With American troops ‘drifting offstage,’ Iraqis take the lead in holding peaceful elections.
With American troops ‘drifting offstage,’ Iraqis take the lead in holding peaceful elections.
Iraqis selected among 14,500 candidates for 440 seats in their provinicial elections yesterday. The elections were “almost completely free of violence, with just two incidents, and no deaths, reported nationwide.” The only major glitch appeared to be that “thousands of Iraqis were unable to vote because their names were inexplicably missing from voter lists.” Nationwide turnout was 51 percent. The New York Times reports:
[R]egardless of the outcome it is clear that the Americans are already drifting offstage — and that most Iraqis are ready to see them go. [...]
“The American military presence brought nothing to our streets but destruction and chaos,” said Omar al-Dulaimi, 57, a government employee who lives near the Um al-Khoura mosque, one of the largest Sunni places of worship in the capital. “We had nothing from them but tension and confusion. It’s much better for us and for them if they stay in their bases now.”
President Obama said, “This important step forward should continue the process of Iraqis taking responsibility for their future.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It is not too late to arrest and bring to trial ALL of the Bush criminals responsible for attacking and invading Iraq without justification and at the same time destroying Iraqi infrastructure along with the US economy. You know I’m right.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:49 amRecall that Malcolm X said, ‘You can’t stick a knife in a man’s back, pull it part way out and claim progress.” The money shot in this story, of course, is, “The American military presence brought nothing to our streets but destruction and chaos.”
February 1st, 2009 at 9:51 am“The only major glitch appeared to be that “thousands of Iraqis were unable to vote because their names were inexplicably missing from voter lists.”
Well, it seems that Bush actually managed to give them elections exactly like ours… Disinfranchising voters.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:00 amhey! just watched christie hefner mention “the Center for American Progress”, at the end of a segment on CBS Sunday Morning, about her retirement from Playboy, to work on policy for/with the Obama administration…
very cool!
February 1st, 2009 at 10:02 amHow do you think the citizens of the US would react to this proposition?
Foreign Leader: Okay America, we have this wonderful style of governing that has brought us great prosperity over the past 200 years and we would like to give it to. The only catch is that we have to:
- invade your country
- kill or displace 20% of your fellow citizens
- Turn much of your infrastructure to rubble
- Tempt foreign agitators to come in and kill your citizens (al Qaeda)
- Spark a civil war
- Deny you autonomy
- Turn large parts of your populated areas into hyper militarized mini police states.
- Cause disease pandemics
- Bring in mercenaries, some of whom kill your citizens with virtual impunity
- Randomly detain hundreds of thousands of your citizens in prison camps where some are tortured and humiliated. Your women will be raped in these prisons and we don’t distinguish between boys and men. If your boys act out…
- Seek to privatize your resources for our benefit
- Build military bases on top of Arlington cemetery and other nation symbols of pride
- And some more bad stuff that we just don’t know about because we are going to wing it the entire time…
So America, are you game?
February 1st, 2009 at 10:04 amKaty: I heard it as well. Congrats to the Center for American Progress! It’s a great nod to the critical work you are doing. Kudos, TP!!
February 1st, 2009 at 10:08 amDruP: All any Kool-aid drinking Rethug needs to ask himself is this: If another country even appeared at our doorstep, how do you think we would greet them? ‘nuf said.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:08 amBERT CONVY Says: Which would absolutely never have happened if it had not been for George W. Bush.
You keep deluding yourself Bert. I’m sure you’ll implode when Obama manages to get bin Laden.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:11 amI thought Iraqis were having peaceful elections before we invaded.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:14 amrimhotep,
February 1st, 2009 at 10:14 amconsidering the utter disdain repukelicans have shown for the constitution and the american way of life in recent years, they would greet them by throwing candy and flowers.
The idea to replace Iraq with a democracy pre-dated Bush:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
I believe it’s been a goal of American power for a long time.
Bush used 9/11 to make it happen.
In hindsight the idea of democracy in Iraq is a good idea. The idea of pre-emption was not. The idea of imposing our ideology on someone else, was not.
The Iraqis should have been able to make that choice, themselves. If we wanted to support them, it should have been through other means.
I’m glad that Iraqis have the right to participate in choosing their leaders. The wrong path was taken to get there and many mistakes were made along the way.
Hopefully, going forward, Iraq’s democracy will thrive and inspire those that currently have no voice.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:17 amThat was supposed to be ‘replace Saddam with democracy’.
My bad.
From the link:
The law’s stated purpose was: “to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:19 amthat’s quite a list, dru…
s’pose BC aka JK aka KRove (MY guess) took the time to read it?
…
so, rimhotep, have YOU been watching for 30 years?
great show… i try to never miss it…
ok, this bike messenger story is one reason why…
February 1st, 2009 at 10:24 ambackup – bush used 9/11 to steal the treasury.
biggest money heist in the history of the world.
you’ve come a long way… keep it up…
February 1st, 2009 at 10:27 amit is heartening………..
backup Says:
The idea to replace Iraq with a democracy pre-dated Bush:
Then Clinton invaded right? There are ways to push for democracy without war, or sanctions.
I believe it’s been a goal of American power for a long time.
Our political establishment doesn’t give a damn about democracy. It is about putting an extra boot in the region to keep resources flowing and maintain military dominance.
The Iraqis should have been able to make that choice, themselves. If we wanted to support them, it should have been through other means. I’m glad that Iraqis have the right to participate in choosing their leaders.
I see that daisy too. It’s a shame the field it grew out of is soaked in blood from horizon to horizon.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:28 amIronically enough, those who trumpet “bringing democracy to iraq and the mideast” continually overlook Saudi Arabia. You remember Saudi Arabia…the country OWNED by the royal family. Where women are required to wear burkas and it’s illegal for them to drive. The country of origin of wahabbi islam, the religion of choice for bin-laden and al-qaeda. how about “liberating” the saudis?
February 1st, 2009 at 10:33 amkaty Says:
that’s quite a list, dru…
s’pose BC aka JK aka KRove (MY guess) took the time to read it?
-
BC will, then go off on a tangent. Troll Kerry can’t read. He uses TTS. Though, to him it probably sounds French.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:34 amBert, who can say what would have occurred? The most likely outcome, would have been Saddam’s overthrow, once it was revealed how truly toothless he was, militarily.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:34 amCalling them “Provincial elections” is somewhat misleading.
The Provinces held by the Kurds did not participate…neither did the oil rich city of Kirkuk. That Can of Worms was just kicked down the road.
The big difference in this election, is that the Sunni’s are Participating.
President Bush’s policy of disenfranchising the Sunni’s ( by deBathification and disbanding Iraq’s Military) led to the sectarian chaos ,and almost led to a full fledged civil war in Iraq.
The Surge was successfull partly because extra troops provided the Necessary Security…But Mostly because Bush changed strategy, and CUT A DEAL with the Sunni’s.
If Bush had dealt Fairly with the Sunni’s from the beginning, and not listened to the Ideological Fantasies of Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bremmer…we could had avoided the needless deaths of thousands of Brave Americans.
This was Lethal Incompetence, regardless of how things turn out in Iraq.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:35 amBozo The Neoclown Says:
The country of origin of wahabbi islam, the religion of choice for bin-laden and al-qaeda. how about “liberating” the saudis?
-
If we invade, then bush can no longer have sleepovers with king Abdullah
February 1st, 2009 at 10:38 amDru P. But, I think the idea that a democracy in the region (Iraq, Afghanistan) could serve as an alternative to Islamic fundamentalism – made sense.
I think the reason Christian fundamentalists are held in check in the West, is that we have a relative free flow of information and elections.
If we considered Islamic extremism a threat after 9/11, encouraging democracy doesn’t seem that crazy. Only burning the field and planting it does.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:46 amI’ve got a few bucks that says John Kerry will now run away like a collossal pussy.
the fake John Kerry are you indeed a pussy?
February 1st, 2009 at 10:50 amBackup,
Democracy is not a guaranteed Panacea.
Democracy led to Hamas Victories in Gaza, and Hezzbolah Victories in Lebanon.
And Iran deposed the Shah and Installed the Ayatollah with HUGE Public Support.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:53 amb-cup, I think the reason Christian fundamentalists are held in check is that we have a well-developed system of universal education, and a relatively well-informed populace, at least were domestic matters are concerned.
Free elections without information are meaningless.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:58 amdbadass, I’m not taking that action.
February 1st, 2009 at 10:59 amFrom the AP:
Hundreds of Iraqi Kurds stormed an election office in the disputed northern city of Khanaqin after claiming many of them were not on voting lists. There were no reports of serious injuries. The incident was part of lingering disputes between Kurds and the Arab-run central government over control of the city near the Iranian border.
Each region carried its own distinctive mood.
In Kurdish autonomous region — which is scheduled to hold elections later — special polling sites were created for Iraqis who have sought refuge from violence in other parts of Iraq. “I hope the real winner will be Iraq itself,” said Mohammad Rasid, 75, who fled Baghdad two years ago.
In nearby Mosul, considered one of the last urban strongholds of al-Qaida in Iraq and other insurgent groups, Sunni Arab parties urged for a high turnout to counter Kurdish ambitions to extend their influence over the city.
The Sunni decision to boycott the last provincial ballot in January 2005 handed control of Mosul and the surrounding province to the Kurds — even though they make up less than a third of the population.
“I came to take back my city for Sunnis,” said Afifa Abdul-Nafaa, 81, who came to vote in a wheelchair pushed by her son.
“Democracy” won’t solve the basic problem of who gets to profit from Iraq’s oil reserves. The Sunnis and Kurds still haven’t reached a peaceful solution to this most-important problem in regard to the Kirkuk fields; and with Turkey constantly invading the Kurdish areas to root out terroristic separatists, its still quite premature to say it will all work out without bloodshed. The telling factor will be our redeployment out of the region. Will the payments to Sunnis continue, after we leave? Will Turkey become more preemptive, after we leave?
let’s just stare myopically at the purple finger, and
February 1st, 2009 at 10:59 amOops.
That last was a little bit of unedited addenda.
Apologies.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:03 ambackup Says:
…
If we considered Islamic extremism a threat after 9/11,
see… “Islamic extremism” was a threat WAY before 9/11…
and bushco was warned… over and over and over again…
and bushco ignored those warnings…
you do know that, right?
bushco IGNORED all warnings.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:06 amDru P. But, I think the idea that a democracy in the region (Iraq, Afghanistan) could serve as an alternative to Islamic fundamentalism – made sense.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:07 am-
Most of those governments were secular, Iraq (Bathism is secular), Afghanistan (secular socialist in the 1970s), Iran (secular 1950s), until the US started overthrowing them.
-
I think the reason Christian fundamentalists are held in check in the West, is that we have a relative free flow of information and elections.
-
It does help to have religion/state affairs separated by the 1st Amendment of the constitution.
-
If we considered Islamic extremism a threat after 9/11, encouraging democracy doesn’t seem that crazy.
-
It isn’t. However, it is almost impossible to do at the point of a gun. And democracy does not equal free market capitalism or bowing to US dominance. Until US officials accept this then any efforts to cultivate democracy will bring about bitter fruit.
Dru P. you’re right.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:12 amGreat news! Thanks for reporting on this as it shwos that the great George Bush achieved success in Iraq![!!]
FINALLY you libs agree!![!]
You are really mailing it in Troll Kerry. Where is your passion, your commitment?
February 1st, 2009 at 11:15 ambackup Says:
Dru P. you’re right.
-
I’m glad we can meet in agreement on the side of reality. Let’s do it again sometime.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:19 amWell said, DruP. Well said.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:19 amBERY CONVY and John Kerry,
You are both wrong because you present a false argument. You talk as if what Bush did was the only option available. It wasn’t. And if you are not willing to accept the fact that the invasion of Iraq violated international law and our Constitution, then you should not speak out on the subject.
If Bush had not illegally invaded Iraq and deposed its ruler, that does not mean that the people of Iraq would never have had elections, just that they wouldn’t be having them right now. Had there been no invasion, it’s entirely possible that hundreds of thousands more Iraqis could have pariticipated. But they can’t, either because they were driven out of the country or they’re dead. At least the ones driven out near the start of the war can come back and vote. The dead ones never can.
The ends do not justify the means. More than 100,000 people are dead because of George W. Bush. Just because they’re holding elections does not erase the the fact that they held over a hundred thousand funerals first. Bush is no hero, he’s a murderer.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:25 amBush and his right-wing followers mistakenly assume that if the people of another country want to hold elections, then they will elect people who want to be our allies. This thinking is delusional at best. At worst, it’s deadly.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:28 amDru P. (and ralph). When you’re right you’re right. But, before we get too smug, does the idea that coercive American policy will bare ‘bitter fruit’, apply to today’s circumstances:
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id=83595§ionid=3510302
February 1st, 2009 at 11:30 amFrom the link:
February 1st, 2009 at 11:30 am
Additionally:
February 1st, 2009 at 11:31 am
Many believe the same heavy handed policies that were criticized under Bush continue today. Your voice of reason should be as loud today as it has been in the past.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:35 amhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012304189.html
Is this somehow not heavy handed American policy? Will this not bear ‘bitter fruit’?
February 1st, 2009 at 11:40 ambackup Says:
‘Evil happens when good men say nothing’.
You said nothing when Bush was spending eight years trashing the constitution. We screamed at the top of our lungs and were called traitors for it.
Also, no matter how popular Noam Chomsky is, he does not speak for everyone on the left.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:45 amThat being said, Wayne, I do agree with b-cup’s suggestion that the idea that coercive American policy will bare ‘bitter fruit’, apply(s) to today’s circumstances
I fervently hope that Obama is playing out the tail end of a policy that was forced on him by Bush, and will soon shift gears in this fight.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:55 amThe US gov. pushes for elections. Then the people hold elections and vote in leaders who try to create equality for its indigenous population. The wingers shriek in horror. The US political establishment and media brand them socialist. A coup comes shortly after. A right wing (economics) dictator comes in to power and privatizing everything and leaving the people poor. He then uses death squads to ‘keep order’. Soon the people rise up against the dictator and swear revenge in the name of god… this sounds familiar…
It is, and it will. Careful B, you are backsliding. Step INTO the light.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:57 amWayne. I’ve come around, but why are progressives now silent about coercive American policy that was so repulsive in the past.
Why gloat about being right in the past, while you reach for the same blinders you protested.
Wayne. you’ve changed my mind on at least a couple of things.
I like Obama and trust he’ll made good decisions.
But, reasonable people that oppose heavy handed American policy – would find objection with current Obama policy.
And more importantly, they would actively (and vocally) work to change it, regardless of the partisan implications.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:58 amProgressives are the ones pushing for an endgame in Pakghanistan. Look at the stories in my name link.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:04 pmI’ve become open to the idea that using force to battle extremism may be counterproductive. I understand that those responsible for 9/11 may be among those we are targeting.
But, to get those responsible for 9/11, who else will die? Is the backlash to the policy worth getting bin laden. Is the ‘war’ against those that want to destroy us, better fought by other means? Can we change the minds of those in the middle east without bombs? Or is Obama (who is the best hope for the situation) wasting the opportunity by continuing policy that many here rightly believe, hasn’t worked?
February 1st, 2009 at 12:08 pmIt’s remarkable, b-cup, how closely aligned your new-found understanding of the counter-productivity of military force aligns with a change in leadership in the White House.
jes’ sayin’.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:11 pmSorry for the double “aligns”
February 1st, 2009 at 12:16 pmralph. your curiousity of the timing is understandable.
point taken.
But, does it really invalidate the message?
Chomsky’s saying the same thing thing.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:21 pmWhen did I suggest anything about invalidating your message? In fact, b-cup, if you’ll check above, I agreed with the message. It would be pretty stupid of me to then try to invalidate it.
I was simply observing how a change in leadership gave you a remarkable clarity of vision on this topic.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:26 pmBush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over.
How many people would be alive if Bush had shelved his ego and made a deal with the Taliban?
First, they can’t destroy us. THEY CANT.
This is that bigoted ‘they only know force’ bull. War almost NEVER solves more problems than it cause. Finally, terrorism is simply criminal conspiracy to achieve a political end. The US government has been infiltrating nonviolent leftist group and ruing them for decade. They can to the same for terrorist cells.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:26 pmralph. you would have to admit that my initial positions have moderated over time.
And that I have expressed confidence in Obama.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:29 pmb-cup, I will grant you that your positions have moderated over time, and that you are one of few who will approach these discussions from the other side with a sense of open-mindedness. This makes you a valuable contributor in my book, even in the face of your occasional (what i see as) lapses into wingnut-think.
I’m willing to chalk those up to “jes’ havin’ fun”.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:37 pmAnd to be fair – the change in leadership has diminished the interest in the topic here at ThinkProgress.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pmFair enough.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:57 pmunbelievable Says:
I thought Iraqis were having peaceful elections before we invaded.
Please tell me you are kidding.
Are you talking about the elections where only Saddam’s name appeared on the ballot, and he won 99% of the vote? Those elections? It is truly “unbelievable” you could for a moment compare the two.
Yesterday was wonderful for Iraq. I would like to thank any veteran or family member of veterans here at TP who have served in Iraq. Your courage and sacrifice made the elections possible, and in the years to come the US will reap the benefits of this political sea change you helped to sow. Again, Thank You.
February 1st, 2009 at 1:20 pmUnderstandably, Obama is a bit hamstrung by the polemics of the previous administration, but gifted as he is with language, I hope he replaces “Iraqis taking responsibility for their future” with something less condescending very soon.
February 1st, 2009 at 1:22 pmralph. you’re cool. one on the reasons I came to TP was to better understand progressives. In large part to you, Wayne, toasterhead, many, many others, my views are more moderate – I think more informed.
what may still surprise you, is that my lapses into ‘wingnut-think’ aren’t necessarily just for fun. I really believe them.
Believe it or not, I don’t claim to be right. I don’t claim to be consistent. I do claim to be genuine.
Thank you for listening, even though I know it’s frustrating and I know you disagree. The discussions have helped me, even if I can’t return the favor.
If we where in the same physical location, I’d probably open up for a big man hug. But, I’m sure you’d agree – it’s probably for the the best, it’s only a relatively anonymous exchange of ideas over cyberspace. ; )
February 1st, 2009 at 1:49 pmb-cup, I should also note that “This makes you a valuable contributor in my book, even in the face of” the sometimes virulent abuse you absorb just for voicing a dissenting opinion.
I’m not a big fan of that kind of conflict. Most of the dissenting opinions here are legitimate trolls — devoid of thought or substance, simply looking to amuse themselves with the blog equivalent of prank calling — and the occasional well-meaning conservative like you and Keltoi get pelted with water balloons that are already filled and waiting for real trolls., even though you don’t really deserve them.
And sometimes I get mild abuse for defending you, but that’s nothing I can’t handle. Like I’ve said before, I’ll still call “bullshit” when I think that’s what you’re peddling, but I’ll also try to recognize your real contributions.
Now, gimme a “terrorist fist jab” and let’s get back to the game.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:06 pmI notice the defense of my occasional valid point and respect you for it. Most people would not do that.
Here’s your terrorist fist jab.
Now. Fight’s on.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:16 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Now, gimme a “terrorist fist jab” and let’s get back to the game.
Did someone say game? GO STEELERS!!!!
Ditto to what both of you have said in the last few posts. (You forgot a shout out to gummitch and dbadass, though, Cap’n) I too have come much more to the center as a result of my time at TP, and Ralph is indeed my liberal interlocutor. The water ballon throwers are exactly that, they don’t dissuade me from the virtues of the debate.
February 1st, 2009 at 2:46 pmKeltoi. you’re right about gummitch and dbadass. I knew it when I typed it, I would be forgetting most of the voices. Yours is among them.
If my arguments don’t work, or I walk away with some doubt about what I believe, that’s not bad, it’s great. The idea that my mindset is somewhat different than it was before, is not a defeat – it’s growth.
This is a great format for the exchange of ideas. And gives me great hope for the future.
And because this conversation has become even too sappy for me. I’ll quit.
Have a great day.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:06 pmbackup Says:
Have a great day.
Thanks! That is largely dependent on Kurt Warner getting sacked a minimum of 3 times and Troy Polomalu getting at least one pick, but there is always beer and nachos if the game goes sour.
February 1st, 2009 at 3:17 pmThank you, backup. I appreciate that I have been able to influence you in a way which I perceive to be positive. While some people like to say the trite phrase, “Freedom isn’t free,” I prefer the more helpful, “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” It can take a while to turn the public’s mind on some things, but it can be done. Even if it’s one mind at a time.
May I also suggest that because we have to fight hard to turn opinion, we can’t be screaming about every single wrong thing going on. Sure, there are things that our new (and much improved) president is doing that we are not entirely satisfied with, but we are also trying to make sure we don’t drop the ball on issues for which a real change is close. So we need a little more time to change minds about some other big issues, like the messy situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan. (And by “messy situation”, I mean “bloody war”.)
IMHO, I think that because the president has just sent two well-respected envoys to the region to try to find a peaceful solution to the problems there, it would be disruptive to that policy to have too controversial a change in policy while they are there. For example, if the president were to announce something that Pakistan might not like, just as Holbrooke was sitting down with them, it could make the delicate discussions more awkward for us. I think it’s smart to let them come back, give their initial reports, decide on a strategy, then make the policy change announcements. It’s not going to be that long before they come back from their first trips. That’s why I’m not screaming right now.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:30 pm