son to let him stuff her ballot into the box. I loved that picture. Being able to freely cast a ballot for the candidate of your choice is still unusual for Iraqis and for that entire region. That mother seemed to be saying: When I was a child, I never got to vote. I want to live in a world where my child will always be able to.
God bless her. This was a very good day for Iraq.
To say that mere voting or an election or two makes Iraq a success story would obviously be mistaken. An election does not a democracy make — and Iraq's politicians still have yet to prove that they are up to governing, nation-building and both establishing and abiding by the rule of law. But this election is a big deal because Iraqis — with the help of the U.N., the U.S. military and the Obama team, particularly Vice President Joe Biden — overcame two huge obstacles.
They overcame an array of sectarian disputes that repeatedly threatened to derail this election. And they came out to vote — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds — despite the bombs set off by Al Qaeda and the dead-end Baathists who desperately want to keep the democracy project in Iraq from succeeding. This latter point is particularly crucial. The only way Al Qaeda, Baathism and violent Islamism will truly be defeated is when Arabs and Muslims themselves — not us — show they are willing to fight and die for a more democratic, tolerant and progressive future. Al Qaeda desperately wanted the U.S. project in Iraq to fail, but the Iraqi people just keep on keeping it alive.
And how about you, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran? How are you feeling today? Yes, I am sure you have your proxies in Iraq. But I am also sure you know what some of your people are quietly saying: "How come we Iranian-Persian-Shiites — who always viewed ourselves as superior to Iraqi-Arab-Shiites — can only vote for a handful of pre-chewed, pre-digested, 'approved' candidates from the supreme leader, while those lowly Iraqi Shiites, who have been hanging around with America for seven years, get to vote for whomever they want?" Unlike in Tehran, Iraqis actually count the votes. This will subtly fuel the discontent in Iran.
Yes, the U.S.'s toppling of Saddam Hussein helped Iran expand its influence into the Arab world. Saddam's Iraq was a temporary iron-fisted bulwark against Iranian expansion. But if Iraq has any sort of decent outcome — and becomes a real Shiite-majority, multiethnic democracy right next door to the phony Iranian version — it will be a source of permanent pressure on the Iranian regime. It will be a constant reminder that "Islamic democracy" — the rigged system the Iranians set up — is nonsense. Real "Islamic democracy" is just like any other democracy, except with Muslims voting.
Former President George W. Bush's gut instinct that this region craved and needed democracy was always right. It should have and could have been pursued with much better planning and execution. This war has been extraordinarily painful and costly. But democracy was never going to have a virgin birth in a place like Iraq, which has never known any such thing.
Some argue that nothing that happens in Iraq will ever justify the costs. Historians will sort that out. Personally, at this stage, I only care about one thing: that the outcome in Iraq be positive enough and forward-looking enough that those who have actually paid the price — in lost loved ones or injured bodies, in broken homes or broken lives, be they Iraqis or Americans or Brits — see Iraq evolve into something that will enable them to say that whatever the cost, it has given freedom and decent government to people who had none.
That, though, will depend on Iraqis and their leaders. It was hopeful to see the strong voter turnout — 62 percent — and the fact that some of the largest percentage of voting occurred in regions, like Kirkuk and Nineveh Provinces, that are hotly disputed. It means people are ready to use politics to resolve disputes, not just arms.
We can only hope so. President Obama has handled his Iraq inheritance deftly, but he is committed to the withdrawal timetable. As such, our influence there will be less decisive every day. We need Iraqi leaders to prove to their people that they are not just venal elites out to seize the spoils of power more than to seize this incredible opportunity to remake Iraq. We need to see real institution-builders emerge, including builders of a viable justice system and economy. And we need to be wary that too big an army and too much oil can warp any regime.
Iraq will be said to have a decent outcome not just if that young boy whose mother let him cast her ballot gets to vote one day himself. It will be a decent outcome only if his life chances improve — because he lives in a country with basic security, basic services, real jobs and decent governance.
I wish I could say that that was inevitable. It is not. But it is no longer unattainable, and I for one will keep rooting for it to happen.