Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

So right ! All who vote will have to walk around with a hand in their pocket until the ink wears off.
I was under the assumption that it was going to be an ‘invisible’ ink that could only be seen with black light.
Like used at Amusement Parks???
Maybe it was too expensive —- not that protection of voters is too expensive.

It’s kind of late to worry about not making Iraqi voters target. After all, Bush did decided to hold an election in the midst of a bloody, out of control insurgency.

Now do you understand why Democrats have wanted postponement of the election? Why we’ve been complaining about the lack of security on the ground? No government or society can function properly when the nation is a warzone.

It has always been easier to destroy than to build. This is why Democrats take little heart in news of opened schools: because we know one car bomb can close that school that took massive effort to build and open. That’s not even accounting for the fearsome destruction our forces inflict when they respond to the attacks of the insurgents.

This is what dictates the priorities of the Democratic notion of this war. We fought the last war that ended in an occupational government, and succeeded. This is the touchstone that the Neoconservative movement and their Republican followers use to preach the virtues of conversion by warfare. But they forget that both Germany and Japan surrendered and submitted to the allies.

We never got any such formal transfer of authority from the state, no Admiral Doenitz signing Germany over, No Emperor Hirohito asserting absolute authority to pacify the population. Iraq’s government simply cratered. The Pentagon unfortunately expected an automatic transfer of authority, instead of a dissolution of the government. Catastrophic success, indeed.

The question was always about the decision that the planners of this war wanted. Obviously, they wanted a quick, light way of deposing Saddam Hussein. What they failed to anticipate despite historical precedent, was the need to actively take over from that government. That was a forseeable outcome of the destruction of the Iraqi regime. The Neocons and their allies constantly speak now and spoke then of rape rooms, torture chambers, of a regime based on fear. Unfortunately, they never anticipated one aspect of that: that the relief of that fear would simply unloose the structure of the society, having overwhelmed every other kind of loyalty, eliminated rival political organizations. In Germany, the government was completely and utterly replaced by the allies, which rebuilt it from the municipalities upwards. In Japan, the putativeleader was kept in place, with changes made with his blessings and the cooperation of the subjects. In short, there were alternatives to the old order, either provided by our side, or agreed to by the other side. These are not models anticipated. Instead, the sensibility was borrowed from Eastern Europe, where the people spontaneously overthrew their old masters.

This is understandable as an assumption, as most Neocons got their start working on Russia and the Eastern Bloc. This however produces serious problems for analogies to Iraq. First, Iraq’s government is a native government, created and maintained by a sunni minority and the powerful party that dominated it. Eastern Europe’s societies were overlaid by the communist regimes, which were an imposition on nations whose history and tradition were at odds with the new order. As one report I read online would put it, Saddam’s regime, however tyrannical, was inherently Iraqi.

Additionally they forgot some of their own examples. Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia are examples of artificial states in Eastern Europe that partitioned in the wake of the let-up of an imposed government.

Partition may be Iraq’s fate, but that creates problems of its own. One thing can be said, though: These are not problems that were not unanticipated by intelligence and military officials.

The Iraq war just seems to me a series of mistakes that were unavoidable in the absence of critical thought and contingency minded strategy.

Chops, the whole concept of attempting to conduct democratic elections in a nation so devoid of security in the most densely populated areas of the country, was and is, a huge lack intelligence, common sense, and capacity to anticipate.

There is nothing about the US involvement in Iraq that has been successful. Republicans argue our military vanquished theirs but quick. But that is an utterly simple minded selective perspective. Had our military secured weapons caches on the way, secured key infrastructure facilities on the way, and brought with them fulfillment of basic needs of the Iraqis in each and every area secured, we could have called our military’s invasion successful. As it is, the leadership of our military forces were arrogantly stupid and myopic in their pursuit of Iraq’s uniformed forces while ignoring all of these other aspects so necessary to a successful invasion and securing of a foreign nation.

Pardon: these are problems not unanticipated by intelligence and military officials.

At first blush, fingerprinting voters with visible ink does sound like a terrible idea, for the obvious reason that it makes them potential targets.

However, it might be the only choice. There are very few election officials in Iraq, and almost no UN participation. It is a situation which is wide open to fraud. Agreed, that seems like a small problem, given the level of violence and the danger politicians risk simply by running, and the risk voters take by voting.

All very interesting, but it will be dwarfed by the proverbial elephant in the room. Will the Sunnis ever accept being ruled by the Shias?

Btw, very good & incisive post, Stephen.

Stephen,
As someone who was against the war to begin with, how long are you willing to wait to move forward on the building of the new Iraqi Government?
The vote is mainly for the people who will write the Constitution. This will be accomplished while the fight against those not willing to join in goes on.
Within the next 11 months there should be a significant change. People will see that their government is beginning to work, the troops are being trained, and hopefully more and more will be willing to turn in the ‘bad guys’, as they have been over the past few days and weeks.
I don’t see how a delay in this particular election would help anything.
Having the vote may help them regain a national pride.
Not having the vote would just help those who claim we are occupiers.

Will we never learn? We are great war fighters… but, we fail, utterly, at “nation building”.

Our miltary did what they were trained to do, and they did it magnificently. We should have walked away as soon as captured Saddam.

“Longstreet”

Bugcrazy-
Honestly? I lost patience a long time before you did. This insurgency should have been resolved long ago. However, my impatience is not with schedules but results, and I believe that premature elections will ultimately delay the results and our withdrawal from this God-forsaken war.

If we hold elections with insufficient security and the insurgents are able to lash out with sufficient forces, it will be destructive to the morale of our forces and that of the Iraqis.

The moral value of the elections will be nullified if the elections are thrown into chaos, or their outcome creates a weak government. If this election turns out to be just another way that the sovereignty of their lives goes out of their control, then it will be a source of despair and resentment rather than a source of hope. This is why we should have resolved the security system LONG ago, and failing that, postponed things till control was available.

Elections are not a magic panacea for that problem. If we have not created the supporting institutions and structures and guarded them from destruction, they are but clothes on the corpse of a failed state.

They are especially not a solution to the image of us as occupiers. I think its long past time, we drop this facade of not being occupiers. What else are we? We are a controlling military force, guests of a government we put in place. The need to resolve the security situation is three-fold.

One, we are occupiers to them regardless of what happens. We might as well bring in the troops necessary to stabilize the country, which will let us bow out honorably and end our occupation.

Two, elections will be compromised for as long as the security situation remains bad. Elections create fixed targets, candidates isolated from constituents, and a situation where the insurgency has an opportunity to strike a decisive blow against our efforts.

Three, as long as we attempt partial elections in that compromised state, the elections will be seen by unsympathetic opinion-makers as a ploy to legitimize our continued occupation.

Bush’s policies, however well-intentioned and uncompromising on paper, have ended up compromised and failed in reality. That needn’t have been the end of that, but Bush didn’t choose to redress his mistakes when he had the chance. The opportunity to gain victory may have already been lost, but I am an optimist (if you can believe that) and hope that we have a good chance, if not the best, to redeem this situation.

I would have never wished for all this. But I hope that if we face this with honesty to ourselves, and integrity concerning what we must do, that we can salvage some good from this debacle.

Its great hearing the calls from the left that the elections should be postponed. If the President had said no elections untill the situation had stabilized then we’d hear yelling form the left that we’re stuck in Iraq with no plan, no way out etc…
Wait a minute, we have a plan! Hold elections, get the Iraqi people to take charge, and when they ask us to leave, we leave!
Shhh….Don’t tell Senator Kennedy! Its a secret!

Stephen,

Stay an optimist.
I, as well as many people, wish there were a peaceful loving way to fix all the problems in the world.
Something drastic had to be done about the Islamic radicalism in the Middle East and it’s spreading infectiously around the world.
There certainly were mistakes made.
Most mistakes can be fixed in one way or another.
Admitting mistakes during a presidential campaign would not have been very wise for anyone trying to keep their job.
Our President admitting mistakes IN PUBLIC TO PLEASE PEOPLE WHO NEVER INTENDED TO VOTE FOR HIM ANYWAY would do nothing but fuel the fire of Islamic Radicals and we don’t need them to have more ammunition against us than they already have if we can keep from it.
There is less than 3 hours from the start of the Iraqi elections.
Here’s hoping the majority of the people vote in peace and safety.

bugcrazy-
We are right to be worried about Islamist radicalism. But to do something drastic? Drastic responses play into their hands. These terrorists don’t want pragmatic, negotiated thinking. They don’t want us getting cold-blooded about our side of things.

Mistakes can be fixed, but not reversed, and that is important. It gets worse when there is no admission of fault, because then, there is no acting in such a way that admits fault. That means Bush’s options don’t remain open.

What I speak of hasn’t been about Bush appeasing his opponents, but him freeing himself from a political dead-end, if he is willing. The truth is, Bush has fooled few people beside his supporters. Everybody else just assumes what the evidence is telling them. The damage of the distance between Bush’s promises and the reality of his policy’s results has already been done, and has been done even worse overseas where they don’t sensor the blood and guts of what’s been happening to their fellow arabs.

Honestly, I think we just want him to to live in the same world as the rest of us. We want him to be optimistic, but not oblivious.

This is about informed consent. If we are asked to risk somebody’s life, or to risk our own by our Government, we should be able to do so confident that our consent is purchased not by lies, deception, or a shameful, negligent ignorance of the situation, but by truth in it’s most accurate version. Anything less makes a mockery of that sacrifice and should be considered beneath the honor and integrity of any real patriot. If I am called to die for my country to answer a real threat, I’ll do that gladly. Otherwise, it will just be blood spilled for somebody’s vanity or stupidity, and God knows history has little need for more of that.

Why would some one risk there life a second time? Getting in line again, they’re not stupid. The ink idea is!

Within the next 11 months there should be a significant change. People will see that their government is beginning to work, blah, blah, blah.

Man, am I getting tired of hearing that. When we topple Sadam… When we capture Saddam… When we handover the government… When we secure Fallujah… After the election… And now, after the constitution is written… When do the excuses end, Beagle?

If Iraq had been secured, by whatever means - and President Bush had plenty of options and opportunities to do so - being marked as a voter would be a mark of pride, not something to be hidden.

Did anyone notice the people proudly showing there ink stained fingers?
Did anyone notice the voters that stayed in line even though body parts from a homicide bomber were being cleaned up nearby?
Did anyone see the interview with the CNN reporter last night who laughed because no one was at the polling site she was covering - just the soldiers guarding it with their LIVES?
The same site that people walked 12 miles to go vote at * AND SHOWED UP !
How many of us lazy Americans would have walked 12 miles under threat of death to go vote!?! We Americans wouldn’t walk the 12 miles if there were NO threat of death. Most Americans wouldn’t walk 12 blocks.
I am giving those voters full credit for their bravery. For their willingness to start their new lives. For their determination.

Excuses??? Those weren’t excuses. Those were the building blocks in creating a new Iraq.
What you are doing is making excuses for when you think it will completely fail and you can blame our President that you hate anyway.
It must be nice to be able to predict the future and claim you knew what should have been done.

AP my friend,

I haven’t commented on this thread untill I saw your post.

I think the ink thing was a dumb idea, but in the far north or south, where there seems to be 90%+ turnout, those without ink may be the targets!

I just hope it turns out well for the Iraqi people, and our troops can come home soon.

bugcrazy, you are making much ado about nothing. If you think this election was free, think again. This election was conducted under martial law. Second, this election is to create a constitutional convention, no democracy is being established by this election. Third, if you think the relative calm of these elections was a sign of Iraq on the road to peace, you are seriously mistaken. The relative calm was due to the martial law.

Like the President said, there is yet a long way to go before democracy is a way of life in Iraq. And it yet may take a civil war for the issue of democracy to be decided.

Those voters who showed up in the Sunni Triangle were indeed brave. That we can agree on.

martial law?

So, in other words the people were forced to go vote?
I guess it could have been a ballot with Saddam’s name, a yes or no choice, and a guy with a gun hauling you off to jail if you checked No.
Much better and an obvious freedom of choice.
Vote Yes : Walk out
Vote No : Go to jail
Your choice and your free to make it.

bugcrazy-
Check my latest comment on my thread across the way- I think the people of Iraq deserve the bulk of the credit. They had the option to stay home, regardless of Bush’s rhetoric. The decision was theirs. Will this do them good? We’ll see.

I’m pleasantly surprised the violence wasn’t worse. It may get that way when the restrictions on movement are lifted, but things could go the other way too. Let’s hope it does.

As for Homicide Bombings, please spare me the use of that term. I know suicide bombers are trying to kill other people. I don’t think they go out into the desert and blow themselves up after listening to The Cure too much. The phrasing of that term is insultingly patronizing, because it presupposes that people like me don’t take these attacks with the requisite gravity. The use of the word “suicide” is simply to describe the defining mark of that bombing technique. It is no different than calling a bomb a timed device, a booby-trap, remote detonated, or improvised.

Basically, when people hear that term, they’re just going to think to themselves, oh, they mean a suicide bombing.

As for the whole thing about excuses, I’d tell you the only reason why the violence wasn’t worse was because the Bush administration did not make excuses here. They declared a lockdown and restricted travel, preventing the use of the terrorists most devestating weapon, the car bomb.

However, the price of peace was a lockdown, an arrangment that is obviously not permanent. If we had held the election under normal security conditions it would have been a bloodbath, doubtlessly. It is that everyday situation we feel the Administration has made too many excuses for, and which may dampen today’s success. We should not let today lull us into a false sense of security. Our efforts should be increased and sustained.

The “stain” is found on the Iraqi’s with clean hands. It took raw COURAGE to vote for freedom but time after time people overcome obstacles and choose freedom. Let’s hope they do not use Barbara Boxer’s concept that “if my party doesn’t win I will not certify the result.”

Tom-
Let’s hope their majority shows greater concern for their neighbors than the Republicans do. You got to cut that arrogance that says that Democrats are second-class citizens with no respect for Democracy. All you get for that kind of attitude is a impractically contentious government. It’s time to let the ghosts of Dixie and McCarthy fade away.

Tom,
Time for a ‘Mission Accomplished!” happy dance; two steps forward, three steps back, and spiiiiiin!
Pardon my interrupting that endorphin rush wave pouring from the various media, but let’s think for a moment.

Do you really think this election was a good idea? We’re putting the Shias in power over all of Iraq. I’d argue for partition, and that everyone would be better off if the Shias, Kurds, and Sunnis held a plebiscite on whether their province wished to participate in an Iraqi nation in the first place. Partition entails risks of its own. However, as it is, I think we’re on a disastrous course.

The talking heads call it ‘institutionalizing a civil war.’

You’re undoubtedly aware the Sunnis did not participate in Tikrit, Ramadi, northern Bagdhad, etc. Do you really think this election was a good idea?

On a related issue, I heard Bush was cutting Veteran’s Benefits to finance his little war while buying a bunch of cushy choppers for himself. Its nice to know where Republicans have their priorities.

Stephen

Just come out and say it you hate GEORGE W. BUSH and want to see him fail at any cost.

American pundit

So much easier to be negative than positive that’s why anybody can do it. Takes thought to have a positive outlook. At least when Stephen blasts me he has a point and SOMETIMES he is RIGHT!

To Paraphrase Jon Stewart:

If you feel no joy at the sight of Iraqi dancing wuth their ink-stained fingers you are so far left that you are beyond salvation.

If you think that the elecetions are going to make everything alright, and there will not be some hard days ahead, you are so far to the right that you are beyond salvation.

Come on guys, regardless of what might happen, this one day is a great day for the world, it proves as what has been proved in eastern europe: That democracy is for the world. Yes there will be hard days ahead, and yes there will be days where it does not seem the entire effort is worth it, but regardless of what you think about Bush, 6.5 million people stood up to tyranny and terrorism, and began the steps to take back their country.

Aasha Al-Iraq, Today is a turning point.

bugcrazy said : ” martial law?

So, in other words the people were forced to go vote?”

Not in my other words. Best go back and reread what I said. Martial Law is why there was relatively so little violence as well as turnout in the Sunni Triangle.

Not sure how you jumped to an interpretation that I was saying anyone was forced to vote. If the Bush admin. had planned the Iraq action properly, there would have been far greater vote turnout.

THE POLITICS CONSIDER THE PEOPLE LIKE BULLS ! BUT WE ARE GONNA SHOW THE POLITICS HOW BULLS SMELL AREN’T WE ?
In Duke we trust

David,
“This election was conducted under martial law.”

is what you said. Maybe my idea of Martial LAw in the Middle East is slighty different than yours. I tend to include the hauling your ass off to jail if you vote NO part.
The troops were there to protect the voters. Not to influence their vote.

All indications show the voters came out in as high of a percentage or higher than we had in our greatest turn out ever. The difference is they were threatened with blood flowing through the streets if they voted. I’d say that if it turns out the percentage was even close to 60 THEY did much better than WE did.
I am much more impressed with their 60% turn out than ours, by far.

sundanceloki-
We liberals will only complain about this election if the Bush administration fails to take this success and build on it. You underestimate liberals far too glibly. Maybe we would have an easier time of defeating the terrorists, if we weren’t trying to accuse law-abiding fellow Americans of being their sympathizers, and instead moved forward together as one people. We all want Democracy in Iraq. The question is, will the Bush administration’s methods do the job? If not, it will be a shame if the left isn’t allowed their chance to provide their point of view. If the left fails, then others can try. This is about getting the elections right, not about about the Right being the only people supporting elections.

So far, so good. Despite my worries detailed in this post, I have only heard of one instance of finger-targeting. For most Iraqis, it was truly a badge of courage and freedom. Bravo for them!

bugcrazy, The US imposed martial law in the south to give blacks the right to vote with being killed or maimed, too! It was not a proud moment in American history that martial law had to be imposed in order to permit elections to be held.

Martial Law simply dictates a set of rules for public behavior, violations of which can result in being shot dead on the spot or detained, frisked, inspected or whatever seems appropriate to military on the spot. In Iraq some of the rules included no private vehicles on the roads, and checkpoints, and frisking before entering polling places.

You can define Martial Law in your own mind however you wish, but, it does have a precise meaning and definition.

Its funny, as i drove home I thought about the “stain” and the outward sign of voting. What came to mind was the pen is mightier than the sword but then I am reminded of the fighting in the American revolution, the reign of terror in the French revolution and the blood soaked fields of the American Civil war. Doesnt anyone feel the symbolism that the trigger finger is soaked in ink and not blood? This is a time for transition, lets hope it is used for the good.

Nice thought, Allium.

Think about this. How great would it be if we Americans were required to have our fingers stained with ink after voting? I am so tired of my friends and coworkers complaining about their government, yet when given the opportunity to do something about it they are to busy to vote.

On Election Day I would make a mental note of those with stained fingers and those without. Then, the next time someone complained about the war or taxes or whatever, I could say “I didn’t see a stain on your finger so shut upâ€.

My hats off to the Iraqi people who braved threats of death and voted. I have always thought that nothing would ever stop me from voting and after seeing this, nothing will.

Let’s try that again…..

Think about this. How great would it be if we Americans were required to have our fingers stained with ink after voting? I am so tired of my friends and coworkers complaining about their government, yet when given the opportunity to do something about it they are to busy to vote.

On Election Day I would make a mental note of those with stained fingers and those without. Then, the next time someone complained about the war or taxes or whatever, I could say “I didn’t see a stain on your finger so shut up”.

My hats off to the Iraqi people who braved threats of death and voted. I have always thought that nothing would ever stop me from voting and after seeing this, nothing will.

Kind of on topic—
Is is just me or is anyone else upset at the republicans showing up with ink-stained fingers at the state of the union? Everyone in Iraq who has ink on their fingers literally braved death to try to seize the future for their country. The republican congressmen went to a speech. It seems demeaning to suggest that they deserve to have the ink-stained fingers as a show of “solidarity”.

Good grief! If anyone chooses to show solidarity with the Iraqis, what the heck does it matter what his or her political affiliation is? Anyone who contributed anything towards the effort in Iraq has a right to share in their victory.

Ghandi,

The reason I mentioned republicans was that they were the only ones doing it. I would have thought it was in bad taste if democrats did it, too. If our solidiers put ink on their fingers, that would be fine with me, since they put their necks on the line to protect the vote.

I guess I just think that considering the importance of the act and risk taken by these people, our congresspeople should not claim it as their victory. Kind of like recieving a prestigious award, only to find that everyone who was in the room had a cheap plastic copy that they were showing off.

I’m not saying it’s the end of the world, I just thought it was in bad taste.