Iraqi Letters

I think your post is entirely reasonable.

A few questions:
1) Are you looking for the UN to provide troops?
(It's a silly silly proposal but I've been thinking it would be nice if after the elections, the US would signal they will draw down their troops and situate their remaining troops in the Mosul/Kirkuk, the British in the Basrah, Russian/Ukranian/Polish/German troops securing the border with Syria and France/Spain/Italy troops securing the border with Iran. The big problem is that these countries will not field troops to Iraq. The primary goals here would be to (1) assure the Kurds and the Shia and (2) to stem the flow of weapons and foreign fighters into the country. As Iraqi security forces are recruited and trained, the international forces are drawn down further.)

2) Opposition by the Iraqi people
From what I understand, these are very rough estimates, Sunni-Arabs are 20%, Sunni-Kurds are 20%, Shia are 60% of the population. What if most of the population concurs with the results of the election on January 30th? What if 63.753% of the voters believe the elections held were legitimate? Any effort to disallow the results could lead to vehement opposition to oversight by a UN committee.

I do hope Allawi's party doesn't gain the preponderance of votes. It may do some good for someone other than the perceived favorite of the US to come out on top.

And most of all, I hope you participate in your new government. I'd like to see you appointed Ambassador to the United Nations.

Take care.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Abu Khaleel,

I have so many questions that I would be ecstatic if you could answer just one or two.

This is a win/lose situation for the United States. If the US wins, it gets an Iraqi Karzai permanently installed to rule Iraq the way Mubarak rules Egypt. Iraq will probably be the primary outsourcing destination when the US believes that the few restrictions on torture that it chooses to follow are still too onerous and prisoners have to be sent somewhere for some real painful interrogation.

If the US loses, Iraq will leave the control of the US and be free of its influence. I hope this happens in the form of a democracy. From the US point of view, there is no difference between an independent democracy and an independent dictatorship.

The questions I am curious about regard things the US do to maintain control over Iraq indefinitely and what can the Iraqi people do to force the US to reliquish control over Iraq as soon as possible.

The US is not above falsifying election results. What would be the best strategy if we find that Allawi won by a landslide?

How is the country holding together? I read somewhere after a bombing of Shiites outside a mosque that someone said that the Shiites understand that most Sunnis are not related to the bombings. That was very heartening. Is Sunni-Shiite animosity building? I hope not and I think probably not, but I'd like confirmation.

If the Americans do not risk falsifying the election results and Allawi loses, what do you consider a reasonable role for the Sunnis in the next government?

What items would you like to see in the constitution, assuming it is actually written by Iraqis?

Is there anyone in Iraq who wants a Baath resurgence? The resistance has spokespeople in the US State Department who have informed us that the resistance is trying to restore Hussein's government.

I read the insurgents released a tape that claimed they are fighting against tyranny, which is quite understandable given the examples of Egypt, Afghanistan and others, but I have not heard from them what they are fighting for.

Is there a proportion that for now is just focused on getting the Americans out? Directly by killing Americans and indirectly by making Iraqis afraid to collaborate with the Americans so the US will not have allies?

If the Shiites join the resistance at the urging of Sistani, how well could they work with the Sunnis?

If this vast increase in popular support for the resistance takes place, and US casualties multiply three, five or ten times, would that put enough pressure on Bush to get him to pull out even though he does not have any elections coming up?

I've read repeatedly that the Sunnis are not going to vote but the Shiites will. Any truth to that? Will Shiites consider the election more valid than the Sunnis?

I am the guy who has been arguing with Charles about the US' and Charles claims that the US would tolerate democracy in Iraq.

I'll go by the name:

Mr. Democracy
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Abu Khaleel,
The rumor is that the Shia parties have agreed to not bring up the issue of US withdrawl after the election, the main demand of the resistance ( even Sadr). The problem with the Jan. 30th date is that the talking will end for good. After elections there will be a political structure which will never reconcile with the Sunni. So all that will remain is to crush the insurgency! This could take decades. As to the elections bringing legitimacy, I am not sure any government, democratic or otherwise can satisfy the Iraqi nature.
Can the US beat down the Iraqi resistance? That is quite possible- but such a neo-colonialist tact is abhorrent to world opinion.
I doubt the UN would do a better job than even a one-sided 'crony-cracy'. It might offer a fig-leaf to US withdrawl, but Bush seems unconcerned with US casualties at athe current rate(1000 deaths per year, 10000 per year serious injured)let alone Iraqi deaths (10000? per year).

"I could be well moved, if I were as you:
If I could pray to move, prayers would move me:
But I am constant as the northern star,
Of whose true-fix'd and resting quality
There is no fellow in the firmament.
The skies are painted with unnumber'd sparks,
They are all fire and every one doth shine,
But there's but one in all doth hold his place:
So in the world; 'tis furnish'd well with men,
And men are flesh and blood, and apprehensive;
Yet in the number I do know but one
That unassailable holds on his rank,
Unshaked of motion: and that I am he,
Let me a little show it, even in this;"
Sounds like Bush?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Sorry to be a wet blanket, Abu, but I think you’re grasping at straws here, for four reasons:
1) I think I’ve said something like this before: the UN is powerless to intervene in any major conflict without the participation of the US and its provision of much of the force. I am happy to be corrected on this, but far as I am aware, Korea and Gulf I are the only examples of really large-scale UN action - most UN interventions are small-scale, more police work, keeping factions apart and assisting parties to negotiate.
2) Iraq is a major conflict. You hear the figure of 20 to 40 thousand active insurgents, and it doesn’t sound much, until you consider that 40,000 against 160,000 occupation troops is only 4 to 1. (Leaving the ING out of the equation until it becomes an effective force, which doesn’t look like being soon.) Seems to me that one determined guerrilla can easily tie down 4 occupation troops for as long as he wants, with hit and run tactics. Particularly when he can hide easily among the population. (1950s Malaya is often cited as an example of successful counter-guerrilla warfare, but that was thousands of Commonwealth forces against a few hundred Chinese communists with little support from the local people.)
3) And among potential major players in any peacekeeping attempt, no-one except Russia, apparently, and perhaps China, maintains large conscripted armies these days, it’s more a matter of fairly small professional forces which are not intended for long term occupation-type duties. (One reason for the US failure, perhaps: they acted as though they had conscription-era forces available to draw on, when they didn’t. And the army brass would certainly not now want drafted soldiers half of whom are adamantly opposed to the war.) Take the UK, I believe they contributed 25,000 to the invasion force, but they can only maintain 9000 on a long term basis.
4) And as I’ve also said before, I very much doubt that changing the colour of their helmets to UN blue would make the Coalition forces welcome among the Iraq people at this late stage.

There is no easy simple practical solution - but there is hope, I reckon. You mention the frantic search in Washington for an "exit strategy:" if I had to chose one word to characterise the tenor of Bush’s Inauguration speech towards the world, it would be "conciliatory." There was a lot of rhetoric about standing for freedom, but none about fighting for it, the only mention of force was in regard to defence if attacked. (And of course Iraq wasn’t mentioned at all.) I think the pre-emptive doctrine is dead, the realities of the problems of empire have come home to roost, and cutting the costs of the war, human and financial, is now going to be the primary concern.
But in terms of internal US public relations, these damned elections have to be got through first - so many red-staters still cling to the simple belief that they will somehow change everything.
Does Iraq have some kind of historical "seat of Government" parliamentary site? Could it be made secure? Where is the new government to convene and govern from? Surely the worst thing that could happen would be for them to disappear into the Green Zone!
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles, there’s not much point in arguing with you, since you don’t read what people actually say, you see what you want them to say, and therefore don’t answer to the point. You never responded intelligently to the last question I asked you, i.e. why has the US made such a cock-up of Iraq?
You can search Abu’s Blog from end to end, and you will not find a single sentence from him expressing support or approval for "terrorists." Or Baathists. He hates them. Nor will you find any such sentiments in any of my comments.
Abu is passionate about the ideal of achieving true representative democracy in Iraq - that’s why he started the bloody Blog in the first place. (I’m not so passionate, it’s really nothing to do with me, I’m just a neutral observer. And I take showers, not Baaths.) But he is also realistic - hence his "US mistakes" catalogue. What he is saying, if I interpret him correctly, is that the present mess (and it is a mess) is, among other things, partly due to Islamic religious fanaticism, and partly due to some very evil people in Iraq: but also partly due to excessively self-interested US policymakers and their mistakes.
And isn’t it a truism that if we don’t learn from our mistakes, we are doomed to repeat them?
Hope and idealism are great, but if they are not grounded in practicality then they are meaningless.
Take Somalia - the worst international basket case. It would be wonderful if some great and powerful nation (Australia, say, or China) decided to go in there and put things to rights. (And why not? Where is it written that the US is the only power licensed to decide where to apply freedom and democracy?)
But if they tried to do it with three battalions of Boy Scouts, they’d just make fools of themselves. And make things worse in Somalia.
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

The End Game? General Seeking Faster Training of Iraq Soldiers"The officer, Gen. Gary E. Luck, largely endorses a plan by American commanders in Iraq to shift the military's main mission after the Jan. 30 elections from fighting the insurgency to training Iraq's military and police forces to take over more security duties and become increasingly self-reliant, eventually allowing American forces to withdraw, the officials said."

"As Iraqis take on more security responsibilities, General Luck is recommending that American troops be freed up to be quick-reaction forces to back up the Iraqis or to help tighten Iraq's borders, especially with Syria and Saudi Arabia, where foreign fighters and couriers carrying cash for the insurgency often cross with impunity. Ultimately, as overall security improved, American forces could draw down,
officials said."The US appears to be signaling the intent to withdraw. If the US adopts part of the strategy you laid out, if they step away from directly battling the insurgency, if they cease the random surches and arrests, would you suggest to your fellow countrymen that they "collaborate" with the newly elected government? (Would it be any less legitimate than the years spent collaborating with the Ba'athist dictatorship?)

Assuming 85% of Sunni-Arab boycott the election, if those elected to office on January 30th reached out to Sunni-Arabs, if they reached out to the lawyers, judges, academics, businesmen, to those Sunni-Arabs who reject fear and intimidation as means of advancing one's interests, if called on, would you participate in crafting the constitution?
 
_____________________________________________________________________

You see the world as a TV Cartoom, Charles: Mr. America (the good) against The Terrorists (the evil).

If Mr. America promotes farcical elections, it turns to be democratic ones. If Iraqi people boycott the farse, they turn to be terrorists.

Matrix got you, Charles.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

To Charles - From the Feedback thread:

On the insurgents:

There is so much I don't know about who they are and what they want.

Nobody wants to live under a tyranny and the Iraqi people, including the Sunnis and the insurgents, if my feeling for them is correct, do not want to reinstall Hussein.

From what I've read, Baathism is not necessarily Fascism. Baathism is a kind of pan-Arab nationalism that, if I remember correctly was developed as an idea in Syria. Of the two founders of the first Baath party, one was a Christian, the other was not, maybe he was a Sunni.

When the Baathists took power in Syria, they invited Nasser to incorporate Syria into Egypt to form one nation they called the United Arab Republic. That's the type of thing young idealistic people do. Nasser was not a Baathist per se.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Party

So Baathism started as an idealistic movement that was secular, not inherently against democracy or capitalism as ideas. It was anti-Western and still is. Many Arabs perceive Arabs as victims of the West. I don't believe it is possible for there to be a popular Arab movement that is not anti-Western.

You can disagree, we've already discussed this.

So anyway, to call the insurgents Baathist is not to say much. The defining characteristic of Baathism is secularism, so any anti-Western group that is secular could fairly be called Baathist. Baathism is not itself inherently contradictory with democracy.

Now, former regime people have the organizational structure to take a lot of people who are angry at the US and make them a more effective force. There would probably be a less effective resistance if they were not there. But that does not mean that the aim of the resistence is to restore the former regime.

As far as guns and financing, Hussein left the nation awash with guns. The US knew coming in that many, possibly most families had guns. Hussein also apparently believed the US would take Baghdad and made some arrangments for materials to be hidden and decentralized. So I'm not sure how much of outside financing is needed.

If everything was in Fallujah, I knew the US would sweep the city after the election by the end of September. They had plenty of time to get what they needed out.

So I'm not sure much of the insurgency is related to to or directed from outside of Iraq in Syria. For me it does not have much explanatory power and I haven't seen much evidence of it. It's possible but I don't konw and have no good reason to believe it.

The insurgents haven't, to my knowledge, said what they want other than the Americans out. If the Americans were to pick up and leave, I think the insurgency would at least die down and maybe stop.

On how to reach democracy:

I think it would be very hard to convince the Sunnis, or the Shiites that the Americans are not there to oppress them. I think Sistani has a shot at convincing the Sunnis that he and the Shiites do not intend to oppress them.

By my calculation, the less American presence there is, the easier Sistani's job of averting a civil war. If Sistani tells the Americans to leave soon and the Americans do actually leave soon I don't think Sistani's job would even be particularly hard.

If the Americans stay - which I expect them to - their main contribution will be to embarrass and discredit Sistani, and make him less able to credibly negotiate with the Sunnis. That's how we get the civil war that I expect. I think this is emphatically not the worst case scenario for the Americans. I think the Americans would prefer a civil war to a stable Iraq unified under Sistani.

I define a democracy as a government that depends for its maintenance of power on the desires of the people being ruled.

I don't see Karzai's Afghanistan as a democracy or on the road to democracy or anything resembling democracy. Karzai depends to maintain power on the desires of the US Pentagon and State Department. I believe America never had any chance of credibility in Iraq, but if it had had any it would have lost it in Afghanistan.

But Sistani is saying that religious leaders are not meant to have direct role in government. I think the government they would set up now or after a short civil war would fit my definition of democracy. I think Sistani would make a government that transfers power peacefully from one leader to another with the leader selected who convinces the most Iraqi people that he or she has the best ideas.

A long civil war throws everything off.

I've said repeatedly that I think a stable democracy is the United State's worst case scenario. I don't expect the United States to be helpful in averting the civil war or even in keeping it short.

You can disagree, we've already discussed this.

If Sistani decides the US is not being helpful and decides to try to drive them out, I think the Shiites will join the insurgency. I think we'll see a pretty big spike in the amount of Americans killed. I also think attacks on Shiites will stop.

If the Americans leave relatively quickly after the Shiites join the insurgency, which I hope is what would happen, then Sistani will be back where he was right after the elections and even more credible.

At that point, the negotiations between Shiite Sunni and Kurdish leaders takes place without American involvement and I think there is a good shot at a stable democratic government.

If the Americans are able to string Sistani along until he loses credibility then a stable democractic government becomes much harder to reach. When the Americans 'Fallujah' Mosul, they are going to try real hard to convince the Sunnis that Sistani is responsible. If the Americans succeed, they win - we get the civil war.

It all depends on Sistani.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

The previous comment was left by Mr. Democracy.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles says "it isn't over yet."
According to the latest post from Riverbend, corroborated by Reuters, there’s been no running water in much of Baghdad for five or six days now.
What happens in a large modern city when there’s no water? Complete civil breakdown? Does anyone know, is there any precedent? Can you add anything to these reports, Abu?
How stupid all this argument about elections, and blame for the chaos, and Sunni and Shiite, will seem if the worst comes to the worst.
What if thousands of Baghdad citizens die, Charles? You know, dead? No longer living? Terminated with extreme prejudice? Liberated from life? This isn’t a video game, it can’t be replayed.
Not a single Iraqi will blame the terrorists for that. They will blame the US corporation, Bechtel, which took control of the Baghdad water supply. And the American government that contracted with them to do so.
The message is so simple, even Charles should be able to grasp it. The Interim Government is interim, right, it answers to the US Ambassador. The almighty US conquered and occupied Iraq, it decided who made up the Government, it still rules Iraq, it determines what does and doesn’t happen. Its troops have right of way on the roads, the right to enter homes by force, the right to shoot passing Iraqi motorists, the right to do any damn thing they want.
But not the power to turn on the bloody water.
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

On a definition of democracy:

"That's too broad if you are serious. There must be real mechanisms to regulate balance of power, transfer of power, rights of minorities, freedom of expression, etc."

I think it is possible for there to be a democracy without rights of minorities, freedom of expression and etc. Those things are good, but peaceful transitions from one group of rulers to another based on the expressed popularity of their philosophy are the bare bones requirements for democracy. Add too much stuff to the list of requirements and it starts to seem like you are trying to sneak a whole culture in under the rubric of democracy. Things that are good can be defended on their own merits.

"Whoever is in power in Iraq, will have to depend on US forces to assist in security. If the Sunni's really desire to join a shia dominated democracy and the current fight is just against the US, then maybe you are right. I just see other forces at work here."

If I'm right, the Sunni just don't have the numbers to defeat the Shiites in a civil war, and the Shiites could, if they needed, get as much foreign support as the Sunnis and the Sunnis know it.

Also, I have not seen much good evidence of an intense rivalry between Shiites and Sunnis. From what I've read, good friends sometimes don't even know what group the other is in.

My feel is that most of the fighting is happening to get the Americans out. If the Americans are gone you lose the volunteers, you lose the popular support, there is not a good chance of winning, I can't imagine the insurgency still having gas after the Americans leave.

The Americans are saying they'll leave if asked. Let's hope they're telling the truth.

The credibility of the Shiites depends on their asking, and they know it. Let's hope for the best.

"Can we really ignore the fact that Syria and Iran have much to gain or lose depending on who prevails? Other ME countries as well?"

The Shiites are going to prevail. Syria and Iran know it and will act accordingly.

The leaders of the Sunnis know it and will be able to get reasonable concessions.

"If the US really hasn't indicated its agenda for Iraq, then this could be true."

I really doubt Iraqis today take the US at its word.

"Very convenient for the insurgency not to have an agenda beyond the immediate short term. But do you really think the people behind the insurgencies are thoughtless? Of course they have visions (many different ones)."

I don't know what agenda they have. I'm not the one they are trying to recruit. But since I don't know what agenda they have beyond expelling the Americans, doesn't mean I get to make one up and impute it on them.

The thing is that most of them are fighting for what they say they are fighting for. Once that is acheived, most of the fighters go home. If the leaders have a further agenda - I have not seen evidence that they do, and don't feel entitled to make one up on their behalf - any further agenda doesn't matter if they don't have volunteers.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

[I wrote this comment offline two days ago, the last time we had electricity. I will just post it as it is. It would be my contribution to the ever increasing length of comments! I confirm Riverbend's assertion about the water. Water is now back in our neighborhood at least. Electricity is also better. Now we get one hour every twelve!]
________________________

I didn’t anticipate so many questions! But I’m gratified that we are at least beyond attacks and name-calling and into a serious debate. Some of these issues have been discussed, sometimes more than once in previous posts. Perhaps it is difficult to find the answers in the maze of posts and comments. I have been working on a site map, but I’m still not satisfied with it yet. (I never thought that blogging was going to be so much hard work!). So, what I think I will do is to answer as many of your questions (in repetition or by pasting earlier responses) here and then perhaps add a link to this post in the sidebar or create a new post dedicated to questions. This may evolve into a FAQ area for future readers interested in details. Any ideas?



Your Questions:

The idea is basically a PR campaign to communicate and convince Iraqi's that we are not there to steal oil, rape boys, etc. No. It is not a PR issue. It has more to do with facts on the ground. Besides, Iraqis are generally quite skeptical of any media and for good reason. They simply don’t trust any media channel completely. They have learned the hard way. They have their own inaccurate but efficient grapevine. You may remember that Abu Ghraib was repeatedly shelled months before the prisoner-abuse scandal became known to the world through the media. Iraqis knew. The Red Cross knew. The US military knew. Bremer knew. It was only when the American public found out that there was that uproar.

How can any PR campaign be successful if there is so much discrepancy between the ‘conveyed intentions’ and the facts that the people live through every day? It would have to be an extremely powerful propaganda campaign augmented with a block of other information channels! Some of the forces present in Iraq, including the US administration, are doing their best in the latter direction!

As a matter of fact, my own opinion is that a PR campaign is indeed needed – but it should be directed to the American public. So many seem to be totally unaware of so many of the things taking place in Iraq. Just look through the comment section of my previous post and note the (presumably genuine) outrage at my ‘allegations’ of incidents involving ‘bad apples’!

So many people were shocked by that incident of the family in the car south of Mosul. Iraqis were not. Such incidents to them are common place. I truly meant what I said that I knew of more than 200 such incidents witnessed by more than one person.

This week alone I went to two Fat-has for two people shot in their cars in similar incidents. Both were in broad daylight. In both cases, they did not pose any threat to soldiers. In one of them, a cousin of mine, was in a car with her husband and their two children. They were stopped and their car was inspected at a checkpoint. They were about 100 yards moving “away”, when fire was opened on the checkpoint. The soldiers shot at them. She and one of her children were killed. Her husband was badly injured and is now permanently disabled. Several thousand people by now know of this incident. No amount of PR can convince them otherwise. It is the American public who don’t know… and who need to be informed.

Did anyone explain to people that bombing the oil infrastructure is what leads to petrol shortages? There is no reason to explain. They know. They actually know a lot more than that! That does not relieve the authority in charge of the responsibility.

Some sort of goal that establishes expectations and provides some mechanism for monitoring progress should be iterated. Has there been nothing? Really?You tell me. That is why I wrote that “control and feedback” post. Unrealistic rosy-picture painters are generally laughed at. They talk about things that people don’t see on the ground and in everyday life. Nor do they make their miserable existence more tolerable.

Just last week the Association of Muslim Clerics was approached by the American embassy to try and convince them to participate in the elections. They put 3 or 4 conditions. One of them was to put some time-table for a US withdrawal. They didn’t specify any dates. That was immediately rejected and the approach was promptly terminated.

Now, as everyone can see, liberation and transition to democracy is a bloody business. Liberation was a bloody process, but it was more or less accepted by the people. Transition to democracy need not have been so bloody. It was a mess through incompetence or bad planning and management to a criminal level.

You imply that the majority of 'freedom fighters' are truly and really fighting for a democratic free iraq. I am skeptical. Their methods of murder and intimidation do not point to conciliation, compromise, and good will toward man. I will just paste my previous comment on the break up of resistance. One has to be careful not to lump all the various groups together. They are not the same. At the moment, many are only united in fighting the US army, but their agenda are quite wide.

I quote:

… regarding the various groups fighting the USA, things are far, far worse than officials think!!!!

I was reading an article by Pat Buchanan in "American Conservative" yesterday and he quotes people estimating the insurgents as… "A year ago, Gen. John Abizaid estimated there were 5,000 enemy fighters. After capturing and killing thousands, officials now estimate there are 20,000 enemy". [More recently, our new chief of intelligence estimated the active combatants as 40,000!]

I would really be reluctant to hazard a guess as to the number of people in the various groups. I can only extrapolate from my own personal observations, but get ready for a shock:

1. Criminals: Before the war, Saddam released all inmates from Abu Ghraib. None were political prisoners (those were probably killed long ago!). The number was some 64,000! Some of these are hard-core criminals already organized in gangs and were mostly responsible for much of the more serious looting of banks and the Iraqi museum. Now some are unbelievably rich. How about more than $400 million in cash robberies? Most of these have been specializing in drugs, kidnapping, and other such activities. Would 10,000 – 20,000 sound too much?

2. Religious people - "regular Islamists" defending the "faith" against "infidels": Would something like 100,000 – 200,000 come like a shock? This seems to be the strongest, most motivated group. Many non-Islamists operate under this umbrella.

3. I have no idea who many terrorists (of the Al Qaeda type) there are. Several estimates, better informed than I am, put the figure around 1,500 and 5,000.

4. Baathists as patriots, some 20,000 - 50,000.

5. "Freedom fighters", well everybody seems to be a sympathizer! But for people actually carrying weapons and ready to do some fighting… well, would something like 200,000 come as another shock?

6. What I call "forces of darkness" doing all sorts of nasty, inexplicable things (to Iraqis mainly). I think that these have infiltrated all other groups. I have no idea how many there are.

Many, if not most, have military training. You also have no idea of the amount of stockpiled weaponry and explosives available to these people. I am told that there is a thriving export business for these things!

I cannot claim that these estimates are accurate in any way. They are just my own personal guess from what I see and hear, but I assure you that they are far more realistic than the "official" US numbers quoted above. Only time will tell.

I honestly don't know why the administration has been giving gross under-estimates. They could probably be honest but acting on deficient intelligence… but it never pays to underestimate your adversary.
…

I think your modified plan B would work if the insurgents are really just fighting for a free democratic iraq and US withdrawal. Most insurgents are unified in fighting “against” the American presence. Therefore you can say that some are fighting for a free Iraq. But there is no political agenda that I am aware of at the moment. I doubt if “international terrorists” and “the forces of darkness” care much for US troops leaving Iraq. Perhaps many do not want them to. Some see this as a historic opportunity!

My guess is that the insurgents/terrorists would not accept because they are not interested in democracy. their only hope is to escalate violence and undermine current iraqi and US authority so they could take power in the chaos. This is an assumption. Some Americans usually get angry if someone questions the true intentions of their administration and cry “conspiracy theory!”. Yet they have no difficulty “assigning” intentions to others! It may certainly be true for some of them, but one shouldn’t generalize about something one doesn’t know well.

Are you looking for the UN to provide troops? I would prefer to leave that to the “council of the wise” and to the countries involved. I really couldn’t speak for them, but I would expect countries to contribute if there was something in it for them (a piece of the cake maybe)!

Opposition by the Iraqi people… What if most of the population concurs with the results of the election on January 30th? What if 63.753% of the voters believe the elections held were legitimate? Any effort to disallow the results could lead to vehement opposition to oversight by a UN committee. Believe it or not, I would be ecstatic if that was the case. But from what I see and hear everyday, this doesn’t seem to be the case (most ordinary Sunnis and Shiites are united on this)

I do hope Allawi's party doesn't gain the preponderance of votes. It may do some good for someone other than the perceived favorite of the US to come out on top. What I expect is that the elected assembly will be more like an expanded IGC with the various parties getting slightly different shares. Allawi’s group seems poised to increase their share. The US will not allow the clergy to have a dominant role.

If the US loses, Iraq will leave the control of the US and be free of its influence. I hope this happens in the form of a democracy. From the US point of view, there is no difference between an independent democracy and an independent dictatorship. You are right in as far as the present US administration may look at it this way. I disagree. I believe that their thinking is still dominated by cold-war mentality. A truly democratic government will no doubt be antagonist to the US to start with, but in the long term this could lead to a more sound and lasting friendship. There are other requirements for that friendship of course to be true and mutual By now it is evident that friendship was never a high priority for the post-invasion planners.

The questions I am curious about regard things the US do to maintain control over Iraq indefinitely and what can the Iraqi people do to force the US to reliquish control over Iraq as soon as possible. Unfortunately I know the answer to this one. I can tell you there will still be resistance to that control, even under the ashes, 200 years from now! But I expect that in a few years, that control will be through cronies – very much like what happened in Iraq after the British invasion last century. And that will still be resisted. I plan to write on this.

The US is not above falsifying election results. What would be the best strategy if we find that Allawi won by a landslide? I have alluded to this above. I hope to publish a “prediction” of election results soon!

How is the country holding together? I read somewhere after a bombing of Shiites outside a mosque that someone said that the Shiites understand that most Sunnis are not related to the bombings. That was very heartening. Is Sunni-Shiite animosity building? I hope not and I think probably not, but I'd like confirmation. This is a very important question. Please refer to my posts on Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. One particular incident keeps coming back to my mind. I have written about it and will paste it again here because it portrays the reaction of many people.

[A few months ago there was an exceptionally horrible blast at one of the Shiite holy shrines in which hundreds were killed. A few days later, I was having a conversation with an old "stanch" Shiite who dismissed any talk of a possibility that the incident was the work of extremist Sunnis by saying "I don't believe there is any likelihood of that. The shrine has been sitting there facing Sunnis for a thousand years and no one ever did any harm to it, why would they now?"]

In most such incidents (and there have been many), the targeted side was the first to say that they believed the other side didn’t do it!

Have you heard or read about any (indigenous) community leader of either sect speaking ill of the other? Please search and think about this. Your perception is perfectly correct.

Having said that, there is still some persistence from parties that I cannot pinpoint to ignite sectarian strife and conflict. There were even incidents where people were killed reportedly for belonging to a certain sect. Unfortunately, and as a result, there is considerable tension in some quarters of Iraq. You hear much grumbling and complaining in private, from both sides. My own firm belief, is that Iraqis have so many common channels, so many reasonable people that, if left to their own devices, they can diffuse it.

The sad aspect is that there are so many people with guns working in the dark!

If the Americans do not risk falsifying the election results and Allawi loses, what do you consider a reasonable role for the Sunnis in the next government? A tough one. Assuming that such a government will be in control of things, they will be in the same position as the Shiites after the Assembly elections of 1924 following the British invasion. Some will no doubt call for participation in government outside the elections. Many people have already hinted at this. This is not a solution really. The solution is to have elections where everybody takes part. It is not that difficult. But some people do not want it!

What items would you like to see in the constitution, assuming it is actually written by Iraqis? I actually have dedicated a blog where I listed many of these points in a suggestion for a nucleus of a constitution (accessible from the Rapid Democracy blog). However, it is in Arabic. It does not differ much from what I have been saying on this blog: Democracy based on accepting diversity; majority rule but no tyranny over minorities; decentralized government; power and wealth sharing. Nothing weird or difficult, unless you want to cling to power or control by any means possible!!! The reaction of many of the neo-parties without any real power base has been dismal to say the least.

Is there anyone in Iraq who wants a Baath resurgence? The resistance has spokespeople in the US State Department who have informed us that the resistance is trying to restore Hussein's government. Yes. There are still many Baathists who are still true to their belief and ideology (something similar to communists in Eastern Europe). Many of them are now trying to detach themselves from the previous regime and rally support to their original doctrine. I would estimate the total number of supporters to be in the neighborhood of one million people (and increasing). A significant component, contrary to myth, is Shiite!

Those trying to restore Saddam’s regime are far less. They have only been “publicly” active very recently. Their argument is that things were actually better under Saddam for the average person – services, personal security for those who didn’t oppose the government, national pride etc. I personally don’t think they have much prospect for any public support.

I think I mentioned somewhere that a mother whose son ‘went missing’ in the uprising of 1991 actually once said that her life was better under Saddam!

I read the insurgents released a tape that claimed they are fighting against tyranny, which is quite understandable given the examples of Egypt, Afghanistan and others, but I have not heard from them what they are fighting for. Most are only saying that they are fighting for the liberation of the country from occupation. Some are saying that they are fighting for Islam or Arab Nationalism. Most are now acting under the religious umbrella (there are reasons for this) but many are not religious at all. Much of what they want to say is transmitted through mosques. People go there (some people go there five times a day). There is nothing the government or the US army can do about that – particularly as far as word-of-mouth message transmission. Even Saddam could do nothing about it except trying to infiltrate them.

Their last message was that they did not condone targeting Iraqi civilians or public utilities and that they will be going after the people who do. The problem with such communications is that you can never be sure of their authenticity.

Is there a proportion that for now is just focused on getting the Americans out? Directly by killing Americans and indirectly by making Iraqis afraid to collaborate with the Americans so the US will not have allies? Yes. Definitely. This is the main thing that is uniting all those groups even if there is no contact between them.

If the Shiites join the resistance at the urging of Sistani, how well could they work with the Sunnis? I don’t see any problem in this. They have been doing it for more than a thousand years. The problem is geography and tyranny, not sect. There are already numerous Shiites involved in this in mixed areas.

If this vast increase in popular support for the resistance takes place, and US casualties multiply three, five or ten times, would that put enough pressure on Bush to get him to pull out even though he does not have any elections coming up? I can only see one power Bush may listen to at the moment: the American people. I still believe that 4 out of 5 Americans still don’t care enough. Are they waiting for the body count to reach the magic figure of 50,000 to start paying attention? I hope not.

I've read repeatedly that the Sunnis are not going to vote but the Shiites will. Any truth to that? Will Shiites consider the election more valid than the Sunnis? I think its more politics and geography than sect, although this is the image constantly portrayed by the media, to the extent that I sometimes doubt my own good sense!! This definitely the case in mixed Baghdad. The division is more political than sectarian.

But as we say in Iraq: “repeated hammering will ultimately break the weld”. That will be a sad day for me. So far, the weld seems to be holding!

The rumor is that the Shia parties have agreed to not bring up the issue of US withdrawl after the election, the main demand of the resistance ( even Sadr). The problem with the Jan. 30th date is that the talking will end for good. After elections there will be a political structure which will never reconcile with the Sunni. So all that will remain is to crush the insurgency! This could take decades.

I agree with the first part. By definition, all the major players in this election are members of the IGC. They will do the US administration’s bidding. Isn’t this the whole idea behind crony-cracy?

I think I have already referred to the other points.


As to the elections bringing legitimacy, I am not sure any government, democratic or otherwise can satisfy the Iraqi nature. This is very perceptive of you. Iraqis are notorious for being extremely difficult to govern (but the US administration does not seem to have taken that into account!) It is a long story. Our history is full of examples. I would love to come back to this point sometime. This subject has always fascinated me. You have no idea how much time and thought I have spent trying to understand my own people! My own primary diagnosis is that these people are “survivalists” of the highest order. It has to do with the nature of the country itself and the long history. Many of their other traits follow from there. This is where neocon theory of subjecting people to an extreme pressure to make them yield did not, and will not work, in Iraq. They are too resilient for that.

Can the US beat down the Iraqi resistance? That is quite possible- but such a neo-colonialist tact is abhorrent to world opinion. Yes, on the surface, but not in the long term… unless the US can win over the people, which they don’t seem to have much regard for at the moment. As to world opinion, anybody who reads what the world is saying is quickly convinced that the present administration does not care much for what the world thinks.

______________________________


[I hope that I have answered most of the questions that I was able to read when I connected to the web briefly this morning.

I feel in a good and generous mood today (No, I have not changed my bed to a circular one which has no wrong side – perhaps Circular should consider doing that!) It’s because at last it is raining! I had broadcast quit a bit of grain on a gamble. I only hope that the seeds I am sowing in this blog will also find favorable conditions sometime ]
 
_____________________________________________________________________

From Circular
I wrote this before Abu’s encyclopaedic post above. Seems a shame to waste it.
Charles wrote:
"You impute agendas all the time. That is primarily what you have been doing on this site - along with Circular and Bruno. Don't pretend otherwise."
Talking about me? I’d be glad to impute an agenda, if I could figure out what that meant. Since I can’t, could I instead make a couple of mild suggestions, Charles?
Is it perhaps bad form, or bad manners, to hijack the comments section of a Blog such as this by posting too frequently and at too great a length? Might it not be a courtesy to other participants to limit oneself in the main to reasonably succinct comments that are to the point, rather than endless comprehensive re-statements of already established positions?
In respect of this, I don’t know how other readers feel, but I personally find that these very long dialogues between two participants, consisting of quotes and rebuttals of one another, such as you have just been conducting with another bloody anonymous, can become a trifle tedious - perhaps more an exercise in point-scoring than useful discussion?
(Yes, Bruno me old mate, sorry but this means you too. There’s more to the game than just marking your man.)

Perhaps I may be permitted a little rant. I haven’t seen anything posted by anyone on this Blog indicating that they are opposed to democracy. And some of us can become a little impatient when preached to by US posters about the wonders of freedom and democracy, as though they had invented the concept and held the world patent on it, and needed to explain its virtues to us ignorant others. I won’t repeat the listing of democratic countries that I submitted a couple of months ago - but can I say that I live in a country, NZ, that knows more about democracy and individual liberties than the US ever will, certainly if it continues down its present path.
Our democracy hasn’t been founded on a lie - we didn’t disenfranchise part of our population for 200 years because of their skin colour. Over 80% of us turn out every three years to vote - not a miserable 50% such as certain countries struggle to achieve. We are not stuck with 19th century political structures, our systems are under constant review to make them fairer and more representative - after serious and sensible debate, non-partisan, we recently in effect abandoned our two-party system, which had become outmoded, and initiated an experiment with partial proportional representation. There has never in the past century been the slightest suggestion of any sort of irregularity in the voting process - the idea is simply unimaginable.
Incoming Governments get a quick photo on the steps of Parliament, and then it’s down to work - any party that wasted a lot of money on an imperial Inaugural spectacular, especially when our boys were dying overseas, would very smartly end up in the freezing works, being converted into dog tucker. Various Governments over the years have raised the idea of some sort of national ID card - the Kiwi response has always been "You can tag the sheep, mate, but you’re not bloody tagging me!"
And it is impossible to see a person openly carrying a gun on the streets of our cities. Including the Police. 150 years ago our society was quite similar to the Wild West. We grew up, and our murder rate now is a tiny fraction of yours.
I think I’m entitled to be a bit sceptical about the value of this "election" in Iraq.

And don’t get me started on Australia. We are democratic wimps compared to them, voting is actually compulsory there!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles
"But can't we agree that having elections is better than not having elections?"
Any elections, even badly flawed ones held under impossible conditions, are better than no elections? I think the point is debatable. If you asked the citizens of Fallujah whether they wanted democracy right now, they’d probably say they’d like their houses back first, and no retinal scans, thank you very much.
If George Bush has a mission "from beyond the stars" to bring freedom and democracy to every country that needs it, will he do it more efficiently next time? Or will he (and you) refuse to admit any mistakes and produce another blood-soaked shambles? My post above was partly about humility.
Hey Abu, a "calling from beyond the stars!" See, you were wrong, it wasn’t caused by neo-con conspirators. It was aliens from outer space!
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles
"If you asked the citizens of Fallujah whether they wanted democracy right now, they’d probably say they’d like their houses back first, and no retinal scans, thank you very much."
"OK. It seems the one principle you have tried to stick to, is that if something represents the will of the majority, then it is legitimate. Now that doesn't meet all 'my' requirements for a healthy democracy, but you can't even pretend a 'democracy' without that fundamental condition."

I’m sorry, but for the life of me I can’t see the connection between my statement and your apparent response. My statement refers to the widely expressed view that for many Iraqis what matters right now is security, stability, safety, that elections without these are meaningless. And don’t start moaning about terrorists, we’ve covered that before. It was up to the conquerors to contain them, not create conditions in which they thrive and multiply.

"... do you share any of the 'alien' telepathically influenced beliefs of GWB???" No, I don’t. I prefer the human beliefs of Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon ...
Circular
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Well as far as I know none of them claimed to be acting on behalf of The Force from beyond the stars, none of them claimed to be divinely appointed. And a damn good thing too.
What exactly is the difference between a fanatical Muslim fundamentalist and a fanatical Christian fundamentalist? They both end up causing unnecessary death.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Abu Khaleel,
Excellent blog delivered under battlefield conditions!
Really, you and all Iraqi bloggers are enduring horrendous inhuman conditions for which Bush, again, is ultimately responsible! (If Zarqawi rules Iraq then he is responsible!)I think it is about time for US bloggers to admit that things couldn't be much worse. I would like to assure you that this was not Bush's vision(he doesn't know what the word 'plan' means), however his occupation strategy has predictably managed to turn 50% of your country deadset against him( funny, same here in the US). He believes it is axiomatic that all human beings, except the devils, must understand his logic.
What you may not realize is that the methods he has applied to Iraq he applies also in the US. The 48%(not 4 out of 5)of American citizens who voted against him and his war, the 'US insurgency', are just irrelevant fools. Over here, the GOP 'rump' is shutting out the Democrats completely and there is not a hope of slowing him down in the next two years before the 2006
election. Right now it is Iraq versus Bush & Co. Sorry we are just too weak right now to help. God help America! To hell with Bush the Tyrant!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I agree with much of your logic pointing to the desirability of having the occupation of Iraq run by an international authority whose legitimacy, impartiality, and goodwill towards Iraq were all recognized by the Iraqi public. I think that the only entity that MIGHT have enough legitimacy, despite the embargo and the Oil-for-Food scandal, is the UN, so I agree with you that far.

My fundamental objection is that the UN quit Iraq under fire, when Sergio Mielo and others were blown up. Secretary General Annan has repeatedly said that the UN is willing to return to Iraq and expand its role only if security is first established. Since the problem includes insecurity, no solution that requires security as a prerequisite can logically work.

Perhaps you will suggest that your council of wise men is small and could easily be protected in Baghdad. That still supposes that the UN would agree, but suppose, for the sake of the argument, that that were to happen. In that case, it could have little effect on Iraq. No small group of UN wise men can effectively control the interactions between the US Army and Marine Corps, the other Coalition military forces, and the Iraqi security forces on the one hand and the Iraqi population on the other in such a way as to dissipate the negative effects that you attribute to their operations. The US troops are, for good or ill, going to behave more or less like....US troops. Their very presence is the source of much Iraqi nationalist and religious opposition and resistance. The only solution is large numbers of UN personnel all over Iraq. Perhaps the number could be kept as low as 50,000 or so, if Iraqis could see that every three or four Coalition soldiers or Iraqi policement were accompanied by a UN person and that the UN person were the one in charge.

Another objection is that the UN cannot come up with 50,000 security forces, apart from the US, especially not since they are going to be in real danger.

As far as legitimacy goes, someone bombed the UN building in the first place. Zarkawi and the professional Islamic terrorists and jihadis may not be representative of Iraqi public opinion, but they will not go away quietly. It will take affirmative government action and a withdrawal of Iraqi support to eliminate this activity.

Lakhdar Brahimi of the UN is the one who brokered the restoration of sovereignty to Iraq and the replacement of the IGC. That should be another exemplary model of the type of process that you have in mind. The actual product of his work, however, was the Interim Government, which you regard as a failure.

I agree with you that the more real power over the present and future of Iraq any proposal were to give to the UN, the more it would be ferociously opposed by many leaders of the Administration and by their friends outside, but around, the US government. This opposition also includes many in the conservative and neo-conservative movements in the US and is of long standing, at least among conservatives.

Central to your rejection of the current round of elections is the notion that whoever is elected under US supervision will turn out to be US cronies, just as you describe the Interim Government. Ayatollah Sistani, however, has consistently refused to meet any American, since the invasion. The Dawa and SCIRI parties have Islamic government in their programs. I have seen several articles arguing that they favor Islamic law, but not the Iranian model of the clergy controlling the executive and legislative branches of government. The US government does not want Islamic government in any form, and prefers secular government. Party list(s) associated with such Shia parties and groups are widely expected to win the election. That does not sound like cronyism to me.

Everyone is talking and writing about the effect of the elections on disgruntled Sunnis (and other Iraqis) and the insurgency. I think that the greatest positive effect of the election may be on the Iraqi Government and on the part of the Iraqi public that supports the current political development in Iraq or, at least, does not oppose it forcibly.

Michael in Framingham
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Hello Abu Khaleel,
Excellent blog delivered under battlefield conditions!
Really, you and all Iraqi bloggers are enduring horrendous inhuman conditions for which Bush, again, is ultimately responsible! (If Zarqawi rules Iraq then he is responsible!)I think it is about time for US bloggers to admit that things couldn't be much worse. I would like to assure you that this was not Bush's vision(he doesn't know what the word 'plan' means), however his occupation strategy has predictably managed to turn 50% of your country deadset against him( funny, same here in the US). He believes it is axiomatic that all human beings, except the devils, must understand his logic.
What you may not realize is that the methods he has applied to Iraq he applies also in the US. The 48%(not 4 out of 5)of American citizens who voted against him and his war, the 'US insurgency', are just irrelevant fools. Over here, the GOP 'rump' is shutting out the Democrats completely and there is not a hope of slowing him down in the next two years before the 2006
election. Right now it is Iraq versus Bush & Co. Sorry we are just too weak right now to help. God help America! To hell with Bush the Tyrant!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S1

A well known Zionist site, owned by ex-Mossad officials: confessions tailored by torture against Al-Jazeera and Zionist propaganda.

Indeed, a good site to whom see the world as a TV Cartoom...
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Things are becoming clearer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?node=admin/registration/register&destination=register&nextstep=gather&application=reg30-politics&applicationURL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33540-2005Jan24.html

The U.S. Army expects to keep its troop strength in Iraq at the current level of about 120,000 for at least two more years, according to the Army's top operations officer.

While allowing for the possibility that the levels could decrease or increase depending on security conditions and other factors, Lt. Gen. James J. Lovelace Jr. told reporters yesterday that the assumption of little change through 2006 represents "the most probable case."

Recent disclosures that the Pentagon plans to beef up training of Iraqi security forces and press them into action more quickly has fueled speculation that the Bush administration could be preparing to reduce the number of U.S. troops significantly this year. As more Iraqi troops join the fight, the thinking goes, U.S. troops could begin to withdraw.

But Lovelace's remarks indicated that the Army is not yet counting on any such reduction. Indeed, the general said, the Army expects to continue rotating active-duty units in and out of Iraq in year-long deployments and is looking for ways to dip even deeper into reserve forces -- even as leaders of the reserves have warned that the Pentagon could be running out of such units.

"We're making the assumption that the level of effort is going to continue," Lovelace said.

In a related development, Senate and House aides said yesterday that the White House will announce today plans to request an additional $80 billion to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That would come on top of $25 billion already appropriated for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. White House budget spokesman Chad Kolton declined to comment.

No mention of the fact that theoretically the Iraqis can ask the Americans to leave on February 1 and have indicated that they want the Americans out as soon as possible.

Either the fix is on, and the results will bear no relation to how people actually vote, or Sistani is turning out to be a huge disappointment.

This may be really bad news for Iraq. Before I was hoping for a 50/50 chance of avoiding civil war, now things have gotten much worse.

I was hoping against hope. I really understood all along that the Americans could not expose themselves to an election they could lose, that they could cheat and that they probably would cheat.

It's still sad to see US-style Middle East "democracy promotion".
 
_____________________________________________________________________

This and the last anon post are by Mr. Democracy.

It’s like me taking neo conservative opinions and far right opinions as representative of American society as a whole and broadcasting this to the world.

It's a little worse than that because the Arabs are actively engaged with Israel and there is a huge Arab speaking population in a lot of countries.

It's more like you taking the most racist depictions of Japanese from all of the thousands of newspapers and radio shows in the United States people during the run-up to the Pacific War, or even the most racist depictions of Arabs from all of the thousands of US newspapers during the run-up to the first gulf war - then translating them to another language always choosing most racist possible translation, even if that isn't really a plausible representation of what is meant.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Gone quiet again, so a bit of stirring from Circular seems in order, perhaps some questions for Abu’s next post.
Abu’s recent article about kidnapping in "A Glimpse of Iraq" ties in neatly with Dahr Jamail’s latest (in http://dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/) in illustrating what an unholy mess the whole ludicrous enterprise has become.
The elections remind one irresistibly of childhood games of hide-and-seek: "Coming ready or not!"
According to the BBC, a final voting result could take a couple of weeks, then the Assembly has to be Assembled somewhere safe to elect a President and two V.P.’s. Should take a few more weeks. Then they (the P and VPs) have to choose a Prime Minister (and a Cabinet?) Few more weeks - with presumably endless wheeling and dealing going on all the time, and any decisions having to be approved by Negroponte. So it could be up to two months before a Government emerges.
Meanwhile I guess the Allawi Administration remains in place, what’s left of it: one Minister resigning in a huff just because US troops handcuffed him at the Green Zone gates (talk about touchy) and another sending $300 million in used greenbacks to Jordan. And the insurgents keep on insurging, the criminals keep on criming, the Marines keep blasting anything that moves. If you put it in a novel, you’d never get it published.
Anyway, a question: I only know the Westminister parliamentary system, where the Head of State, usually a monarch, has a basically symbolic function, and executive power rests with the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (The US system, I gather, combines both roles, Head of State and Executive, in the one office: hence all the Inauguration and "Hail to the Chief" nonsense. The present incumbent seems to have also appointed himself God’s Messenger and World Sheriff: sounds like a lot of work for a former playboy and reformed drunk, but he seems happy enough. Maybe I should try laying off the sauce!)
What happens in systems (France?) where you have a elected President and Prime Minister? Which one has the real power? What are we meant to get excited about in Iraq - who gets elected President by the Assembly, or who he selects as PM?
Or is it wiser not to get too excited about anything?
According to some reports Allawi is a front-runner for whatever is the top job. So it’s a bit disheartening to see some Iraqis approving of him as a "strong" leader at the same time as we read about his Security forces using torture techniques just like in the good old Saddam days. (Probably the same guys.) The elections are meant to be "turning the corner," but we’ve turned several corners already, just like in Vietnam. If you turn too many corners, don’t you end up back where you started, with a corrupt authoritarian regime at the heart of the Middle East?
Yippee!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Democracy options:

Option one: VOTE
Option two: Go and not vote
Option three: Don't go don't vote

Option tree presents a dilemma if the reason for not voting is because of intimination for any reason. This is a reflection on the society that is conducting the election. Only the indivdual is able to judge wheather intimination is the reason for not voting, thus condemming their children's future and increasing the odds that by the age of majority their children will either face the same intimination, but in either case one more generation must endure the pain of choosing peace over violence.
It is easy for me to sit in a secure country and pontificate to others. I have this right becasue of an indiscriminate act of vilence perpertrated on my society on September 11, 2001. I will vote in my country to support any administration who proposes to take the fight to terrorists in their society as long as I can vote. This is my right in a democratic society.
In my society we have glaring flaws but when the majority have the right to speak through the vote and they choose one of the above three options I am confident I can live with the outcome no matter how distasteful it may be to me personnally. I always have the next election where I can work within the system to try to convince my fellow citizens of the virtues of my position.
Being able to influence the majority guarantees my society will remain secure, therefore access to prosperity for all who choose to conform to the rule sets of my society. My children benefit and can pursue what ever course they choose and I know by my actions in my life that I will pass this gift on to them as have my parents and their generation to me.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Charles,

I am fine. Thank you for your concern. I didn't have access to the internet yesterday. I have just posted my feelings about the elections. I certainly hope that differences move into a less violent plane.

That was quite an onslaught by the trolls, wasn't it? Baathist, Saddamist, idiot, coward? I think I'll leave those comments there for a while! The decent people I hope I am addressing can easily see through those fanatic cheer-leaders! Abuse and lack of argument usually speak for themselves!
 
_____________________________________________________________________

Great thread, but it seems that much of this is dedicated to the reasons why the US should leave Iraq. Others have expressed that there is a general consensus among the Iraqi population that the US is in Iraq to plunder its vast oil reserves.

Is it possible that the United States shouldn't leave Iraq until an elected government is strong enough to maintain law and order? Isn't it possible, also, that insurgents and radical elements are in Iraq to eventually gain control of the oil? What would be the consequneces of the insurgents' victory? What would the insurgents do with their new found oil wealth?

What would this mean to international security?

The answers to these questions has led me to the conclusion that the United States must stay in Iraq. I believe that Saddam Hussein was encouraged by Al-Qaeda's success on 9/11, and that the evidence shows that he wanted to achieve similar successes on his own. Perhaps the US did create a greater security concern by overthrowing Saddam, but that will only be viewed as a mistake in hindsight if the US leaves Iraq in the hands of the insurgent.

I hope you will consider these questions for yourself. I don't expect that you will necessarily arrive at the same conclusions that I have, however, I think that it is clear that US interests line up nicely with a strong new Iraqi government that can control the insurgents on its own.

Only then does it make sense to leave Iraq, or our defeat will not be measured by how fast we withdraw our forces, but rather in the civilian body count on our own soil for generations to come.

Also consider the price that Iraqis themselves will pay should we leave them completely vulnerable to the nightmare of a fundamentalist government. As it stands now, they are vulnerable enough as it is.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

I don't think normal civilised approaches will work. I reckon we need to imprison the closest relative of every suicide bomber in their place - maybe that will give them cause to think about their actions.
 
_____________________________________________________________________

i've written president bush today an email (sounds funny), with my idea of getting the iraq-conflict solved:

Dear Mr. President

I know that I am no citizen of the USA, and therefor i've not much to do with this stuff, and excuse my bad english, but i have an idea to share with you.

I heard you president Bush want to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq, and you also admit that you have the responsibility for this kind of desaster. But this is not enough.

In fact, you need to give the people of iraq hope, based on a fair plan for their homeland iraq. On a plan EVERBODY could follow.

So the rambo-tactic didn't work, you have to change in other directions. I know my plan won't sound good for people, who wanna make fast cheap money over peoples heads. You certainly agree to me, that this shouldn't be the right attitude towards this people.

Therefore we need a plan, which is fair, and the people can see the end of the occupation, and they can do something to make their life better. And this is something we should definitely want.

My plan is called share-to-peace. It's abstractly spoken, that everybody can work and own a part of the peace in iraq.

USA says when the Iraq is a stable nation, they will leave this country. So we have to begin in small parts not with the whole thing, understand? I think your troops work on it, in a similar way but it's quite different what i mean.

Think of the idea, everybody owns the peace for working on it. And to get the people doing this, you have to share something with them, in a fair way, so that they won't feel defrauded.

The war is often called: "war for oil."

Do you know some facts of the internal policy of norwegia? What I've understand is that:
_Everybody has an account there made of the state, where they get a SHARE of the oil-richness of norwegia_

Don't misunderstand me, I don't want that USA immediately opens accounts for every iraqi, and give them their share. Unfortunately i don't know the oil-industry-structures there, but i think, my plan might be first steps to solve this conflict.

_I don't want to give everyone accounts but them ones, which behave cooperative and peacefully, them ones which support their land become a democratic state and which fight the terror_

It's all very well to say that.

But please listen to my plan:

It's a programm. A programm for the iraqis. And representitives of the iraqis can register to it. e.g. a mayor of a small town in iraq can register his town, or a person in charge for a part of baghdad can do it.

This was the first step, and if they are registered. They have several obligations to fullfil.

This obligations have to aim that the civilians of the region become peacefully, and support the building up of the iraqi-country.

This must also be strictly controlled, i know, and this is not easy. And there is the danger of people who shotchange this programm for their bad plans. Yes it's just an idea, but i think a good one.

So imagine this color-sheme: The red ones on the map, are them who don't agree to these programm. Red means kind of war-territory. The orange ones are the ones, which registered to the programm but they are still in testing-state.

So testing state means if they violate any of this obligations before the expiration of the testing-time, they get back to the war-zone.

BUT if they manage to get through a certain time without violating this. They become YELLOW, this means that now for EVERYONE who has lived under this obligations in this region, there will be an account opened, where there will be a share accounted of the oil-sale. But in this state, they can just watch how big it grows, because they have no access to it.

After another expiration of time and fullfilling other, let's say harder conditions they will get access to it, and their Region becomes WHITE, that should mean, it's pacified.

If their doesn't fullfill the obligations or violate them, they can either stay in their state, or jump down.

See what i mean: Instead of "War for Oil" there comes a new slogan: "Peace with Oil".

And the USA can really make real drawback-conditions like:

If the iraq is 90% in white state, we will drawback.

Sure, the moneymakers will say, that this is lost money. But i say a stable iraq is much more worth, than some cheap money. And everybody understands that the oil-price is a cent higher or so.
The people get their shares and there is "no blood for oil" anymore, but "good life with oil"

I know a lot of people are hippocrits in europe to the war in iraq, i think to be critical means, to get a solution for it. Excuse my very bad english.

sincerly
someone who wants to end this blood-bath

PS: Please think of this idea.
 
_____________________________________________________________________